- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Entanglement dynamics and performance of two-qubit gates for superconducting qubits under non-Markovian effects

Kiyoto Nakamura* and Joachim Ankerhold

  • Institute for Complex Quantum Systems and IQST, Ulm University, D-89069 Ulm, Germany

  • *Contact author: kiyoto.nakamura@uni-ulm.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013337 – Published 27 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/b5jp-s6t2

Abstract

Within a numerically exact simulation technique, the dissipative dynamics of a two-qubit architecture is considered in which each qubit couples to its individual noise source (reservoir). The goal is to reveal the role of subtle qubit-reservoir correlations including non-Markovian processes as a prerequisite to guide further improvements of quantum computing devices. This paper addresses the following three topics. First, we examine the validity of the rotating wave approximation imposed previously on the qubit-reservoir coupling with respect to the disentanglement dynamics. Second, generation of the entanglement as well as destruction are analyzed by monitoring the reduced dynamics during and after application of a iSWAP† gate, also focusing on memory effects caused by reservoirs. Finally, the performance of a Hadamard+CNOT sequence is analyzed for different gate decomposition schemes. In all three cases, various types of noise sources and qubit parameters are considered.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (89)

  1. A. P. M. Place, L. V. H. Rodgers, P. Mundada, B. M. Smitham, M. Fitzpatrick, Z. Leng, A. Premkumar, J. Bryon, A. Vrajitoarea, S. Sussman, et al., New material platform for superconducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds, Nat. Commun. 12, 1779 (2021).
  2. C. Wang, X. Li, H. Xu, Z. Li, J. Wang, Z. Yang, Z. Mi, X. Liang, T. Su, C. Yang, et al., Towards practical quantum computers: Transmon qubit with a lifetime approaching 0.5 milliseconds, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 3 (2022).
  3. F. Wang, K. Lu, H. Zhan, L. Ma, F. Wu, H. Sun, H. Deng, Y. Bai, F. Bao, X. Chang, et al., High-coherence fluxonium qubits manufactured with a wafer-scale-uniformity process, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 044064 (2025).
  4. M. Tuokkola, Y. Sunada, H. Kivijärvi, J. Albanese, L. Grönberg, J.-P. Kaikkonen, V. Vesterinen, J. Govenius, and M. Möttönen, Methods to achieve near-millisecond energy relaxation and dephasing times for a superconducting transmon qubit, Nat. Commun. 16, 5421 (2025).
  5. V. Negîrneac, H. Ali, N. Muthusubramanian, F. Battistel, R. Sagastizabal, M. S. Moreira, J. F. Marques, W. J. Vlothuizen, M. Beekman, C. Zachariadis, et al., High-fidelity controlled-Z gate with maximal intermediate leakage operating at the speed limit in a superconducting quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 220502 (2021).
  6. Y. Sung, L. Ding, J. Braumüller, A. Vepsäläinen, B. Kannan, M. Kjaergaard, A. Greene, G. O. Samach, C. McNally, D. Kim, et al., Realization of high-fidelity CZ and ZZ-free iswap gates with a tunable coupler, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021058 (2021).
  7. A. Kandala, K. X. Wei, S. Srinivasan, E. Magesan, S. Carnevale, G. A. Keefe, D. Klaus, O. Dial, and D. C. McKay, Demonstration of a high-fidelity cnot gate for fixed-frequency transmons with engineered ZZ suppression, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 130501 (2021).
  8. R. Li, K. Kubo, Y. Ho, Z. Yan, Y. Nakamura, and H. Goto, Realization of high-fidelity CZ gate based on a double-transmon coupler, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041050 (2024).
  9. C. Wang, F.-M. Liu, H. Chen, Y.-F. Du, C. Ying, J.-W. Wang, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, M.-C. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Longitudinal and nonlinear coupling for high-fidelity readout of a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 060803 (2025).
  10. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  11. Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature (London) 614, 676 (2023).
  12. Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, et al., Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature (London) 618, 500 (2023).
  13. V. Havlíček, A. D. Córcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature (London) 567, 209 (2019).
  14. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017).
  15. M. Rossmannek, F. Pavošević, A. Rubio, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum embedding method for the simulation of strongly correlated systems on quantum computers, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14, 3491 (2023).
  16. M. Willsch, D. Willsch, F. Jin, H. De Raedt, and K. Michielsen, Benchmarking the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum Inf. Process. 19, 197 (2020).
  17. G. García-Pérez, M. A. C. Rossi, and S. Maniscalco, IBM Q Experience as a versatile experimental testbed for simulating open quantum systems, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 1 (2020).
  18. X. Dan, E. Geva, and V. S. Batista, Simulating non-Markovian quantum dynamics on NISQ computers using the hierarchical equations of motion, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 21, 1530 (2025).
  19. G. Ithier, E. Collin, P. Joyez, P. J. Meeson, D. Vion, D. Esteve, F. Chiarello, A. Shnirman, Y. Makhlin, J. Schriefl, et al., Decoherence in a superconducting quantum bit circuit, Phys. Rev. B 72, 134519 (2005).
  20. D. Ristè, C. C. Bultink, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, K. W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, Millisecond charge-parity fluctuations and induced decoherence in a superconducting transmon qubit, Nat. Commun. 4, 1913 (2013).
  21. L. Cardani, F. Valenti, N. Casali, G. Catelani, T. Charpentier, M. Clemenza, I. Colantoni, A. Cruciani, G. D’Imperio, L. Gironi, et al., Reducing the impact of radioactivity on quantum circuits in a deep-underground facility, Nat. Commun. 12, 2733 (2021).
  22. X. Pan, Y. Zhou, H. Yuan, L. Nie, W. Wei, L. Zhang, J. Li, S. Liu, Z. H. Jiang, G. Catelani, et al., Engineering superconducting qubits to reduce quasiparticles and charge noise, Nat. Commun. 13, 7196 (2022).
  23. J. Tuorila, J. Stockburger, T. Ala-Nissila, J. Ankerhold, and M. Möttönen, System-environment correlations in qubit initialization and control, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 013004 (2019).
  24. A. P. Babu, J. Tuorila, and T. Ala-Nissila, State leakage during fast decay and control of a superconducting transmon qubit, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 30 (2021).
  25. M. Papič, A. Auer, and I. de Vega, Fast estimation of physical error contributions of quantum gates, arXiv:2305.08916.
  26. K. Nakamura and J. Ankerhold, Gate operations for superconducting qubits and non-Markovianity, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033215 (2024).
  27. B. Gulácsi and G. Burkard, Temporally correlated quantum noise in driven quantum systems with applications to quantum gate operations, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023073 (2025).
  28. B. Gulácsi and G. Burkard, Signatures of non-Markovianity of a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. B 107, 174511 (2023).
  29. K. Nakamura and J. Ankerhold, Qubit dynamics beyond Lindblad: Non-Markovianity versus rotating wave approximation, Phys. Rev. B 109, 014315 (2024).
  30. K. Nakamura and J. Ankerhold, Impact of time-retarded noise on dynamical decoupling schemes for qubits, Phys. Rev. B 111, 064503 (2025).
  31. A. P. Babu, T. Orell, V. Vadimov, W. Teixeira, M. Möttönen, and M. Silveri, Quantum error correction under numerically exact open-quantum-system dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043161 (2023).
  32. B. Gulácsi, J. Kattemölle, and G. Burkard, Characterizing correlated noise with single-qubit operations, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L042067 (2025).
  33. S. Zhang, Y. Chen, and Q. Shi, Simulating the operation of a quantum computer in a dissipative environment, J. Chem. Phys. 160, 054101 (2024).
  34. T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Finite-time disentanglement via spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 140404 (2004).
  35. T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Sudden death of entanglement: Classical noise effects, Opt. Commun. 264, 393 (2006).
  36. T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Quantum open system theory: Bipartite aspects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 140403 (2006).
  37. C. E. López, G. Romero, F. Lastra, E. Solano, and J. C. Retamal, Sudden birth versus sudden death of entanglement in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 080503 (2008).
  38. B. Bellomo, R. Lo Franco, and G. Compagno, Non-Markovian effects on the dynamics of entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 160502 (2007).
  39. B. Bellomo, R. Lo Franco, and G. Compagno, Entanglement dynamics of two independent qubits in environments with and without memory, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032342 (2008).
  40. B. Bellomo, R. L. Franco, S. Maniscalco, and G. Compagno, Two-qubit entanglement dynamics for two different non-Markovian environments, Phys. Scr. 2010, 014014 (2010).
  41. X. Cao and H. Zheng, Non-Markovian disentanglement dynamics of a two-qubit system, Phys. Rev. A 77, 022320 (2008).
  42. J. Ma, Z. Sun, X. Wang, and F. Nori, Entanglement dynamics of two qubits in a common bath, Phys. Rev. A 85, 062323 (2012).
  43. L.-A. Wu, C. X. Yu, and D. Segal, Exact dynamics of interacting qubits in a thermal environment: Results beyond the weak coupling limit, New J. Phys. 15, 023044 (2013).
  44. L. Duan, H. Wang, Q.-H. Chen, and Y. Zhao, Entanglement dynamics of two qubits coupled individually to Ohmic baths, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 044115 (2013).
  45. C. Wang and Q.-H. Chen, Exact dynamics of quantum correlations of two qubits coupled to bosonic baths, New J. Phys. 15, 103020 (2013).
  46. W. Wu and M. Liu, Effects of counter-rotating-wave terms on the non-Markovianity in quantum open systems, Phys. Rev. A 96, 032125 (2017).
  47. Z. Sun, X.-Q. Xu, and B. Liu, Creation of quantum steering by interaction with a common bath, Phys. Rev. A 97, 052309 (2018).
  48. A. G. Dijkstra and Y. Tanimura, Non-Markovian entanglement dynamics in the presence of system-bath coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 250401 (2010).
  49. H.-T. Wang, C.-F. Li, Y. Zou, R.-C. Ge, and G.-C. Guo, Non-Markovian entanglement sudden death and rebirth of a two-qubit system in the presence of system-bath coherence, Physica A 390, 3183 (2011).
  50. E. Paladino, A. D’Arrigo, A. Mastellone, and G. Falci, Relaxation processes in solid-state two-qubit gates, Physica E 42, 439 (2010).
  51. E. Paladino, A. D’Arrigo, A. Mastellone, and G. Falci, Decoherence times of universal two-qubit gates in the presence of broad-band noise, New J. Phys. 13, 093037 (2011).
  52. A. D’Arrigo and E. Paladino, Optimal operating conditions of an entangling two-transmon gate, New J. Phys. 14, 053035 (2012).
  53. D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998).
  54. M. Thorwart and P. Hänggi, Decoherence and dissipation during a quantum XOR gate operation, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012309 (2001).
  55. Y. C. Cheng and R. J. Silbey, Stochastic Liouville equation approach for the effect of noise in quantum computations, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052325 (2004).
  56. M. J. Storcz, F. Hellmann, C. Hrelescu, and F. K. Wilhelm, Decoherence of a two-qubit system away from perfect symmetry, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052314 (2005).
  57. M. Xu, Y. Yan, Q. Shi, J. Ankerhold, and J. T. Stockburger, Taming quantum noise for efficient low temperature simulations of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230601 (2022).
  58. M. Xu, V. Vadimov, J. T. Stockburger, and J. Ankerhold, Simulating non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. (2026).
  59. S. Maniscalco, F. Francica, R. L. Zaffino, N. Lo Gullo, and F. Plastina, Protecting entanglement via the quantum zeno effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 090503 (2008).
  60. A. D'Arrigo, A. Mastellone, E. Paladino, and G. Falci, Effects of low-frequency noise cross-correlations in coupled superconducting qubits, New J. Phys. 10, 115006 (2008).
  61. L. Mazzola, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, K.-A. Suominen, and B. M. Garraway, Sudden death and sudden birth of entanglement in common structured reservoirs, Phys. Rev. A 79, 042302 (2009).
  62. D. Kast and J. Ankerhold, Bipartite entanglement dynamics of two-level systems in sub-Ohmic reservoirs, Phys. Rev. B 90, 100301(R) (2014).
  63. R. Hartmann and W. T. Strunz, Environmentally induced entanglement—Anomalous behavior in the adiabatic regime, Quantum 4, 347 (2020).
  64. A. Caldeira and A. Leggett, Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system, Ann. Phys. 149, 374 (1983).
  65. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002).
  66. U. Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems, 4th ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2012).
  67. A. Barone and G. Paternò, Physics and Applications of the Josephson Effect (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982).
  68. G. Wendin and V. S. Shumeiko, Superconducting quantum circuits, qubits and computing, arXiv:cond-mat/0508729.
  69. L. I. Glazman and G. Catelani, Bogoliubov quasiparticles in superconducting qubits, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 31 (2021).
  70. S. Machlup, Noise in semiconductors: Spectrum of a two‐parameter random signal, J. Appl. Phys. 25, 341 (1954).
  71. E. Paladino, Y. M. Galperin, G. Falci, and B. L. Altshuler, 1/f noise: Implications for solid-state quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 361 (2014).
  72. C. Müller, J. H. Cole, and J. Lisenfeld, Towards understanding two-level-systems in amorphous solids: Insights from quantum circuits, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 124501 (2019).
  73. J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Noise spectroscopy through dynamical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit, Nat. Phys. 7, 565 (2011).
  74. M. Ikram, F.-L. Li, and M. S. Zubairy, Disentanglement in a two-qubit system subjected to dissipation environments, Phys. Rev. A 75, 062336 (2007).
  75. A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987).
  76. Z. Wang, W. Wu, and J. Wang, Steady-state entanglement and coherence of two coupled qubits in equilibrium and nonequilibrium environments, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042320 (2019).
  77. I. L. Chuang and M. A. Nielsen, Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2455 (1997).
  78. N. Schuch and J. Siewert, Natural two-qubit gate for quantum computation using the XY interaction, Phys. Rev. A 67, 032301 (2003).
  79. D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficient Z gates for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022330 (2017).
  80. H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Colloquium: Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021002 (2016).
  81. Á. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum non-Markovianity: Characterization, quantification and detection, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 094001 (2014).
  82. F. K. Wilhelm, S. Kirchhoff, S. Machnes, N. Wittler, and D. Sugny, An introduction into optimal control for quantum technologies, arXiv:2003.10132.
  83. Y. Tanimura, Reduced hierarchical equations of motion in real and imaginary time: Correlated initial states and thermodynamic quantities, J. Chem. Phys. 141, 044114 (2014).
  84. K. Nakamura and Y. Tanimura, Hierarchical Schrödinger equations of motion for open quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012109 (2018).
  85. K. Nakamura and Y. Tanimura, Optical response of laser-driven charge-transfer complex described by Holstein–Hubbard model coupled to heat baths: Hierarchical equations of motion approach, J. Chem. Phys. 155, 064106 (2021).
  86. J.-G. Li, J. Zou, and B. Shao, Entanglement evolution of two qubits under noisy environments, Phys. Rev. A 82, 042318 (2010).
  87. Y. Nakatsukasa, O. Sète, and L. N. Trefethen, The AAA algorithm for rational approximation, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 40, A1494 (2018).
  88. T. Ikeda and G. D. Scholes, Generalization of the hierarchical equations of motion theory for efficient calculations with arbitrary correlation functions, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 204101 (2020).
  89. C. Lubich, I. V. Oseledets, and B. Vandereycken, Time integration of tensor trains, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 53, 917 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013337– Published 27 March, 2026
  • Received 7 October 2025
  • Accepted 19 February 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation