Operating two exchange-only qubits in parallel

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2504.01191
• Title: Operating two exchange-only qubits in parallel
• Authors: Mateusz T. Mądzik, Florian Luthi, Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, Fahd A. Mohiyaddin, et al. (Intel Corporation)
• Classification: quant-ph, cond-mat.mes-hall
• Publication Date: October 7, 2025 (arXiv v2)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.01191

Abstract

This paper demonstrates parallel operation of two exchange-only qubits (EO qubits) on a semiconductor quantum dot array. The research utilizes six linearly arranged quantum dots in Intel's Tunnel Falls device. Through randomized benchmarking, the study shows that emitting parallel pulses modulated on five barrier gates to control exchange interactions enables maximized parallel operation while maintaining qubit control quality. The paper presents the first experimental demonstration of iSWAP gates and charge-locked Pauli spin blockade (PSB) readout methods, and applies cross-entropy benchmarking (XEB) to semiconductor quantum systems for the first time.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problem

Quantum computing requires executing numerous high-fidelity quantum operations within limited coherence times. For multi-qubit systems, parallel operation is a key enabling technology because:

1. Minimizes qubit idle time and reduces decoherence-induced information loss
2. Critical for fault-tolerant quantum computing and quantum error correction
3. Fully exploits the computational capability of qubit arrays

Research Significance

Semiconductor spin qubits are promising platforms for large-scale quantum computing due to their natural compatibility with silicon wafer manufacturing. Among these, exchange-only qubits (EO qubits) offer unique advantages:

• Both single-qubit and two-qubit gates are dynamically controlled through voltage pulses modulating exchange coupling
• No microwave pulses required, simplifying setup, fabrication, control, and calibration
• Particularly suited for scalable two-dimensional arrays

Limitations of Existing Approaches

1. Loss-DiVincenzo (LD) qubits: While single-qubit gates can be parallelized through frequency-multiplexed microwave pulses, two-qubit gates (via exchange coupling) can only be executed sequentially
2. Exchange-only qubits: High-fidelity single-qubit gates and universal logic have been demonstrated, but all employ sequential exchange pulses, leaving the impact of parallel operation on gate fidelity unexplored
3. Crosstalk issues: Parallel pulses introduce capacitive coupling and crosstalk through on-chip and off-chip signal paths, requiring precise compensation

Research Motivation

This work aims to fill the gap in parallel operation of exchange-only qubits, establish experimental procedures to evaluate parallelization degree, and provide guidance for workload development and future device design.

Core Contributions

1. First high-fidelity parallel operation of exchange-only qubits:
   • Single-qubit gates: parallel operation fidelity 99.77±0.02% (Q1) and 99.36±0.03% (Q2), decreasing only 0.05-0.07% compared to sequential operation
   • Two-qubit gates: parallel operation reduces gate duration by ~40%
2. Proposed next-nearest-neighbor barrier-barrier compensation method:
   • Designed linear virtualization compensation scheme tailored to exchange-only qubits
   • Effectively suppresses crosstalk from parallel exchange pulses
3. First experimental demonstration of iSWAP gates:
   • Sequential operation fidelity: 97.43±0.43%
   • Parallel operation fidelity: 96.15±0.57%
4. Innovative charge-locked PSB readout method:
   • Solves complete state extraction for multi-exchange-only qubit systems
   • Overcomes limitations of singlet lifetime T*₂ (~2-4 μs) on sequential readout
5. First application of cross-entropy benchmarking (XEB) on semiconductor quantum systems:
   • Sequential operation: 96.8±0.4% fidelity per cycle
   • Parallel operation: 97.0±0.4% fidelity per cycle

Methods in Detail

Task Definition

Input: Two exchange-only qubits (Q1 and Q2), encoded on quantum dots QD4-QD6 and QD7-QD9 respectively

Output: Achieve parallel operation of single-qubit and two-qubit gates while maintaining high fidelity

Constraints:

• Exchange pulse duration tp = 10.92 ns, buffer time tb = 10.92 ns
• Avoid simultaneous pulsing of adjacent barrier gates (causes different quantum operations)
• Compensate for crosstalk from capacitive coupling and signal paths

Exchange-Only Qubit Encoding

Exchange-only qubits encode information using three electron spins in three quantum dots:

Computational basis definition:

• |0⟩ = |S⟩|↓⟩, where |S⟩ = (|↑↓⟩ - |↓↑⟩)/√2 is the singlet state
• |1⟩ = √(2/3)|T₊⟩|↓⟩ - √(1/3)|T₀⟩|↑⟩

Control axes:

• Jz axis: Implements z-axis rotations through exchange coupling of QD4-QD5 (Q1) or QD8-QD9 (Q2)
• Jn axis: Implements rotations around n = -√3X/2 - Z/2 axis (120° from z-axis) through exchange coupling of QD5-QD6 (Q1) or QD7-QD8 (Q2)

Rotation angle: φ = tp · J(VB), where exchange strength J is controlled by barrier voltage VB

Charge-Locked PSB Readout

Problem with traditional sequential PSB readout: The second qubit dephases on the T*₂ timescale (2-4 μs) while waiting for readout, while readout integration time is 18 μs.

Charge-locked scheme:

1. (I-III) Rapidly pulse QD4-QD5 to PSB readout window (21.84 ns), wait for spin projection (3.64 ns), optionally reduce tunneling coupling to suppress relaxation
2. (IV-VI) Pulse QD8-QD9 to readout window and project
3. (VII) Integrate 18 μs to read Q1 state
4. (VIII) Integrate 18 μs to read Q2 state
5. (IX-X) Return both qubits to operation position

Key advantage: Charge is "locked" in the readout window, with relaxation time far exceeding integration time, avoiding information loss.

Next-Nearest-Neighbor Barrier-Barrier Compensation

Crosstalk mechanisms:

1. Capacitive coupling: Barrier electrode voltages affect nearby quantum dot charge states and tunneling coupling
2. Increased barrier voltage not only lowers the barrier height but also attracts quantum dots together, further enhancing coupling
3. Simultaneous pulsing causes these effects to superpose, altering exchange coupling strength

Problem with traditional virtualization:

• Ideal full compensation limits exchange coupling tunability dJN/dvBN
• Nearest-neighbor barrier-barrier virtualization significantly reduces the tunable range

Next-nearest-neighbor compensation scheme: Based on the observation that exchange-only qubits never emit pulses on adjacent barrier gates simultaneously:

• Only manage crosstalk contributions from next-nearest-neighbor barriers (separated by one barrier)
• Allow nearest-neighbor tunneling coupling variations, but ensure next-nearest-neighbor coupling remains constant
• Example: When simultaneously pulsing B6 and B8, apply additional compensation pulses to B5, B7, B9

Calibration procedure:

1. Measure exchange fingerprint as a function of barrier voltage and detuning
2. Track fingerprint center line displacement when simultaneously pulsing another barrier
3. Extract crosstalk matrix elements (Extended Data Table 1 shows good transverse shift symmetry)
4. Iteratively optimize to make fingerprint independent of simultaneous pulse amplitude (Figure 2f)

Pulse Predistortion

Problem: Finite transmission line bandwidth causes pulse distortion; pulse fall time affects subsequent pulses, creating system memory effects.

Solution:

1. Buffer time spectral analysis: Measure response at different buffer times tb and rotation angles, extracting exponential parameters at ~8 ns and ~50 ns timescales
2. Real-time predistortion: Apply exponential undershoot/overshoot compensation at the final output stage of the arbitrary waveform generator (AWG)
3. Long-timescale optimization: Use visibility of random Clifford gate sequences as cost function to optimize ~500 ns timescale predistortion parameters
4. Per-pulse correction: Modify exchange pulse amplitude based on pulse history rather than sample-by-sample correction

Gate Library Design

Single-qubit Clifford gates:

• Synthesized from positive-angle Jn and Jz rotations
• Average 2.666 exchange pulses per gate

Two-qubit gate parallelization:

• CNOT: 23 steps → 15 steps (35% reduction)
• iSWAP: 28 steps → 17 steps (39% reduction)
• SWAP: 9 steps → 5 steps (44% reduction)
• Average per Clifford gate: 32.3 steps → 20.3 steps (37% reduction)

Mirroring gates:

• Change qubit configuration in-place through 3 π pulses (n-z-n)
• Optimize two-qubit gate sequences to reduce pulse count
• Schedule more pulses on high-quality-factor exchange axes

Experimental Setup

Device and Fabrication

• Device: Intel Tunnel Falls 12-quantum-dot device
• Fabrication process: 300 mm silicon wafer, advanced semiconductor manufacturing technology
• Quantum well: Si/SiGe heterostructure, ²⁸Si isotope enriched to 800 ppm ²⁹Si residual
• Charge configuration: (1,3,1,1,3,1), with QD5 and QD8 each containing 3 electrons to expand PSB readout window
• Magnetic field: 1 mT small magnetic field to suppress nuclear spin dynamics

Calibration and Characterization

Exchange coupling calibration:

1. Fingerprint calibration: Ensure exchange pulses are insensitive to charge noise in the detuning direction
2. Initial calibration: Measure J(VB) = α·exp(γVB)
3. Fine calibration: Introduce second-order correction J(VB) = α·exp(γVB + κV²B), or use heuristic interpolation

Decoherence characterization:

• Singlet lifetime T*₂: 2.48-4.21 μs (different quantum dot pairs)
• Exchange oscillation quality factor Q: 16.7-28.3
• Resolvable oscillation number Nosc: 20.0-35.6

Evaluation Metrics

Randomized Benchmarking (RB):

• Blind RB: Each seed recovers to both |0⟩ and |1⟩ twice, extracting leakage error
• Interleaved RB: Insert target gate between random Clifford gates, extracting specific gate fidelity
• Per measurement: 5 repetitions, 20-25 random seeds each

Cross-Entropy Benchmarking (XEB):

• Random quantum circuits (RQC): Random Jn/Jz single-qubit gates + CNOT two-qubit gates
• Linearized XEB fidelity: FXEB = D⟨pU(xj)⟩j - 1
• 100 random circuits, comparing measured bit string distribution with simulation

Monte Carlo Simulation:

• Estimate magnetic noise (δB) and charge noise (δJ) contributions
• Fit δB to average T̄*₂, fit δJ to resolvable oscillation number Nosc

Experimental Results

Single-Qubit Gate Performance

Sequential operation (Figures 3a-d):

• Q1 Clifford fidelity: 99.84±0.02% (leakage 0.08±0.02%)
• Q2 Clifford fidelity: 99.41±0.03% (leakage 0.13±0.02%)

Parallel operation (Figures 3e-g):

• Q1 Clifford fidelity: 99.77±0.02% (leakage 0.11±0.04%)
• Q2 Clifford fidelity: 99.36±0.03% (leakage 0.16±0.03%)
• Fidelity reduction: 0.05-0.07%, demonstrating effective next-nearest-neighbor compensation

Parallel pulse combinations: Tested all next-nearest-neighbor combinations (Jz-Jz, Jz-Jn, Jn-Jz, Jn-Jn).

Two-Qubit Gate Performance

Sequential operation (Figures 4a-c):

• Two-qubit Clifford fidelity: 96.25±0.07%
• CNOT: 97.55±0.47%
• iSWAP: 97.43±0.43% (first experimental demonstration)
• SWAP: 99.03±0.33%

Parallel operation (Figures 4d-f):

• Two-qubit Clifford fidelity: 95.80±0.08%
• CNOT: 96.70±0.57%
• iSWAP: 96.15±0.57%
• SWAP: 98.48±0.55%
• Fidelity reduction: 0.55-1.28%

Error budget analysis (Extended Data Table 2):

Key findings:

1. Parallelization reduces magnetic noise contribution by >60% (shorter gate time, error ∝ (tgate/T*₂)²)
2. Charge noise contribution remains essentially unchanged
3. "Other effects" (calibration error, non-Markovian contributions) increase in parallel mode, attributed to insufficient coupling calibration between B7 and B5/B9

Cross-Entropy Benchmarking (Figure 5)

Sequential operation:

• Fidelity per cycle: 96.8±0.4%
• Consistent with two-qubit RB results

Parallel operation:

• Fidelity per cycle: 97.0±0.4%
• Matches sequential operation within error margins

First application significance: Demonstrates XEB applicability to semiconductor quantum systems for overall performance assessment, providing methodological foundation for scaling to larger systems.

Quantum State Tomography Verification

|00⟩ state preparation (Figure 1c):

• Fidelity: 86.4±1.4%
• Via post-selection initialization

iSWAP gate phase verification (Extended Data Figure 7):

• Prepare Q1 superposition state |+⟩|0⟩
• After iSWAP obtain |0⟩(|0⟩+i|1⟩)/√2
• Tomography confirms expected i phase

Related Work

Spin Qubit Platforms

1. Loss-DiVincenzo qubits:
   • Single electron spin encoding, requires microwave pulses
   • Single-qubit gates parallelizable (frequency multiplexing), two-qubit gates sequential
   • Representative works: Xue et al. (2022), Mills et al. (2022)
2. Exchange-only qubits:
   • Three-electron collective spin encoding, no microwave required
   • High-fidelity single-qubit gates: Andrews et al. (2019)
   • Universal logic: Weinstein et al. (2023)
   • Parallel exploration: Fedele et al. (2021), Jirovec et al. (2025), but without fidelity impact estimation
3. Other encodings:
   • Pulse-gated hybrid qubits: Koh et al. (2012)
   • Heisenberg exchange: Levy (2002)

Virtualization Techniques

• Standard virtualization: Hensgens et al. (2017), Volk et al. (2019)
• Barrier-barrier virtualization: Hsiao et al. (2020), Qiao et al. (2020)
• This work's contribution: Precise calibration for parallel operation, introducing next-nearest-neighbor compensation

Readout Techniques

• Pauli spin blockade (PSB): Petta et al. (2005)
• Frozen PSB: Nurizzo et al. (2023)
• Cascaded readout: van Diepen et al. (2021)
• This work's innovation: Charge-locked PSB, enabling complete state extraction for multiple EO qubits

Benchmarking Methods

• Randomized benchmarking: Knill et al. (2008)
• Blind RB: Andrews et al. (2019)
• Cross-entropy benchmarking: Boixo et al. (2018), Arute et al. (2019)
• This work's first application: XEB on semiconductor systems

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Parallel operation feasibility: Successfully demonstrated high-fidelity parallel operation of exchange-only qubits, with single-qubit gate fidelity reduction of only 0.05-0.07%
2. Next-nearest-neighbor compensation effectiveness: Linear virtualization framework sufficiently compensates most crosstalk, though certain barrier combinations (e.g., B7-B5/B9) require second-order correction
3. Gate duration reduction: Parallelization reduces two-qubit gate duration by ~40%, significantly lowering magnetic noise error contribution (>60%)
4. Calibration precision as bottleneck: Parallel two-qubit gate fidelity reduction of 0.55-1.28% primarily caused by calibration error and non-Markovian effects
5. Method generalizability: Techniques directly applicable to other quantum dot encodings (e.g., LD qubits)

Limitations

1. Calibration complexity:
   • Certain barrier combinations show fingerprint shape changes requiring second-order correction
   • Asymmetric tuning (reduced tunneling coupling for dots near reservoirs) increases calibration difficulty
2. Device dependencies:
   • Adjacent sensors share ohmic contacts, limiting fully parallel readout
   • Requires two-dot spacing to separate PSB pairs and avoid crosstalk
3. Parallel two-qubit gate fidelity:
   • Larger reduction compared to sequential operation (0.55-1.28% vs 0.05-0.07%)
   • No overall improvement observed yet (despite reduced decoherence error)
4. Scalability unverified:
   • Only two qubits demonstrated
   • Crosstalk compensation complexity for larger arrays unknown

Future Directions

1. Improved calibration:
   • Implement second-order crosstalk compensation (Rao et al. 2024)
   • Develop automated virtualization systems
   • Leverage device uniformity to transfer calibration parameters
2. Material optimization:
   • Use higher purity ²⁸Si isotope
   • Reduce charge noise
3. Extend to larger systems:
   • Verify on two-dimensional quantum dot arrays
   • Explore more complex parallel scheduling strategies
4. Readout improvements:
   • Achieve truly parallel multi-qubit readout
   • Combine with dynamic decoupling to extend idle qubit lifetime
5. Fault-tolerance applications:
   • Evaluate parallel operation impact on quantum error correction
   • Optimize parallel scheduling to meet fault-tolerance threshold (<0.1% error)

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Important milestone:
   • First systematic study of exchange-only qubit parallel operation
   • Fills critical gap in the field, paving the way for scalable quantum computing
2. Methodological innovation:
   • Next-nearest-neighbor compensation: Cleverly exploits EO qubit operational characteristics (never simultaneously pulsing adjacent barriers), achieving crosstalk compensation while maintaining tunability
   • Charge-locked PSB: Elegantly solves multi-EO qubit readout challenge, avoiding complex dynamic decoupling or parallel sensor designs
3. Experimental sufficiency:
   • Comprehensive performance characterization: single/two-qubit RB, interleaved RB, XEB
   • Detailed error budget analysis: separating magnetic noise, charge noise, calibration error
   • Rich ablation experiments: verifying necessity of crosstalk compensation and pulse predistortion
4. First demonstrations:
   • iSWAP gates (97.43% fidelity)
   • XEB on semiconductor systems
   • Systematic parallel operation fidelity assessment
5. Engineering rigor:
   • Detailed calibration procedures (fingerprint, initial, fine)
   • Pulse predistortion techniques (multiple timescales)
   • Leveraging industrial device uniformity
6. Writing clarity:
   • Clear logical structure, from problem to method to verification
   • Rich supplementary materials (Extended Data, Supplementary)
   • Excellent visualization (barrier compensation schematics, pulse sequence diagrams)

Weaknesses

1. Limited parallel two-qubit gate improvement:
   • Fidelity reduction of 0.55-1.28%, no net improvement achieved
   • Insufficient calibration precision to offset decoherence error reduction
   • Authors attribute to B7 calibration issues, but lack quantitative analysis
2. Scalability concerns:
   • Only two qubits demonstrated; crosstalk compensation complexity scaling unknown
   • Two-dimensional array parallel scheduling strategies unexplored
   • Virtualization matrix size and condition number issues unaddressed
3. Non-scalable initialization:
   • Relies on post-selection, acceptance rate 1/4^N
   • Acknowledges need for reservoir-assisted deterministic initialization, but not implemented
4. Insufficient technical details:
   • Specific form of second-order crosstalk correction not provided
   • Pulse predistortion optimization convergence and robustness not discussed
   • Fidelity variability across different random seeds not reported
5. Gap from theoretical expectations:
   • |00⟩ state fidelity only 86.4%, significantly lower than gate fidelity expectations
   • Likely from initialization, readout, or coherence time limitations, but not deeply analyzed
6. Incomplete comparisons:
   • Lacks quantitative comparison with LD qubit parallel operation
   • No discussion of advantages/disadvantages versus superconducting qubit parallelization

Impact

1. Contribution to the field:
   • Methodology: Next-nearest-neighbor compensation provides universal framework for quantum dot array parallel operation
   • Benchmarks: Establishes performance baselines for EO qubit parallel operation (single-qubit 99.36-99.77%, two-qubit 95.80%)
   • Tools: XEB application on semiconductor systems provides exemplar for future large-scale verification
2. Practical value:
   • Short-term: 40% reduction in two-qubit gate duration directly improves algorithm depth
   • Medium-term: Paves way for parallel syndrome extraction in quantum error correction
   • Long-term: Supports high parallelism required for fault-tolerant quantum computing
3. Reproducibility:
   • High: Detailed method descriptions, calibration procedures, parameter settings
   • Data publicly available (Zenodo)
   • Uses commercially available Tunnel Falls device
4. Trend leadership:
   • Advances semiconductor quantum computing toward industrial manufacturing
   • Emphasizes virtualization and crosstalk compensation as central to scalability
   • Advocates multi-level benchmarking (RB + XEB)

Applicable Scenarios

1. Direct applicability:
   • Intel Tunnel Falls and similar linear/two-dimensional quantum dot arrays
   • Other exchange-only qubit implementations
   • Loss-DiVincenzo qubit two-qubit gate parallelization
2. Requires adaptation:
   • Different device geometries (virtualization matrix requires recalibration)
   • Larger qubit numbers (may need second-order correction or adaptive virtualization)
   • Different fabrication processes (crosstalk characteristics may differ)
3. Inspirational value:
   • Parallel operation strategies for other quantum computing platforms
   • Crosstalk management in multi-qubit systems
   • Integration of industrial manufacturing with quantum computing

References

Key References:

1. Exchange-only qubit theory:
   • DiVincenzo et al., Nature 408, 339 (2000) - EO qubit proposal
   • Kempe et al., Phys. Rev. A 63, 042307 (2001) - Decoherence-free fault-tolerance theory
2. Recent high-fidelity work:
   • Andrews et al., Nature Nanotech. 14, 747 (2019) - Blind RB and leakage quantification
   • Weinstein et al., Nature 615, 817 (2023) - Universal logic demonstration
3. Virtualization techniques:
   • Hensgens et al., Nature 548, 70 (2017) - Standard virtualization
   • Hsiao et al., Phys. Rev. Applied 13, 054018 (2020) - Orthogonal tunneling coupling control
4. XEB benchmarking:
   • Arute et al., Nature 574, 505 (2019) - Quantum supremacy demonstration
   • Boixo et al., Nature Physics 14, 595 (2018) - XEB theory
5. Device fabrication:
   • George et al., Nano Letters (2024) - Tunnel Falls device
   • Neyens et al., Nature 629, 80 (2024) - 300 mm wafer uniformity

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality experimental physics paper that systematically addresses the important problem of parallel operation of exchange-only qubits. While parallel two-qubit gate improvements remain modest, the methodological innovations (next-nearest-neighbor compensation, charge-locked PSB) and first demonstrations (iSWAP, XEB) establish this as a significant milestone in the field. The paper provides critical technical foundations for semiconductor quantum computing scalability, with important implications for future large-scale quantum processor development. Primary improvement directions include enhancing parallel two-qubit gate calibration precision and verifying scalability to larger systems.