Quick Navigation
Topics
Superconducting Qubits
Resonator/zero-Qubit architecture for superconducting qubits
arXiv
Authors: Andrei Galiautdinov, Alexander N. Korotkov, John M. Martinis
Year
2011
Paper ID
8743
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
101
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We analyze the performance of the Resonator/zero-Qubit (RezQu) architecture in which the qubits are complemented with memory resonators and coupled via a resonator bus. Separating the stored information from the rest of the processing circuit by at least two coupling steps and the zero qubit state results in a significant increase of the ON/OFF ratio and the reduction of the idling error. Assuming no decoherence, we calculate such idling error, as well as the errors for the MOVE operation and tunneling measurement, and show that the RezQu architecture can provide high fidelity performance required for medium-scale quantum information processing.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Superconducting Qubits research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2011 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We analyze the performance of the Resonator/zero-Qubit (RezQu) architecture in which the qubits are complemented with memory resonators and coupled via a resonator bus.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.