Demonstrating a Continuous Set of Two-qubit Gates for Near-term QuantumAlgorithms

B. Foxen∗,1,2 C. Neill∗,2 A. Dunsworth∗,2 P. Roushan,2 B. Chiaro,1 A. Megrant,2 J. Kelly,2 Zijun Chen,2 K.

Satzinger,2 R. Barends,2 F. Arute,2 K. Arya,2 R. Babbush,2 D. Bacon,2 J.C. Bardin,2,3 S. Boixo,2 D. Buell,2 B.

Burkett,2 Yu Chen,2 R. Collins,2 E. Farhi,2 A. Fowler,2 C. Gidney,2 M. Giustina,2 R. Graff,2 M. Harrigan,2

T. Huang,2 S.V. Isakov,2 E. Jeffrey,2 Z. Jiang,2 D. Kafri,2 K. Kechedzhi,2 P. Klimov,2 A. Korotkov,2 F.

Kostritsa,2 D. Landhuis,2 E. Lucero,2 J. McClean,2 M. McEwen,1 X. Mi,2 M. Mohseni,2 J.Y. Mutus,2 O.

Naaman,2 M. Neeley,2 M. Niu,2 A. Petukhov,2 C. Quintana,2 N. Rubin,2 D. Sank,2 V. Smelyanskiy,2 A.

Vainsencher,2 T.C. White,2 Z. Yao,2 P. Yeh,2, A. Zalcman,2 H. Neven,2 and John M. Martinis1,2,b

1 Department of Physics,University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

2 Google Research, Santa Barbara, CA 931173 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA

b martinis@physics.ucsb.edu∗ these authors contributed equally to this work.

(Google AI Quantum)(Dated: February 5, 2020)

Quantum algorithms offer a dramatic speedup for computational problems in machine learning,material science, and chemistry. However, any near-term realizations of these algorithms will needto be optimized to fit within the finite resources offered by existing noisy hardware. Here, takingadvantage of the adjustable coupling of gmon qubits, we demonstrate a continuous two-qubit gateset that can provide a 3x reduction in circuit depth as compared to a standard decomposition.We implement two gate families: an iSWAP-like gate to attain an arbitrary swap angle, θ, and aCPHASE gate that generates an arbitrary conditional phase, φ. Using one of each of these gates,we can perform an arbitrary two-qubit gate within the excitation-preserving subspace allowing fora complete implementation of the so-called Fermionic Simulation, or fSim, gate set. We benchmarkthe fidelity of the iSWAP-like and CPHASE gate families as well as 525 other fSim gates spreadevenly across the entire fSim(θ, φ) parameter space achieving purity-limited average two-qubit Paulierror of 3.8× 10−3 per fSim gate.

I. INTRODUCTION

Quantum computing is a potentially transformativetechnology, but challenges remain in identifying a pathtowards solving practical problems with a quantum ad-vantage [1]. Continued progress towards this goal may bemade on many fronts including qubit coherence or scal-ability [2, 3], measurement or gate fidelities [4, 5], andalgorithmic improvements that reduce the required cir-cuit depth through compilation [6]. In superconductingqubits, single-qubit gates are usually a factor of two ormore lower error than two-qubit gates. Consequently,a typical strategy has been to demonstrate a minimallyuniversal gate set consisting of arbitrary single-qubit ro-tations and a single two-qubit gate [7]. This is an efficientapproach for some algorithms, e.g. surface code errorcorrection, which compiles optimally with such a gateset [8]. However, many noisy intermediate-scale quan-tum (NISQ, [9]) algorithms require a more diverse set oftwo-qubit gates. An implementation of these gates couldtake the place of six to eight single-qubit gates and threeCZφ gates per arbitrary two-qubit gate required with anoptimal decomposition into a minimally-universal gateset [10].

In the NISQ era, we need the largest two-qubit gate

set that may be implemented with high-fidelity. A gen-eral two-qubit unitary gate allows independent controlover the strength of σXσX , σY σY , and σZσZ couplingbetween qubits requiring both DC and microwave con-trol of gmon qubits [11]. However, models of interact-ing particles typically conserve the number of excitationscorresponding to a simpler model where the σXσX andσY σY couplings have equal coefficients. This reduces thenumber of control parameters from three to two and elim-inates the need for microwave control during an algo-rithm. This set of excitation-conserving gates has beenappropriately termed the Fermionic Simulation, or fSim,gate set since it maps electron conservation in a chem-istry problem to photon conservation in qubits [12]. AnfSim gate can be defined with two control angles, θ, the|01〉 ↔ |10〉 swap angle, and, φ, the phase of the |11〉 statewith a matrix representation in the |00〉 , |01〉 , |10〉 , |11〉basis given by:

fSim(θ, φ) =

1 0 0 00 cos θ −i sin θ 00 −i sin θ cos θ 00 0 0 e−iφ

(1)

We use this as both a convenient definition and a use-ful model for describing general two-qubit gates result-

arX

iv:2

001.

0834

3v2

[qu

ant-

ph]

3 F

eb 2

020

2

b

c

30

0

Coup

ling

,|g

|/2π (

MH

z)

60

Coupler bias (arb)-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.4

OFF

0.2

0

200

400

600

800

Tim

e (

ns)

OFF

Population transfered from q0 to q1 10

ONON

a

q0: |0⟩

q1: |0⟩

fSim

coupler

Detuning, Δ

CouplingTime

Initialize Interact MeasureX

FIG. 1. Demonstration of the tunable coupling between gmonqubits. a, Pulse sequence used to measure swapping as afunction of coupler bias. We initialize one qubit, perform anfSim gate, defined by a set of three flux pulses that controlthe qubit frequencies and the coupling between the qubits,and measure the population of the other qubit. b, We varythe fSim gate as a function of the length and amplitude ofthe coupler pulse to measure the swap rate as a function ofthe bias amplitude. c, By taking the Fourier transform of theoscillations in b, we extract the coupling strength, |g|, as afunction of coupler bias. The coupling changes sign at thetwo “OFF” biases ensuring we can turn the coupling off.

ing from arbitrary flux control of gmon qubits. Notably,promising low-depth algorithms using this gate set havebeen proposed including the quantum approximate op-timization algorithm [13] and an algorithm for linear-depth circuits simulating the electronic structure ofmolecules [12]. Additionally, algorithms performed withjust z-rotations and fSim gates enable error mitigationtechiques including post selection and zero noise extrap-olation [14], further improving this gate sets prospects onNISQ processors.

Here, we first demonstrate the strong flux tunable cou-pling between gmon qubits which we use to performfast two-qubit gates. Then, to describe our calibrationand control strategy, we use shallow circuits to illumi-nate the natural correspondence of the coupled trans-mon Hamiltonian and the fSim gate set. We use cross-entropy benchmarking (XEB, [15]) to characterize twolinearly independent and continuous families of entan-gling gates: the iSWAP-like family corresponding tofSim(θ, φ ∝ θ2), and the CPHASE family correspondingto fSim(θ ≈ 0◦, φ). We then combine these two continu-ous gate sets to calibrate and benchmark 525 fSim gatesspread evenly across the entire (θ, φ) parameter space.

II. STRONG COUPLING WITH GMON QUBITS

The quantum processors used in this work each con-sist of four gmon transmon qubits in a chain, togetherwith three couplers. Both the qubit frequencies and theircoupling can be independently controlled, providing sev-eral advantages over fixed coupling designs [11, 16, 17].Firstly, since we can turn off the coupling at any de-tuning, both qubits may idle and perform single-qubitgates while operating closer to their flux insensitive point.This improves dephasing and decreases our sensitivity toflux settling tails. Secondly, since entangling gates areperformed by bringing the qubit states near resonance,idling the qubits closer together means that gates requiremuch smaller dynamic detunings, further reducing theamplitude of flux settling tails [18, 19]. Thirdly, sincethe on/off coupling ratio is not dependent on the max-imum qubit-qubit detuning, we are able to increase theoverall coupling strength enabling faster gates with re-duced decoherence error.

In Figure 1 we characterize the qubit-qubit couplingstrength as a function of the coupler flux bias. Using thepulse sequence in Figure 1a, we initialize one qubit, applyan fSim gate, and measure the population transferred tothe other qubit. Each fSim gate is defined by the ampli-tude and duration of three, nominally rectangular, fluxbias pulses. Two pulses control the qubit frequencies andset their relative detuning, ∆, while the third pulse con-trols the coupling strength between the qubits, g. In Fig-ure 1b we repeat this pulse sequence using the qubit fluxbiases to place them on resonance (∆ = 0 MHz) whilevarying the coupler bias amplitude and the shared dura-tion of all three pulses. By taking the Fourier transformof the oscillating population data in 1b we extract theswap rate as a function of coupler bias which is equiva-lent to twice the qubit-qubit coupling, g, plotted in Fig-ure 1c. We measure g/2π = 6 MHz when the coupleris biased to zero Φ0, and a coupling exceeding -50 MHzas the coupler bias approaches Φ0/2. The net couplingchanges sign between these two regions ensuring we canturn the coupling off. During general operation, we idleand perform single-qubit gates with the coupler at the“OFF” bias and make excursions to stronger couplings(“ON” region) to perform fSim gates. In this work weuse gmax/2π ≈ −45 MHz which is three times strongerthan is typical for fixed coupling devices.

III. COUPLED TRANSMON PHYSICS ANDTHE fSim GATE SET

In the absence of a resonant microwave drive, coupledtransmon qubits naturally evolve within the excitation-preserving subspace. The specific time evolution is de-termined by three parameters: the qubit nonlinearity,η, the qubit-qubit frequency detuning,∆, and the cou-pling between qubits, g. While η is fixed at 240 MHzby qubit capacitance, the gmon architecture allows for

3

Conditional phase: ϕ (deg)

Qubit detuning, Δ0 η

180°0°-180°

Initialize Interact Measure

q0: |0⟩

q1: |0⟩ I or X

X/2

fSim

Tomo.

b

0° 360°

CPHAS

E

Leakage (a.u.)

Qubit detuning, Δ0 η

ErrorfSim gates

Coup

ling

, |g

|/2π (

MH

z)

0

16

32

64

128

8

a

CPHAS

E

Qubit nonlinearity

Swap angle: θ (deg)

0° 45° 90°

c

Qubit detuning, Δ0 η

iSW

AP-l

ike

0°

90°

Initialize Interact Measure

q0: |0⟩

q1: |0⟩ X

fSim

Initialize Interact Measure

q0: |0⟩

q1: |0⟩ X

fSim

X

FIG. 2. Exploring the parameter space of two-qubit gates. Each pixel represents one experiment. We use a set of 15 nsrectangular current bias waveforms to perform some fSim unitary by setting the qubit-qubit detuning, ∆, and the couplingstrength, g. a, To identify the low-leakage gates described by the fSim model, we measure leakage by initializing the |11〉 stateand measuring the |02〉 state. When the detuning is near the qubit nonlinearity, we observe the expected Rabi oscillations. b,We measure the conditional phase, φ, by performing a Ramsey experiment where we initialize one qubit with an X/2 gate andperform tomography to measure the difference in accumulated phase (φ) with and without initializing the other qubit to the |1〉state. By choosing combinations of ∆ and g as indicated by the CPHASE dash-dotted line (chosen as the low-leakage couplingstrength from a), we are able to achieve any φ : [−180◦, 180◦]. c, We measure the swap angle, θ, by initializing the |01〉 stateand measuring the |10〉 state. By placing the qubits on resonance and varying the coupling strength along the iSWAP-likedashed line, we are able to achieve any θ : [0◦, 90◦].

time-dependent control of both ∆ and |g| using DC to≈ 200 MHz bandwidth flux waveforms. The qubit centerfrequency, (fq1 + fq2)/2, is a free parameter that maybe used to avoid coupled two level system (TLS) defectspresent in the frequency spectrum of either qubit [20–22].For simplicity, we limit our fSim control pulses to syn-chronous, nominally rectangular waveforms defined byfour parameters: a shared length, typically 13 ns to 15 nsand three control amplitudes that set g and ∆. Whilefurther pulse shaping may improve gate performance inthe future, these basic waveforms were sufficient to ap-proach the decoherence limit of our qubits which have aT1 of 25.3± 7.3µs (supplement IX B).

The full fSim control model describes any low-leakagetwo-qubit unitary evolution with five parameters: θ andφ, discussed previously, in addition to three parametersdescribing single-qubit phases as detailed in the supple-ment (VII). Here, we focus on the parameters that de-scribe the two-qubit interaction and use the three ex-periments described in Figure 2 to measure leakage tothe |02〉 state and map out the φ and θ control land-scape (complete unitary tomography procedure outlinedin supplemental section IX C). Each experiment followsthe same pattern: initialize a relevant state, apply fSim

control pulses, and then perform either population or to-mographic measurements to extract the desired qubit’spopulation or phase. Within the fSim model, leakage isthe dominant error. In Figure 2a, we map out leakage byinitializing |11〉 and measuring the |0〉 population of thelower frequency qubit as a proxy for leakage in the higherfrequency qubit. In Figure 2b we explore the φ parameterspace by performing a Ramsey experiment where we takethe difference in the accumulated phase with and withoutthe second qubit initialized to the |1〉 state. Finally, inFigure 2c we explore the θ parameter space by initializingone qubit to the |1〉 state and measuring the |1〉 popu-lation of the other qubit after the fSim gate. The Rabioscillation physics explored with these measurements isreproduced with fairly rudimentary numerics in supple-mental VIII, but these experiments serve to demonstrateour fSim control strategy.

IV. BENCHMARKING iSWAP-like ANDCPHASE GATES

The data presented in Figure 2 provides a map for im-plementing an arbitrary fSim—each pixel defines a set

4

a

b

1.9

1.2

FIG. 3. Characterizing the iSWAP-like and CPHASE gatefamilies with cross-entropy benchmarking. We plot the opti-mized fSim control angles, θ and φ, on the left y-axes and thePauli gate error per two-qubit gate on the right y-axes, con-servatively assuming 7.5×10−4 single-qubit Pauli gate errors.a, Characterization of the CPHASE gate family correspond-ing to fSim(θ ≈ 0◦, φ). Each gate is 15 ns long, consisting ofcontrol pulses that vary the qubit detuning, ∆, around thequbit nonlinearity, η, with a coupler bias amplitude chosento complete one full swap: |11〉 → |02〉 → |11〉. We mea-sure an average two-qubit Pauli error of 1.9 × 10−3 for theCPHASE family. b, Characterization of the iSWAP-like gatefamily corresponding to fSim(θ, φ ∝ θ2). Each gate is 13 nslong, consisting of control pulses that place the qubits onresonance and vary the coupling strength, |g|, to achieve anarbitrary swap angle θ between the |01〉 and |10〉 states. Wemeasure an average two-qubit Pauli error of 1.2×10−3 for theiSWAP-like family.

of three control amplitudes, and any control amplitudesyielding low-leakage should result in a high-fidelity gatedescribed by the fSim control model (Eq. 1). While itmay be possible to perform an arbitrary fSim gate with asingle set of flux pulses using either very strong couplingor more complex control waveforms, we have chosen toimplement an arbitrary fSim gate as a composition of twocontinuous gate families using simple rectangular controlpulses to minimize the gate length. The first gate fam-ily completes a diabatic |11〉 � |02〉 swap to perform agate with an arbitrary conditional phase, φ, using con-trol amplitudes denoted by the dot-dashed line labeled

’CPHASE’ in Figures 2a and 2b. The dominant con-trol angle in the CPHASE gate family is the conditionalphase, but, we do accumulate a small swap angle θ due tothe strong coupling necessary to perform a fast CPHASEgate (θ ≤ 5◦ for a 13 ns CPHASE gate—this may be re-duced by increasing the gate duration). The second gatefamily places the qubits on resonance (∆ = 0 MHz) andvaries g to reach the desired swap angle, θ, using controlamplitudes along the dashed line labeled “iSWAP-like”in Figure 2c. We have deemed this gate family “iSWAP-like” since the swap angle varies from θ : [0◦, 90◦] andbecause this gate accumulates a conditional phase φ ∝ θ2

due to the dispersive interaction with the |02〉 and |20〉states. Both of these gates are a subset of the fSim groupindividually, and, compiled together, they can reach thefull fSim parameter space.

In Figure 3 we characterize both the iSWAP-like andCPHASE gate families using cross-entropy benchmark-ing (XEB) [15]. On the left axes we plot the optimizedvalues of θ and φ for a range of CPHASE and iSWAP-likegates, and on the right y-axes we plot the Pauli error pertwo-qubit gate (see supplemental IX B), achieving aver-age errors of 1.9 × 10−3 and 1.2 × 10−3 for each gatefamily respectively.

V. BENCHMARKING fSsim GATES

In Figure 4a we present the Pauli error of 525 distinctfSim(θ, φ) gates where the values of θ and φ have beenconstrained to be exactly the values indicated by the xy-coordinates at the center of each pixel (where ex situoptimization has been used only to optimize the single-qubit phases). Each 28 ns long fSim gate in Figure 4 is acomposition of a 15 ns CPHASE gate followed by a 13 nsiSWAP-like gate. While the fSim fidelity is largely inde-pendent of the values of θ and φ there are a few features ofnote. As discussed in supplement X C, we most-directlycalibrated line cuts at θ = 0◦, 90◦ and φ = 180◦. The re-gions of higher error where φ is near 0◦ (360◦) involve themost extrapolation from the directly calibrated controlamplitudes. Secondly, there is a faintly-visible indicationof a band of higher error near φ ≈ 240◦ which we believeis due to a weakly interacting TLS defect in the spectrumof one of the qubits—in the future we hope to avoid suchdefects by shifting the frequencies of both qubits whilemaintaining their relative detuning. In Figure 4b we his-togram these results in addition to the purity [23] perfSim and confirm a purity-limited average Pauli error of3.83× 10−3 per fSim gate.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

We have implemented continuous iSWAP-like andCPHASE gate families with average Pauli error rates of1.2 × 10−3 and 1.9 × 10−3 respectively. These fast (13-15 ns) gates take advantage of the strong, tunable, qubit-

5

a

b

cond

itio

nal p

hase

, ϕ

(d

eg

)In

teg

rate

d h

isto

gra

m

0

0.25

0.50

0.75

fSim(θ,ϕ) Pauli error × 103

swap angle, θ (deg)

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

0 15 30 45 60 75 90

0 2 4 6 8 10

Two qubit Pauli error × 103

1.00

0 2 4 6 8 10

Avg. purity: 3.76 × 10-3

Avg. error: 3.83 × 10-3

FIG. 4. Benchmarking the fSim gate set. Using XEB, wemeasure the Pauli error per cycle and subtract off a con-servative estimate for the single-qubit Pauli gate errors of7.5× 10−4. a, We plot the two-qubit Pauli error for 525 fSimgates where θ and φ have been constrained to a grid. b, His-togram of both the error and purity for the gates presentedin a. Here we confirm a purity (coherence) limited averageerror for our fSim gates of 3.83× 10−3.

qubit coupling offered by our gmon transmon qubit ar-chitecture achieving error rates more than a factor of twolower than the best previously reported two-qubit gatesfor superconducting qubits [24]. Additionally, we havecombined these two gate sets to demonstrate a completeimplementation of the two-qubit fSim gate set with anaverage Pauli error of 3.83 × 10−3 per gate. This directimplementation of the fSim gate offers roughly an addi-tional factor of three in compilation efficiency for NISQalgorithms over a minimally-universal gate set.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Google LLC. The UCSanta Barbara Nanofabrication Facility, part of the Na-tional Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network funded byNSF, fabricated the gmon qubits.

∗ These authors contributed equally to this work

[1] Richard P. Feynman. Simulating physics with computers.International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6):467–488, Jun 1982.

[2] Jens Koch, Terri M. Yu, Jay Gambetta, A. A. Houck,D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, Alexandre Blais, M. H. Devoret,S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf. Charge-insensitivequbit design derived from the cooper pair box. Phys.Rev. A, 76:042319, Oct 2007.

[3] D. Rosenberg, D. Kim, R. Das, D. Yost, S. Gustavsson,D. Hover, P. Krantz, A. Melville, L. Racz, G. O. Samach,S. J. Weber, F. Yan, J. L. Yoder, A. J. Kerman, andW. D. Oliver. 3d integrated superconducting qubits. npjQuantum Information, 3(1):42, 2017.

[4] D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S.

Huang, J. Majer, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf.ac stark shift and dephasing of a superconducting qubitstrongly coupled to a cavity field. Phys. Rev. Lett.,94:123602, Mar 2005.

[5] Evan Jeffrey, Daniel Sank, J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White,J. Kelly, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro,A. Dunsworth, A. Megrant, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Neill,P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland,and John M. Martinis. Fast accurate state measure-ment with superconducting qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett.,112:190504, May 2014.

[6] Frederic T. Chong, Diana Franklin, and MargaretMartonosi. Programming languages and compiler designfor realistic quantum hardware. Nature, 549:180 EP –,

6

Sep 2017.[7] Adriano Barenco, Charles H. Bennett, Richard Cleve,

David P. DiVincenzo, Norman Margolus, Peter Shor, Ty-cho Sleator, John A. Smolin, and Harald Weinfurter. El-ementary gates for quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A,52:3457–3467, Nov 1995.

[8] Austin G. Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M. Martinis,and Andrew N. Cleland. Surface codes: Towards prac-tical large-scale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A,86:032324, Sep 2012.

[9] John Preskill. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era andbeyond. Quantum, 2:79, August 2018.

[10] Navin Khaneja and Steffen J. Glaser. Cartan decompo-sition of su(2n) and control of spin systems. ChemicalPhysics, 267(1):11 – 23, 2001.

[11] Yu Chen, C. Neill, P. Roushan, N. Leung, M. Fang,R. Barends, J. Kelly, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro,A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mu-tus, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. M. Quintana, D. Sank,A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, Michael R.Geller, A. N. Cleland, and John M. Martinis. Qubit ar-chitecture with high coherence and fast tunable coupling.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:220502, Nov 2014.

[12] Ian D. Kivlichan, Jarrod McClean, Nathan Wiebe, CraigGidney, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, andRyan Babbush. Quantum simulation of electronic struc-ture with linear depth and connectivity. Phys. Rev. Lett.,120:110501, Mar 2018.

[13] Edward Farhi and Aram W Harrow. Quantumsupremacy through the quantum approximate optimiza-tion algorithm, 2016.

[14] Abhinav Kandala, Kristan Temme, Antonio D. Corcoles,Antonio Mezzacapo, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gam-betta. Error mitigation extends the computational reachof a noisy quantum processor. Nature, 567(7749):491–495, 2019.

[15] Sergio Boixo, Sergei V. Isakov, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy,Ryan Babbush, Nan Ding, Zhang Jiang, Michael J.Bremner, John M. Martinis, and Hartmut Neven. Char-acterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices. Na-ture Physics, 14(6):595–600, 2018.

[16] Charles Neill. A path towards quantum supremacy withsuperconducting qubits. PhD thesis, University of Cali-fornia Santa Barbara, Dec 2017.

[17] Fei Yan, Philip Krantz, Youngkyu Sung, Morten Kjaer-gaard, Daniel L. Campbell, Terry P. Orlando, SimonGustavsson, and William D. Oliver. Tunable couplingscheme for implementing high-fidelity two-qubit gates.Phys. Rev. Applied, 10:054062, Nov 2018.

[18] M. A. Rol, F. Battistel, F. K. Malinowski, C. C. Bultink,B. M. Tarasinski, R. Vollmer, N. Haider, N. Muthusub-ramanian, A. Bruno, B. M. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo. Fast,high-fidelity conditional-phase gate exploiting leakage in-terference in weakly anharmonic superconducting qubits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:120502, Sep 2019.

[19] B Foxen, J Y Mutus, E Lucero, E Jeffrey, D Sank,R Barends, K Arya, B Burkett, Yu Chen, ZijunChen, B Chiaro, A Dunsworth, A Fowler, C Gidney,M Giustina, R Graff, T Huang, J Kelly, P Klimov,A Megrant, O Naaman, M Neeley, C Neill, C Quin-tana, P Roushan, A Vainsencher, J Wenner, T C White,and John M Martinis. High speed flux sampling fortunable superconducting qubits with an embedded cryo-genic transducer. Superconductor Science and Technol-

ogy, 32(1):015012, dec 2018.[20] P. Macha, S. H. W. van der Ploeg, G. Oelsner, E. Ilichev,

H.-G. Meyer, S. Wnsch, and M. Siegel. Losses in coplanarwaveguide resonators at millikelvin temperatures. Ap-plied Physics Letters, 96(6):062503, 2010.

[21] Yoni Shalibo, Ya’ara Rofe, David Shwa, Felix Zeides,Matthew Neeley, John M. Martinis, and Nadav Katz.Lifetime and coherence of two-level defects in a joseph-son junction. Phys. Rev. Lett., 105:177001, Oct 2010.

[22] P. V. Klimov, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, M. Neeley, A. Megrant,B. Burkett, R. Barends, K. Arya, B. Chiaro, Yu Chen,A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, C. Gidney,M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. Huang, E. Jeffrey, ErikLucero, J. Y. Mutus, O. Naaman, C. Neill, C. Quintana,P. Roushan, Daniel Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner,T. C. White, S. Boixo, R. Babbush, V. N. Smelyanskiy,H. Neven, and John M. Martinis. Fluctuations of energy-relaxation times in superconducting qubits. Phys. Rev.Lett., 121:090502, Aug 2018.

[23] Joel Wallman, Chris Granade, Robin Harper, andSteven T Flammia. Estimating the coherence of noise.New Journal of Physics, 17(11):113020, nov 2015.

[24] R. Barends, C. M. Quintana, A. G. Petukhov, Y. Chen,D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, R. Collins, O. Naaman, S. Boixo,F. Arute, K. Arya, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Z. Chen,B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gid-ney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. Huang, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly,P. V. Klimov, F. Kostritsa, D. Landhuis, E. Lucero,M. McEwen, A. Megrant, X. Mi, J. Mutus, M. Nee-ley, C. Neill, E. Ostby, P. Roushan, D. Sank, K. J.Satzinger, A. Vainsencher, T. White, J. Yao, P. Yeh,A. Zalcman, H. Neven, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and J. M.Martinis. Diabatic gates for frequency-tunable supercon-ducting qubits. arXiv e-prints, July 2019.

[25] Easwar Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and Joseph Emerson.Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quan-tum processes. Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:180504, May 2011.

[26] A. D. Corcoles, Jay M. Gambetta, Jerry M. Chow,John A. Smolin, Matthew Ware, Joel Strand, B. L. T.Plourde, and M. Steffen. Process verification of two-qubitquantum gates by randomized benchmarking. Phys. Rev.A, 87:030301, Mar 2013.

[27] Zijun Chen, Julian Kelly, Chris Quintana, R. Barends,B. Campbell, Yu Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G.Fowler, E. Lucero, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Mutus,M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, P. Roushan,D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N.Korotkov, and John M. Martinis. Measuring and sup-pressing quantum state leakage in a superconductingqubit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:020501, Jan 2016.

[28] P. J. J. O’Malley, J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Camp-bell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth,A. G. Fowler, I.-C. Hoi, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Mu-tus, C. Neill, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D. Sank,A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Korotkov,A. N. Cleland, and John M. Martinis. Qubit metrologyof ultralow phase noise using randomized benchmarking.Phys. Rev. Applied, 3:044009, Apr 2015.

[29] Saleh Rahimi-Keshari, Matthew A. Broome, RobertFickler, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Timothy C. Ralph, and An-drew G. White. Direct characterization of linear-opticalnetworks. Opt. Express, 21(11):13450–13458, Jun 2013.

[30] R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia,D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G.

7

Fowler, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro,A. Dunsworth, C. Neill, P. O’Malley, P. Roushan,A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cle-land, and John M. Martinis. Superconducting quantumcircuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance.Nature, 508:500 EP –, Apr 2014.

VII. FSIM CONTROL MODEL

A generic representation of a Fermionic Simulation(fSim) gate corresponding to a two-qubit photon conserv-ing unitary requires five parameters. We may separateout the single and two-qubit parameters as follows: a|01〉 ↔ |10〉 swap angle, θ, a |11〉 state conditional phase,φ, and three single qubit phases, ∆+,∆−, and ∆−,offyielding a generic fSim parameterization,

fSim(θ, φ,∆+,∆−,∆−,off ) =1 0 0 0

0 ei(∆++∆−) cos θ −iei(∆+−∆−,off ) sin θ 0

0 −iei(∆++∆−,off ) sin θ ei(∆+−∆−) cos θ 0

0 0 0 ei(2∆++φ)

(2)

We are interested in performing a two-qubit gate,which is independent of the single-qubit rotations.Therefore, we can focus on the matrix where ∆+,∆−,and ∆−,offare all zero, leading to the notation,

fSim(θ, φ) =

1 0 0 00 cos θ −i sin θ 00 −i sin θ cos θ 00 0 0 e−iφ

(3)

used to designate an arbitrary gate within the excitationpreserving subspace.

VIII. FSIM GATE NUMERICS

The qubit dynamics presented in the main paper (Fig-ure 2) are well described by numerics simulating twointeracting qutrits (e.g. a pair of coupled three-levelanharmonic oscillators) evolving with a time dependentdetuning, ∆(t), and coupling, g(t). We truncate thefull two-qutrit Hamiltonian limiting our simulation tostates with 1 or 2 excitations. Operating with the ba-sis |01〉 , |10〉 , |11〉 , |20〉 , |02〉, the Hamiltonian describingthe system is given by:

H(g,∆, η) =

0 g 0 0 0g ∆ 0 0 0

0 0 ∆√

2g√

2g

0 0√

2g 2∆ + η 0

0 0√

2g 0 η

(4)

where η is the nonlinearity of each qubit, which we as-sume is the same for both qubits (240 MHz). Using this

model, we may estimate the unitary operation enacted byarbitrary time-domain control of the coupling strengthand the qubit detuning by discretizing these time do-main control waveforms and performing a time orderedintegral of H(t).

In Figure 5 we qualitatively reproduce the experi-mental results in Figure 2 by simulating 15 ns rectan-gular control pulses defining both g and ∆. In Figure6 we illustrate the broadening effect that using shorterpulse lengths has on the Rabi interactions of both the|01〉 ↔ |10〉 and |11〉 ↔ |02〉 interactions by simulat-ing rectangular pulses that are 10 ns, 15 ns, and 20 nslong. In Figures 6 and 7, we have omitted points wherethe leakage exceeds a 1% threshold which identifies theparameter space where we can perform fSim gates withlow error. Experimentally we have chosen to implementour CPHASE gates with 13 ns long rectangular pulseswith a 1 ns pad on either side—when we made the gatelength shorter, leakage increased (data not shown). Here,in Figure 6a, we qualitatively see that the width of the1% leakage band where we perform the CPHASE gatebegins to pinch off and the |2〉 state Rabi interactionreaches all the way to the on-resonance iSWAP-like pa-rameter space (dotted white line) when the gate lengthis 10 ns. Both these results qualitatively reproduce whatwe observed experimentally when attempting iSWAP-like gates shorter than 11 ns or the CPHASE gate shorterthan 13 ns. Finally, in Figure 7 we simulate the effectof smoothing the control pulses by simulating 20 ns longcoupler pulses that are rectangular, rectangular with 3 nsGaussian smoothing, and cosine shaped (all detuningpulses are rectangular and have the same length). Herewe see that smoothing reduces the extent of leakage fromthe second and third |11〉 ↔ |02〉 swap lobes expandingthe available low-error fSim control space. This indicatesthat pulse smoothing may be an important considerationof any future fSim implementation that aims to performan arbitrary fSim using a single coupler pulse instead ofthe two discrete rectangular pulses we have used in thiswork.

8

Leakage

100%0%

Conditional phase: ϕ (deg)

180°0°-180°

Swap angle: θ (deg)

0° 45° 90°

Qubit detuning, ΔQubit detuning, Δ0 η

Qubit detuning, Δ0 η 0 η

0

16

32

486482

Coup

ling

, |g

|/2π (

MH

z)

0° 360°

CPHAS

E

0° 360°

CPHAS

E

iSW

AP-l

ike

0°

90°

15 ns rectangular pulses 15 ns... 15 ns...

FIG. 5. Numeric simulation of two interacting qutrits reproducing the data from our experiments in Figure 2 of the main text.We simulate qubits with a fixed nonlinearity (240 MHz) with 15 ns long rectangular control pulses defining the qubit detuning,∆, and their coupling, g.

IX. GATE CHARACTERIZATION

We use a variety of techniques to characterize the per-formance of our single and two-qubit gates which we de-tail in this section. In lieu of full process tomography, weuse depth one population based measurements to per-form unitary tomography to quickly assess the unitaryoperation performed by a given set of control pulses. Wethen turn to benchmarking techniques that amplify gateerrors and allow for the characterization of small errorrates. We use Clifford based benchmarking to character-ize our single-qubit microwave gates and cross-entropybenchmarking (XEB) to characterize our two-qubit en-tangling gates.

A. Computing and reporting Pauli error rates

Before jumping in to gate characterization, a quickaside on Pauli error rates. We report Pauli error rateswhich are independent of the Hilbert space dimensionand thus add linearly as the circuit’s Hilbert space grows.In the past, many have reported average single and two-qubit error, er, as exponential decay constants of a se-quence fidelity, F = Aemer + B where A and B are fitparameters to compensate for state preparation and mea-surement (SPAM) errors, m is the number of gate repe-titions in the sequence, and er is the error per cycle. ThePauli error, ep, is related to er by the dimension of theHilbert space:

ep = er ×(

1 +1

D

)(5)

where D = 2n is the dimension of the Hilbert space foran n-qubit gate. We note that this results in an increase

in the reported error by a factor of 1.5 for single-qubitgates (n = 1) and a by a factor of 1.25 for two-qubit gateerrors (n = 2).

When performing two-qubit XEB, we measure the ex-ponential decay constant per cycle, er,cycle where eachcycle consists of the application of one single-qubit gateper qubit and one fSim entangling gate involving bothqubits. In order to extract the error per fSim gate, wecan convert this to a Pauli error per cycle, ep,cycle, andsubtract off the two single-qubit Pauli gate errors, ep,q1

and ep,q2, which we estimate using single-qubit Clifford

based randomized benchmarking.

ep,2q = ep,cycle − (ep,q1 + ep,q2) (6)

For simplicity, all two-qubit Pauli errors have been com-puted assuming single-qubit Pauli errors of 7.5×10−4 pergate per qubit consistent with our typical single-qubiterror rates immediately following a successful run of ourstandard single-qubit gate calibration procedure (see sup-plement IX B).

ep,two qubit = ep,cycle−(2×7.5×10−4) = ep,cycle−1.5×10−3

(7)

9

10 ns rectangular pulses0

16

32

486482

0

16

32

486482

160 MHz

135 MHz

Coup

ling

, |g

|/2π (

MH

z)C

oup

ling

, |g

|/2π (

MH

z)

20 ns rectangular pulses

Qubit detuning, ΔQubit detuning, Δ0 η

Qubit detuning, Δ0 η 0 η

0

16

32

486482

90 MHz

Coup

ling

, |g

|/2π (

MH

z)

15 ns rectangular pulses

10 ns... 10 ns...

15 ns... 15 ns...

20 ns... 20 ns...

CPHASE

0° 360°CP

HASE

iSW

AP-l

ike

0°

90°

iSW

AP-l

ike

0°

90°

iSW

AP-l

ike

0°

90°

CPHAS

E

0°

CPHASE

0° 360°

CPHAS

E

CPHAS

E

Leakage

1%0%

Conditional phase: ϕ (deg)

180°0°-180°

Swap angle: θ (deg)

0° 45° 90°

a

b

c

FIG. 6. Numeric simulation of a, 10 ns, b, 15 ns, and c, 20 ns rectangular control pulses showing the fSim parameter spacewhere leakage is less than 1% (white regions are where leakage exceeded this threshold). Experimentally we chose to performour CPHASE gate with 13 ns long pulses and the iSWAP-like gate with 11 ns control pulses (both of which had 1 ns pads oneither side)—as we found that shorter implementations of either gate increased leakage and the overall gate error. Here, thesenumerics demonstrate that for 10 ns long gates, the low-leakage lobe where we perform the CPHASE gate narrows considerablyand the |2〉 state Rabi interaction reaches the on-resonance iSWAP-like line cut near θ = 90◦, both of which agree with ourexperimental results.

B. Single-qubit coherence and gates

Qubit coherence, in conjunction with gate duration,places a lower bound on both our single and two-qubitgate error rates. In Figure 8 we characterize T1 for fourqubits over a frequency range of 5 to 6 GHz. To perform

this measurement we calibrate single-qubit gates, read-out, and flux bias frequency control for a given qubitidle frequency. We then excite the qubit to the |1〉 stateand detune the qubit to another frequency for a vari-able amount of time before detuning back to the idlefrequency for readout. For each detuned frequency, T1 is

10

0

16

32

486482

Coup

ling

, |g

|/2π (

MH

z)

20 ns cosine pulse

Qubit detuning, ΔQubit detuning, Δ0 η

Qubit detuning, Δ0 η 0 η

0

16

32

486482

Coup

ling

, |g

|/2π (

MH

z)

20 ns rectangular pulse w/ 3 ns smoothing 3 ns smoothing 3 ns smoothing

cosine cosine

Leakage

1%0%

Conditional phase: ϕ (deg)

180°0°-180°

Swap angle: θ (deg)

0° 45° 90°

20 ns rectangular pulses0

16

32

486482

Coup

ling

, |g

|/2π (

MH

z)

rectangular rectangular

iSW

AP-l

ike

0°

90°

0° 360°

CPHAS

E

CPHAS

E

a

b

c

iSW

AP-l

ike

0°

90°

iSW

AP-l

ike

0°

90°

CPHAS

E

CPHAS

E

0° 360°

CPHASE

CPHASE

0°

FIG. 7. Numeric simulation of a, a 20 ns rectangular coupler pulse, b, a 3 ns rise time rectangular pulse, and c, cosine couplerpulse showing the fSim parameter space where leakage is less than 1%. We observe that as the coupler pulses become moresmooth, the fSim parameters space where leakage is less than 1% expands considerably. This indicated that pulse shaping andor smoothing may play an important role in any future implementation of the fSim gate set that aims to implement the gateset with a single pulse.

extracted as an exponential decay of the population overtime, P |1〉 ∝ Ae−t/T1 +B, where A and B are fit param-eters to compensate for state preparation and measure-ment errors. We find T1 = 25.3 ± 7.3µs averaging datafrom all four qubits over a frequency range of 5− 6 GHz.Since fmax for the second qubit was anomalously low, weaveraged data for this qubit from 5− 5.61 GHz.

We use single-qubit purity [23] and Clifford-based ran-

domized benchmarking [25, 26] to characterize the av-erage error of our single-qubit gates. In Figure 9 wepresent representative results for a pair of qubits demon-strating purity-limited (incoherent error-limited) perfor-mance. These gate errors drift over time, but imme-diately following a successful run of our standard cali-bration procedure we typically observe single-qubit errorrates at or slightly higher than the 7.5× 10−4 level [27].

11

0

10

20

30

40T1

(s)

T1, avg = 27.6 ± 5.8 sq0_0

T1, avg = 25.5 ± 5.8 sq0_1

5.0 5.5 6.0Frequency (GHz)

0

10

20

30

40

T1 (

s)

T1, avg = 21.4 ± 8.5 sq0_2

5.0 5.5 6.0Frequency (GHz)

T1, avg = 26.5 ± 6.8 sq0_3

FIG. 8. Swap spectroscopy for four qubits from 5 to 6 GHzcharacterizing the qubit T1 as a function of qubit frequency.For all four qubits on this chip over the available frequenciesin the range of 5-6 GHz we find an average T1 = 25.3± 7.3µs.

8.25e-04

9.55e-04

4.90e-047.10e-04

FIG. 9. Representative single-qubit Clifford-based random-ized benchmarking results used to characterize the averageerror of our single-qubit gates. With a typical calibration,the single-qubit Pauli errors for both qubits are usually inthe range of 5 − 10 × 10−4. When computing the two-qubitgate error from the XEB per cycle error throughout this pa-per, we assume a moderately conservative error of 7.5× 10−4

per single-qubit gate.

TABLE I. Summary of the two-qubit unitary tomogra-phy measurement sequences. Here, {u11, u12, u22, u21} arethe complex matrix elements of the two-qubit unitary in[|01〉 , |10〉] subspace. The two additional measurements(u12,excited and u22,excited) are repeated measurements of u12

and u22 but with the other qubit placed into the excited state.This additional information is used to construct the condi-tional phase, φ.

Matrix element Initial state Measure qubitu11 (x, 0) 0u12 (0, x) 0u22 (0, x) 1u21 (x, 0) 1

u21,excited (1, x) 0u22,excited (1, x) 1

As such, we use this estimate in computing two-qubiterror rates throughout this paper. These error rates areconsistent with the coherence limit, for Tgate = 15 ns andT1 = 30µs, giving ep,inc ≈ 1.5×Tgate/3T1) = 2.5×10−4,with the remainder of the error coming from leakage andT2 [28].

C. Unitary tomography

Section II of the main text describes shallow circuitsused to characterize leakage and the two-qubit controlparameters, θ and φ. Here, we detail the procedure usedto directly measure all the non-zero matrix elements com-posing an arbitrary photon conserving unitary operationand the algebra used to convert these matrix elementsinto the five fSim control parameters (in Eq. 2). We usethe resulting fSim model to compute the XEB sequencefidelity which we may then use as a cost function to op-timize some, or all, of the fSim model parameters.

In order to efficiently characterize the unitary opera-tion performed by a given set of control pulses, we initial-ize and measure a set of circuits as summarized in TableI. If we consider a general photon conserving unitary thenon-zero matrix elements will take the form:

U =

|00〉 |01〉 |10〉 |11〉 1 0 0 00 u11 u12 00 u21 u22 00 0 0 u33

|00〉|01〉|10〉|11〉

(8)

Where unm denotes a non-zero element. We measuredunm by initializing excited qubit in the basis ket of col-umn m with an X/2 gate, and measuring the expectationvalue of σx + iσy of the excited qubit in the basis ket de-noted by row n. e.g. for u21 we initialize the left qubit,apply the fSim gate, and then measure σx + iσy of theright qubit—this is the complex value of u21. This proce-dure works for the single excitation subspace (e.g. n,min [1, 2]), but u33 is computed from repeated measure-ments of u12,excited and u22,excited where the previously

12

TABLE II. Computing fSim model parameters from the re-sults of our unitary tomography protocol. The “condition”column is present because we compute u33 = u22,excited/u

∗11

or u33 = u12,excited/u∗21 depending on if u11 or u21 is larger to

ensure the result is non-singular. ψ10 is the phase differenceaccumulated between the two qubits over the gate duration.fSim parameter Value condition

θ arctan(|u12|/|u11|) noneφ ∆+ − ∠(u12,excited × u21) |u21| > |u11|φ ∠(u22)− ∠(u22,excited) |u21| < |u11|

∆+ ∠(−u11 × u21) |u21| > |u11|∆+ ∠(u11 × u22) |u21| < |u11|∆− 2× ∠(u11)−∆+ none

∆−,off −2 (∠(−u12/ı) + ψ10) + ∆+ ψ10 = (ωq1− ωq0

) ∗ tgate

uninitialized qubit is instead placed into the |1〉 state assummarized in Table I. This procedure is similar to pro-cess tomography, but requires considerably fewer mea-surements to characterize the fSim matrix. We note thatan optimal measurement sequence would require only2n-1 circuits (for a n × n matrix) [29]. Even with sev-eral thousand repetitions of each circuit, characterizingthe matrix with this method takes only a few seconds.Our series of six circuits is intentionally over-complete toavoid singular behavior when some matrix elements aresmall. In table II we list the conversion matrix elementsto the five parameters of our fSim control model. Theseare useful measurements for building an fSim model, butwe cannot characterize small gate errors (≈ 10−3) usingthis method due to the limitations of state preparationand measurement (SPAM) errors which are a few per-cent.

D. Cross-entropy error benchmarking

Cross-entropy benchmarking (XEB) is a powerful tech-nique for characterizing the error of an arbitrary gate[15]. It is particularly useful when implementing non-Clifford gates like the continuous fSim gate set we usehere. XEB uses a repetitive gate sequence to amplifysmall errors where each cycle consists of a random single-qubit gate from the set {X/2, Y/2, ±X/2±Y/2} appliedto each qubit followed by the fSim gate we are bench-marking. We extract the error per cycle as an expo-nential decay in the XEB sequence fidelity, FXEB. Thesequence fidelity is computed using the cross-entropy be-tween two probability distributions P and Q, S(P,Q) =−∑i piln(qi), by comparing the expected, measured,

and incoherent probability distributions for a given gatesequence,

FXEB =S(Pincoherent, Pexpected)− S(Pmeasured, Pexpected)

S(Pincoherent, Pexpected)− S(Pexpected)(9)

The numerator is the difference between the measuredand expected cross-entropy and the denominator servesas a normalization so that FXEB takes a value from [0,1]. We then use 1−FXEB as a cost function to optimize

the five parameters of our fSim control model. For agiven random sequence, we compute the expected proba-bility distribution using perfect single-qubit gate modelsand the fSim model obtained from our unitary tomogra-phy experiment (supplement IX C). Since, the sequencefidelity is dependent on the single and two-qubit gatemodels used in the cross-entropy calculation, we can use1 − FXEB as a cost function to optimize some or all ofour fSim gate model parameters, a process termed ex situoptimization.

E. RB vs XEB

As a sanity check, one may ask that we compare theresult of Clifford based randomized benchmarking (RB)and cross-entropy benchmarking (XEB). Clifford basedRB requires an inversion gate, inverting a random gatesequence to map the total ideal gate sequence starting inthe |0〉 state back to |0〉. For most of the fSim gates, theinversion gate is non-trivial, but, for the special case of aCZφ = fSim(0◦, 180◦), which is part of the Clifford gateset, this comparison is possible.

In Figure 10a we perform single-qubit Clifford basedrandomized benchmarking (gate sequence inset), extract-ing average single-qubit Pauli errors ep,q1 = 0.7 × 10−3

and ep,q2 = 0.9 × 10−3. In Figure 10b we perform two-qubit Clifford based randomized benchmarking with andwithout an interleaved CZφ gate (sequences inset), ex-tracting a Pauli error per CZφ of 4.1 × 10−3. Then, inFigure 10c we use XEB to measure the per cycle errorof the CZφ + two single-qubit gates obtaining ep,cycle =5.7 × 10−3. If we then sum the Clifford based errors foreach SQ gate and the CZφ (0.7 + 0.9 + 4.1) × 10−3 =5.7 × 10−3 we find good agreement with the XEB errorper cycle ep,cycle = 5.9× 10−3.

F. Error budgeting

In this section, we use various techniques to provide amore thorough budget of our XEB per cycle errors. As wehave discussed, XEB measures the total error per cycle,ep,cycle. This includes coherent and incoherent errors forone single-qubit gate per qubit and one fSim gate. We usesingle-qubit Clifford-based randomized benchmarking tocharacterize the average total error for single-qubit gates,we use purity benchmarking to characterize incoherenterror of both the single-qubit and fSim gates, and we use|2〉 state readout in conjunction with XEB to character-ize per cycle leakage (which is included in the incoherenterror). Here we focus on the two-qubit gate errors byassuming purity-limited single-qubit Pauli gate errors of7.5 × 10−4 as described in supplement IX B—this effec-tively means we subtract 1.5×10−3 from ep,cycle to obtainep,2q for both error and purity measurements..

In Figure 11a we perform Purity benchmarking foreach XEB gate sequence and obtain an average Purity

13

( ) U-1q1d

0 1c1

( ) U-1q0d

0 1c1

( )( )q0

d

q1

c2 U-1

0 1

0 1

q0d

q1

c2 U-1C

Zϕ

0 1

0 1

( )q0d

q1

SQ

CZϕ

SQ

0 1

0 1

Single qubit errors:0.09% & 0.07%

CZ error:0.41%

XEB cycle error:0.59%

a

b

c

FIG. 10. Comparison of Clifford-based randomized bench-marking (RB) and cross-entropy benchmarking (XEB). a,Single-qubit Clifford based randomized benchmarking mea-suring average Pauli errors of 0.09% and 0.07% for each qubit.b, Two-qubit Clifford based randomized benchmarking with(blue) and without (red) an interleaved CZφ gate, allowingus to extract the Pauli error per CZ + φ of 0.41%. c, Two-qubit cross-entropy benchmarking where each cycle includestwo single-qubit gates and a CZφ gate yielding a Pauli errorper cycle of 0.59%. Here we find that the sum of the single andtwo-qubit errors measured with Clifford based RB (0.09% +0.07% + 0.41% = 0.57%) corresponds well to the XEB errorper cycle (0.59%).

of 3.76 × 10−3 per fSim gate. In Figure 11b we plotep,2q,unitary tomography, the Pauli error per fSim gate usingthe fSim gate model obtained from unitary tomography.The average ep,2q,unitary tomography is 5.07×10−3 indicat-ing a coherent error of 1.31×10−3 per fSim. In Figure 11cwe perform ex situ optimization of our fSim gate modelto reduce the coherent error by changing the three single-qubit detuning model parameters. We hold the values ofθ and φ fixed to the sampling grid, but allow the single-qubit phases in the fSim model to be optimized. Withthis improved gate model coherent error is nearly elim-inated. The average error ep,2q,ex situ is 3.83 × 10−3 re-

ducing the average coherent error to 7× 10−5 per gate.We characterize leakage by directly measuring the |2〉

state population as a function of the XEB sequencedepth. In Figure 12 we perform this measurement fora line cut of fSim control pulses that sweep the couplerbias on either side of the low-leakage bias used to per-form a CPHASE gate. We find leakage to be minimizedto a value of 5 − 6 × 10−4 for a range of coupler biasesspanning nearly 10 “clicks” of our 13-bit bipolar DAC(2/213 ≈ 0.0002).

In total, these metrics indicate that we have achievedincoherent-error-limited gates with fairly low leakage (ifnecessary, leakage may be reduced further by optimizingthe gate length). Additionally, we find that we are ableto perform the desired fSim(θ, φ) gate we want withoutincurring additional coherent error. A critical componentin achieving these results was eliminating the non-gate-like behaviors induced by long settling tails on our fluxbias pulses. As such, we will now detail the procedureused to calibrate our flux control pulses.

G. Unitary overlap

The unitary overlap of two unitary matrices, e.g. sometarget fSim, Utarget, and the actual fSim, Uactual, is de-fined as Tr(Utarget ·Uactual)/D, where D is the dimensionof the Hilbert space. The unitary overlap is related to thePauli error, ep = 1−(Tr(Utarget ·Uactual)/D)2. The Paulierror in an fSim gate for small deviations in either θ orφ is proportional to the square of the deviation angle. InFigure 13 we plot the additional coherent error incurred ifyou assume some actual fSimactual = fSim(θ+ δθ, φ+ δφ)is instead some target fSimtarget = fSim(θ, φ). This plotindicated that a deviation of either 2.5◦ in θ or 4◦ in φwith result in an additional coherent error of 1 × 10−3.In our case (Figure 11), after a constrained optimizationwhere θ and φ were fixed to a grid, our average errorwas approximately 1× 10−4 higher than the purity limitwhich corresponds to a deviation of about 1◦ in either θor φ.

X. CONTROL PULSE CALIBRATION

In a world without flux settling tails, we would be ableto implement an arbitrary fSim gate with a fidelity that isthe sum of the requisite CPHASE and iSWAP-like gatesby just merging the control pulses into a composite fSimgate. Unfortunately, due to flux settling tails, further cal-ibration, described in X C, was required. The keystonesof this calibration were two-fold: 1) When performingtwo flux control based gates back to back (e.g. 2 ns sep-aration), adjust the amplitude of the second pulse basedon the first. 2)When implementing a composite gate, per-form a CPHASE gate followed by the iSWAP-like gateso that bleed through is well behaved; in the reverse or-der, bleed through of the iSWAP-like coupler pulse into

14

a b c

FIG. 11. Comparison of purity benchmarking and cross-entropy benchmarking with and without a constrained ex situ opti-mization of the fSim control angles. a, Purity benchmarking. b, XEB error per gate using the fSim gate model obtained fromunitary tomography (supplement IX C). c. XEB error after a constrained ex situ optimization of the fSim gate parameterswhere θ and φ were held fixed to the grid and the single-qubit phases were optimized.

the CPHASE gate pulses will result in leakage to the |2〉state which is an error in the fSim model. Using thesetwo principles, we were able to implement a robust cali-bration of the complete fSim gate set.

As we have demonstrated numerically in supplementVIII, our desired implementation of the fSim gate setis possible with less than 1% error using simple rectan-gular control pulses. Unfortunately, the system transferfunction (electronics and wiring) is imperfect and can-not produce these ideal waveforms exactly. Fortunately,as explored numerically in Figure 7, our fSim implemen-tation is mostly sensitive to the integral of our controlpulses rather than the shape. This likely remains trueunless the spectral content of our flux control pulses ap-proaches the qubit frequency. However, we must be verycareful to ensure our control pulses do not bleed into eachother which requires careful calibration of our flux bias

settling tails.

We can consider settling non-idealities at two timescales: 1) pulse distortion during the duration of a gate(roughly 15 ns), and 2) pulse settling that occurs after theintended gate duration. Distortion at short times may,for instance, make it difficult to place the qubits exactlyon resonance during a gate—this may make it difficultto achieve a swap angle, θ, of 90◦ swap amplitude (Rabioscillation amplitude = g2/(g2 + π∆2/2) = 1 if and onlyif the qubits are on resonance), but fortunately these dis-tortions do not have a huge impact on the rest of the fSimparameter space. Due to the periodic nature of Rabi os-cillations the resulting fSim is mostly dependent on theintegral of the control pulses. Pulse settling that occursoutside the intended gate interval means that adjacentgates will bleed in to each other. If the tails are relativelyshort (a few ns), it is possible to mitigate this error just

15

10 4

10 3

10 2

Erro

r or l

eaka

ge p

er c

ycle

total errorleakage

0

50

100

150

200

Cond

ition

al p

hase

,

0.116 0.115 0.114 0.113 0.112 0.111Coupler bias (arb)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Swap

ang

le,

(deg

)

FIG. 12. Plot of leakage and total XEB error per cycle fora 13 ns CPHASE gate as a function of the coupler bias. Theincrement on the x-axis is twice the minimum increment of ourDAC (2/214, e.g. a 14-bit bipolar DAC ≈ 0.0002). In this casewe find that leakage reaches a minimum of 5− 6× 10−4 for arange of coupler amplitudes approximately 10x our minimumDAC adjustment.

by placing a short idle time between gates. Pulse set-tling at longer times is particularly nefarious because itbecomes no longer feasible to pad gates with idle timesand setting times of 5-1000+ ns have been observed in su-perconducting qubit systems. If left uncompensated, theperformance of the mth 15 ns long gate would be depen-dent on the preceding 1-60+ gates. This runs contrary tothe entire notion of gate-based local operations and cer-tainly would not fit within our static fSim control modelused with XEB. As such, it is this long-time settling inparticular that requires a careful calibration to enablethe sensible control strategy employed throughout thisletter.

The full fSim gate calibration happens in three stages.In the first stage, we calibrate the electronics to eliminatethe long-time settling flux settling. In the second stage,we describe the calibration procedure for the CPHASE

FIG. 13. We may choose to interpret some fSimactual =fSim(θ+δθ, φ+δφ) as some fSimtarget = fSim(θ, φ), by accept-ing additional coherent error. For small deviations in either θor φ the error is proportional to the square of the deviation.

and iSWAP-like gate sets. Then, for the fSim gate fam-ily, we perform further calibrations of the composite fSimgates to achieve the best possible gate performance by ad-justing the control amplitude of the second pulse depen-dent on the first rather than adding longer buffer timesbetween flux pulses.

A. Electronics calibration

On this device there are a total of seven flux bias lines,four for the qubits and three for the couplers. Each chan-nel is driven by a dedicated 1 GS/s, 14-bit DAC con-trolled by an FPGA to form an arbitrary waveform gen-erator. Each line uses nominally identical cabling, atten-uation, and filtering from room temperature down to thesample’s chip mount. To compensate for non-idealitiesin each line, we first measure the qubit’s response to aflux pulse, fit the response using three exponential decaytime constants, and then use this model to pre-distort ourcontrol pulses as in previous work [19, 30]. This allowsus to directly measure and compensate for the transferfunction of each qubit’s flux bias wiring. Implementinga similar in situ calibration of the coupler bias lines isthe subject of on-going work. For now, we have found itsufficient to simply apply the average of the two adjacentqubit settling models to the coupler. The pulse calibra-tion parameters for the pair of qubits and the couplerused to benchmark the fSim gate set are summarized inTable III.

After performing the electronics calibration we find theunitary gate interactions of our fSim gates to be wellcharacterized by either unitary tomography, performedwith a depth-1 circuit, or cross-entropy bench-marking

16

TABLE III. Summary of the settling parameters for twoqubits. The average of the settling compensation for thesetwo qubits was applied to the coupler.

α1 (%) τ1 (ns) α2 (%) τ2 (ns) α3 (%) τ3 (ns)q2 -0.46 858 -1.00 104 -4.94 10q3 -0.61 996 -0.82 94 -5.97 9

coupler (avg q2 & q3) -0.53 927 -0.91 99 -5.45 10

using a depth N circuit where N varies from 5 to 700.This fact is illustrated by Figure 11 panels b and c wherethe difference in the average error of all 525 fSim gatesdiffers by only 1.2×10−3 with and without optimizing thesingle-qubit unitary parameters—this provides an upperbound on the effects of pulse bleed through on gate fi-delity. If we consider the gate timing of the cross-entropybenchmarking sequence in Figure 11, which used 28 nsfSim gates interleaved with 15 ns single-qubit gates, thisresult indicates that our settling is well compensated forat times longer than 15 ns. This result also indicates thatthe qubit biases are settled enough to have a minimalimpact on the single-qubit gate errors. If this were notthe case then we would require a circuit-depth-dependentgate model to reach the purity limit. However, the set-tling of the coupler bias flux signal at times less than 15 nsbecomes non-negligible and merits special considerationwhen calibrating fSim gates composed of a CPHASE gatein close proximity to an iSWAP-like gate. So, we will firstdetail the calibration procedure for each of the compo-nent gate families in the next section and finish our cal-ibration discussion with a description of composite fSimcalibration procedure.

B. CPHASE and iSWAP-like calibrations

We calibrate the CPHASE interaction by repeating theleakage experiment described in Figure 2a to fine tune thecoupler bias amplitudes and to identify combinations ofqubit detunings, ∆, and corresponding coupler bias am-plitudes that yield low-leakage gates. We use the qubitfrequency bias transfer function to choose qubit biasesthat set the desired qubit detuning, ∆ in the vicinity ofη. The frequency range around η is set by the width ofthe Rabi interaction which, for a fixed pulse length, isinversely proportional to gate length since shorter gatesrequire stronger coupling, g (see Figure 6 in supplementVIII). We use 15 ns pulses (13 ns rectangular pulses witha 1 ns padding on either side) which makes the Rabi in-teraction span about 75 MHz on either side of the qubitnonlinearity, η. For each detuning in this range, we re-peat the experiment in Figure 2a varying the couplingstrength to minimize leakage. An example of the rawdata from this experiment is provided in Figure 14 wherethe dotted line indicates the low-leakage coupler bias am-plitude that achieves one full swap from |11〉 to |02〉 andback. We initialize the |11〉 state, apply the CPHASEcontrol pulses, and measure the |1〉 state population ofthe lower frequency qubit to identify when the popula-

0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2amp_c

0.0

0.5

1.0

q 0: P

roba

bilit

y |1

>

amp_q0: 0.0001amp_q1: 0.0477

Scanning over amp_c

q0: P |1Updated s_amp_c: -0.1323

FIG. 14. CPHASE gate calibration scan. We use the pre-calibrated bias-to-qubit frequency function to choose a desiredqubit-qubit detuning and then sweep the amplitude of thecoupler bias, ampc to identify the amplitude that completesa diabatic |11〉 ↔ |02〉 swap indicated by the dotted verticalline.

tion has completed a full swap. Then, for each combi-nation of ∆ and the corresponding low-leakage couplerbias we repeat the experiment from Figure 2b to mea-sure the conditional phase. This procedure works wellfor φ : [−130◦, 130◦] until the Rabi swap amplitude be-comes small and the peak is broad along the couplingstrength line-cut. At that point, we extrapolate towardsthe zero coupling bias while measuring the conditionalphase to fill out the rest of the conditional phase controlspace.

In Figure 15 we calibrate a 13 ns iSWAP-like gate(11 ns rectangular pulses, with 1 ns padding) by repeat-ing the experiment from Figure 2c three times withthe qubits on resonance (∆ = 0 MHz) to fine-tune thepulse amplitudes needed to reach θ = 90◦. Then, for0◦ < θ < 90◦ we simply interpolate the coupler bias be-tween the “OFF” bias and the θ = 90◦ bias. For eachiSWAP-like tune up experiment we initialize one qubit tothe |1〉 state, apply the iSWAP-like pulses to the qubitsand coupler, and then measure the |1〉 state populationof the other qubit. In Figure 15a, we first use our pre-calibrated qubit frequency bias DC transfer functions tochoose qubit bias amplitudes, amp q0 and amp q1, thatplace both qubits at the same frequency, and we sweepthe coupler bias from the “OFF” bias to the maximumcoupling bias to identify the amplitude that achieves ex-actly one a swap from the first to the second qubit corre-sponding to θ = 90◦ (dotted line). In Figure 15b, we re-peat the experiment using the θ = 90◦ coupler bias from15a while sweeping the bias of one qubit to maximizethe amplitude of the swapped population, thus placingthe qubits on resonance. Finally, in 15c, we repeat theexperiment using the new qubit biases to fine-tune thecoupler bias.

17

a

b

c

FIG. 15. iSWAP-like gate calibration for θ = 90◦ performedin three steps. In each experiment we initialize the |01〉 stateand measure the population of the first qubit to identify thecontrol biases to complete a full swap to |10〉 a, We use priorcalibrations to bias the qubits on-resonance and scan the cou-pler bias amplitude, amp c, to find the bias that completesone swap. b, Using the new amp c, we scan the bias of onequbit, amp q, to place them on resonance. c, Using the up-dated qubit biases, we again scan amp c to find tune thecoupler bias.

C. fSim calibration

Once we have calibrated the iSWAP-like and CPHASEgates, we should nominally be able to use one of each toimplement any fSim gate. Unfortunately our pulse re-sponse is imperfect at short times, as described in sup-plement X A. This was less of an issue for the iSWAP-likeand CPHASE gates in section IV because the XEB gatesequence alternated (10 ns) single and (13 ns or 15 ns)two-qubit gates; in those cases, the uncompensated fluxbias settling tails resulted in a small detuning at the qubitidle frequencies. However, when we perform an fSim gateas a composition of a CPHASE followed immediately by

an iSWAP-like gate, the tail of the first coupler pulsebleeds into the second coupler pulse. Even a small set-tling tail adding to the amplitude of the coupler pulsecan drastically change the coupling during the secondgate due to the large coupler flux sensitivity at strongcouplings (remembering Figure 1c). In the future, thisproblem may be mitigated by identifying and removingthe physical origin of these settling tails, with a morethorough in situ calibration procedure for the couplers,or by placing longer idle times between gates.

In this work, we deal with pulse bleed through by cali-brating composite fSim gates where the amplitudes of thesecond set of pulses in the composite fSim sequence is de-pendent on the first, thus eliminating the need for exces-sive idle times between gates. Conveniently, the tune upprocedure for each gate in the composition is the same asin the isolated iSWAP-like or CPHASE case, just withthe two sets of pulses played back-to-back—this worksbecause each experiment in our usual bring-up procedureoperates within an isolated manifold (e.g. one excita-tion for θ or two excitations for φ) when performing fSimgates. The ordering of the gates within the fSim gate ischosen to place the CPHASE gate before the iSWAP-likegate. Since both coupler pulses have the same sign, if theCPHASE coupler amplitude bleeds into the iSWAP-likecoupler amplitude, this results in slightly more swappingwhich is easily measured and adjusted for by reducing theiSWAP-like coupler amplitude to compensate. If we or-dered the gates in the reverse order, pulse bleed throughwould generate leakage during the CPHASE gate whichis much more difficult to characterize and remove.

For the purpose of building a robust registry of gates,we erred on the side of over-calibration for this demon-stration. However, we find these control parameters tobe well behaved and it should be possible to samplemore sparsely in the future to simplify calibration of thefull fSim gate set. Figure 16 outlines the three stepsused to calibrate our composite fSim gates. In Figure16a, we first calibrate many CPHASE gates spaced ev-ery 1◦ using control pulses for just the CPHASE gate asshown on the right following the procedure outlined insupplement X B. Then, in Figure 16b, for each preced-ing CPHASE gate we follow the iSWAP-like calibrationprocedure (also supplement X B) to identify qubit andcoupler bias amplitudes to achieve both a θ = 0◦ and90◦ gate. Finally, in Figure 16c, for a CPHASE condi-tional phase, φCPHASE = 180◦ we tune up iSWAP-likegates for θ from 0◦ to 90◦ in 1◦ increments by inter-polating between the min and maximum amplitudes de-termined in 16b. We use this calibration to produce aspline for θiSWAP−like → %(bias90◦ − bias0◦) and anotherfor θiSWAP−like → φiSWAP−like.

With the fSim gate registry in hand we set out tobenchmark specific fSim gates. For a given target fSim,we first look up the iSWAP-like pulse amplitudes thatachieve the correct swap angle θiSWAP−like, and subtractthe conditional phase due to the iSWAP-like gate fromthe total target to choose pulse amplitudes for the desired

18

q0:|1⟩

q1:|1⟩

coupler

13 ns

15 ns

CPHASE:fSim(θCPHASE≈0⚬,ϕCPHASE)

Amplow-leak

Vary Δ

q0:|1⟩

q1:|1⟩

coupler

13 ns

15 ns

CPHASE:fSim(≈0⚬,ϕCPHASE)

Amplow-leak

11 ns

13 ns

iSWAP-like:fSim(0⚬& 90⚬,ϕiSWAP-like)

find bias for Δ = 0 MHz

θfSim=90⚬ θfSim=0⚬

q0

q1

13 ns

15 ns

CPHASE:fSim(≈0⚬,180⚬)

Amplow-leak

Δ for ϕCPHASE=180⚬

11 ns

13 ns

iSWAP-like:fSim(θiSWAP-like,ϕiSWAP-like)

Δ = 0 MHz

couplerInterpolating amp

a

b

c

Vary Δ

FIG. 16. Three steps to calibrating the fSim gate to account for pulse distortion of the first (CPHASE) pulses bleeding intothe second (iSWAP-like) pulses. a, Follow the usual CPHASE calibration procedure to bring-up a full CPHASE gate familycorresponding to fSim(θ ≈ 0◦, φ : [0◦, 360◦]). b, Follow the iSWAP-like tune up procedure, but play the CPHASE controlpulses before the iSWAP-like pulses. Use the sequence to identify the flux bias amplitudes that achieve fSim gates with θ = 0◦

and θ = 90◦ for each proceeding CPHASE gate. c, for a preceding CPHASE gate with φ = 180◦, bring up gates correspondingto fSim(θ : [0◦, 90◦], φ = 180◦).

CPHASE gate (e.g. φCPHASE = φtarget − φiSWAP−like).We then performed unitary tomography (supplementIX C) using the pulse amplitudes we looked up in the reg-istry to quickly assess the resulting fSim control angles ofthe composite gate. If either control angle is off by morethan 1◦, we used the registry to adjust the correspond-ing iSWAP-like (θ) or CPHASE (φ) control amplitudesby ±1◦ accordingly. This process converged to an fSimgate within 1◦ of both θtarget and φtarget for the tar-get fSim with fewer than 9 adjustments for each of the525 fSim gates we benchmarked. Once the unitary to-mography experiment indicated the composite fSim gateproduced a unitary operation near the target fSim gate,we performed purity and cross-entropy benchmarking.

XI. SYSTEM STABILITY

As the size of quantum processors grows (number ofqubits), so too does the time it takes to calibrate a de-vice (at least until fully parallel calibrations are possible).As the system drifts from these calibrations over time,the performance of a processor will fall and calibrationsmust be revisited. If the required calibration time is longcompared to the scale of drift, then the device becomesunusable in practice. While electronics drift with bothtime and temperature must be considered when designinga system, one particularly worrisome issue is the time de-pendence of two level system (TLS) defects entering andleaving the qubit spectrum [22].

Here we present a promising snapshot of the stabil-ity of our system. In the process of calibrating the fSim

19

gate set, we started by calibrating the single-qubit gatesand readout. We then operated with the same single-qubit calibrations for several days while we were work-ing on the fSim gate ultimately obtaining our primaryfSim benchmarking dataset about a week after the ini-tial single-qubit calibration. Shortly after this, a TLSshowed up near one of the qubit’s idle frequencies signif-icantly limiting its coherence. Then, after about anotherweek, we returned to the original calibration parametersto benchmark a subset of the same fSim(θ, φ) gates pre-sented in the main text. We were pleasantly surprised tofind that the original calibration was still good enoughto produce high-fidelity gates.

In Figure 17 we used the two-week-old iSWAP-like andCPHASE calibrations to benchmark a less dense grid offSim gates. While the average performance has degradedby a factor of two from the initial calibration, the aver-age error is still less than 1%, but that is not the whole

story. These fSim gates were benchmarked in a randomorder—if we look at a plot of the gate error as a func-tion of time for these 91 (figure 17b), we see a strongtime dependence where the first 50 gates (benchmarkedover the course of an hour) have an average error muchlower than gates #50 to #80. This would seem to in-dicated that the two-week-old electronics calibration isstable enough to maintain high-fidelity gates for weeks,and that the decreased fidelity is likely due to the residualand/or intermittent presence of a TLS interacting withone of the qubits. In an ideal world, we would be able toprevent or remove TLS defects, but, at least presently,we do not know how to do this. Instead, relying on thestability of our electronics, an optimal strategy for main-taining up-time on a large-scale quantum processor willlikely involve calibrating a number of idle frequency con-figurations and being able to quickly vet and switch toan old configuration if and when a TLS shows up.

20

a b c

FIG. 17. Snapshot of system stability. A few days after taking the data in Figure 4, a TLS showed up at one of the qubit idlefrequencies effectively breaking the calibration. After about another week, we returned to the original calibration and repeatedthe fidelity measurement on a subset of 91 fSim gates which we present here (top and middle rows). We find that the averagegate fidelity had decreased somewhat, but is still above 99%. Furthermore, if we look at the gate error rates sorted in the orderthey were measured (bottom row), a strong time-dependence becomes apparent. Many of the gates presenting low errors(≈ 5× 10−3) as they did after the initial calibration. It is not until gates numbered 60 to 80 or so where large errors show up.This indicates that our control electronics are stable enough to maintain a high-fidelity calibration on the timescale of weeks,and that TLSs are likely the biggest threat to maintaining long term calibrations.