Engineering dissipation and control pulses for high-fidelity fault-tolerance quantum computing

The two cat states can be fliped by the action of annihilation operator $a$, i.e.,

For large $\alpha$, we can apply a single-photon drive to the storage cavity to achieve the bit-flip of cat states, i.e., $a|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\simeq\alpha|\mathcal{C}_{\mp}\rangle$.

Applying a single-photon drive can achieve the population transfer of the cat-state qubit, the control Hamiltonian reads

where $\varepsilon_{d}(t)$ is the single-photon drive amplitude. The corresponding fluctuation Hamiltonian can be approximated as $H_{f}(t)\simeq\varepsilon_{d}(t)(f^{\dagger}+f)$, which may induce leakage out of the cat-state subspace. Therefore, to ensure that the system remains stabilized within the cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$, the drive amplitude should satisfy $\varepsilon_{d}(t)\ll\Delta_{L}=2\kappa_{2}|\alpha|^{2}$.

Encoding quantum information into the cat states, we can then define $\sigma_{+}=|\mathcal{C}_{+}\rangle\langle\mathcal{C}_{-}|$ and $\sigma_{-}=|\mathcal{C}_{-}\rangle\langle\mathcal{C}_{+}|$ to be the raising and lowering operator, respectively. Therefore, the Pauli operators can be represented as

We can further obtain the following expressions

where $P_{\mathcal{C}}=|\mathcal{C}_{+}\rangle\langle\mathcal{C}_{+}|+|\mathcal{C}_{-}\rangle\langle\mathcal{C}_{-}|$ is the projection operator, $A=N_{-}/N_{+}$ is a dimensionless constant, and $\mathbbm{1}$ denotes the unit matrix in the cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$. Projecting $H_{c}(t)$ onto the cat-state subspace, following Eq. (16), the effective control Hamiltonian can be expressed as

where $\Omega_{R}(t)=2(A+A^{-1})\alpha\varepsilon_{d}(t)$ is the effective Rabi frequency.

In general, the flipping of the two cat states can be achieved through Eq. (18). However, in actual experiments, this single-photon drive field may have parameter imperfections arising from amplitude and phase instabilities of the microwave pulses delivered to the storage cavity. These imperfections can originate from several experimental factors, including thermal drift in cryogenic coaxial lines, the finite resolution of arbitrary waveform generators, and local-oscillator leakage or gain fluctuations in I/Q mixers. Since these imperfections are typically quasi-static during the experimental timescale, they are generally regarded as systematic errors and therefore produce the same error each time the control pulse is applied [51].

Now, we denote the single-photon drive strength in the following form,

where, $\lambda$ is an error rate. The corresponding Hamiltonian becomes

In the cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$, the erroneous Hamiltonian can be expressed as

where $H_{0}^{\rm eff}\equiv H_{0}^{\rm eff}(t)$ and $\Omega_{R}\equiv\Omega_{R}(t)$.

Assuming that, any state within the cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$ can, without loss of generality, be expressed as

and the corresponding orthogonal state is given by

where $\theta\equiv\theta(t)\in[0,\pi]$, $\phi\equiv\phi(t)\in[-\pi,\pi]$, and $\zeta\equiv\zeta(t)$ denote the polar angle, azimuthal angle, and global phase, respectively.

The solution of time-dependent Schrödinger equation $i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi_{\lambda}(t)\rangle=H_{\lambda}^{\rm eff}|\psi_{\lambda}(t)\rangle$ is $|\psi_{\lambda}(t)\rangle$. Using perturbation theory up to $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^{2})$, we have

where $|\psi^{(0)}(t_{f})\rangle=|\psi(t_{f})\rangle$ is the unperturbed solution, and the time evolution operator without perturbation is given by

The fidelity of the target state at the final time $t_{f}$ is defined as $F=|\langle\psi(t_{f})|\psi_{\lambda}(t_{f})\rangle|^{2}$, i.e.,

The influence of the errors in single-photon drive field can be evaluated by the error sensitivity. Defining the systematic error sensitivity as [52]

we have $F\approx 1-\lambda^{2}\,q_{s,\lambda}$ and

It can be observed that the magnitude of the error sensitivity depends on the function of the control field and the evolution path.

The evolution of the normalized state $|\psi(t)\rangle$ is governed by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation $i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi(t)\rangle=H_{0}^{\rm eff}|\psi(t)\rangle$. To explicitly derive the control protocol via inverse engineering, we represent the system dynamics in the Bloch vector representation [43, 45, 53]. The effective control Hamiltonian can then be parameterized as $H_{0}^{\rm eff}=\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{B}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$, thus

where $B_{k}\ (k=x,y,z)$ represent the components of the effective magnetic field vector $\boldsymbol{B}$ along the $k$-direction of the Bloch sphere and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ is the vector of Pauli matrices.

The Bloch vector $\boldsymbol{r}=\langle\boldsymbol{\sigma}\rangle$, therefore

Here, $|\psi\rangle\equiv|\psi(t)\rangle$ in Eq. (24).

Substituting Eqs. (33) and (34) into Bloch equations $\dot{\boldsymbol{r}}=\boldsymbol{B}\times\boldsymbol{r}$ [53], we can obtain

To obtain the global phase $\zeta$, starting from the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, we have

where $\dot{|\psi\rangle}\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi(t)\rangle$, then we obtain

Then, substituting Eqs. (37) and (40) into the systematic error sensitivity $q_{s,\lambda}$, we have

The system dynamics are described by

For simplicity, we assume an ideal situation without parameter imperfections, i.e. $\lambda=0$. To achieve the state transfer of cat-state from $|\mathcal{C}_{+}\rangle$ to $|\mathcal{C}_{-}\rangle$ following the evolution state in Eq. (24), one needs to set the boundary conditions

Here, $t_{f}$ denotes the final time of the evolution. For verification, we can impose the conditions as follow

and choose $\phi(t)\simeq\pi/2$ to minimize the effective Rabi frequency, imposing

It should be noted that $\dot{\phi}=\Omega_{R}\cot\theta\cos\phi$ may exhibit singular behavior when $\theta\rightarrow 0$ or $\theta\rightarrow\pi$, corresponding to the initial and final times of the state transfer protocol. To eliminate this singularity, we impose the boundary conditions $\phi(0)=\phi(t_{f})=\pi/2$, which ensure that $\cos\phi=0$ at the boundaries. As a result, the potentially divergent term remains finite and approaches zero as $\theta\rightarrow 0$ or $\theta\rightarrow\pi$.

Following the above boundaries, we can assume polynomial forms $\theta(t)=\sum_{i=0}a_{i}t^{i}$, and $\phi(t)=\sum_{i=0}b_{i}t^{i}$ that lead to

The control field is constructed through an inverse engineering approach based on the auxiliary Eq. (37), which may exhibit singularities owing to the cotangent term involved in the equation [54]. Therefore, it is essential to ensure the smoothness of the resulting control field. As shown in Fig. 2(b), the single-photon drive strength $\varepsilon_{d}(t)$ varies smoothly throughout the entire evolution.

When there are no parameter imperfections, as shown by the red-solid curve in Fig. 2(c), such parameters enable a high-fidelity state transfer from the even cat state $|\mathcal{C}_{+}\rangle$ to the odd cat state $|\mathcal{C}_{-}\rangle$. However, this control protocol has poor robustness. When parameter imperfections are present, i.e., $\lambda\neq 0$, the final population of $|\mathcal{C}_{-}\rangle$ decreases as the magnitude of the error rate $|\lambda|$ increases.

Although these systematic errors can induce undesired bit-flip errors during the population transfer process, they can generally be mitigated through proper calibration or the use of improved hardware once their origins are identified [51]. However, in practice, it is often difficult to identify all the underlying error mechanisms because systematic errors can arise from multiple experimental factors (as briefly discussed in Sec. III.1). As a result, residual control errors are usually unavoidable. In modern superconducting platforms, the relative control-amplitude error can still reach up to $10\%$ in the absence of continuous recalibration [55]. Therefore, designing a control protocol that is inherently robust against systematic errors is highly desirable.

In order to enhance the robustness of the control protocol, one needs to set the systematic error sensitivity $q_{s,\lambda}=0$. Defining the global phase $\zeta(t)$ to be a function of $\theta$, i.e., $\widetilde{\zeta}(\theta)\equiv\zeta(t)$, the systematic error sensitivity in Eq. (42) becomes

where $\theta_{0}\equiv\theta(0)$, $\theta_{f}\equiv\theta(t_{f})$, and $\dot{\widetilde{\zeta}}\equiv d\widetilde{\zeta}/d\theta=\dot{\zeta}/\dot{\theta}$.

For simplicity, we assume $\widetilde{\zeta}(\theta)=m\theta+\zeta_{0}$ that $\dot{\widetilde{\zeta}}=m$, where $\zeta_{0}$ is a constant. Then we obtain

It can be calculated that $m=4$ satisfies $q_{s,\lambda}=0$ (more details in Appendix C). According to Eq. (40), we have $\dot{\widetilde{\zeta}}=\dot{\zeta}/\dot{\theta}=\cot\phi/\sin\theta=4$, thus

Taking the time derivative of both sides of Eq. (52), one obtains

Substituting Eq. (52) into Eq. (37) yields

It can be observed that Eq. (53) and Eq. (54) are mutually contradictory, i.e., Eq. (37) and Eq. (52) cannot be satisfied simultaneously. Therefore, an additional control field needs to be introduced.

The effective control Hamiltonian in Eq. (18) contains only the Rabi oscillation term, i.e., $\frac{1}{2}\Omega_{R}\sigma_{x}$. In order to introduce an additional control degree of freedom, we further consider adding an effective detuning term, i.e., $\frac{1}{2}\Delta\sigma_{z}$.

To realize this additional control freedom, we employ the following Hamiltonian in the interaction picture [56]:

where $E^{\prime}_{J}$ is the effective Josephson energy, $\omega_{a}$ is the frequency of the storage cavity, and $\varphi_{a}=\sqrt{Z_{a}/2R_{Q}}$ is the dimensionless phase, with $Z_{a}$ and $R_{Q}$ denoting the impedance of the cavity mode seen by the junction and the superconducting resistance quantum, respectively. In the context of quantum superconducting circuits, the interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. (55) can be realized by strongly coupling a high impedance cavity to a Josephson junction and assuming that other modes (including the junction mode) are never excited [57, 58, 59, 56].

When the condition $E^{\prime}_{J}\ll\omega_{a}$ is satisfied, the interaction Hamiltonian under the RWA can be calculated as

where $L_{m}(*)$ is the Laguerre polynomial of order $m$. Projecting onto the cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$, the effective Hamiltonian becomes [56]

under the condition $\varphi_{a}=2\alpha$, the effective detuning becomes $\Delta(t)=-E^{\prime}_{J}(t)/\alpha\sqrt{2\pi}$,

Now, the control Hamiltonian $H_{c}(t)=H_{\rm int}^{\rm RWA}(t)+H_{0}(t)$ in the cat-state subspace becomes

where $\Delta\equiv\Delta(t)$, and $\Omega_{R}\equiv\Omega_{R}(t)$.

Following Sec. III.3, we can obtain

Therefore, we have

The optimal robustness condition is

Considering the above optimal robustness condition and the boundary condition in Eq. (45), we can redesign the parameters $\theta(t)$ and $\phi(t)$, as shown in Fig. 3(a). Using this optimal protocol, the control scheme becomes insensitive to the deviation on the single-photon drive $\varepsilon_{d}$. As shown in Fig. 3(c), when a parameter imperfection rate in single-photon drive $\varepsilon_{d}$ is $\pm 20\%$, the population of the odd cat-state $|\mathcal{C}_{-}\rangle$ at the final time $P_{-}(t_{f})>99.5\%$, resulting in an optimally robust state transfer.

Then, we further consider that the presence of parameter imperfections in $E^{\prime}_{J}$, characterized by the error rate $\gamma$. In experiments, these imperfections mainly originate from magnetic-flux crosstalk between neighboring control lines and fluctuations in the flux-bias source [60]. Although such systematic errors can be mitigated through careful calibration, they are generally difficult to eliminate completely because of the complexity of the control circuitry. In modern superconducting platforms, despite careful calibration, relative flux-crosstalk errors on the order of several percent to $10\%$ typically remain in multi-mode architectures [61]. As shown in Fig. 3(d), even with a relative parameter error $\gamma$ of up to $10\%$, the control protocol remains robust and achieves high-fidelity state transfer.

Considering only the pure dephasing $\kappa_{a}^{\phi}\mathcal{D}[a^{\dagger}a]\rho(t)$. In high-$Q$ cavities, pure dephasing is often attributed to random fluctuations in the dispersive frequency shift induced by residual photon-number fluctuations in auxiliary modes, such as the readout resonator or the nonlinear coupler. These fluctuations result in stochastic phase drift of the cat state stored in the cavity and eventually destroy its phase coherence [62]. In modern superconducting platforms, the pure dephasing rate can typically be suppressed to a level below the single-photon loss rate [60, 63].

The pure dephasing can cause leakage out of the cat-state subspace [33, 35], since

Considering the full Hilbert space, the projection operator is modified to

Therefore, the term describing pure dephasing becomes $\kappa_{a}^{\phi}\mathcal{D}[a^{\dagger}a]\rho(t)\Longrightarrow\kappa_{a}^{\phi}\mathcal{D}[Pa^{\dagger}aP]\rho(t)$, i.e.,

where $\mathcal{N}_{+}={N_{+}}/{N_{-}^{e,1}}$ and $\mathcal{N}_{-}={N_{-}}/{N_{+}^{e,1}}$ are the dimensionless constant. In the limit of large $\alpha$, $\mathcal{N}_{+}\approx\mathcal{N}_{-}\approx 1$. According to Eq. (71), pure dephasing does not cause bit-flip errors, but it can cause transitions from cat-states $|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle$ to the first-excited states $|\psi_{\mp}^{e,1}\rangle$, with a leakage rate $\Gamma_{\rm Leak}\approx\kappa_{a}^{\phi}|\alpha|^{2}$.

Noting that, the two-photon dissipation confinement $\kappa_{2}\mathcal{D}[a^{2}-\alpha^{2}]\rho(t)$ can force any states toward cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$ [15, 40, 41]. Projecting the dissipator onto the cat-state subspace, we can obtain

Here, we focus on the dissipative stabilization process of the first excited state. According to Eq. (75), the two-photon dissipation confinement can force the first-excited states $|\psi_{\mp}^{e,1}\rangle$ toward cat-states $|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle$ with a restoration rate $\Gamma_{\rm R,1}\approx 4\kappa_{2}|\alpha|^{2}$.

Without loss of generality, the pure dephasing rate $\kappa_{a}^{\phi}\lesssim\kappa_{a}$ is much smaller than the two-photon dissipation rate $\kappa_{2}$ that satisfies $\Gamma_{\rm Leak}\ll\Gamma_{\rm R,1}$. Even though pure dephasing $\kappa_{a}^{\phi}\mathcal{D}[a^{\dagger}a]\rho(t)$ tends to drive transitions from the logical states $|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle$ toward the first-excited states $|\psi_{\mp}^{e,1}\rangle$, the two-photon dissipation provides an autonomous restoration force that rapidly pumps these excited states back into the steady-state subspace. Thus, the population of leakage out of cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$ scales as $\mathcal{O}(\Gamma_{\rm Leak}/\Gamma_{\rm R,1})$, the leakage caused by pure dephasing can be effectively suppressed.

We can define the population of leakage out of cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$ as $P_{\rm Leak}=1-P_{S}$, where $P_{S}=P_{+}+P_{-}$ denotes the total populations within the cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$. The average of the population of leakage is defined as follow

As shown in Fig. 4(a), assuming the pure dephasing rate $\kappa_{a}^{\phi}=\kappa_{a}$, the total populations within the cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$ does not reduce. The population of leakage out of cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$, as shown in Fig. 4(b), has been suppressed by two-photon dissipation confinement.

Figure 4(a) shows that, although the leakage caused by pure dephasing can be well suppressed, two-photon dissipation confinement results in bit-flip errors, the population of $|\mathcal{C}_{-}\rangle$ at the final time $P_{-}(t_{f})\approx 98.53\%$. As shown by the red solid curve in Fig. 5, bit-flip errors can be reduced by extending the evolution time $t_{f}$. When $t_{f}=0.5/\kappa_{a}$, the population $P_{-}(t_{f})\approx 99.64\%$. The light-blue curve in Fig. 5 denotes the average of the population of leakage, it further demonstrates that the leakage caused by pure dephasing can be effectively suppressed.

All the considerations made in the previous text were based on the absence of damping in storage mode. Now we consider single-photon loss $\kappa_{a}\mathcal{D}[a]\rho(t)$, it is the dominant decoherence channel for bosonic codes and can arise from various loss mechanisms, including dielectric and conductor losses in the cavity as well as the Purcell effect through the readout port [64, 65].

Within the cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$, the term describing single-photon loss in the master equation for large $\alpha$ becomes

According to Eq. (79), the single-photon dissipation does not lead to leakage out of the cat-state subspace, but it can only cause bit-flip errors.

As illustrated in Fig. 6, for a short evolution time $t_{f}\lesssim 0.1/\kappa_{a}$, single-photon dissipation mainly induces bit-flip errors, resulting in a final population of the odd cat state $P_{-}(t_{f})\gtrsim 80\%$. However, when the evolution time $t_{f}$ is very short, achieving the target dynamics requires excessively large control Hamiltonian amplitudes according to Eq. (64). For a finite two-photon dissipation rate $\kappa_{2}$, these large control terms break down the confinement imposed by the two-photon dissipation, leading to leakage out of the cat-state subspace $\left\{|\mathcal{C}_{\pm}\rangle\right\}$. In contrast, for long-time evolution, bit-flip errors due to damping in the storage cavity become increasingly significant. Ultimately, these competing effects lead to an unavoidable trade-off between leakage and decoherence. Consequently, operating within a bounded time window, $\frac{1}{2\kappa_{2}|\alpha|^{3}}\ll t_{f}\ll\frac{1}{\kappa_{a}|\alpha|^{2}}$, becomes essential to balance the preservation of dissipative confinement against the accumulation of decoherence (see Appendix D for more details).

Single-photon loss is a dominant logical error channels in cat-state qubits. Although its influence can be reduced through an appropriate choice of the control parameters $\theta(t)$ and $\phi(t)$, it cannot be completely eliminated (see Appendix E for more details). This is because single-photon loss originates from the intrinsic dissipative channels of the system and is therefore unavoidable in realistic experiments [63, 66]. Moreover, single-photon loss is an irreversible non-unitary process, whereas control optimization is fundamentally based on engineering the unitary evolution of the system. Therefore, the effect of single-photon loss can only be reduced rather than completely eliminated. Fortunately, although single-photon loss cannot be completely eliminated through control optimization, its influence can be substantially reduced by improving the quality factor of the storage cavity. State-of-the-art superconducting cavities have already demonstrated single-photon lifetimes ranging from the millisecond to the second timescale [67, 68, 69], with lifetimes reaching up to $2$ seconds in recent experiments [67]. Therefore, continued advances in cavity design, materials, and fabrication techniques are expected to further suppress the impact of single-photon loss in future experimental implementations.