Abstract
Quantum reservoir engineering is a powerful framework for autonomous quantum state preparation and error correction. However, traditional approaches to reservoir engineering are hindered by unavoidable coherent leakage out of the target state, which imposes an inherent trade off between achievable steadystate state fidelity and stabilization rate. In this work we demonstrate a protocol that achieves trade offfree Bell state stabilization in a qutritqubit system realized on a circuitQED platform. We accomplish this by creating a purely dissipative channel for population transfer into the target state, mediated by strong parametric interactions coupling the secondexcited state of a superconducting transmon and the engineered bath resonator. Our scheme achieves a state preparation fidelity of 84% with a stabilization time constant of 339 ns, leading to a 54 ns errortime product in a solidstate quantum information platform.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Entanglement is a fundamental property of quantum systems and is essential to achieve quantum advantage in almost any application of quantum information processing, such as sensing^{1}, communication^{2} and computing^{3}. Typically, entanglement is created by applying a sequence of single and twoqubit unitaries; however the resulting states are subject to decoherence caused by coupling to the surrounding environment^{4}. In the absence of active error correction^{5,6,7,8,9,10}, decoherence limits the circuit depth and, consequently, the size of the entangled state that can be produced. Moreover, this approach is sensitive to state preparation and measurement errors which accumulate as the complexity and size of the quantum system increases. An attractive alternative for quantum state preparation is quantum reservoir engineering, where a quantum system is steered to a desired entangled state by coupling it to an auxiliary system (“engineered reservoir”) that induces strong, nonlocal dissipation on the target system^{11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21}. In addition to being immune to initialization errors, the target state remains stabilized for times much longer than the coherence time of the individual qubits, ensuring the entangled state is always available on demand.
Though there have been several demonstrations of dissipative stabilization in diverse quantum information platforms, such as superconducting qubits^{14,15,16,22,23,24,25}, trapped ions^{17,26,27,28,29}, atomic systems^{30}, and NV centers^{31}, almost all reported schemes have been hindered by unavoidable coherent leakage out of the target state that cannot be suppressed without also reducing the repumping rate into the desired state. This issue leads to a trade off in reservoir engineering: the product of minimum steadystate error (ε_{∞}) and stabilization time (τ) is a constant that is independent of the engineered dissipation rate, implying that perfect entanglement stabilization cannot be achieved at rates faster than the uncontrolled dissipation rates^{32}. This severely limits the prospects of reservoir engineering both in terms of (1) usability with regard to implementation in systems with strong local (uncontrolled) decoherence, which ironically stand to gain most from such stabilization techniques, and (2) scalability with regard to state preparation in large quantum networks, where it becomes increasingly harder for the stabilization rate to beat the cumulative local decoherence, which scales (at least) linearly with system size^{33,34,35}.
Nonetheless, as shown by our recent work^{11} such a trade off is not a fundamental limitation of autonomous state stabilization, but is a consequence of drivendissipative schemes that transfer population into a target state at a rate limited by a drive strength which needs to remains weak (or “perturbative”) as compared to the dressed linewidth to maintain resonant pumping. As a result, in the strong coupling regime the desired entangled state ceases to be the dark state of the dynamics (i.e., an eigenstate of the drive Hamiltonian that is simultaneously also a null state of the engineered dissipation). The concurrent scaling of terminal fidelity and stabilization rate can be achieved instead by engineering entanglement stabilization protocols that do not cause increasing coherent leakage under strong coupling, so that fast stabilization can be achieved without sacrificing fidelity to a fixed entangled state. Such protocols are limited only by incoherent error sources that are much slower than the stabilization rate.
In this work, we implement a trade offfree Bellstate stabilization protocol in a superconducting circuitQED system comprising two transmons parametrically coupled to a common lossy resonator that acts as an engineered reservoir. We engineer a purely dissipative channel for population transfer into the target Bell state via parametric coupling to the third level of the transmon, and without any direct coherent coupling into or out of it, making it an eigenstate of the drive Hamiltonian and also a dark state of the engineered dissipation. Our scheme attains a steadystate fidelity of 84% with a timeconstant of 339 ns achieving the errortime product ε_{∞}τ ≃ 54 ns. Furthermore we verify that the steady state error and preparation time are linearly correlated. Notably, the reported protocol is the minimal instance of trade offfree stabilization physics that employs only continuous unconditional driving and linear (engineered) dissipation.
Results
Figure 1a depicts the general scheme, in which a qutritqubit system is coupled to a lossy resonator using bilinear parametric interactions. Our circuitQED implementation in Fig. 1b consists of two transmon qubits coupled to a superconducting resonator. To reduce the circuit size, we implemented the superconducting resonator as a capacitor in series with a chain of Josephson junctions, each having a critical current of 540 nA. The parametric interactions are realized by grounding the resonator and the transmon junctions through a shared superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) loop, which acts as a fluxtunable inductor. Through sinusoidal modulation of the flux through the SQUID loop, \({{\Phi }}(t)={{{\Phi }}}_{{{{{{{{\rm{ext}}}}}}}}}+{\sum }_{j}{{{\Phi }}}_{j}\cos ({\omega }_{j}t+{\phi }_{j})\), pairwise couplings can be activated between any pair of elements via the choice of the pump frequency ω_{j}. We show the layout of the experimental device in Fig. 1c, with detailed parameters listed in Supplementary Table 1.
We simultaneously activate the parametric couplings depicted in Fig. 1a by fluxpumping the SQUID at the sideband frequencies \({\omega }_{a}\pm {\omega }_{k}^{n,n+1}\), corresponding to the desired transition frequencies of the transmon k = l, r. Specifically, we pump the two redsideband frequencies \({\omega }_{a}{\omega }_{l}^{01}\) and \({\omega }_{a}{\omega }_{l}^{12}\) corresponding to the 0–1 and 1–2 transitions for transmon l, and the redsideband at \({\omega }_{a}{\omega }_{r}^{01}\) corresponding to the 0–1 transition of transmon r. In conjunction with Rabi drives on the 0–1 transitions of each qubit, this leads to an effective interaction Hamiltonian of the form (see Supplementary Note 1):
where we have moved to a frame defined w.r.t. the free Hamiltonian and discarded offresonant counterrotating terms (see Supplementary Note 2). Here we approximate the resonator as a harmonic oscillator, since we estimate its anharmonicity to be α ≈ 80−100 kHz. The parametric couplings shuttle excitations between the transmon levels and the lossy resonator^{14,36,37}, leading to an engineered quasilocal dissipator \({{{{{{{\mathcal{D}}}}}}}}\left[{L}_{{{{{{{{\rm{eff}}}}}}}}}\right]\) acting on the transmons with:
The coefficients \({c}_{k}^{n,n+1}\) are functions of the resonator decay rate κ and the corresponding parametric pump amplitudes (\({g}_{k}^{n,n+1}\)) and phases (\({\phi }_{k}^{n,n+1}\)). In particular, the phases \({\phi }_{k}^{n,n+1}\) are needed to perform coherent control of the stabilized state, as explained later. We choose our coupling rates so that the target Bell state \(\left\psi \right\rangle\) is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) and satisfies \({L}_{{{{{{{{\rm{eff}}}}}}}}}\left\psi \right\rangle =0\)^{11,38}. For example, in order to prepare the state \(\left\psi \right\rangle =(1/\sqrt{2})(\left01\right\rangle +{e}^{i\phi }\left10\right\rangle )\) we set \({g}_{l}^{01}={e}^{i\phi }{g}_{r}^{01}\) and \({{{\Omega }}}_{l}^{01}={e}^{i\phi }{{{\Omega }}}_{r}^{01}\).
We emphasize that this qutritqubit scheme is the minimal system to realize trade offfree stabilization of a twoqubit maximally entangled state, using only unconditional continuouswave driving and linear dissipation. Specifically, restricting to linear engineered dissipation allows using bilinear interactions, which are easy to implement via threewave parametric mixing in Josephson circuits. Further, leveraging the tunability of parametric interactions with pump amplitude, coupling strengths can be tuned in situ from weak to strong coupling to find the optimal drives required to achieve lowest error. In our experiment, we bias the SQUID coupler at Φ_{ext} = −0.39Φ_{0} corresponding to transmon 0–1 transition frequencies of \({\omega }_{l}^{01}=2\pi \times 5.928\; {{{{{\rm{GHz}}}}}}\) and \({\omega }_{r}^{01}=2\pi \times 4.993\; {{{{{\rm{GHz}}}}}}\) and center frequency of the resonator ω_{a} = 2π × 8.124 GHz (Fig. 1d). The noise in spectroscopy visible at zero flux in Fig. 1d is due to the low readout fidelity caused by weak coupling of the readout cavity of transmon l to the input transmission line. We characterize the parametric drive amplitudes \({g}_{l,r}^{01}\) by initializing each transmon in state \({\left1\right\rangle }_{l,r}\) and subsequently turning on the respective redsideband \({\omega }_{a}{\omega }_{l,r}^{01}\) to measure the coherent swaps with the resonator, see Fig. 1e, f. Similarly, we measure \({g}_{l}^{12}\) by initializing the left transmon in the state \({\left2\right\rangle }_{l}\) using a sequence of π^{01}, π^{12} pulses, the first resonant with the \({\omega }_{l}^{01}\) and the second resonant with the \({\omega }_{l}^{12}={\omega }_{l}^{01}+{\alpha }_{l}\), where the anharmonicity α_{l} = −2π × 198 MHz (Supplementary Note 4). We then measure the coherent swap between the states \({\left2\right\rangle }_{l}{\left0\right\rangle }_{a}\) and \({\left1\right\rangle }_{l}{\left1\right\rangle }_{a}\) under the action of redsideband at \({\omega }_{a}{\omega }_{l}^{12}\). In Fig. 1e we show an example of timedomain oscillations, indicating coherent swap with decay time approximately equal to 2/κ, which is consistent with the hybridization between the transmon transitions and the lossy resonator. We fit the oscillations on resonance corresponding to each transition to a decaying sinusoid and extract the parametric coupling rate from the swap period 1/g; we do this for different drive amplitudes and measure coupling rates up to g = 2π × 17.5 MHz (Fig. 1f).
The minimality of the scheme, i.e., why it is sufficient to include one extra level to achieve trade offfree stabilization, can be seen using the following simple argument. Let us assume, without loss of generality, that we want to stabilize the singlet state \(\leftS\right\rangle =(1/\sqrt{2})(\left01\right\rangle \left10\right\rangle )\). The most general jump operator restricted to a twoqubit (fourlevel) space that satisfies \(L\leftS\right\rangle =0\) is L = c_{−}J^{−} + c_{+}J^{+} where J^{±} are the total spin raising and lowering operators. Similarly, if \(\leftS\right\rangle\) is an eigenstate of the system Hamiltonian, the latter commutes with the total spin \(\left[H,{J}^{2}\right]=0\). We conclude that since every generator commutes with J^{2}, the total spin is a conserved quantity and hence the qubits cannot be stabilized into \(\leftS\right\rangle\) (corresponding to J = 0) when initialized in a state corresponding to different total spin (J = 1). Figure 2a illustrates the problem—that in the process of engineering \(\leftS\right\rangle\) as the steady state of dissipation, we completely decouple it from the rest of the Hilbert space. The previous argument can be extended to the stabilization of any Bell state, by redefining the spin operators up to a local unitary on either qubit.
In the past^{38}, this issue has been bypassed by stabilizing an “approximate” Bell state, \(\left\psi \right\rangle ={{{{{{{{\mathcal{N}}}}}}}}}_{\delta }(\leftS\right\rangle +\delta \left\xi \right\rangle )\) with \({L}^{{{{\dagger}}} }\left\xi \right\rangle \ne 0\), thus allowing the use of interactions which do not conserve the total spin. This approach, however, only enables a perturbative stabilization of Bell states, which results in a trade off between intrinsic error of the protocol and stabilization rate. In contrast, the procedure presented here eliminates this problem by expanding the system Hilbert space minimally to a qutritqubit system and realizing a scheme with ideally no intrinsic error (see Supplementary Note 2 and Supplementary Fig. 1). The sideband coupling to the secondexcited state of the qutrit (\({g}_{l}^{12}\)) leads to a jump operator as indicated in Eq. (2) that does not preserve the “total spin” on the qubitqubit subspace but still supports \(\leftS\right\rangle\) as a steady state. Figure 2b illustrates the mechanism of our protocol after adiabatic elimination of the oscillator^{39}. There is no direct coupling between the singlet and triplet subspaces, either dissipative or coherent. Instead, the additional levels included in the Hilbert space due to the secondexcited state of the qutrit mediate a pathway for population to decay from the triplet to the singlet subspace in a multistep process.
We note that extending the Hilbert space is not the only method available to mitigate the trade off between error and time of stabilization. Previous works have considered timedependent control of drives^{40} or conditional (numberselective) driving^{15} as a way to increase stabilization speed. Nonetheless, the interactions required are either more complex to control, and/or rely on a combination of both static and parametric interactions. More crucially, such protocols are susceptible to coherent leakage for drive amplitudes comparable to dispersive shifts (few MHz), which reimposes the errortime trade off^{11}. On the other hand, with higher level driving the frequency of the nearest counterrotating terms is determined by the anharmonicity of the atom (few 100 MHz for transmons), allowing usage of larger drive amplitudes and, consequently, stronger engineered dissipation rates (see Supplementary Fig. 2).
Stabilization mechanism and performance
The stabilization procedure implemented by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), in conjunction with the resonator decay (κ), is able to stabilize any oddparity Bell state through appropriate choice of phases ϕ_{k}, θ_{k}. Figure 3a shows the full energy level diagram, including the resonator levels, depicting the mechanism for stabilization of triplet state \(\leftT\right\rangle =(1/\sqrt{2})(\left01\right\rangle +\left10\right\rangle )\) as an example. Here, the two 0–1 sideband drives are set outofphase (purple arrows) to selectively couple only the orthogonal state \(\leftS\right\rangle\) to the evenparity states in the oneexcitation manifold of the resonator. The outofphase Rabi drives (blue arrows) couple \(\left00\right\rangle\) (and \(\left11\right\rangle\)) to \(\leftS\right\rangle\) and prevent the system from being trapped in \(\left00\right\rangle {\left0\right\rangle }_{a}\). Finally, the 1–2 sideband drive (magenta arrows) couples the secondexcited state of the left transmon to the states in the one and twoexcitation manifolds of the resonator. The combined action of the three parametric and two direct drives pumps the population into \(\leftT\right\rangle {\left1\right\rangle }_{a}\), which then quickly decays to the target state \(\leftT\right\rangle {\left0\right\rangle }_{a}\). Crucially, no drive acts on \(\leftT\right\rangle {\left0\right\rangle }_{a}\) directly, suppressing any coherent leakage out of the target state as explained before.
For demonstrating stabilization, we initialize both transmons in their ground state since it requires no prior active preparation, simultaneously turn on all three parametric drives and two Rabi drives for a fixed time t, and finally perform twoqubit quantum state tomography to reconstruct the evolution of the twoqubit state as a function of t. We note here that stabilized state is independent of the initial state of the qubits; data for different initial states are discussed in (Supplementary Fig. 7).
We examine the stabilization time constant, τ, and steadystate error, ε_{∞}, from fitting the dynamical error for a given set of drive parameters as \(\varepsilon (t)={\varepsilon }_{\infty }+\tilde{\varepsilon }\exp (t/\tau )\), where \(\varepsilon (t)=1{{{{{{{\rm{Tr}}}}}}}}\{\rho (t){{\mathbb{I}}}_{{{{{{{{\rm{res}}}}}}}}}\otimes \leftT\right\rangle \left\langle T\right\}\)^{11}. With the Rabi drives tuned to their optimal coupling strength, the average stabilization trajectory displays an exponential behavior with a characteristic 1/e time of 339 ns as it approaches its steady state fidelity of 84(1)%, found from the average and standard deviation of the data points between 10 and 50 μs (Fig. 3b). The remaining population resides primarily in the ground state \(\left00\right\rangle\) (11%), with small residuals in \(\left11\right\rangle\) (2%) and the orthogonal Bell state \(\leftS\right\rangle\) (2%). We verified that the qubits remain in the steady state for as long as the pumps are on up to 50 μs, which is about 10× longer than the timescale set by the decoherence time of each qubit \({T}_{2}^{* }\) (Supplementary Table 1). In Fig. 3b we also show a full master equation simulation of the system and a tomogram of the reconstructed twoqubit density matrix at t = 50 μs. The simulations, which are entirely based on independently measured device parameters, predict the correct target state fidelity within our measurement uncertainty. The measured convergence time is about 15% faster than predicted by the theory for the measured drive amplitudes, which we attribute to residual drive detuning and imbalance, see also Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 12.
We separately characterize leakage out of the qubit manifold by measuring the population of the \({\left2\right\rangle }_{l}\) state, which peaks at t = 150 ns and then drops to less than 2.5% at t > 1 μs. In the Supplementary (Supplementary Note 5 and Supplementary Figs. 9 and 10) we provide details of obtaining a numerical bound on the error caused by this highdimensional leakage (<1%) in the steady state reconstructed from twoqubit state tomography.
By exploiting the tunable nature of parametric interactions, we realize in situ coherent control within a fixed parity manifold. For example, the stabilized Bell state can be rotated by tuning the phases of the 0–1 sidebands and Rabi drives while ensuring \({\phi }_{l}^{01}+{\theta }_{l}={\phi }_{r}^{01}+{\theta }_{r}\). Such phase tuning allows for selection of any maximally entangled state while maintaining the purity, P(ρ), and concurrence, C(ρ), of the twoqubit state, as demonstrated in Fig. 3c. Additionally, it is possible to continuously move along the longitude from \(\left01\right\rangle\) to \(\left10\right\rangle\) by changing the ratio between \({g}_{l}^{01}/{g}_{r}^{01}\) and Ω_{l}/Ω_{r}. The postselected twoqubit state (Fig. 3d) shows an average purity of 95% and 80% in odd and evenparity manifolds, respectively. Using these numbers to model the full twoqubit state as a probabilistic mixture of even and odd parity subspaces, ρ_{4×4} = xρ_{even} ⊕ (1 − x)ρ_{odd} allows us to extract an improved postselected fidelity of 97.25(5)% for the oddparity Bell state averaged across the range of phases. This fidelity corresponds to the state obtained by performing an ideal parity measurement and projecting the stabilized state onto the oddparity manifold^{15}. In Fig. 3d we used the symbols \({{{\Phi }}}^{\pm }=(1/\sqrt{2})\left00\right\rangle \pm \left11\right\rangle\) for the evenparity maximally entangled states.
The main distinctive feature of our stabilization protocol is the concurrent scaling of preparation time and steadystate error. This is confirmed by the data presented in Fig. 4 which shows a linear relationship between τ and ε_{∞}; both decrease as the Rabi drive strength is increased, reaching a minimum near the optimal \({{{\Omega }}}_{l,r}^{{{{{{{{\rm{opt}}}}}}}}}\approx 1.5\kappa\). Simulations of both the full and reduced system (the latter obtained via adiabatic elimination of the resonator) confirm the linear errortime scaling, with the slope determined almost entirely by the total decoherence rate of the stabilized Bell state \(1/{T}_{B}={\sum }_{k\in l,r}? > ({\gamma }_{k}^{01}+{\gamma }_{k}^{11})/2\), i.e., ε_{∞}/τ ≈ 1/T_{B}. Here \({\gamma }_{k}^{01}\) is the 0–1 relaxation rate and \({\gamma }_{k}^{11}\) is the pure dephasing rate. The linear relationship between ε_{∞} and τ indicates that the steadystate error is due to competition between engineered dissipation and local decoherence rates rather than any coherent error process. This is further confirmed by the fact that the data match the theory more closely at high drive strengths, where the engineered dissipation rate is stronger.
The line corresponding to the experimentally measured stabilization error and time has a steeper slope than 1/T_{B} (c.f. Fig. 4b). Our simulations agree with the measured data when we include the effect of parametric crosstalkinduced drive detuning and amplitude imbalance, both of which lead to coherent leakage out of the target state^{11}. The fitted detunings (about 400 kHz on average) are a small fraction (≤3%) of the measured powerdependent frequency shift of the right transmon (18 MHz), (see Supplementary Fig. 11 for details). We stress here that this coherent leakage remains weak compared to the engineered dissipation strength and, therefore, does not alter the expected errortime linear scaling.
To assess the performance reported here against previous experiments we compare the product of \({\varepsilon }_{\infty }^{\min }\) and τ, which can be thought of as an “inverse gainbandwidth product” for state preparation. Note that in previous experiments, unlike our case, the product between ε_{∞} and τ is a constant. Nonetheless, we can still use this product as a composite figure of merit to compare performance across different protocols. Our experiment yields \({\varepsilon }_{\infty }^{\min }\tau =54{{{{{\rm{ns}}}}}}\), which is 5x  6x lower than previous implementations of continuouswave state stabilization in superconducting circuits (Table 1). We also propose an “informationtheoretic” metric that allows to compute the upper bound on errorfree output information generated by a multiple repetitions of a stabilization protocol. To this end, we model a stabilization cycle as a noisy binomial channel with the maximum success probability set by p(t) = 1 − ε(t) and the number of uses set by the ratio n_{c} = T_{c}/τ, where \({T}_{c}^{1}\) is the repetition rate of the experiment. Assuming the output to be a continuous normal distribution in the limit of large n_{c}, this leads to the following expression for entanglement efficiency \({{{{{{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}}}_{e}\) for a given scheme:
This can be understood as the maximum “rate" at which the protocol can encode a continuous stream of bitpairs into ebits. In the derivation of Eq. (3) we assume that the noise of the channel is independent of the initial state (or the channel input) which is a reasonable approximation for steady states that are globally asymptotically stable, such as the one engineered by the protocol here. For long repetition times, steady state or minimum error, can be used to calculate the relevant efficiency. Last row of Table 1 quotes the upper bound on the average information (here number of ebits) generation capacity, \({I}_{e}(x)=(x/\tau ){{{{{{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}}}_{e}(x)\), at a fixed time set by the decoherence rates of different platforms. As detailed in the supplement (Supplementary Note 6 and Supplementary Fig. 13), long stabilization times limit the capacity for short T_{c}, leading to an overall low capacity for trappedion implementation reported in ref. ^{17} where \({T}_{2}^{* }\ll \tau\).
Discussion
In this work we have demonstrated an autonomous scheme which implements fast and highfidelity Bell state stabilization in a qutritqubit system. Use of parametric systembath interactions allows operating the protocol with strong drive strengths (“engineered” dissipation)—a regime which has hitherto remained inaccessible to reservoir engineering protocols based on resonant interactions. We verify that the preparation error scales linearly with the stabilization time constant, achieving a minimum errortime product of \({\varepsilon }_{\infty }^{\min }\tau =54\) ns for optimal drive strengths. The concurrent suppression of errortime product with drive amplitude results from a simultaneous minimization of drivedominated and dissipationdominated errors^{11}, highlighting a crucial principle for design of reservoir engineering schemes. Further, we implemented continuouswave coherent control and in situ target state selection leveraging the phase tunability of parametric systembath interactions.
Further improvements of the proposed scheme using simple design variations, such as using parametric qubitqubit drives instead of direct drives (Supplementary Note 3) and a moderate increase in resonator linewidth possibly coupled with the addition of a Purcell filter^{41}, can lead to 8–10% higher fidelity with current hardware. Since most of the state preparation error is due to the residual ground state population, a straightforward improvement in fidelity is achievable by using the center resonator to herald based on the state parity^{6,15}. While the present work relies on timeindependent drive parameters only, a combination of approach presented here with timedependent control explored previously in the context of approximate stabilization schemes^{40,42} can be an attractive avenue to do a fully optimized protocol that mitigates both intrinsic and (dephasinginduced) extrinsic errors. We expect that suppression of intrinsic error, as demonstrated here, can ease the implementation, characterization, and optimization of stabilization protocols: such considerations will become increasingly important when considering stabilization of larger and more complex states. The design principles underlying this work thus provide a novel addition to the parametric toolbox for quantum control in systems with strong lightmatter interactions and can be readily extended for stabilization of multipartite entangled states in large quantum networks.
Methods
Simulation approach
We simulated our scheme using the following Lindblad master equation:
where \({{{{{{{\mathcal{D}}}}}}}}[o]\rho =o\rho {o}^{{{{\dagger}}} }\frac{1}{2}\{{o}^{{{{\dagger}}} }o,\rho \}\) and H_{I} denotes the interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. (1). In order to simulate pump amplitudedependent shifts, we also include Hamiltonian terms of the form \({\sum }_{k = l,r}{\delta }_{k}^{01}{\left1\right\rangle }_{k}\left\langle 1\right\) and δ_{a}a^{†}a that describe qubit and resonator detunings respectively. The measured relaxation rates are \({\gamma }_{l,r}^{01}\) and \({\gamma }_{l,r}^{12}\). The pure dephasing rates for \(\left0\right\rangle +\left1\right\rangle\) and \(\left0\right\rangle +\left2\right\rangle\) are \({\gamma }_{l,r}^{11}\) and \({\gamma }_{l,r}^{22}\) respectively. We have assumed that relaxation is a sequential process 2 → 1 → 0 and crossdephasing terms can be ignored^{43}. The latter approximation is justified since dephasing in our device is primarily due to thermal photons in the resonator. Moreover, we neglect the 0–2 decay process as it is a forbidden transition as per selection rules of the transmon. Detailed list of experimental parameters used for performing master equation simulations is included in Supplementary Table 1. For performing simulations, the absolute and relative tolerances of the 12thorder AdamsMoulton solver in QuTiP^{44} are each set to 10^{−12}. Further, we truncate the Hilbert space corresponding to a maximum photon number n = 6 in the resonator, beyond which we do not observe any appreciable change in the simulated Liouvillian gap with the number of levels.
Semiclassical estimate of steadystate error vs. convergence time
As our protocol has no intrinsic error process, the steady state stabilization error is set primarily by competition between the stabilization process pumping population into the target Bell state \(\leftT\right\rangle\) and local decoherence leading to decay from the target state. In the absence of decoherence, the system would relax into the target state exponentially at a rate τ^{−1}, so \(\dot{\varepsilon }(t) \sim {\tau }^{1}\varepsilon (t)\). If instead the stabilization mechanism were turned off and we consider only the effect of decoherence, at short times the decay out of \(\leftT\right\rangle\) is exponential with a rate \(\gamma \approx {T}_{B}^{1}\) leading to \(\dot{F}(t)=\dot{\varepsilon }(t) \sim {T}_{B}^{1}(1\varepsilon (t))\). Taking both these processes together, we estimate the steady state error ε_{∞} by solving \(\dot{\varepsilon }(t)=0\), yielding ε_{∞} ≈ τ/T_{B}, when in the dissipation engineering regime where τ ≪ T_{B}. As shown in Supplementary Fig. 11, this estimate accurately predicts the simulated steady state error of the protocol in the absence of detuning or asymmetrydriven coherent error processes.
Comparison to other stabilization schemes
The estimated \({T}_{2}^{* }=100\) μs in Table 1 for the trapped ions stabilization scheme (ref. ^{17}) is based on assuming magnetic field fluctuation amplitude of 0.1 μT and magnetic field sensitivity of 17.6 kHz/μT for hyperfine states \(\left1,1\right\rangle ,\left2,2\right\rangle\) in ^{9}Be^{+}. This estimate is also consistent with other values of \({T}_{2}^{* }=80\) μs reported in ref. ^{45} for a different pair of levels, \(\left1,1\right\rangle ,\left2,2\right\rangle\), with slope 21 kHz/μT. Note that ref. ^{17} also implemented a stepwise version of their stabilization protocol which further reduces the impact of the qubit dephasing rate, allowing them to achieve 89% fidelity in 30 steps of 220 μs each. This stepped implementation is less directly comparable to the other CW schemes. Also ref. ^{15} presented an additional result using postselection, allowing them to slightly increase the measured fidelity of their CW protocol to 77%.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Degen, C. L., Reinhard, F. & Cappellaro, P. Quantum sensing. Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
Gisin, N. & Thew, R. Quantum communication. Nat. Photonics 1, 165–171 (2007).
Arute, F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature 574, 505–510 (2019).
Blais, A. et al. Quantuminformation processing with circuit quantum electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. A 75, 032329 (2007).
Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M. & Cleland, A. N. Surface codes: towards practical largescale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012).
Ristè, D. et al. Deterministic entanglement of superconducting qubits by parity measurement and feedback. Nature 502, 350–354 (2013).
Sayrin, C. et al. Realtime quantum feedback prepares and stabilizes photon number states. Nature 477, 73–77 (2011).
Ristè, D., Bultink, C., Lehnert, K. W. & DiCarlo, L. Feedback control of a solidstate qubit using highfidelity projective measurement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 240502 (2012).
Andersen, C. K. et al. Entanglement stabilization using ancillabased parity detection and realtime feedback in superconducting circuits. npj Quantum Inf. 5, 1 (2019).
Negnevitsky, V. et al. Repeated multiqubit readout and feedback with a mixedspecies trappedion register. Nature 563, 527–531 (2018).
Doucet, E., Reiter, F., Ranzani, L. & Kamal, A. High fidelity dissipation engineering using parametric interactions. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023370 (2020).
Gertler, J. M. et al. Protecting a bosonic qubit with autonomous quantum error correction. Nature 590, 243–248 (2021).
KimchiSchwartz, M. et al. Stabilizing entanglement via symmetryselective bath engineering in superconducting qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 240503 (2016).
Lu, Y. et al. Universal stabilization of a parametrically coupled qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 150502 (2017).
Shankar, S. et al. Autonomously stabilized entanglement between two superconducting quantum bits. Nature 504, 419–422 (2013).
Murch, K. et al. Cavityassisted quantum bath engineering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 183602 (2012).
Lin, Y. et al. Dissipative production of a maximally entangled steady state of two quantum bits. Nature 504, 415–418 (2013).
Poyatos, J., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Quantum reservoir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4728 (1996).
Pichler, H., Ramos, T., Daley, A. J. & Zoller, P. Quantum optics of chiral spin networks. Phys. Rev. A 91, 042116 (2015).
Sarlette, A., Raimond, J.M., Brune, M. & Rouchon, P. Stabilization of nonclassical states of the radiation field in a cavity by reservoir engineering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 010402 (2011).
Didier, N., Guillaud, J., Shankar, S. & Mirrahimi, M. Remote entanglement stabilization and concentration by quantum reservoir engineering. Phys. Rev. A 98, 012329 (2018).
Liu, Y. et al. Comparing and combining measurementbased and drivendissipative entanglement stabilization. Phys. Rev. X 6, 011022 (2016).
Leghtas, Z. et al. Confining the state of light to a quantum manifold by engineered twophoton loss. Science 347, 853–857 (2015).
Grimm, A. et al. Stabilization and operation of a kerrcat qubit. Nature 584, 205–209 (2020).
Ma, R. et al. A dissipatively stabilized mott insulator of photons. Nature 566, 51–57 (2019).
Cole, D. C. et al. Resourceefficient dissipative entanglement of two trappedion qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 080502 (2022).
Horn, K. P., Reiter, F., Lin, Y., Leibfried, D. & Koch, C. P. Quantum optimal control of the dissipative production of a maximally entangled state. N. J. Phys. 20, 123010 (2018).
Kienzler, D. et al. Quantum harmonic oscillator state synthesis by reservoir engineering. Science 347, 53–56 (2015).
Cole, D. C. et al. Dissipative preparation of W states in trapped ion systems. N. J. Phys. 23, 073001 (2021).
Krauter, H. et al. Entanglement generated by dissipation and steady state entanglement of two macroscopic objects. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 080503 (2011).
Li, P.B., Gao, S.Y., Li, H.R., Ma, S.L. & Li, F.L. Dissipative preparation of entangled states between two spatially separated nitrogenvacancy centers. Phys. Rev. A 85, 042306 (2012).
Govia, L. C. G., Lingenfelter, A., & Clerk, A. A. Stabilizing twoqubit entanglement by mimicking a squeezed environment. Phys. Rev. Research 4, 023010 (2022).
Schlosshauer, M. Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267 (2005).
Xu, Z., GarcíaPintos, L. P., Chenu, A. & del Campo, A. Extreme decoherence and quantum chaos. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 014103 (2019).
Berke, C., Varvelis, E., Trebst, S., Altland, A. & DiVincenzo, D. P. Transmon platform for quantum computing challenged by chaotic fluctuations. Nat. Commun. 13, 1 (2022).
ZakkaBajjani, E. et al. Quantum superposition of a single microwave photon in two different’colour’states. Nat. Phys. 7, 599–603 (2011).
Sirois, A. J. et al. Coherentstate storage and retrieval between superconducting cavities using parametric frequency conversion. Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 172603 (2015).
Kraus, B. et al. Preparation of entangled states by quantum markov processes. Phys. Rev. A 78, 042307 (2008).
Carmichael, H. J. Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics: NonClassical Fields 2nd edn, Vol. 2 (Springer, 2008).
Motzoi, F., Halperin, E., Wang, X., Whaley, K. B. & Schirmer, S. Backactiondriven, robust, steadystate longdistance qubit entanglement over lossy channels. Phys. Rev. A 94, 032313 (2016).
Reed, M. D. et al. Fast reset and suppressing spontaneous emission of a superconducting qubit. Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 203110 (2010).
Schirmer, S. G. & Wang, X. Stabilizing open quantum systems by markovian reservoir engineering. Phys. Rev. A 81, 062306 (2010).
Peterer, M. J. et al. Coherence and decay of higher energy levels of a superconducting transmon qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 010501 (2015).
Johansson, J., Nation, P. & Nori, F. Qutip 2: a python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234–1240 (2013).
Langer, C. et al. Longlived qubit memory using atomic ions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 060502 (2005).
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science under award number DESC0019461.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
T.B., D.R., G.R. and L.R. performed the experiments. T.B. and L.R. analyzed the data and performed simulations with inputs from L.G. and A.K. E.D. developed the protocol and performed theoretical calculations under guidance of A.K. K.C. fabricated the device, J.A. and R.S. developed and performed initial tests on the device. A.K. and L.R. supervised the project. T.B., E.D., A.K., and L.R. wrote the manuscript with inputs from all authors. All authors provided suggestions for the experiment and data analysis, and contributed to discussion of results.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, T., Doucet, E., Ristè, D. et al. Trade offfree entanglement stabilization in a superconducting qutritqubit system. Nat Commun 13, 3994 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467022316380
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467022316380
This article is cited by

Autonomous stabilization with programmable stabilized state
Nature Communications (2024)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.