arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 19 Oct 2016

Transcription

1 Transferring arbitrary d-dimensional quantum states of a superconducting qudit in circuit QED Tong Liu 1, Qi-Ping Su 1, Jin-Hu Yang 1, Yu Zhang 1, Shao-Jie Xiong 2, Jin-Ming Liu 2, and Chui-Ping Yang 1 1 Department of Physics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang , China and 2 State Key Laboratory of Precision Spectroscopy, Department of Physics, East China Normal University, Shanghai , China (Dated: September 28, 2018) arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 19 Oct 2016 A qudit (d-level quantum systems) has a large Hilbert space and thus can be used to achieve many quantum information and communication tasks. Here, we propose a method to transfer arbitrary d-dimensional quantum states (known or unknown) between two superconducting qudits coupled to a single cavity. The state transfer can be performed fast because of employing resonant interactions only. In addition, quantum states can be deterministically transferred without measurement. Numerical simulations show that high-fidelity transfer of quantum states between two superconducting transmon qudits (d 5) is feasible with current circuit QED technology. This proposal is quite general and can be applied to accomplish the same task with various superconducting qudits, quantum dots, or natural atoms coupled to a cavity or resonator. PACS numbers: Hk, Dv, Cp I. INTRODUCTION Many quantum information and communication tasks are usually based on qubits (two-level quantum systems), but the use of qudits (d-level quantum systems) can optimize some quantum computations [1, 2], enhance the security of quantum cryptography [3, 4], realize bipartite entanglement [5], and simplify the implementation of quantum logic gates [6, 7]. In addition, manipulation and measurement of a superconducting phase qudit state or preparation and control of a transmon qudit has been reported in experiments [8, 9]. Moreover, population transfer of a three-level transmon qudit for d = 3, via stimulated Raman adiabatic passage, has been experimentally demonstrated recently [10]. During the past years, superconducting qubits/qudits have been paid intensive attention in quantum information and quantum computation due to their significantly increased coherence times, controllability and scalability [11 19]. Superconducting qubits/qudits based on Josephson junctions are mesoscopic element circuits that behave like artificial atoms, whose level spacings can be rapidly adjusted by varying external control parameters (e.g., magnetic flux applied to the superconducting loop of a superconducting phase, transmon, Xmon, or flux qubit/qudit; see, e.g., [16, 20 22]). Circuit quantum electrodynamics (circuit QED) is analogue of cavity QED, which has been considered as one of the most promising candidates for quantum information processing (QIP) [12, 13, 23 25]. The strongcoupling or ultrastrong-coupling regime with a superconducitng qubit coupled to a microwave resonator has Electronic address: yangcp@hznu.edu.cn been experimentally realized in circuit QED [26 29]. Using superconducting qubits coupled to a single cavity or resonator, many theoretical proposals have been presented for realizing quantum gates and entanglement [23 25, 30 35]. Quantum effects and operations have been experimentally demonstrated with superconducting qubits in circuit QED, including demonstration of two-and three-qubit quantum gates [36 40], realization of two-and three-qubit entanglement [21, 41], observation of Raman coherence effects [42], and suppression of dephasing by qubit motion [43]. Moreover, a number of theoretical proposals have been proposed for realizing quantum state transfer (QST) between two superconducting qubits through a cavity [24, 31, 44 49]. The QST between two superconducting qubits has been experimentally demonstrated in circuit QED [50 53]. The qudit-to-qudit QST plays a vital role in highdimensional quantum communication and QIP. Transfer of high-dimensional photon states through a cavity array was previously proposed in [54, 55]. In addition, probabilistic transfer of high-dimensional quantum states between particles via a spin chain has been studied [56]. Moreover, a method has been proposed for transferring quantum states between two superconducting transmon qutrits via an adjustable inductive coupling [57], and an approach has been presented for transferring quantum states between two superconducting flux qutrits coupled to two resonators or cavities [58]. Here, qutrit refer to a three-level quantum system or a qudit for d = 3. Note that Refs. [57,58] onlyworkforqstbetween twoqutrits andref. [58]requirestheuseoftwo resonatorsorcavities coupled to each qutrit. Different from the previous works, we here propose a method to transfer arbitrary d-dimensional quantum states (known or unknown) between two superconducting qudits coupled to a single cavity. As shown below,

2 2 this proposal has the following advantages: (i) The experimental setup is very simple because only one cavity is used; (ii) The speed of operation is fast due to using qudit-cavity and qudit-pulse resonant interactions only; (iii) The QST can be deterministically achieved without measurement; and (iv) The method can in principle be applied to transfer arbitrary d-dimensional quantum states between two d-level qudits for any positive integer d. This proposal is quite general and can be applied to accomplish the same task with various superconducting qudits(e.g., superconducting transmon qudits, Xmon qudits, phase qudits, flux qudits), quantum dots, or natural atoms coupled to a cavity or resonator. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the Hamiltonian and time evolution of two qudits coupled to a cavity, as well as the Hamiltonian and time evolutionofaquditdrivenbyaclassicalpulse. InSec.III, we show how to transfer arbitrary quantum states between two superconducting qudits coupled to a cavity or resonator. In Sec. IV, we discuss the experimental feasibility of this proposal, by considering a setup of two transmon qudits coupled to a 3D cavity and numerically calculating the fidelity for the QST between two transom qudits for d 5. A concluding summary is given in Sec. V. II. HAMILTONIAN AND TIME EVOLUTION Consider two qudits 1 and 2 coupled by a cavity. The cavity is resonant with the transition between the two levels 0 and 1 of each qudit. In the interaction picture, the Hamiltonian is given by (in units of = 1) H I,1 = 2 g j (aσ 01, + j +h.c.), (1) j=1 where a is the photon annihilation operator for the cavity, the subscript j represents qudit j, σ + 01, j = 1 j 0, and g j is the coupling constant between the cavity and the 0 1 transition of qudit j (j = 1,2). For simplicity, we set g 1 = g 2 g, which can be achieved by a prior design of qudits or adjusting the position of each qudit located at the cavity. Under the Hamiltonian (1), one can obtain the following state evolutions: c c 0 2, c (1+cos 2gt) c isin( 2gt 1 c (1 cos 2gt 0 c 1 2, (2) where 0 c ( 1 c ) represents the vacuum (single photon) state of the cavity and subscript 1 (2) represents qudit 1 (2). We now consider applying a classical pulse to a qudit, which is resonant with the transition between the level FIG. 1: (color online) (a) Setup for two superconducting qudits embedded in a 3D cavity. (b) Setup for two superconducting qudits coupled to a 1D transmission line resonator. A dark dot represents a superconducting qudit. l 1 and the higher-energy level l of the qudit (l = 1, 2,..., d 1). The Hamiltonian in the interaction picture is expressed as H I,l = Ω(e iφ l 1 l +h.c.), (3) where Ω and φ are the Rabi frequency and the initial phase of the pulse. One can obtain the following rotations under the Hamiltonian (3), l 1 cos(ωt) l 1 ie iφ sin(ωt) l, l cos(ωt) l ie iφ sin(ωt) l 1. (4) The results given in Eqs. (2) and (4) will be employed for implementing QST between two qudits, which is described in the next section. III. QUANTUM STATE TRANSFER BETWEEN TWO SUPERCONDUCTING QUDITS Our system, shown in Fig. 1, consists of two superconducting qudits 1 and 2 embedded in a 3D microwave cavity or coupled to a 1D resonator. As an example, we will explicitly show how to transfer quantum states between two qudits for d 5. We then give a brief discussion on how to extend the method to transfer arbitrary d-dimensional quantum states between two d-level qudits for any positive integer d. Without loss of generality, we here consider qudits with a ladder-type level structure formed by d levels 0, 1, 2,... and d 1 (Fig.2 for d = 5). For a ladder-type level structure, the transition between adjacent levels is allowed but the transition between non-adjacent levels is forbidden or very weak. Note that this ladder-type level structure is available in superconducting transmon qudits, Xmon qudits, phase qudits, quantum dots, or nature atoms. In the following, the transition frequency between two adjacent levels l 1 and l of each qudit is labeled as ω (l 1)l (l = 1,2,...,d 1). The initial phase, duration, and frequency of the pulses are denoted as {φ,t,ω}. For simplicity, we set the same Rabi frequency Ω for each pulse, which can be readily achieved by adjusting the pulse intensity. A. Case for d = 5

3 3 Step I. Let the cavity resonant with the 0 1 transition of each qudit described by Hamiltonian (1). According to Eq. (2), after an interaction time t 1 = π/( 2g), one has the state transformation c c 1 2, (5) which shows that the cavity remains in the vacuum state after the qudit-cavity interaction. Thus, the initial state 4 l=0 c l l of the two qudits becomes FIG. 2: (color online) The color circles indicate the occupied energy levels. Each green arrow represents a classical pulse, which is resonant with the transition between the two neighbor levels close to each green arrow. In (e) and (g), the sequence for applying the pulses is from top to bottom, and the lower pulses are turned on after the upper pulses are switched off. In (i), the sequence for applying the pulses is from bottom to top, and the upper pulses are turned on after the lower pulses are switched off. For the details on the applied pulses, see the descriptions given in the text. Note that in (a)-(j), the left levels are for qudit 1 while the right levels are for qudit 2. For simplicity, we here consider the case that the spacings between adjacent levels become narrow as the levels move up, which is actually unnecessary. The five levels of qudits are labeled as 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Fig.2). Assume that qudit 1 is initially in an arbitraryquantumstate 4 l=0 c l l 1 (known orunknown) with level populations illustrated in Fig. 2(a), qudit 2 is initially in the ground state 0 2, and the cavity is initially in the vacuum state 0 c. Here and below, c l is a normalized coefficient. To begin with, the level spacings of the qudits need to beadjustedtohavethecavityresonantwiththe 0 1 transition of each qudit. The procedure for implementing the QST from qudit 1 to qudit 2 is described as follows: +c c ) 0 2 c (6) Eq. (6) showsthat the population ofthe level 1 ofqudit 1 is transferred onto the level 1 of qudit 2 [Fig. 2(b)]. Step II. Apply a pulse of {π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 } to qudit 1 while a pulse of { π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 } to qudit 2 [Fig. 2(c)]. According to Eq. (4), the pulses lead to 2 1 and Thus, the state (6) becomes +c c ) 0 2 c (7) For Ω g, the interaction between the cavity and the qudits can be neglected during the pulse. Now let the cavityresonantwiththe 0 1 transitionofeachqudit for an interaction time t 2 = π/( 2g), to obtain the state transformation (5). Hence, the state (7) becomes +c ) 0 2 +( c c 1 2 2, (8) which shows that the populations for the levels 1 and 2 of qudit 1 are transferred onto the levels 2 and 1 of qudit 2, respectively [Fig. 2(d)]. Step III. Apply a pulse of {π/2,π/2ω,ω 23 } and then a pulse of {π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 } to qudit 1, while a pulse of { π/2,π/2ω,ω 23 }andthenapulseof{ π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 } to qudit 2 [Fig. 2(e)]. The pulses result in the transformations 3 1 (via ), and Thus, the state (8) becomes +c ) 0 2 +( c c (9) Let the cavity resonant with the 0 1 transition of each qudit for an interaction time t 3 = π/( 2g), to achieve the state transformation (5). Thus, the state (9) becomes ) 0 2 +( c c c 1 3 2, (10) which shows that the populations for the levels 1, 2, and 3 of qudit 1 are transferred onto the levels 3, 2, and 1 of qudit 2, respectively [Fig. 2(f)]. Step IV. Apply pulses of {π/2,π/2ω,ω 34 }, {π/2,π/2ω,ω 23 } and then {π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 } to qudit 1 while pulses of { π/2,π/2ω,ω 34 }, { π/2,π/2ω,ω 23 } and then { π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 } to qudit 2 [Fig. 2(g)], which leads to the transformations 4 1 (via ), , and Hence, the state (10) becomes +c ) 0 2 +( c c c (11)

4 4 Let the cavity resonant with the 0 1 transition of each qudit for an interaction time t 4 = π/( 2g), to have the state transformation (5). Thus, the state (11) changes (c c c c c 1 4 2, (12) which shows that the populations for the levels 1 1, 3 1, and 4 1 of qudit 1 have been transferred onto the levels 4 2, 3 2, 2 2, and 1 2 of qudit 2, respectively [Fig. 2(h)]. After this step of operation, to maintain the state (12), the level spacings of the qudits need tobe adjustedsothat thequdits aredecoupledfrom the cavity. Step V. By sequentially applying pulses of { π/2,π/2ω,ω 01 }, { π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 }, { π/2,π/2ω, ω 23 }, and then { π/2,π/2ω,ω 34 } to qudit 2 [Fig. 2(i)], we obtain the state transformations (via ), , , , and Hence, the state (12) becomes (c c c c c (13) The result (13) shows that an arbitrary quantum state 4 l=0 c l l 1 of qudit 1 has been transferred onto qudit 2 via the population transfer from the five levels { 0 1, 1 1, 3 1, 4 1 } of qudit 1 to the five levels { 4 2, 3 2, 2 2, 1 2, 0 2 } of qudit 2, respectively [Fig. 2(j)]. B. Case for d = 4 and d = 3 From the above description, it can be found that by performing the operations of steps I, II, and III above, and then by sequentially applying pulses of { π/2,π/2ω,ω 01 }, { π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 }, and { π/2,π/2ω, ω 23 } to qudit 2, we can obtain the state transformation 3 l=0 c l l (c c c c ), which implies that the QST for d = 4 is implemented, i.e., an arbitrary quantum state of qudit 1 is transferred onto qudit 2 via the population transfer from the four levels { 0 1, 1 1, 3 1 } of qudit 1 to the four levels { 3 2, 2 2, 1 2, 0 2 } of qudit 2, respectively. By performing the operations of steps I and II above, followed by applying pulses of { π/2,π/2ω,ω 01 } and then { π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 } to qudit 2, the state transformation 2 l=0 c l l (c c c ) can be achieved, which shows that the QST for d = 3 (i.e., the QST between two qutrits) is realized, i.e., an arbitrary quantum state of qudit 1 is transferred onto qudit 2 via transferring the populations of the three levels { 0 1, 1 1 } of qudit 1 to the three levels { 2 2, 1 2, 0 2 } of qudit 2, respectively. C. Case for any positive integer d By examining the operations introduced in subsection IIIA (i.e., QST for d = 5), one can easily find that an arbitrary d-dimensional quantum state can be transferred between two d-level qudits for any positive integer d, through the following d operational steps. The first operational step is the same as that described in step I above. For the l th operational step (1 < l < d), l 1 pulses of {π/2,π/2ω,ω (l 1)l },,{π/2,π/2ω,ω 23 }, and {π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 } should be applied to qudit 1 in turn (from left to right), while other l 1 pulses of { π/2,π/2ω,ω (l 1)l },,{ π/2, π/2ω,ω 23 }, and { π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 } should be applied to qudit 2 in sequence (from left to right), followed by each qudit simultaneously resonantly interacting with the cavity for an interaction time t = π/( 2g). One can easily check that after the first d 1 steps of operation, the following statetransformationcanbeobtained d 1 ( l=0 c l l c ) d 1 l=1 c l d l 2, whichcan furtherturn into d 1 c l l (c 0 d 1 2 +c 1 d c d ), l=0 (14) by sequentially applying pulses of { π/2,π/2ω,ω 01 }, { π/2,π/2ω,ω 12 },..., and then { π/2,π/2ω,ω (d 2)(d 1) } to qudit 2 (i.e., the last step of operation). The result (14) implies that an arbitrary d-dimensional quantum state of qudit 1 (known or unknown) has been transferred onto qudit 2 through the population transfer from the d levels { 0 1, 1 1,..., d 2 1, d 1 1 } of qudit 1 to the d levels { d 1 2, d 2 2,..., 2 2, 1 2, 0 2 } of qudit 2, respectively. It is straightforward to show that the state c 0 d 1 2 +c 1 d c d can be converted into the state d 1 l=0 c l l 2 by applying a series of pulses on qudit 2. Note that the number of pulses required and the sequence of pulses depend on the level structures of the qudits. From the description given above, one can see that the procedure described above for QST does not employ the coupling of the cavity/pulse with the transition between non-adjacent levels. In this sense, this proposal can be applied to implement QST for qudits with other types of level structures (not just limited to the ladder-type level structure). For qudits with other types of level structure, the effect of the unwanted coupling of the cavity/pulse with the transition between non-adjacent levels can be made to be negligibly small as long as the cavity/pulse is highly detuned from the transition between non-adjacent levels (which can be achieved by adjusting the level spacings of qudits). As mentioned previously, the level spacings of superconducting qudits can be rapidly adjusted by varying external control parameters [16, 20 22]. In addition, the level spacings of atoms/quantum dots can be adjusted by changing the voltage on the electrodes around each atom/quantum dot [59]. IV. POSSIBLE EXPERIMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION

5 5 So far we have considered a general type of superconducting qudit. For an experimental implementation, let us now consider a setup of two superconducting transmon qudits embedded in a 3D cavity. This architecture is feasible in the state-of-the-art superconducting setup as demonstrated recently in [9]. For simplicity, we consider QST between the two transmon qudits 1 and 2 for d 5. As an example, suppose that the state of qudit 1 to be transferred is: (i) l=0 l 1 for d = 3, (ii) l=0 l 1 for d = 4, and (iii) l=0 l 1 for d = 5. We take into account the influence of the unwanted coupling of the cavity with the 1 2 transition. The Hamiltonian H I,1 is thus modified as H I,1 = H I,1 +ε 1, (15) where ε 1 describes the unwanted off-resonant coupling between the cavity and the 1 2 transition of each qudit, whichisgivenbyε 1 = 2 j=1 g j(aσ + 12, j +h.c.)where σ + 12, j = 2 j 1. For a transmon qudit, one has g j 2g j [60]. We also consider the effect of the unwanted couplings of the pulse with the two adjacent l 2 l 1 and l l+1 transitions, when the pulse is resonant with the l 1 l transition of each qudit. Here and below, l {1,2,3,4} for d = 5, l {1,2,3} for d = 4, and l {1,2} for d = 3. After this consideration, the Hamiltonian H I,l is modified as H I,l = H I,l +H I,1 +ε l, (16) where ε l describes the unwanted off-resonant couplings of the pulse with the l 2 l 1 and l l+1 transitions of each qudit, during the pulse resonant with the l 1 l transition of each qudit. Here, ε l is given by ( Ω/ 2 ) (e iφ l 2 l 1 +h.c.) + 2Ω(e iφ l l+1 +h.c.) [60]. Note that the effect of the cavity-qudit interaction during the pulse application is also considered here, which is described by the H I,1. For a transmon qudit, the transition between nonadjacent levels is forbidden or very weak [60]. Thus, the couplings of the cavity/pulses with the transitions between non-adjacent levels can be neglected. In addition, the spacings between adjacent levels for a transmon qudit become narrow as the levels move up (Fig. 2). Therefore, the detunings between the cavity frequency and the transition frequencies for adjacent levels (e.g., levels 1 and 2, levels 2 and 3, levels 3 and 4, etc.) increase when the levels go up. As a result, when compared with the coupling effect ofthe cavitywith the 1 2 transition, the coupling effect of the cavity with the transitions for other adjacent levels is negligibly small, which is thus not considered in the numerical simulation for simplicity. For similar reasons, when the pulse is resonant with the l 1 l transition of each qudit, the coupling effect of the pulses with the transitions between other adjacent levels is weak and thus we only consider the effect of the coupling of the pulse with the two adjacent l 2 l 1 and l l+1 transitions. FIG. 3: (color online) Fidelity for the quantum state transfer for g/2π and Ω/2π. (a) Fidelity for d = 3. (b) Fidelity for d = 4. (c) Fidelity for d = 5. When the dissipation and dephasing are included, the dynamics of the lossy system is determined by the following master equation dρ dt = i[h,ρ]+κl[a] d 1 { ]} γ (l 1)l,j L [σ (l 1)l,j j=1 l=1 2 d 1 { ( γϕl,j σll,j ρσ ll,j σ ll,j ρ/2 ρσ ll,j /2 )},(17) j=1 l=1 where d {3,4,5}, H is the modified Hamiltonian H I,1 or H I,l given above, σ (l 1)l, j = l 1 j l,σ ll,j = l j l, and L[Λ] = ΛρΛ + Λ + Λρ/2 ρλ + Λ/2 with Λ = a,σ (l 1)l, j. Here, κ is the photon decay rate of the cavity. In addition, γ (l 1)l,j is the energy relaxation rate of the level l for the decay path l l 1 and γ ϕl,j is the dephasing rate of the level l of qudit j (j = 1,2). The fidelity of the operation is given by F = ψid ρ ψ id, where ψ id is the output state of an ideal system (i.e., without dissipation and dephasing considered), which is given by: (i) ψ id = c (1/ 3) 2 l=0 l 2 for d = 3, (ii) ψ id = c (1/2) 3 l=0 l 2 for d = 4, and (iii) ψ id = c (1/ 5) 4 l=0 l 2 for d = 5. Note that ρ is the final density operator of the system when the operation is performed in a realistic situation. Without loss of generality, consider identical transmon qudits. In this case, the decoherence rates are the same for each qudit and thus the subscript j involved in the decoherence rates above can be omitted. According to [9], we choose (ω 01 ω 12 )/2π = 275 MHz,

6 6 (ω 12 ω 23 )/2π = 309 MHz, and (ω 23 ω 34 )/2π = 358 MHz. The decoherence times for the qudits and the cavity, used in the numerical calculation, are as follows: γ01 1 γϕ1 1 = 84 µs, γ 1 12 = 41 µs, γ 1 23 = 30 µs, γ 1 34 = 22 µs, = 72 µs, γ 1 ϕ2 = 32 µs, γ 1 ϕ3 = 12 µs, γ 1 ϕ4 = 2 µs, and κ 1 = 15 µs. The decoherence times of transmon qudits considered here are realistic because they are from the recent experimental report in [9]. In a realistic situation, it may be a challenge to obtain exact identical qudit-resonator couplings. Therefore, we consider inhomogeneous qudit-resonator couplings, e.g., g 1 = g and g 2 = 0.95g. We numerically calculate the fidelity of the entire operation based on the master equation. Figure 3(a,b,c) showsthefidelityversusg/2π andω/2π forqstbetween two qudits for d = 3, d = 4, and d = 5, respectively. From Fig. 3(a), one can see that for g/2π [2,8] MHz and Ω/2π [12,14]MHz, the fidelity can be greaterthan 98.8% for d = 3. When g/2π = 5.4 MHz and Ω/2π= 12.8 MHz, the fidelity value is the optimum with a value of 99.6% for d = 3. As shown in Fig. 3(b), the value of the fidelity has a slow decline for d = 4. In Fig. 3(b) the optimal value for F 96.96% is obtained for g/2π = 1.35 MHz and for Ω/2π= MHz. While F drastically decreases for d = 5, a high fidelity 90.32% is attainable with g/2π = 1.45 MHz and Ω/2π= MHz [see Fig. 3(c)]. Note that the above values of the g and Ω are readily available in experiments [61 64]. For a cavity with frequency ω c /2π = 4.97 GHz and dissipation time κ 1 used in the numerical simulation, thequalityfactorofthecavityisq Notethat three-dimensional cavities with a loaded quality factor Q > 10 6 have been implemented in experiments [61, 65]. V. CONCLUSION We have presented a method to deterministically transfer arbitrary d-dimensional quantum states (known or unknown) between two superconducting qudits, which are coupled to a single cavity or resonator. As shown above, only a single cavity or resonator is needed, thus the experimental setup is very simple. The state transfer can be performed fast because of employing resonant interactions only. In addition, no measurement is required. Numerical simulation shows that high-fidelity transfer of quantum states between two transmon qudits for (d 5) is feasible with current circuit-qed technology. This proposal is general and can be applied to accomplish the same task with various superconducting qudits, quantum dots, or natural atoms coupled to a cavity or resonator. We remark that the number of pulses required increases with the dimension d but it may not be a problem in experiments when d is not large. We hope this work will stimulate experimental activities in the near future. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS C.P. Yang and Q.P. Su were supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under Grant No. 2016YFA , the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos , , and , and the Zhejiang Natural Science Foundation under Grant No. LZ13A J.M. Liu was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos and , the National Basic Research Program of China under Grant No. 2012CB821302, and the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai under Grant No. 16ZR This work was also supported by the funds from Hangzhou City for the Hangzhou-City Quantum Information and Quantum Optics Innovation Research Team. [1] A. Muthukrishnan and C. R. Stroud, Multivalued logic gates for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 62, (2000). [2] S. S. Bullock, D. P. O Leary, and G. K. Brennen, Asymptotically optimal quantum circuits for d-level systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, (2005). [3] D. Bruß and C. Macchiavello, Optimal eavesdropping in cryptography with three-dimensional quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, (2002). [4] N. J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson, and N. Gisin, Security of quantum key distribution using d-level systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, (2002). [5] A. C. Dada, J. Leach, G. S. Buller, M. J. Padgett, and E. Andersson, Experimental high-dimensional two-photon entanglement and violations of generalized Bell inequalities, Nat. Physics 7, 677 (2011). [6] B. P. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. P. Almeida, T. Jennewein, T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O Brien, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, Simplifying quantum logic using higher-dimensional Hilbert spaces, Nat. Physics 5, 134 (2009). [7] J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, A. W. Cross, S. T. Merkel, C. Rigetti, and M. Steffen, Microwave-activated conditional-phase gate for superconducting qubits, New J. Phys. 15, (2013). [8] M. Neeley, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, A. D. O Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, M. R. Geller, J. M. Martinis, Emulation of a quantum spin with a superconducting phase qudit, Science 325, 722 (2009). [9] M. J. Peterer, S. J. Bader, X. Jin, F. Yan, A. Kamal, T. J. Gudmundsen, P. J. Leek, T. P. Orlando, W. D. Oliver, and S. Gustavsson, Coherence and decay of higher energy levels of a superconducting transmon qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, (2015). [10] K. S. Kumar, A. Vepsäläinen, S. Danilin, and G. S. Paraoanu, Stimulated Raman adiabatic passage in a three-level superconducting circuit, Nat. Commun. 7,

7 (2016). [11] J. Clarke and F. K. Wilhelm, Superconducting quantum bits, Nature 453, 1031 (2008). [12] J. Q. You and F. Nori, Atomic physics and quantum optics using superconducting circuits, Nature 474, 589 (2011). [13] I. Buluta, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Natural and artificial atoms for quantum computation, Rep. Prog. Phys. 74, (2011). [14] J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, A. D. Córcoles, S. T. Merkel, J. A. Smolin, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, J. R. Rozen, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Universal quantum gate set approaching faulttolerant thresholds with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, (2012). [15] J. B. Chang, M. R. Vissers, A. D. Corcoles, M. Sandberg, J. Gao, D. W. Abraham, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, M. B. Rothwell, G. A. Keefe, M. Steffen, and D. P. Pappas, Improved superconducting qubit coherence using titanium nitride, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, (2013). [16] R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, Y. Chen, Y. Yin, B. Chiaro, J. Y. Mutus, C. Neill, P. J. J. O Malley, P. Roushan, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Coherent Josephson qubit suitable for scalable quantum integrated circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, (2013). [17] J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, E. Magesan, D. W. Abraham, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, N. A. Masluk, C. A. Ryan, J. A. Smolin, S. J. Srinivasan, and M. Steffen, Implementing a strand of a scalable fault-tolerant quantum computing fabric, Nat. Commun. 5, 4015 (2014). [18] Y. 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. Mutus, P. J. J. O Malley, C. M. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, M. R. Geller, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Qubit architecture with high coherence and fast tunable coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, (2014). [19] M. Stern, G. Catelani, Y. Kubo, C. Grezes, A. Bienfait, D. Vion, D. Esteve, and P. Bertet, Flux qubits with long coherence times for hybrid quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, (2014). [20] M. Neeley, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, N. Katz, E. Lucero, A. O Connell, H. Wang, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Process tomography of quantum memory in a Josephson-phase qubit coupled to a two-level state, Nat. Physics 4, 523 (2008). [21] P. J. Leek, S. Filipp, P. Maurer, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, J. M. Fink, M. Göppl, L. Steffen, and A. Wallraff, Using sideband transitions for two-qubit operations in superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. B 79, (2009). [22] J. D. Strand, M. Ware, F. Beaudoin, T. A. Ohki, B. R. Johnson, A. Blais, and B. L. T. Plourde, First-order sideband transitions with flux-driven asymmetric transmon qubits, Phys. Rev. B 87, (2013). [23] A. Blais, R. S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: an architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 69, (2004). [24] C. P. Yang, S. I. Chu, and S. Han, Possible realization of entanglement, logical gates, and quantuminformation transfer with superconducting-quantuminterference-device qubits in cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A 67, (2003). [25] J. Q. You and F. Nori, Quantum information processing with superconducting qubits in a microwave field, Phys. Rev. B 68, (2003). [26] A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R. S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature 431, 162 (2004). [27] I. Chiorescu, P. Bertet, K. Semba, Y. Nakamura, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Coherent dynamics of a flux qubit coupled to a harmonic oscillator, Nature 431, 159 (2004). [28] P. Forn-Díaz, J. Lisenfeld, D. Marcos, J. J. García-Ripoll, E. Solano, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Observation of the Bloch-Siegert shift in a qubit-oscillator system in the ultrastrong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, (2010). [29] T. Niemczyk, F. Deppe, H. Huebl, E. P. Menzel, F. Hocke, M. J. Schwarz, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, D. Zueco, T. Hümmer, E. Solano, A. Marx, and R. Gross, Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime, Nat. Physics 6, 772 (2010). [30] A. Blais, A. M. van den Brink, and A. M. Zagoskin, Tunable coupling of superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, (2003). [31] F. Plastina and G. Falci, Communicating Josephson qubits, Phys. Rev. B 67, (2003). [32] C. P. Yang and S. Han, n-qubit-controlled phase gate with superconducting quantum-interference devices coupled to a resonator, Phys. Rev. A 72, (2005). [33] F. Helmer and F. Marquardt, Measurement-based synthesis of multiqubit entangled states in superconducting cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A 79, (2009). [34] L. S. Bishop, L. Tornberg, D. Price, E. Ginossar, A. Nunnenkamp, A. A. Houck, J. M. Gambetta, J. Koch, G. Johansson, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Proposal for generating and detecting multi-qubit GHZ states in circuit QED, New J. Phys. 11, (2009). [35] C. P. Yang, Y. X. Liu, and F. Nori, Phase gate of one qubit simultaneously controlling n qubits in a cavity, Phys. Rev. A 81, (2010). [36] L.DiCarlo, J.M.Chow, J.M.Gambetta, L.S.Bishop, B. R. Johnson, D.I. Schuster, J. Majer, A.Blais, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Demonstration of two-qubit algorithms with a superconducting quantum processor, Nature 460, 240 (2009). [37] J. M. Chow, A. D. Córcoles, J. M. Gambetta, C. Rigetti, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Simple all-microwave entangling gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, (2011). [38] M. Mariantoni, H. Wang, T. Yamamoto, M. Neeley, R. C. Bialczak, Y. Chen, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, A. D. O Connell, D. Sank, M. Weides, J. Wenner, Y. Yin, J. Zhao, A.N. Korotkov, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Implementing the quantum von Neumann Architecture with superconducting circuits, Science 334, 61 (2011). [39] A. Fedorov, L. Steffen, M. Baur, M. P. da Silva, and A. Wallraff, Implementation of a Toffoli gate with superconducting circuits, Nature 481, 170 (2012). [40] M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconduct-

8 8 ing circuits, Nature 482, 382 (2012). [41] L. DiCarlo, M. D. Reed, L. Sun, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Preparation and measurement of three-qubit entanglement in a superconducting circuit, Nature 467, 574 (2010). [42] S. Novikov, T. Sweeney, J. E. Robinson, S. P. Premaratne, B. Suri, F. C. Wellstood, and B. S. Palmer, Raman coherence in a circuit quantum electrodynamics lambda system, Nat. Physics 12, 75 (2016). [43] D. V. Averin, K. Xu, Y. P. Zhong, C. Song, H. Wang, and S. Han, Suppression of dephasing by qubit motion in superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, (2016). [44] C. P. Yang, S. I. Chu, and S. Han, Quantum information transfer and entanglement with SQUID qubits in cavity QED: A Dark-state scheme with tolerance for nonuniform device parameter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, (2004). [45] Z. Kis and E. Paspalakis, Arbitrary rotation and entanglement of flux SQUID qubits, Phys. Rev. B 69, (2004). [46] E. Paspalakis and N. J. Kylstra, Coherent manipulation of superconducting quantum interference devices with adiabatic passage, J. Mod. Opt. 51, 1679 (2004). [47] C. P. Yang, Quantum information transfer with superconducting flux qubits coupled to a resonator, Phys. Rev. A 82, (2010). [48] Z. B. Feng, Quantum state transfer between hybrid qubits in a circuit QED, Phys. Rev. A 85, (2012). [49] C. P. Yang, Q. P. Su, and F. Nori, Entanglement generation and quantum information transfer between spatiallyseparated qubits in different cavities, New J. Phys. 15, (2013). [50] J. Majer, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Koch, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Schreier, L. Frunzio, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Coupling superconducting qubits via a cavity bus, Nature 449, 443 (2007). [51] M. A. Sillanpää, J. I. Park, and R. W. Simmonds, Coherent quantum state storage and transfer between two phase qubits via a resonant cavity, Nature 449, 438 (2007). [52] M. Baur, A. Fedorov, L. Steffen, S. Filipp, M. P. da Silva, and A. Wallraff, Benchmarking a quantum teleportation protocol in superconducting circuits using tomography and an entanglement witness, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, (2012). [53] L. Steffen, Y. Salathe, M. Oppliger, P. Kurpiers, M. Baur, C. Lang, C. Eichler, G. Puebla-Hellmann, A. Fedorov, and A. Wallraff, Deterministic quantum teleportation with feed-forward in a solid state system, Nature 500, 319 (2013). [54] W. Qin, C. Wang, and G. L. Long, High-dimensional quantum state transfer through a quantum spin chain, Phys. Rev. A 87, (2013). [55] Y. Liu and D. L. Zhou, Transfer of an arbitrary photon state along a cavity array without initialization, New J. Phys. 17, (2015). [56] A. Bayat, Arbitrary perfect state transfer in d-level spin chains, Phys. Rev. A 89, (2014). [57] J. Ghosh, Emulating quantum state transfer through a spin-1 chain on a one-dimensional lattice of superconducting qutrits, Phys. Rev. A 90, (2014). [58] T. Liu, S. J. Xiong, X. Z. Cao, Q. P. Su, and C. P. Yang, Efficient transfer of an arbitrary qutrit state in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Opt. Lett. 40, 5602 (2015). [59] P. Pradhan, M. P. Anantram, and K. L. Wang, Quantum computation by optically coupled steady atoms/quantum-dots inside a quantum electro-dynamic cavity, arxiv:quant-ph/ (2000). [60] J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A.Blais, M.H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A 76, (2007). [61] H. Paik, D. I. Schuster, L. S. Bishop, G. Kirchmair, G. Catelani, A. P. Sears, B. R. Johnson, M. J. Reagor, L. Frunzio, L. I. Glazman, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Observation of high coherence in josephson junction qubits measured in a threedimensional circuit QED architecture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, (2011). [62] C. Rigetti, J. M. Gambetta, S. Poletto, B. L. T. Plourde, J. M. Chow, A.D.Córcoles, J. A.Smolin, S.T. Merkel, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Superconducting qubit in a waveguide cavity with a coherence time approaching 0.1 ms, Phys. Rev. B 86, (2012). [63] M. Baur, S. Filipp, R. Bianchetti, J. M. Fink, M. Göppl, L. Steffen, P. J. Leek, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Measurement of Autler-Townes and mollow transitions in a strongly driven superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, (2009). [64] F. Yoshihara, Y. Nakamura, F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, J. Bylander, W. D. Oliver, and J. Tsai, Flux qubit noise spectroscopy using Rabi oscillations under strong driving conditions, Phys. Rev. B 89, (2014). [65] M. Reagor, W. Pfaff, C. Axline, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek, K. Sliwa, E. Holland, C. Wang, J. Blumoff, K. Chou, M. J. Hatridge, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Quantum memory with millisecond coherence in circuit QED, Phys. Rev. B 94, (2016).