Pulse-level simulators are the lowest-level, most widely used abstraction layer for studying how quantum hardware responds to control signals, but they can be built on Hamiltonian models with very different fidelity and cost. This raises the question: which level of physical abstraction is sufficient for a given simulation objective? We study this question for a flux-tunable two-qubit superconducting device with a fixed bus coupler by comparing three Hamiltonian descriptions of the same hardware: an effective two-level model, a three-mode Duffing model, and a circuit-based transmon model in the charge basis. Using a realistic parameter set, we evaluate these models on a common benchmark suite spanning flux-dependent spectra, extracted two-qubit interaction terms, driven single-qubit dynamics, CZ gate dynamics, leakage outside the computational subspace, and runtime. Across the tested flux range, the Duffing model follows the circuit-based reference more closely than the effective model for static spectra and reduced two-qubit quantities, while in driven benchmarks, the multilevel models reveal effects absent in the effective description. Overall, the results support a layered use of abstraction in pulse-level simulation: effective models for reduced analyses, Duffing models as a practical multilevel default, and circuit-based models for high-fidelity reference simulation or detailed leakage analysis.
Pulse-level simulators are the lowest-level, most widely used abstraction layer for studying how quantum hardware responds to control signals, but they can be built on Hamiltonian models with very different fidelity and cost. This raises the question: which level of physical abstraction is sufficient for a given simulation objective? We study this question for a flux-tunable two-qubit superconducting device with a fixed bus coupler by comparing three Hamiltonian descriptions of the same hardware: an effective two-level model, a three-mode Duffing model, and a circuit-based transmon model in the charge basis. Using a realistic parameter set, we evaluate these models on a common benchmark suite spanning flux-dependent spectra, extracted two-qubit interaction terms, driven single-qubit dynamics, CZ gate dynamics, leakage outside the computational subspace, and runtime. Across the tested flux range, the Duffing model follows the circuit-based reference more closely than the effective model for static spectra and reduced two-qubit quantities, while in driven benchmarks, the multilevel models reveal effects absent in the effective description. Overall, the results support a layered use of abstraction in pulse-level simulation: effective models for reduced analyses, Duffing models as a practical multilevel default, and circuit-based models for high-fidelity reference simulation or detailed leakage analysis.
Pulse-level simulators are the lowest-level, most widely used abstraction layer for studying how quantum hardware responds to control signals, but they can be built on Hamiltonian models with very different fidelity and cost. This raises the question: which level of physical abstraction is sufficient for a given simulation objective? We study this question for a flux-tunable two-qubit superconducting device with a fixed bus coupler by comparing three Hamiltonian descriptions of the same hardware: an effective two-level model, a three-mode Duffing model, and a circuit-based transmon model in the charge basis. Using a realistic parameter set, we evaluate these models on a common benchmark suite spanning flux-dependent spectra, extracted two-qubit interaction terms, driven single-qubit dynamics, CZ gate dynamics, leakage outside the computational subspace, and runtime. Across the tested flux range, the Duffing model follows the circuit-based reference more closely than the effective model for static spectra and reduced two-qubit quantities, while in driven benchmarks, the multilevel models reveal effects absent in the effective description. Overall, the results support a layered use of abstraction in pulse-level simulation: effective models for reduced analyses, Duffing models as a practical multilevel default, and circuit-based models for high-fidelity reference simulation or detailed leakage analysis.
High-fidelity quantum control relies on accurate models of driven dynamics. We examine this re- quirement for single-qubit gates in superconducting transmons by comparing control pulses derived from the standard Duffing approximation and from a Hamiltonian constructed by diagonalizing the transmon eigenbasis. Using the same correction-pulse construction for both models, we show that correction fields derived from the Duffing approximation can substantially reduce the gate error pre- dicted by that model while remaining less effective when combined with an independently calibrated baseline pulse in the diagonalized-transmon model. In the fast-gate regime, such transferred correc- tions can even fail to improve over the uncorrected diagonalized-transmon baseline. We show that small model-dependent differences in both the energy spectrum and the representation of the drive operator can compound during driven evolution, resulting in different predicted error generators and correction pulses. A mismatch in the accumulated AC Stark phase provides one illustrative di- agnostic of this dynamical model dependence. We further demonstrate that the model Hamiltonian informs the choice of control framework: Omitting relevant leakage pathways or higher-order error channels can lead to an overly restricted correction strategy. Including these channels motivates an extended correction framework that improves the gate performance using the same physical control resources.
The main source of error for superconducting quantum processors today is two-qubit gates, so understanding what limits their fidelity is central to improving these devices. This thesis studies the controlled-Z (CZ) gate between two transmon qubits, realized by tuning the ∣11⟩ and ∣20⟩ states through an avoided crossing with a flux pulse. There are two primary errors inherent to this approach. The first is leakage into non-computational states like ∣20⟩; the second is an exchange error from population transferring between the single-excitation states ∣01⟩ and ∣10⟩. Using a closed-system simulation, this work compares four flux-pulse shapes (unipolar, net-zero bipolar, Gaussian-filtered bipolar, and adiabatic) and constructs a CNOT from each CZ. The central question is which error channel sets the gate fidelity, and whether the widely used net-zero pulse, known to protect neighboring qubits, also helps inside the gate itself. An important finding of this research is that every type of flux pulse has an average gate fidelity limited by exchange error rather than leakage. While the exchange error is not apparent in the return of the ∣11⟩ population, because excitation-number conservation prevents ∣11⟩ from entering the single-excitation sector, it does appear as an off-diagonal term in the CZ unitary, and subsequently in the CNOT. A second finding concerns the net-zero pulse: although its zero net flux integral cancels the first-order phase imprinted on neighboring qubits, it does not suppress the exchange error. The strong suppression observed in the analytic bipolar gate happens because its idle time leaves the exchange oscillation near a cancellation point at the end of the gate, not because the pulse is net-zero. The flux operating point predicted by the simulation was tested on a physical transmon device accessed remotely, where a square pulse produced a 180∘ conditional phase close to the simulated flux and duration. Because the model is closed-system, the reported fidelities describe the coherent error of each pulse rather than the total infidelity of a physical device.
Logic gates in superconducting quantum processors are implemented through precisely shaped microwave pulses, whose durations are constrained by both device coherence and the multilevel structure of artificial atoms. While single-qubit fidelities above 0.999 are routinely achieved, the physical execution time of these gates remains a major bottleneck for deep quantum circuits. Here we examine single-qubit control across adiabatic [where the rotating-wave approximation (RWA) is valid], intermediate, and diabatic driving regimes using both an ideal two-level model and a realistic weakly anharmonic transmon Hamiltonian. By sweeping pulse durations and drive strengths over experimentally relevant ranges, we compare performance trade-offs and identify the conditions under which ultrashort gates remain viable. Our simulations uncover a quantitative speed-limit mechanism intrinsic to weakly anharmonic superconducting qubits: leakage to higher levels rises sharply once the peak Rabi rate exceeds a fixed fraction of the anharmonicity. Across all pulse shapes and driving regimes studied, we find a consistent numerical threshold at Ω max /|Δ|≈0.15−0.20, where Ω max denotes the peak drive (Rabi) amplitude and Δ is the transmon anharmonicity. Beyond this ratio, gate fidelity deteriorates regardless of waveform engineering. This boundary, obtained from full multilevel time-domain simulations spanning adiabatic, intermediate, and diabatic regimes, constitutes a previously unreported characterization of the fundamental leakage barrier in transmon devices. Our results, therefore, provide the first unified quantitative map linking pulse duration, driving strength, and anharmonicity, establishing why realistic superconducting qubits cannot sustain picosecond-scale gates despite ideal two-level predictions, and offering a practical benchmark for next-generation architectures seeking shorter, high-fidelity control.
Simulations and analytical calculations that aim to describe flux-tunable transmons are usually based on effective models of the corresponding lumped-element model. However, when a control pulse is applied, in most cases it is not known how much the predictions made with the effective models deviate from the predictions made with the original lumped-element model. In this work we compare the numerical solutions of the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation for both the effective and the lumped-element models, for microwave and unimodal control pulses (external fluxes). These control pulses are used to model single-qubit (X) and two-qubit gate (iswap and cz) transitions. First, we derive a nonadiabatic effective Hamiltonian for a single flux-tunable transmon and compare the pulse response of this model to the one of the corresponding circuit Hamiltonian. Here we find that both models predict similar outcomes for similar control pulses. Then, we study how different approximations affect single-qubit (X) and two-qubit gate (iswap and cz) transitions in two different two-qubit systems. For this purpose we consider three different systems in total: a single flux-tunable transmon and two two-qubit systems. In summary, we find that a series of commonly applied approximations (individually and/or in combination) can change the response of a system substantially, when a control pulse is applied.
High-fidelity control of superconducting qubits requires carefully shaped microwave pulses to avoid several different kinds of error at once. This article is a pedagogical bridging text aimed at upper-level undergraduate and early graduate students who have completed an introductory quantum mechanics course and a first course in quantum computing or quantum information, but who have not yet encountered the physical implementation of qubit gates. We integrate physical intuition for pulse design, analytical gate-level descriptions, and practical hardware considerations into a single, derivation-driven narrative, with explicit learning objectives. We begin with simple pulse envelopes and their spectral properties, showing how finite bandwidth produces leakage outside the computational subspace. This motivates the derivative removal by adiabatic gate (DRAG) technique, which we derive explicitly using the Magnus expansion, obtaining a clear, order-by-order account of which physical error channel appears at which order and why DRAG's cancellation is necessarily incomplete. We discuss the practical hardware realities of control pulse generation, focusing on arbitrary waveform generators (AWG), local oscillators (LO), and IQ mixing. Finally, we extend the discussion to two-qubit operation via the cross-resonance gate, and interpret how driving the control qubit at the target qubit's transition frequency necessarily produces several unwanted interaction terms alongside the desired one, and how successive generations of pulse-engineering strategies have been designed to suppress them.