D. Frank, S. Chakraborty, K. Tien, Pat Rosno, T. Fox, M. Yeck, J. Glick, R. Robertazzi, R. Richetta, J. Bulzacchelli, Daniel Ramirez, Dereje Yilma, Andrew Davies, R. Joshi, Shawn D. Chambers, S. Lekuch, K. Inoue, D. Underwood, Dorothy Wisnieff, C. Baks, D. Bethune, John Timmerwilke, B. Johnson, Brian P. Gaucher, D. Friedman
{"title":"14nm FinFET技术中的Cryo-CMOS低功耗半自主量子比特状态控制器","authors":"D. Frank, S. Chakraborty, K. Tien, Pat Rosno, T. Fox, M. Yeck, J. Glick, R. Robertazzi, R. Richetta, J. Bulzacchelli, Daniel Ramirez, Dereje Yilma, Andrew Davies, R. Joshi, Shawn D. Chambers, S. Lekuch, K. Inoue, D. Underwood, Dorothy Wisnieff, C. Baks, D. Bethune, John Timmerwilke, B. Johnson, Brian P. Gaucher, D. Friedman","doi":"10.1109/ISSCC42614.2022.9731538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Error-corrected quantum computing is expected to require at least 105 to 106 physical qubits. Superconducting transmons, which are promising qubit candidates for scaled quantum computing systems, typically require individually tailored RF pulses in the 4-to-6 GHz range to manipulate their states, so scaling to 106 qubits presents an enormous challenge. Providing a control line for every qubit from room temperature (RT) to the 10mK environment does not appear to be viable for a 106 qubit system due to multiple factors, including RF loss, mechanical congestion, heat load, and connector unreliability. TDM cannot be used to reduce the number of control lines since all of the qubits may need to be activated at once (e.g., during quantum error correction (QEC) cycles). FDM has been proposed but is undesirable because extra tones can give rise to unwanted qubit excitations.","PeriodicalId":6830,"journal":{"name":"2022 IEEE International Solid- State Circuits Conference (ISSCC)","volume":"14 1","pages":"360-362"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Cryo-CMOS Low-Power Semi-Autonomous Qubit State Controller in 14nm FinFET Technology\",\"authors\":\"D. Frank, S. Chakraborty, K. Tien, Pat Rosno, T. Fox, M. Yeck, J. Glick, R. Robertazzi, R. Richetta, J. Bulzacchelli, Daniel Ramirez, Dereje Yilma, Andrew Davies, R. Joshi, Shawn D. Chambers, S. Lekuch, K. Inoue, D. Underwood, Dorothy Wisnieff, C. Baks, D. Bethune, John Timmerwilke, B. Johnson, Brian P. Gaucher, D. Friedman\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ISSCC42614.2022.9731538\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Error-corrected quantum computing is expected to require at least 105 to 106 physical qubits. Superconducting transmons, which are promising qubit candidates for scaled quantum computing systems, typically require individually tailored RF pulses in the 4-to-6 GHz range to manipulate their states, so scaling to 106 qubits presents an enormous challenge. Providing a control line for every qubit from room temperature (RT) to the 10mK environment does not appear to be viable for a 106 qubit system due to multiple factors, including RF loss, mechanical congestion, heat load, and connector unreliability. TDM cannot be used to reduce the number of control lines since all of the qubits may need to be activated at once (e.g., during quantum error correction (QEC) cycles). FDM has been proposed but is undesirable because extra tones can give rise to unwanted qubit excitations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6830,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 IEEE International Solid- State Circuits Conference (ISSCC)\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"360-362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 IEEE International Solid- State Circuits Conference (ISSCC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSCC42614.2022.9731538\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 IEEE International Solid- State Circuits Conference (ISSCC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSCC42614.2022.9731538","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Cryo-CMOS Low-Power Semi-Autonomous Qubit State Controller in 14nm FinFET Technology
Error-corrected quantum computing is expected to require at least 105 to 106 physical qubits. Superconducting transmons, which are promising qubit candidates for scaled quantum computing systems, typically require individually tailored RF pulses in the 4-to-6 GHz range to manipulate their states, so scaling to 106 qubits presents an enormous challenge. Providing a control line for every qubit from room temperature (RT) to the 10mK environment does not appear to be viable for a 106 qubit system due to multiple factors, including RF loss, mechanical congestion, heat load, and connector unreliability. TDM cannot be used to reduce the number of control lines since all of the qubits may need to be activated at once (e.g., during quantum error correction (QEC) cycles). FDM has been proposed but is undesirable because extra tones can give rise to unwanted qubit excitations.