\section{introduction}

A quantum computer is expected to offer exponentially expedited solutions to several important classes of problems compared to the classical ones \cite{nielsen2010quantum}. Semiconductor quantum-dot spin qubits are among the most promising candidates for its realization, partially due to their demonstrated long coherence times and high control fidelities \cite{Petta.05, Bluhm.10b, Barthel.10, Maune.12, Pla.12, Pla.13, Muhonen.14, Kim.14,Kawakami.16}, and partially due to their potential to scale up \cite{Taylor.05}. While the spin states of a single electron naturally constitute a qubit \cite{Loss.98}, difficulties in manipulating them with a time-varying magnetic field \cite{Pioro.05,Koppens.06,Muhonen.14} have led researchers to study spin qubits based on the collective states of two or more electrons. The singlet-triplet qubit \cite{Levy.02} makes use of the two-electron singlet and triplet states, and its manipulation requires control of the Heisenberg exchange interaction between the two spins as well as a static magnetic field gradient. It was then realized that should three spins be used to encode a qubit, the need of a magnetic field gradient can be eliminated, and the control over the exchange interactions suffices for universal operation \cite{DiVincenzo.00,Russ.17}. The triple-quantum-dot three-spin qubit was initially realized as an ``exchange-only'' (EO) qubit \cite{Laird.10}, for which rotations around two axes of the Bloch sphere are achieved by detuning the qubit either positively or negatively toward the spin-to-charge-conversion regimes. Maneuvers of initialization, operation and readout have been experimentally demonstrated \cite{Laird.10, Gaudreau.12,Medford.13a}.

An exchange-only qubit is typically idealized as two $S=1/2$, $S_z=1/2$ (choosing $S_z=-1/2$ is equivalent) states in the three-spin decoherence-free subspace \cite{Fong.11}. Exchange interactions between neighboring spins suffice for arbitrary rotation around the Bloch sphere, with the two rotation axes 120$^\circ$ apart. Another state with the same $S_z$ but $S=3/2$ is energetically close, and the hyperfine noise---the fluctuations of the magnetic field---causes leakage to it \cite{Ladd.12}. Beside the leakage, dephasing can also happen due to either the hyperfine noises \cite{Hung.14,Delbecq.16,Peterfalvi.17} or the charge noises \cite{Eng.15,Thorgrimsson.17}, the latter usually arising from detuning fluctuations caused by unintentionally deposited impurities during the fabrication of the sample. Different from the hyperfine noise, the charge noise is typically dependent on the first-order derivative of the exchange field with respect to the detuning. In order to reduce the charge noise, it is then desirable to operate the qubit at the point where the exchange interaction is first-order insensitive to the detuning, called the ``sweet spot''. This and other considerations have led to the experimental demonstration of the ``resonant-exchange'' (RX) qubit \cite{Medford.13b,Taylor.13,Doherty.13}, for which a triple-spin qubit is operated by radio-frequency (rf) gate voltage pulses around the sweet spot of the exchange interaction. It was later on noted that since there are essentially two independent detuning values, there exists a double sweet spot for the maximal suppression of charge noises \cite{Shim.16,Russ.16}.

While theoretical studies on either the exchange-only or resonant-exchange qubits are abundant, a detailed microscopic theoretical calculation \cite{Burkard.99,Hu.00} of the triple-dot qubits is lacking in the literature. For double quantum dots, the  molecular-orbital-theoretic calculations that are based mostly on configuration interaction method with the Hund-Mulliken approximation, have elucidated many important physics of the system, including for example how the exchange interaction depends on the detailed dimensions of the device and external fields \cite{Burkard.99, Hu.00, He.05, Li.10, Mehl.14}, as well as the response of the device to fluctuations \cite{Nielsen.10, Raith.11, Barnes.11, Bakker.15}.  The vast success originates from the fact that molecular-orbital calculations grant us access to electron wave functions, albeit being approximate, which consequently allows direct calculation of many important physical quantities.  As we shall see in this paper, molecular orbital calculations of a triple-quantum-dot system provides insights to the problem, complementary to theories based on model Hamiltonians. In particular, we found that when the triple-quantum-dot system is operated as an EO qubit, severe leakage will occur when the rotation around the axis 120$^\circ$ from $\hat{z}$ is exercised. While the leakage can be reduced by shrinking the dots or making them further apart from each other, the exchange interaction will also substantially decrease, making the gate operations unacceptably slow. On the other hand, when the triple-quantum-dot system is operated as an RX qubit, the variation of the detuning is confined within the small neighborhood of the sweet spot, which implies a small leakage. Our calculations indicate that the leakage in this case remains substantially smaller than the EO qubit case even when the amplitude of the rf pulse is large. We have also studied how the leakage in the RX qubit depends on the values of detuning, and found that although the point for which the leakage is minimal does not exactly overlap with the double-sweet-spot point, they are rather close.
These results suggest that while the RX qubit is believed to be superior than the EO one due to its suppression of charge noises at the sweet spot, it has another advantage that the leakage can be substantially reduced as compared to the EO qubit.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:model} we explain the model and methods used in our calculations. In Sec.~\ref{sec:res} we present our results, including calculations when the triple-quantum-dot system is operated as an EO qubit (Sec.~\ref{sec:eo}) and as an RX qubit (Sec.~\ref{sec:rx}). In Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion} we conclude.

\begin{figure}
  \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig-1}
\caption{(a) Schematic diagram of a lateral triple-quantum-dot system. (b) Schematic of the triple-well confinement potential with the energy of each dot $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ indicated. The two detuning values $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon^m$ are also shown [cf. Eqs.~\eqref{eq:epsl} and \eqref{eq:epslm}].}
\label{fig:intro}
\end{figure}

\section{Model and Methods}
\label{sec:model}

We consider a lateral triple-quantum-dot system with each dot labeled by 1, 2 and 3 from the left to the right [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:intro}(a)]. When each dot is occupied by a single electron, one may write the effective spin Hamiltonian as
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm spin}=J_{12}\bm{S}_1\cdot\bm{S}_2+J_{23}\bm{S}_2\cdot\bm{S}_3+\sum_{i=1}^3B_iS_i^z,
\label{eq:spinham}
\end{equation}
where $J_{12}$ and $J_{23}$ are Heisenberg exchange interactions between the neighboring spins, and $B_i$ are the magnetic fields at different dots.
In our model we have neglected the spin-orbit coupling \cite{Stepanenko.03,Rolon.17}. In GaAs, the spin-orbit coupling is very weak \cite{Burkard.99, Stepanenko.12, Cerfontaine.14}, much smaller compared to the level spacing of quantum dot qubits, so it is safe to neglect \cite{Burkard.99,Rancic.14,Cerfontaine.14}. Moreover, the effects of spin-orbit interaction can be minimized by, e.g. reorienting the magnetic fields \cite{Fujita.16,Pal.17,Hofmann.17}, or by applying carefully tailored gates \cite{Bonesteel.01,Burkard.02,Li.17}.

The Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:spinham} has eight eigenstates, out of which the two states with $S=1/2$ and $S_z=1/2$ are chosen as our qubit states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ (choosing $S_z=-1/2$ is equivalent but we will stick to the $S_z=1/2$ states throughout this work), and another state with $S=3/2$ and $S_z=1/2$ is the leakage state $|Q\rangle$. These three states can be written as:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
|0_{\rm EO}\rangle&=({|\!\uparrow,\downarrow,\uparrow\rangle}-{|\!\downarrow,\uparrow,\uparrow\rangle})/\sqrt{2},\\
|1_{\rm EO}\rangle&=({|\!\uparrow,\downarrow,\uparrow\rangle}+{|\!\downarrow,\uparrow,\uparrow\rangle})/\sqrt{6}-\sqrt{6}{|\!\uparrow,\uparrow,\downarrow\rangle}/3,\\
|Q\rangle&=({|\!\uparrow,\downarrow,\uparrow\rangle}+{|\!\downarrow,\uparrow,\uparrow\rangle}+{|\!\uparrow,\uparrow,\downarrow\rangle})/\sqrt{3}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}

When the magnetic field is homogeneous, i.e. $B_1=B_2=B_3$, the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:spinham} commutes with $\bm{S}^2$ and no leakage occurs. Inhomogeneity of the magnetic field, induced for example by the hyperfine interactions, causes leakage to the $|Q\rangle$ state and is a main source of error \cite{Ladd.12}. This leakage has been studied in the literature and can be suppressed either by enlarging the qubit level spacing \cite{Taylor.13,Hung.14} or by application of dynamically corrected gates \cite{Hickman.13,Zhang.16}. Nevertheless, we would like to focus on the leakage to other states with double electron occupancy, which have received much less attention. We therefore focus on the case when the magnetic field is homogeneous and neglect the hyperfine-coupling-induced inhomogeneity. Here we note that the spin Hamiltonian  \eqref{eq:spinham} is a simplification corresponding to the case in which all dots are occupied by a single electron. Later in this section we will introduce models allowing for double-occupancy and facilitating our discussion of leakage to those states involving doubly occupied dots.

Under the bases of $\{|0_{\rm EO}\rangle,|1_{\rm EO}\rangle,|Q\rangle\}$ (``computational bases''), the spin Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:spinham} can be written in a $3\times3$ matrix \cite{Ladd.12}:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
H^{\rm comp}_{\rm EO}&=J_{12}E_{12}+J_{23}E_{23}\\
&+\left(\frac{\lambda_1}{2 \sqrt{3}}+\frac{\lambda_4}{\sqrt{6}}\right)\Delta_A+\left(\frac{\lambda_3}{3}+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\lambda_6\right)\Delta_B,
\end{split}
\label{eq:compham}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
E_{12}=-\frac{\lambda_3}{2}-\frac{\lambda_8}{2\sqrt{3}}, \quad E_{23}=-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\lambda_1+\frac{\lambda_3}{4}-\frac{\lambda_8}{2\sqrt{3}},
\end{align}
$\lambda_i$ are Gell-Mann matrices \cite{Georgi.99},
$\Delta_A=B_1-B_2$ and $\Delta_B=B_3-(B_1+B_2)/2$ are fluctuations in the hyperfine field \cite{Ladd.12,Hickman.13} which cause, in this case, leakage to $|Q_{\rm EO}\rangle$. In absence of leakage, $E_{12}$ and $E_{23}$ implement rotations on the Bloch sphere around two axes which are 120$^\circ$ apart, i.e. $\hat{z}$ and $\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\hat{x}-\frac{1}{2}\hat{z}$, respectively. Therefore the control over the two axes suffices for arbitrary single-qubit rotations.

The spin Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:spinham} is a simplification of the problem, which assumes that the three quantum dots are occupied by one electron each. Moreover, this theory alone cannot provide the value of exchange interactions from the microscopic details (i.e. detuning, dot sizes and distance between the dots). Therefore we also need a microscopic Hamiltonian which explicitly allows double occupancy in a given dot. We take the magnetic field to be along the $z$ direction and the quantum dots within the $xy$ plane. The microscopic Hamiltonian can be written as
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm micro}=\sum_{i=1}^3\left[\frac{1}{2m^*}\left(\bm{p}_i-e\bm{A}_i\right)^2+V(\bm{r}_i)\right],
\label{eq:H}
\end{equation}
where $m^*$ is the effective mass of the electron (taken to be 0.067 electron mass for GaAs), $V(\bm{r})$ is the confinement potential of the triple quantum dots.

In this work $V(\bm{r})$ is modeled as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
V(\bm{r})=\text{Min}\left[v_1(\bm{r}),v_2(\bm{r}),v_3(\bm{r})\right],
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:V}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
v_i(\bm{r})\equiv\frac{m^*\omega_0^2}{2}\left|\bm{r}-\bm{R}_i\right|^2+\epsilon_i
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:v}
\end{equation}
is the confinement potential for the $i$th quantum dot, which  centers at $\bm{R}_i$ $(i=1,2,3)$:
\begin{align}
\bm{R}_1=(-2a,0),\quad\bm{R}_2=(0,0),\quad\bm{R}_3=(2a,0).
\label{eq:R}
\end{align}
A schematic diagram of the potential is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:intro}(b).

Here, the key parameters describing the microscopic details of the systems are $\omega_0$, the confinement energy \cite{Burkard.99, Hu.00} characterizing the size of the dot, and $\epsilon_i$, the energies of electrons in each dot. Differences in $\epsilon_i$ are termed as the ``detuning'' which can be used to vary the amplitudes of $J_{12}$ and $J_{23}$. There are two independent detunings, $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon^m$ \cite{Shim.16,Russ.16}, defined as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\varepsilon&=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_3,\label{eq:epsl}\\
\varepsilon^m&=\epsilon_2-(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_3)/2.\label{eq:epslm}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Typically the EO qubit is manipulated by varying $\varepsilon$ with $\varepsilon^m$ fixed. However, since $J_{12}$ and  $J_{23}$ are dependent on both $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon^m$, in order to suppress the charge noise one may define a ``double sweet spot'' with $\partial J_{12}/\partial\varepsilon=
\partial J_{12}/\partial\varepsilon^m=
\partial J_{23}/\partial\varepsilon=
\partial J_{23}/\partial\varepsilon^m=0$, and operate the qubit close to the sweet spot \cite{Medford.13b,Shim.16}. This has inspired the invention of the RX qubit, which is operated by an rf pulse in a small neighborhood of the sweet spot.
In the initial demonstration of the RX qubit, it is operated at the sweet spot of $\varepsilon$ only with $\varepsilon^m$ assumed to be fixed at some value \cite{Medford.13b}. Ref.~\cite{Shim.16} pointed out that one should consider the double sweet spot (namely, the ``three-dimensional sweet spot'') as explained above. Very recently, there has been experimental demonstration of operations of an RX qubit at this double sweet spot
\cite{Malinowski.17}. While no significant improvement of the gate fidelity is found, more investigations are needed along this line.

 In this paper, we are interested in properties of triple-quantum-dot qubits (including both EO and RX qubits) which are calculated from the microsopic theory.  We will show that beside the fact that the RX qubit has smaller charge noise than the EO one, it also has another advantage: the leakage to other states, which are significant in EO, is also substantially suppressed if the triple-quantum-dot system is treated as an RX qubit. To do this we need access to the detailed energy level structure of the system which can only be made available from a microscopic calculation.

To solve this multi-electron problem, we use the configuration interaction method building electron wave functions from the Fock-Darwin states, which are essentially the harmonic oscillator states. We
adopt the Hund-Mulliken approximation \cite{Burkard.99,Hu.00} that retains only the ground states
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\phi_i(\bm{r})=\frac{1}{a_B^{}\sqrt{\pi}}\text{exp}\left[{-\frac{1}{2a_B^2}\left|\bm{r}-\bm{R}_i\right|^2}\right],\quad i=1,2,3.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:ground}
\end{equation}
Here, $a_B^{}\equiv\sqrt{\hbar/m\omega_0}$ is Fock-Darwin radius.
A set of orthogonal single-electron states
can then be built   by the transformation
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\left\{\psi_1,\text{ }\psi_2,\text{ }\psi_3\right\}^\text{T}=\mathcal{O}^{-1/2}\left\{\phi_1,\text{ }\phi_2,\text{ }\phi_3\right\}^\text{T},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:trans}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{O}$ is the overlap matrix defined as $\mathcal{O}_{l,l^\prime}\equiv\langle\phi_l|\phi_{l^\prime}\rangle$ and found following \cite{annavarapu2013singular,Yang.17}.

The Hamiltonian of the three-electron system can also be expressed, using the second-quantized notations, in a Hubbard-like form as \cite{Yang.11,Yang.17}
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm Hubbard}=H_e+H_t+H_U+H_{J^e}+H_{J^p}+H_{J^t},
\label{eq:fqdHam}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
H_e=&\sum^3_{k=1}\sum_\sigma\epsilon_kc^\dagger_{k\sigma}c^{}_{k\sigma},\label{eq:A6a}\\
H_t=&\sum^{2}_{k=1}\sum_\sigma t_{k,k+1}c^\dagger_{k\sigma}c^{}_{k+1,\sigma}+\text{H.c.},\label{eq:A6b}\\
H_U=&\sum^2_{k=1}U_{k,k+1}\left(n_{k\uparrow}+n_{k\downarrow}\right)\left(n_{k+1,\uparrow}+n_{k+1,\downarrow}\right)\notag\\
&+\sum^3_{k=1}U_kn_{k\uparrow}n_{k\downarrow},\label{eq:A6c}\\
H_{J^e}=&-\sum^2_{k=1}\sum_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2}J^e_{k,k+1}c^\dagger_{k\sigma_1}c^\dagger_{k+1,\sigma_2}c^{}_{k+1,\sigma_1}c^{}_{k\sigma_2},\label{eq:A6d}\\
H_{J^p}=&-\sum^2_{k=1}J^p_{k,k+1}c^\dagger_{k+1,\uparrow}c^\dagger_{k+1,\downarrow}c_{k\uparrow}c_{k\downarrow}+ \text{H.c.},\label{eq:A6e}\\
H_{J^t}=&-\sum^2_{k=1}\sum^{k+1}_{i=k}\sum_\sigma J^{t,i}_{k,k+1}n_{i\sigma}c^\dagger_{k\bar{\sigma}}c_{k+1,\bar{\sigma}}+\text{H.c.}.
\label{eq:A6f}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here, the $c^\dagger_{i\sigma}$ operator creates  an electron with spin $\sigma$ at the $i^{\rm th}$ dot.

In our problem,  three electrons (two spin-up and one spin-down) occupy the lateral triple-quantum-dot system, and each dot allows a maximum of two electrons. There are a total of 9 possibilities so our complete bases contain the following 9 states:
\begin{subequations}
		\begin{align}
	\left | \uparrow,\uparrow,\downarrow \right \rangle&=c^\dagger_{1\uparrow}c^\dagger_{2\uparrow}c^\dagger_{3\downarrow}|\text{vac}\rangle,\label{eq:9states1}\\
	\left | \uparrow,\downarrow,\uparrow \right \rangle&=c^\dagger_{1\uparrow}c^\dagger_{2\downarrow}c^\dagger_{3\uparrow}|\text{vac}\rangle,\\
	\left | \downarrow,\uparrow,\uparrow \right \rangle&=c^\dagger_{1\downarrow}c^\dagger_{2\uparrow}c^\dagger_{3\uparrow}|\text{vac}\rangle,\\
	\left | \uparrow,\uparrow\downarrow,0 \right \rangle&= c^\dagger_{1\uparrow}c^\dagger_{2\uparrow}c^\dagger_{2\downarrow}|\text{vac}\rangle,\\
	\left | \uparrow\downarrow,\uparrow,0 \right \rangle&= c^\dagger_{1\uparrow}c^\dagger_{1\downarrow}c^\dagger_{2\uparrow}|\text{vac}\rangle,\\
	\left |0, \uparrow,\uparrow\downarrow \right \rangle&= c^\dagger_{2\uparrow}c^\dagger_{3\uparrow}c^\dagger_{3\downarrow}|\text{vac}\rangle,\\
	\left |0, \uparrow\downarrow,\uparrow \right \rangle&= c^\dagger_{2\uparrow}c^\dagger_{2\downarrow}c^\dagger_{3\uparrow}|\text{vac}\rangle,\\
	\left | \uparrow,0,\uparrow\downarrow \right \rangle&= c^\dagger_{1\uparrow}c^\dagger_{3\uparrow}c^\dagger_{3\downarrow}|\text{vac}\rangle,\\
	\left | \uparrow\downarrow,0,\uparrow \right \rangle&= c^\dagger_{1\uparrow}c^\dagger_{1\downarrow}c^\dagger_{3\uparrow}|\text{vac}\rangle\label{eq:9states9},
		\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $|\text{vac}\rangle$ refers to a vacuum state. To facilitate discussions in the remainder of this paper, we also introduce the notation $(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ to be used interchangeably with the l.h.s.~of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:9states1}-\eqref{eq:9states9}, where $n_i$ denotes the electron occupancy of the $i$th dot, $i=1,2,3$. For example, $(1,1,1)$ refers to any linear superposition of $\left | \uparrow,\uparrow,\downarrow \right \rangle$, $\left | \uparrow,\downarrow,\uparrow \right \rangle$ and $\left | \downarrow,\uparrow,\uparrow \right \rangle$ states, $(1,0,2)$ refers to $\left | \uparrow,0,\uparrow\downarrow \right \rangle$ and $(2,0,1)$ the $\left | \uparrow\downarrow,0,\uparrow \right \rangle$ state. It is obvious that $(1,1,1)$ indicates the computational subspace of the qubit, and we shall see in Sec.~\ref{sec:eo} that the leakage to $(2,0,1)$ and $(1,0,2)$ can seriously hinder the coherent operation of the system as an  EO qubit, while the leakage is substantially reduced when the system is operated as an RX qubit.

Under the bases Eqs.~\eqref{eq:9states1}-\eqref{eq:9states9}, the Hubbard Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:fqdHam} is written in a $9\times9$ matrix. $H_e$ (the kinetic energy), $H_U$ (Coulomb repulsions) constitute the diagonal elements of the matrix, while $H_t$ (hopping), $H_{J^e}$ (spin super-exchange), $H_{J^p}$ (pair-hopping) and $H_{J^t}$  (occupation-modulated hopping) terms contribute to the off-diagonal ones.

The configuration interaction calculation is essentially the evaluation of the Hubbard parameters involved in Eq.~\eqref{eq:fqdHam} using inner products of the orthogonalized electron wave functions built on the results of Eq.~\eqref{eq:trans}. The energy spectra and the composition of eigenstates are then found by diagonalization of the matrix.

Figure~\ref{fig:Uplot} shows the calculated $U_{1}$, $U_{2}$ and $U_{12}$ in the Hamiltonian, Eq.~\eqref{eq:A6c}, as functions of $\varepsilon$. Because of the symmetry of the triple-well potential, $U_1=U_3$ and $U_{12}=U_{23}$. Because the Coulomb interaction essentially depends on the occupancy of each dot, it almost does not change with detuning, as has been shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Uplot}. The results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Uplot} are obtained for $\varepsilon^{m}=3.3 \mathrm{meV}$, but there is almost no change when $\varepsilon^{m}$ becomes negative (unlike the case for the inter-dot hopping to be explained below) so the results for $\varepsilon^{m}<0$ are not shown. From Fig.~\ref{fig:Uplot} we also see that the inter-dot Coulomb interaction $U_{12}$ is much weaker than the intra-dot ones, $U_1$ and $U_2$, as expected from the overlap between the electron wave functions.

In Fig.~\ref{fig:eo} and Fig.~\ref{fig:rx} we show the calculated inter-dot hopping $t_{12}$ and $t_{23}$ as functions of the detuning $\varepsilon$, for two values of $\varepsilon^m$: Fig.~\ref{fig:eo} shows the results for $\varepsilon^{m}=3.3 \mathrm{meV}$ which corresponds to our choice of parameters for the discussion of the EO qubit; Fig.~\ref{fig:rx} shows the  $\varepsilon^{m}=-2.25 \mathrm{meV}$ case which is at the double sweet spot of an RX qubit. For $\varepsilon^{m}>0$, we see from Fig.~\ref{fig:eo}(a) that $t_{12}$ drops as $\varepsilon$ turns from a negative value to a positive one, while $t_{23}$ increases. Fig.~\ref{fig:eo}(b) shows the schematic plots of the confinement potential. When $\varepsilon=0$, the potential well in both dots 1 and 3 are deeper than that of dot 2. As $\varepsilon$ is turned to negative values, dot 1 becomes even deeper, therefore the electron in dot 2 is more likely to move to dot 1, resulting in an increased $t_{12}$. On the other hand, as the energy of dot 1 is decreased, that of dot 3 is raised, so that the energies of dots 2 and 3, $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ become comparable, therefore $t_{23}$ is decreased. The opposite happens when $\varepsilon$ is turned to positive values.

On the contrary, on the double sweet spot of the RX qubit, $\varepsilon^{m}<0$. From Fig.~\ref{fig:rx} we see that $t_{12}$ decreases as $\varepsilon$ is turned from negative to positive values, while $t_{23}$ increases. This is because in this case, $\epsilon_2<\epsilon_1,\epsilon_3$ when $\varepsilon=0$ [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:rx}(b)], and even if the system is detuned a little, an electron is not likely to move from the middle dot to its sides. On the contrary, when $\varepsilon<0$, an electron in dot 3 will be more likely to move to dot 2, so $t_{23}$ is larger. The electron in dot 1 is less likely to move to dot 2 since  $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ become comparable, resulting in a smaller $t_{12}$. The opposite is true when $\varepsilon>0$. As we shall see in Sec.~\ref{sec:rx}, these results have interesting consequences on the leakage. We also note here that the exchange interactions ($J^e$, $J^p$, $J^t$) in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:A6d}, \eqref{eq:A6e} and \eqref{eq:A6f} are much smaller so we do not show the results for them here.

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{Fig-2}
	\caption{Calculated parameters $U_{1}$, $U_{2}$ and $U_{12}$ in the Hamiltonian, Eq.~\eqref{eq:A6c}, as functions of $\varepsilon$. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$ and $\varepsilon^{m}=3.3 \mathrm{meV}$.}
	\label{fig:Uplot}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{Fig-3}
	\caption{(a) Calculated parameters $t_{12}$ (black line) and $t_{23}$ (red/gray line) in the Hamiltonian, Eq.~\eqref{eq:A6b}, as functions of $\varepsilon$ for $\varepsilon^{m}=3.3 \mathrm{meV}$. (b) Schematic plots of the  triple-well confinement potential with detuning $\varepsilon<0$, $\varepsilon=0$ and $\varepsilon>0$ as indicated. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$.}
	\label{fig:eo}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{Fig-4}
	\caption{(a) Calculated parameters $t_{12}$ (black line) and $t_{23}$ (red/gray line) in the Hamiltonian,  Eq.~\eqref{eq:A6b}, as functions of $\varepsilon$ for $\varepsilon^{m}=-2.25 \mathrm{meV}$. (b) Schematic plots of the triple-well confinement potential with detuning $\varepsilon<0$, $\varepsilon=0$ and $\varepsilon>0$ as indicated. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$.}
	\label{fig:rx}
\end{figure}

\section{Results}
\label{sec:res}

\subsection{Exchange-only qubit}
\label{sec:eo}

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{Fig-5}
	\caption{Calculated energy spectra of the triple-quantum dot system.  The ground state is marked as $\left|\mathrm{GS}\right\rangle$, the first excited state as  $\left|\mathrm{1ES}\right\rangle$ and the second excited state  $\left | Q \right \rangle$. The splitting between  $\left|\mathrm{GS}\right\rangle$ and $\left|\mathrm{1ES}\right\rangle$ gives the exchange interactions which, at different $\varepsilon$ values, are denoted as $J_{L}$, $J_{M}$ and $J_{R}$. The angles near the vertical dashed lines give the direction of the rotating axis if a qubit is operated at the corresponding detuning. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$ and $\varepsilon^{m}= 3.3 \mathrm{meV}$. (Note that one should not confuse $\varepsilon_M$ with $\varepsilon^m$: $\varepsilon_M=0$ in this figure is the detuning value of $\varepsilon$ relevant to $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_3$ at which the exchange only qubit is rotated at an axis 60$^\circ$ apart from $\hat{z}$ (cf. Eq.~\eqref{eq:epsl}), while $\varepsilon^m$ is another detuning value defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:epslm}.) }
	\label{fig:5}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.71\columnwidth]{Fig-6}
\caption{The composition of states as functions of the detuning $\varepsilon$. (a): The composition of the ground state $\left|\mathrm{GS}\right\rangle$. (b): The composition of the first excited state  $\left|\mathrm{1ES}\right\rangle$. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$ and $\varepsilon^{m}=3.3 \mathrm{meV}$.}
\label{fig:6}
\end{figure}

In this section, we study the energy-level spectra of the triple-quantum-dot system. The energy levels can be tuned by changing the detuning value $\varepsilon$ which subsequently varies the charge configuration. There are a total of 9 energy levels in our problem (cf. Eqs.~\eqref{eq:9states1}-\eqref{eq:9states9}), but we only study the three most relevant ones as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:5}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:5}, the black solid line shows the ground state ($\left|\mathrm{GS}\right\rangle$), the red(gray) solid line the first excited state ($\left|1\mathrm{ES}\right\rangle$), and the blue(gray) dash-dotted line the second excited state which is denoted by $\left|Q\right\rangle$ because it is exclusively composed of the $\left|Q\right\rangle$  state. The splitting between $\left|\mathrm{GS}\right\rangle$ and $\left|1\mathrm{ES}\right\rangle$ gives the exchange interaction. The exchange interaction at three points has been marked for the convenience of discussions later:  $J_L$ at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_L= -2.37$ meV, $J_M$ at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_M=0$, and $J_R$ at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_R= 2.82$ meV. The corresponding ground states (first excited states) are termed as $|0_L\rangle$ ($|1_L\rangle$), $|0_M\rangle$ ($|1_M\rangle$), and $|0_R\rangle$ ($|1_R\rangle$). When the triple-quantum-dot system is operated as an exchange-only qubit encoded as $|0_\mathrm{EO}\rangle=|0_L\rangle$ and $|1_\mathrm{EO}\rangle=|1_L\rangle$, the exchange interaction constitutes the rotation around the $\hat{z}$ axis (0$^\circ$). For $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_M$ and $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_R$ the corresponding exchange interaction rotates the Bloch vector around the axes in the $xz$ plane that are 60$^\circ$ and 120$^\circ$ apart from $\hat{z}$, respectively. Throughout this paper we fix the external magnetic field at zero so that there is no leakage to the $|Q\rangle$ state. We then focus on the leakage to other states which involves double electron occupancy.

The detuning value $\varepsilon$ is varied from $-5 \mathrm{meV}$ to $5 \mathrm{meV}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:5}, in which the ground states are mostly composed by the  (1,1,1) charge configuration. For $\varepsilon\lesssim -5\mathrm{meV}$, (2,0,1) is the dominating configuration of the ground state, while for $\varepsilon\gtrsim5\mathrm{meV}$  (1,0,2) dominates. This can be clearly seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:6} where the compositions of the ground state (panel (a)) and the first excited state (panel (b)) are shown. From Fig.~\ref{fig:6}(a) we can see that the composition (probability) of the $|0_\mathrm{EO}\rangle$ state has a peak at $\varepsilon= -2.37$ meV which we have defined as $\varepsilon_L$. As $\varepsilon$ increases, the character of $|0_\mathrm{EO}\rangle$  decreases and that of $|1_\mathrm{EO}\rangle$ increases, the latter of which peaks at $\varepsilon\approx3$ meV (note that $\varepsilon_R$ is defined not exactly at this point---although very close---but instead, at the point where the exchange interaction performs a rotation around an axis 120$^\circ$ from $\hat{z}$). For $\varepsilon\lesssim -7$ meV ($\varepsilon\gtrsim7$ meV) the character of $|201\rangle$ ($|102\rangle$) exceeds 80\%. From Fig.~\ref{fig:6}(b) we see that the admixture of $|201\rangle$ and $|102\rangle$ are both negligibly small and for $\varepsilon\lesssim1$ meV ($\varepsilon\gtrsim1$ meV) the $|1_\mathrm{EO}\rangle$ ($|0_\mathrm{EO}\rangle$) state dominates.

When operating this triple-quantum-dot system, we define the ground state $|0_L\rangle$ and the first excited state $|1_L\rangle$  at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_L= -2.37$ meV as our logical 0 and 1, respectively. Note the two states are not exclusively $|0_\mathrm{EO}\rangle$ or $|1_\mathrm{EO}\rangle$, but are rather linear superposition of all the 9 states involved in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:9states1}-\eqref{eq:9states9}. In operating the exchange-only qubit, the detuning is rapidly pulsed to other values so that the states at $\varepsilon\neq\varepsilon_L$ must be decomposed into the states of $|0_L\rangle$ and $|1_L\rangle$. This has two consequences: first, decomposing to the subspace spanned by $|0_L\rangle$ and $|1_L\rangle$ means that the rotation caused by the exchange interaction at that point should be around an axis apart from $\hat{z}$, and the angle can be calculated from the composition of $|0_L\rangle$ and $|1_L\rangle$ states. Second, since we have a total of 9 bases, and $|0_L\rangle$ and $|1_L\rangle$ are merely two of them, this projection inevitably involves leakage, i.e. the total probability of measuring either  $|0_L\rangle$ or  $|1_L\rangle$ for the $|\mathrm{GS}\rangle$ and $|\mathrm{1ES}\rangle$ states concerned  will be less than 100\%. The difference from 100\% is thus defined as ``leakage'', denoted by $\eta$ because it is not involved in the computation subspace. $\eta=0$ for $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_L$ but increases as $\varepsilon$ is shifted away from $\varepsilon_L$.

Fig.~\ref{fig:7} shows the polar angle $\Theta$, the angle between the rotation axis and $\hat{z}$, at different detuning $\varepsilon$ values. $\Theta=0$ at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_L= -2.37$ meV and increases as $\varepsilon$ is increased. $\Theta=\pi/3$ (60$^\circ$) at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_M=0$, and we have found that $\Theta=2\pi/3$ (120$^\circ$) at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_R=2.82$ meV for the system concerned. This asymmetry that $|\varepsilon_R|\neq|\varepsilon_L|$ is due to leakage out of the space spanned by $|0_L\rangle$ and $|1_L\rangle$.

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig-7}
	\caption{The polar angle (the angle between the rotation axis and $\hat{z}$) v.s. detuning $\varepsilon$, when $|0_L\rangle$ and $|1_L\rangle$ are defined as qubit states. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_0=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$ and $\varepsilon^{m}=3.3 \mathrm{meV}$.}
	\label{fig:7}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{Fig-8}
\caption{The leakage parameter $\eta$ for both the ground state $\left|\mathrm{GS}\right\rangle$ and the first excited state $\left|\mathrm{1ES}\right\rangle$ v.s. the detuning $\varepsilon$ when the triple-dot system is operated as an EO qubit with $|0_L\rangle$ and $|1_L\rangle$ being qubit states. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$ and $\varepsilon^{m}=3.3 \mathrm{meV}$.}
\label{fig:8}
\end{figure}

Fig.~\ref{fig:8} shows the leakage parameter $\eta$, which is the probability of finding neither $|0_L\rangle$ nor $|1_L\rangle$ for the states concerned,  as  functions of detuning $\varepsilon$. The black line shows the results for $|\mathrm{GS}\rangle$ and the red(gray) line for $|\mathrm{1ES}\rangle$. $\eta=0$ for $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_L$, and increases as $\varepsilon$ is detuned. We note, however, that the leakage is significant when the exchange-only qubit is operated by a rotation around the 120$^\circ$ axis at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_R$. For $|\mathrm{GS}\rangle$ $\eta$ is almost 6\% and for $|\mathrm{1ES}\rangle$ $\eta>2\%$. Traditionally it is believed that the difficulty of performing universal gates on an exchange-only qubit mainly arises from nuclear or charge noises. Our results, on the other hand, indicates that the leakage out of the computational space is also playing a key role in the decoherence.

To study how one may suppress the leakage, we have calculated the exchange interactions and leakage as functions of the half inter-dot distance $a$ and the dot size $\hbar\omega_0$, and these results are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:9}. The exchange interactions are calculated at three points: $J_L$ at $\varepsilon_L$, $J_M$ at $\varepsilon_M$, and $J_R$ at $\varepsilon_R$. From Fig.~\ref{fig:9}(a) and (c) we see that $J_L$ and $J_R$ are similar in amplitude and $J_R$ is typically a bit larger, which is due to the fact that $|\varepsilon_R|>|\varepsilon_L|$. $J_M$ is smaller than $J_L$ and $J_R$. In all cases, the exchange interaction decreases as either $a$ or $\hbar\omega_0$ is increased. Fig.~\ref{fig:9}(b) and (d) shows the results for the leakage. The leakage parameter, $\eta$ is much smaller for the states in the middle, $|0_M\rangle$ and $|1_M\rangle$, as compared to those on the right,
$|0_R\rangle$ and $|1_R\rangle$. (Note that the leakage for $|0_L\rangle$ and $|1_L\rangle$ are zero because they are defined as the qubit states). We also see that while the leakage can be reduced by increasing $a$ or $\hbar\omega_0$, the exchange interactions decrease at the same time, making the gate operations slow. We therefore conclude that the problem of leakage during the operation of an exchange-only qubits around the 120$^\circ$ axis cannot be circumvented by enlarging either the interdot distance or the dot size, because at the same time the exchange interaction would be unacceptably slow.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{Fig-9}
\caption{ The exchange interaction and leakage as functions of the half inter-dot distance $a$ and the dot size $\hbar\omega_0$. For the exchange interactions, the results of $J_L$ (black solid lines), $J_R$ (red/gray solid lines) and $J_M$ (blue/gray dash-dotted lines) are shown. For the leakage, the results for $|0_M\rangle$ (black solid lines), $|0_R\rangle$ (black dashed lines), $|1_M\rangle$ (red/gray solid lines), and $|1_R\rangle$ (red/gray dashed lines) are shown. (Note that $\eta=0$ for $|0_L\rangle$  and $|1_L\rangle$. $\varepsilon^{m}$ is fixed on 3.3meV for all the cases.}
\label{fig:9}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Resonant-exchange qubit}
\label{sec:rx}

A triple-quantum-dot system can alternatively be operated as an RX qubit, in which the $|0_M\rangle$ and $|1_M\rangle$ states are designated as the qubit states, and the qubit is operated in a small neighborhood of $\varepsilon=0$ by rf pulses \cite{Medford.13b}. The original motivation of the introduction of RX qubit is that
$\varepsilon=0$ is a sweet spot of $J(\varepsilon)$ and operations based at this location is basically free of charge noise, while at the same time operations of an exchange-only qubit suffers from the charge noise. From the results of Sec.~\ref{sec:eo} we see that an additional disadvantage of the exchange-only qubit is that the leakage is significant when it is operated at the 120$^\circ$ axis. In this section, we discuss the sweet spot and leakage of an RX qubit and shall see that the leakage is negligible when the triple-quantum-dot system is operated as an RX qubit, which is another advantage of the RX operating scheme.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig-10}
\caption{The exchange interaction $J$ as a function of detuning $\varepsilon^{m}$. We can see that the sweet spot is at $\varepsilon^{m}=-2.25$ meV. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$ and $\varepsilon=0$.}
\label{fig:10}
\end{figure}

In Fig.~\ref{fig:10} we show the exchange interaction as a function of the detuning $\varepsilon^{m}$ while $\varepsilon$ is fixed at 0, namely $J(\varepsilon=0, \varepsilon^{m})$. We see that the sweet spot is at $\varepsilon^{m}=-2.25$ meV for this set of parameters. The exchange interaction increases more rapidly for $\varepsilon^{m}>-2.25$ meV than  $\varepsilon^{m}<-2.25$ meV.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{Fig-11}
\caption{The location of the sweet spot $\varepsilon^{m}$ as functions of the half-dot-distance $a$ [panel (a)] and the dot size $\hbar \omega_{0}$ [panel (b)]. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$ and $\varepsilon=0$.}
\label{fig:11}
\end{figure}

In Fig.~\ref{fig:11} we study the locus of the sweet spot $\varepsilon^m$ as functions of $a$ and $\hbar\omega_0$. For relevant values of $18\mathrm{nm}\le a \le 26\mathrm{nm}$, $\varepsilon^m$ ranges between approximately -2.6 meV and -2 meV. The value of $\varepsilon^m$ increases as $a$ is increased such that the two dots are further apart from each other. Moreover,  $\varepsilon^m$ decreases as the dots get larger ($\hbar\omega_0$ is increased). These informations should be useful when one would like to fine tune the location of the sweet spot to maximize the performance of the qubit.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Fig-12}
\caption{The leakage parameter $\eta$ for a triple-dot system operated as an  RX qubit as functions of the detuning values. Panel (a): $\eta$ v.s. $\varepsilon$ while $\varepsilon^{m}$ is fixed at its sweet spot $\varepsilon^{m}=-2.25$  meV. Panel (b): $\eta$ v.s. $\varepsilon^{m}$ while $\varepsilon$ is fixed at its sweet spot $\varepsilon=0$. The black lines indicate the results for the $\left|\mathrm{GS}\right\rangle$ state while the red/gray lines the  $\left|\mathrm{1ES}\right\rangle$ state. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$.}
\label{fig:12}
\end{figure}

We now discuss the leakage of the triple-quantum-dot system when it is operated as an RX qubit. In Fig.~\ref{fig:12}(a) we show the leakage parameter $\eta$ as a function of the detuning $\varepsilon$ while the other detuning value $\varepsilon^{m}$ is fixed at its sweet spot $\varepsilon^{m}=-2.25$  meV. There is no leakage when $\varepsilon=0$, but application of the rf pulse will deviate from this point and we would like to study the leakage when $\varepsilon$ is away from the equilibrium point. From Fig.~\ref{fig:12}(a) we see that even if $\varepsilon$ is relatively far away from the  equilibrium point, the leakage remains small, which is of the order of $10^{-3}$, much smaller than the EO case. In Fig.~\ref{fig:12}(b), we fix $\varepsilon$ at its sweet spot $\varepsilon=0$, and vary $\varepsilon^m$. We see that the leakage is negligibly small in a reasonably wide neighborhood around the sweet spot $\varepsilon^m= -2.25$ meV, but increases rapidly when $\varepsilon^m\gtrsim 2$ meV. Since the rf control of an RX qubit is always within a small neighborhood of the equilibrium point, our results indicate that the leakage remains small in this case as long as the equilibrium point is chosen at or close to the double-sweet-spot point. The fact that leakage can be substantially suppressed is another advantage of RX qubit as compared to the EO one. This reduction of leakage can be understood as follows. Firstly, in the operation of an RX qubit, the detuning need not be varied much, so the deviation from the qubit states are minimal, much smaller than the case of the EO qubit in which one has to tune $\varepsilon$ over a range of several meV. Second, from Fig.~\ref{fig:rx} we see that $t_{12}$ is very small for $\varepsilon<0$, so leakage to the $(2,0,1)$ state is greatly suppressed. Similarly, $t_{23}$ is small for $\varepsilon>0$, which reduces leakage to the $(1,0,2)$ state.  Nevertheless, for an EO qubit it is necessary to be able to detune to $(2,0,1)$ and $(1,0,2)$ states for initialization, readout and also for operations of the qubit, so that a positive $\varepsilon^m$ is favored. Unfortunately, in this case the leakage to the $(2,0,1)$ and $(1,0,2)$ states is  considerable as demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:eo}. When the system is detuned positively, $\epsilon_3$ that is already smaller than $\epsilon_2$ is further reduced, and an electron in dot 2 is more likely to join dot 3 so that leakage to the $(1,0,2)$ state is enhanced. Therefore the RX qubit gains this advantage of having  reduced leakage because it allows more freedom in choosing the detuning values, especially $\varepsilon^m$, and also due to the fact that varying the detuning over a small range near the sweet spot suffices for qubit operation.

In Figs.~\ref{fig:13} and \ref{fig:14} we provide further results on whether the double sweet spot, where the charge noise is at minimum, is also  close to the point where the leakage is minimum. In Fig.~\ref{fig:13} we study how the leakage varies with the detuning $\varepsilon^m$ and have chosen two values of $\varepsilon$ symmetrically from both sides of the sweet spot $\varepsilon=0$, i.e. $\varepsilon=\pm2$ meV. This is to simulate an rf operation around $\varepsilon=0$ with amplitude 2 meV, and at $\varepsilon=\pm2$ meV the leakage should take its maximal value in the course of such operation. We can see from Fig.~\ref{fig:13} that the leakage is minimal at $\varepsilon^m\approx-2.45$ meV. Although it is not exactly at the sweet spot $-2.25$ meV, it is rather close and the leakage would not increase much at the sweet spot. In Fig.~\ref{fig:14} we fix $\varepsilon^m$ to two values on both sides of the sweet spot, 0 and $-4$ meV. Not surprisingly, the leakage is minimal at the symmetric point, $\varepsilon=0$.   We also see that the leakage for the ground state is typically larger than that of the first excited state by a factor of 3 to 5.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{Fig-13}
\caption{
The leakage parameter $\eta$ for a triple-dot system operated as an  RX qubit as functions of the detuning $\varepsilon^{m}$. For (a) and (b), $\varepsilon= 2 \mathrm{meV}$; for (c) and (d), $\varepsilon= -2 \mathrm{meV}$ (away from the sweet spot $\varepsilon=0$) The black lines indicate the results for the $\left|\mathrm{GS}\right\rangle$ state while the red/gray lines the  $\left|\mathrm{1ES}\right\rangle$ state. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$.
}
\label{fig:13}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{Fig-14}
\caption{
The leakage parameter $\eta$ for a triple-dot system operated as an RX qubit as functions of the detuning $\varepsilon$. For (a) and (b), $\varepsilon^{m}=0 $; for (c) and (d), $\varepsilon^{m}= -4 \mathrm{meV}$ (away from the sweet spot $\varepsilon^m=-2.25$ meV) The black lines indicate the results for the $\left|\mathrm{GS}\right\rangle$ state while the red/gray lines the  $\left|\mathrm{1ES}\right\rangle$ state. Parameters: $\hbar\omega_{0}=8 \mathrm{meV}$, $a=22 \mathrm{nm}$.
}
\label{fig:14}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we have performed a molecular-orbital calculation of a triple-quantum-dot system under the Hund-Mulliken approximation. We have taken a total of nine three-electron states into consideration, including those involving double occupancy in one of the quantum dots. We have taken the external magnetic field as zero so that there is no leakage to the $|Q\rangle$ state. Nevertheless, leakage to other states with double occupancy does happen. Our calculation indicates that when the triple-quantum-dot system is treated as an EO qubit, leakage is significant when rotating around the axis 120$^\circ$ from $\hat{z}$. While this leakage can be suppressed by either enlarging the inter-dot distance or shrinking each quantum dot, the exchange interaction is also reduced at the same time, making the gate operations unacceptably slow. Alternatively, when the same triple-quantum-dot system is operated as an RX qubit, the leakage can be almost completely suppressed since the rf pulse only operates in a small neighborhood around the equilibrium point, where leakage is zero by definition. Even considering the maximal leakage while the rf pulse brings the detuning away form the equilibrium point, the leakage is at least two order of magnitudes smaller than that of the EO qubit case. We have also calculated the location of the sweet-spot $\varepsilon^m$ as functions of the inter-dot distance and the dot size, and have found that $\varepsilon^m$ becomes more negative either when the dots are closer, or when each of the dots is smaller in size. In addition, we calculated how the leakage depends on the values of the detuning. While $\varepsilon^m$ deviates from the equilibrium value, the leakage is smallest at the symmetric point $\varepsilon=0$, which is at the same time the sweet spot. On the other hand, for the detuning $\varepsilon^m$, although the point where leakage is smallest is not exactly the sweet-spot point, they are rather close. Our results indicate that it should be optimal to operate the RX qubit at the double-sweet-spot point, both for the purpose of reducing charge noise and suppressing leakage to other states.

This work is supported by the
Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (No.~CityU 21300116, CityU 11303617), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.~11604277), and the Guangdong Innovative and Entrepreneurial Research Team Program (No.~2016ZT06D348)


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

The first detection of an interstellar minor planet, 1I/2017 U1 (`Oumuamua), came on 2017 October 19, at $m_V = 19.6$, by Pan-STARRS1 \citep{Chambers.2016}) \citep{MPECU181,Meech:2017}.
In 19 years of digital-camera all-sky surveying, it is the first definitively interstellar, decameter-scale object to be found.
The earlier lack of detections has implied a low density of interstellar planetesimals \citep{Francis:2005br,Cook:2016,Engelhardt:2017}.
Several Earth masses of ejected bodies are expected per star during planetary formation and migration \citep[e.g.][]{Levison:2010,Barclay:2017}.
Given the number of Galactic orbits since the major ejection of planetesimals from the Solar System, 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ is statistically unlikely to originate from the Solar System.

1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's orbit\footnote{\label{fn:JPL}JPL Horizons heliocentric elements, as of 2017 November 14: \url{https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2017\%20U1}} has a securely extrasolar origin.
1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ came inbound to the Sun on a hyperbolic and highly inclined trajectory that radiated from the solar apex, with an orbital eccentricity of $e=1.1994 \pm 0.0002$ and inclination of 122.7\degr, avoiding planetary encounters.
Such orbits are not bound to our Solar System.
The planetesimal was travelling at a startlingly high velocity of $v_{\infty} = 26.02 \pm 0.40$~km/s.
This velocity is typical for the mean Galactic velocity of stars in the solar neighborhood \citep{Mamajek:2017arXiv}.

The physical properties of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ are not yet well constrained.
Its approach geometry and fast passage left only a brief window when it was observable, after its 0.16~au minimum approach to Earth on 2017 October 14.
As the NEOWISE scans missed its outbound trajectory (J. Masiero, pers. comm.), no albedo is yet known.
1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ has an absolute magnitude of $H_V = 22.08 \pm 0.45$\added{\footnote{See footnote 1.}}, implying a size of $\lesssim 200$~m, assuming it has an albedo in the range seen for either carbonaceous asteroids or Centaur albedos of $p_V = 0.06-0.08$ \citep{Bauer:2013,Nugent:2016}.
No detection was seen
in STEREO HI-1A observations (limiting magnitude of $m\sim13.5$) near 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's perihelion passage at 0.25~au on 2017 September 9 (K. Battams, pers. comm).
Consistent with this earlier non-detection, it was a point source in deep VLT imaging on 2017 October 24, with no coma \citep{MPECU183}, and upper limits of surface brightness of 28--30 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ within $\sim5\arcsec$ radial distance were set by \citet{Ye:2017arXiv} on October 26 and \citet{Knight:2017arXiv} on October 30.
Additionally, no meteor activity from associated dust was seen \citep{Ye:2017arXiv}.
This implies observations of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ directly measure its surface.

Measurement of the surface reflectivity of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ will provide the first ever comparison between solar planetesimals and those from another star.
Such measurements could be used to infer the formation environment of this object, or provide evidence for a surface composition that is distinct from solar planetesimals.
However, 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's surface composition may have experienced substantial alteration during its exposure of Myr, and potentially Gyr, in interstellar space.
No star has yet been confirmed as a potential origin \citep{Mamajek:2017arXiv}, therefore the upper bound on 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's age is around 10 Gyr, after the formation of stars of moderate metallicity.

Compositional information on minor planets as small as 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ is limited.
In reflectance relative to the colour of the Sun, larger Solar System objects range from neutral to substantially more red \citep[e.g][and references therein]{Jewitt:2015}, with spectra ranging from featureless (C-type asteroids) to strong absorption bands (S-type asteroids) \citep{Rivkin:2015,Reddy:2015}.
Initial observations of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ with 4--5-m class telescopes show a featureless spectral slope that is similar to many small trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs): moderately redder than solar.
Optical spectra in the wavelength range 400-950 nm from 2017 October 25 and 26 include slopes of $30 \pm 15\%$ \citep{Masiero:2017arXiv},
$17 \pm 2\%$ \citep{Fitzsimmons:2017},
and $10 \pm 6\%$ \citep{Ye:2017arXiv} per 1000 angstroms.

Both optical and near-infrared spectral information beyond $\sim 1 \mbox{ $\mu$m}$ are necessary to distinguish the compositional classes seen in the outer Solar System \citep{Fraser:2012cs,DalleOre:2015,Pike:2017gf}.
Thus, J-band photometry is key for establishing the relationship of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's surface type to the Solar System.
We present near-simultaneous $grJ$ photometry and colors of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ in the  optical and near-infrared, and compare to the colors of known Solar System bodies.

\section{Observations and Analysis}

\subsection{Observations}
\label{sec:observations}

We observed 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ with two telescopes on 2017 October 29.
First, we observed 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ with the 8.1-m Frederick C. Gillett Gemini North Telescope on Maunakea, during 05:50--07:55 UT.
JPL Horizons\footnote{\url{https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi}} predicted from the available 15-day arc that 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ was then at a heliocentric distance of 1.46 au and geocentric distance of 0.53 au (phase angle $\alpha = 24.0\degr$), producing a rapid rate of on-sky motion of R.A. 160 \arcsec/hr and Decl. 14 \arcsec/hr.
We therefore tracked the telescope non-sidereally at 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's rates (Fig.~\ref{fig:imaging}).
The observations were in photometric skies between airmass 1.04-1.14, with seeing in r$^\prime$ of 0.7\arcsec\ to 0.5\arcsec.
The waxing 63\%-illuminated Moon was 39\degr\ away, producing a sky brightness of $\sim 20$ mag/arcsec$^{2}$ in r$^\prime$.

g$^\prime$, r$^\prime$, and J imaging were obtained using the imaging mode of the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph \citep[GMOS-N,][]{2004PASP..116..425H} and the Near-Infrared Imager \citep[NIRI;][]{2003PASP..115.1388H}.
The predicted apparent magnitude of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ was $m_v = 22.7$; exposure times are in Table~\ref{tab:observations}.
We observed with GMOS in two filters: r$\_$G0303 ($\lambda$=6300 \AA, $\delta\lambda$=1360 \AA) and g$\_$G0301($\lambda$=4750 \AA, $\delta\lambda$=1540 \AA), which we refer to as r$^\prime$ and g$^\prime$, and which are similar to $r$ and $g$ in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) photometric system \citep{1996AJ....111.1748F}.
GMOS was configured with the upgraded red-sensitive CCDs from Hamamatsu Photonics.
The target was kept on the middle GMOS CCD, and 2$\times$2 binning was used, resulting in an effective pixel scale of 0\arcsec.1614.
NIRI J band ($\lambda$=12500 \AA, 11500-13300 \AA~coverage) images were acquired using the f/6 camera (pixel scale of 0\arcsec.116).
For both instruments, we dithered between exposures in the same filter.

Any significant magnitude changes due to rotational variability of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ will affect its measured colors.
Our observing program therefore employed the design of the Colours of the Outer Solar System Origins Survey \citep[Col-OSSOS; full detail of the techniques used will appear in][]{Schwamb:2017inprep}.
Col-OSSOS uses repeated measurements in each band to distinguish any light curve effects from the change in surface reflectance during the observing sequence, bracketing the NIRI observations with GMOS imaging in a r$^\prime$g$^\prime$Jg$^\prime$r$^\prime$ filter pattern.
With this cadence, we can identify if 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ is variable on the timescale of our observations, and apply a correction, assuming that all filters are similarly affected (see \S~\ref{sec:colours}).
This is reasonable as brightness variations for solar system objects in 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's size regime are due to object shape; use of filter bracketing during Col-OSSOS has been effective at removing light curve effects \citep{Pike:2017gf}.

We acquired specific observations for calibration temporally adjacent to our science data.
The optical sequence was bracketed by a single 150 s sidereally-tracked exposure in each optical filter, centered close to 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's predicted location.
For the NIR calibration, we observed NIR standard GD 246 at two different airmasses, with a set of nine dithered, sidereally tracked exposures at the beginning and end of our observing sequence.

Thirteen hours after the Gemini observations,
we observed 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1, then at very similar geometry with a phase angle of $\alpha = 24.4\degr$, with the 4.2 m William Herschel Telescope (WHT) on La Palma from 19:45 UT -- 21:52 UT.
Non-sidereally guided imaging was obtained in photometric conditions and $\sim 1\arcsec$ seeing, at airmass 1.3--1.1, with the imaging mode of the ACAM imager/spectrograph \citep{Benn:2008} (pixel scale of 0\arcsec.253).
The data were acquired with four filters: ING Filter \#701, \#702, \#703 and \#704, corresponding
to $g,r,i,z$ in the SDSS photometric system. Individual exposures were 100 s, in a sequence $6r-6g-7r-10i-6r-12z-6r$ (Table~\ref{tab:observations}), with the repetition of $r$ to test for variability.

\begin{figure}
\gridline{\fig{fig1a.pdf}{\linewidth}{Color-corrected Gemini photometry of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ in g', r', and J (Table~\ref{tab:observations}). The line indicates best fit.
\label{fig:movingJband} }
}
\gridline{\fig{fig1b.pdf}{\linewidth}{Imaging of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ with non-sidereal tracking on the R.A. 160\arcsec/hr motion rates of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1; a single 300 s GMOS exposure in $r$ (left) and a stack of 11 NIRI 120-s exposures in $J$ (right). 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ was free of cosmic rays in all exposures.
\label{fig:imaging}}
}
\caption{Observations and photometry of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ from Gemini North on 2017 October 29.}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Data Reduction}
\label{sec:reduction}

The Gemini and WHT images\footnote{All reduced data are available at \url{http://apps.canfar.net/storage/list/ColOSSOS/Interstellar}.} were prepared for analysis using standard reduction techniques.
The GMOS observations were bias-subtracted and flat-fielded using standard methods with Gemini IRAF v1.14 in AstroConda, with a master flat frame built from the last month of GMOS twilight flats, and the CCD chips mosaiced into a single extension.
For the NIRI sequence, flat-fielding was with a master flat frame built from the Gemini facility calibration unit flats.
A sky frame was produced for each image of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ from the unshifted 14 frames closest in time to the image, and subtracted from that image.
We removed cosmic rays from each NIRI image with L. A. Cosmic \citep{vanDokkum:2001}, then aligned and stacked 20 of the 21 science 120-s NIRI exposures, rejecting one frame where 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ was in front of a background source.
To assess for any variability in 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1, we built independent stacks from each third of the J image sequence (Table~\ref{tab:observations}).
The WHT imaging were bias-subtracted and flatfielded with archival sky flats from 2017 August, as the sky flats taken prior to the observations had strong gradients across the field due to scattered moonlight and twilight variations.

Photometric measurements on all Gemini data (Table~\ref{tab:observations}) were performed with TRIPPy \citep{Fraser:2016a}, using a round aperture with a radius of 3.0$\times$ the point-spread function (PSF)'s full-width-half-maximum (FWHM).
Because of the non-sidereal tracking of our target, the elongated stars in the 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ images cannot be used to compute a point-source aperture correction.
We instead derived a mean stellar PSF profile from the calibrator images for each dataset, and used this profile to calculate both the FWHM radius and an aperture correction, for photometry on the non-sidereal 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ images.
For the optical GMOS photometry, the four bracketing sidereally-tracked images were calibrated to the SDSS system.
Image zeropoints and a linear color term were fit using the instrumental SDSS magnitudes of stars in the calibration images, to scale the SDSS system to the Gemini filter system.
The zeropoints of the science images were set from those of the calibrator temporally closest to each science image, introducing 0.02 magnitude of uncertainty in the calibration of those frames to encompass the size of the variation in the zeropoint.
An additional 0.02 magnitude uncertainty is due to the indirect measure of the aperture correction \citep{Fraser:2016a}.
For the J-band NIRI photometry, we apply a mean aperture correction of 0.03 mag on the 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ data.
While this does not account for seeing variation along the longer J-band sequence, the highly stable sky conditions during our observations and the use of a large aperture mitigate the need for a variable aperture correction.
The magnitudes of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ in Table~\ref{tab:observations} from the Gemini observations are thus in the Gemini filter system.

Photometry on the WHT imaging (Table~\ref{tab:observations}) used a slightly different analysis, as we did not have sidereally tracked calibrator frames.
The photometry of trailed stars in all images were measured using TRIPPy pill-shaped apertures, with length equal to the known rate of motion during the image.
Stellar centroids were found with Source Extraction and Photometry in Python \citep{Barbary:2017}, using a custom linear kernel of the trail length and angle, which was convolved with a gaussian to simulate the appropriate stellar shape.
A filter-dependent FWHM of 0.7--1.3\arcsec\ were measured directly from 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1.
It was not visible in the $z$ stack or in the fourth $r$ stack, and thus we do not report $z$ photometry.
Apertures 7 pixels in radius (1.8\arcsec) were used for both the round aperture used to measure the flux from 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1, and the pill apertures used on the stars.
As this implicitly assumes identical aperture corrections for both aperture shapes, we adopt 0.02 magnitudes as a conservative estimate of measurement uncertainty, induced by the use of a fixed aperture.
Stellar calibration magnitudes were extracted from the Pan-STARRS1 catalog \citep{Chambers.2016}, and converted to SDSS using the \citet{Tonry:2012} transformations.
As insufficient stars were available to measure a color term, we required the SDSS stars to have similar colors to 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1: $0.1<(g-r)<0.7$.
This induced a 0.02 magnitude uncertainty in calibration.
The magnitudes of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ in Table~\ref{tab:observations} from the WHT observations are thus in the SDSS system.

\begin{deluxetable}{rlclc}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablecaption{Photometry of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ with the 8.1-m Frederick C. Gillett Gemini North Telescope and the 4.2 m William Herschel Telescope \label{tab:observations}}
\tablehead{\colhead{MJD}\vspace{-0.2cm} & \colhead{Filter}   & \colhead{Effective} & \colhead{$m_{filter}$} & \colhead{Note} \\ \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Exposure (s)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} }
\tablecolumns{5}
\startdata
\cutinhead{GMOS-N and NIRI (Gemini North)}
58055.25860 & r$\_$G0303 & 300 & $22.74 \pm 0.03$ &  \\
58055.26323 & r$\_$G0303 & 300 & $22.66 \pm  0.03$ & \\
58055.26902 & g$\_$G0301 & 300 & $23.11 \pm  0.07$ & \\
58055.27337 & g$\_$G0301 & 300 & $23.02 \pm  0.06$ & \\
58055.28856 & J & 840 & $21.19 \pm 0.07$ & 7-image stack \\
58055.29954	& J	& 840 & $21.29 \pm 0.08$ & 7-image stack \\
58055.30914 & J & 720 & $20.99 \pm 0.07$ & 6-image stack \\
58055.31881 & g$\_$G0301 & 300 & $22.40 \pm 0.03$ & \\
58055.32281 & r$\_$G0303 & 300 & $22.08 \pm 0.02$ & \\
\cutinhead{ACAM (WHT)}
58055.82845 & r$\_$ING702 & 600 & $22.47 \pm 0.09$  & 6-image stack \\
58055.83740 & g$\_$ING701 & 600 & $23.28 \pm 0.30$  & 6-image stack \\
58055.84646 & r$\_$ING702 & 700 & $22.83 \pm 0.11$  & 7-image stack \\
58055.86336 & i$\_$ING703 & 1000 & $22.81 \pm 0.08$  & 10-image stack \\
58055.87835 & r$\_$ING702 & 600 & $23.40 \pm 0.18$  & 6-image stack \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{GMOS-N (Gemini) photometry is color term corrected, in the Gemini-Hamamatsu system. ACAM (WHT) photometry is in the SDSS system. For both, shot noise, calibration, and aperture correction uncertainties are incorporated in quadrature.}
\end{deluxetable}

\subsection{Color Computation}
\label{sec:colours}

For the $g-r$ and $r-J$ colors of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1, a best-fit line and an average $g-r$ color term were fit to the higher-precision Gemini optical data, in the Gemini system (Fig.~\ref{fig:movingJband}).
A mean $r-J$ color was found by estimating the $r$ value from the fitted line at each J stack epoch.
Uncertainties in the fit, and in the individual J measurements were folded together.
The $g-r$ and $r-J$ colors thus determined were then converted to the SDSS system using the color terms determined from the initial calibration, carrying uncertainties in the color term appropriately.

The colors from the WHT measurements are consistent, but substantially more uncertain, and we subsequently consider only those from Gemini.
We note the $r-i$ color corresponds to a spectral slope of $22 \pm 15$\%, consistent with the earlier reports.
The measured SDSS colors of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ are in Table~\ref{tab:colors}.

\begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
\tablecaption{Optical-NIR SDSS Colors of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ \label{tab:colors}}
\tablehead{ \colhead{Filters}   & \colhead{Measured Color} & \colhead{Observations}}
 \startdata
 $g-r$ & $0.47 \pm 0.04$ & Gemini \\
 $g-r$ & $0.63 \pm 0.31$ & WHT \\
 $r-i$ & $0.36 \pm 0.16$ & WHT \\
 $r-J$ & $1.20 \pm 0.11$ & Gemini \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{Gemini $g-r$ and $r-J$ colors are near-simultaneous; WHT $g-r$ and $r-i$ are from 13 hours later.}
\end{deluxetable}

\section{Variability and Shape of 1I/`Oumuamua}

There are significant and correlated brightness increases in optical and NIR for 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ during our Gemini observations, with the variability in J-band tracking that in the r$^\prime$ and g$^\prime$ bands (Fig.~\ref{fig:movingJband}).
Over the 0.48 hours of J-band imaging, 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ brightens systematically by $0.183 \pm 0.065$ magnitudes, and likewise, brightens by $0.66 \pm 0.03$ and $0.71 \pm 0.05$ magnitudes between the first and last r' and g' observations, which respectively span 1.54 and 1.19 hours.
These are significant variations given the short timeframe (Table~\ref{tab:observations}).
As they correlate across filters, the brightening is most likely due to 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's shape rather than to variability in albedo or surface spectral reflectance.
This is supported by the general consistency of the WHT colours, observed at a different part of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's lightcurve (Fig.~\ref{fig:lightcurve}, discussed below).
Our image stacks all had point-like PSFs, and we thus do not assess upper limits for the presence of coma.
However, the overall periodicity of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's brightness (Fig.~\ref{fig:lightcurve}) also implies our observed increase in brightness in the Gemini data is not from dust emission.

\begin{figure*}
\plotone{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Lightcurve of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ during 2017 October 29--30. Absolute magnitude assumes a linear phase function with slope $0.03$ mag/deg. Rotational phase starts at MJD 58055.0 and assumes a spin period $P=8.1$ hr. Overplotted is a model based on a prolate ellipsoid with axes ratio $a/b=5.3$, which has $\Delta m=1.8$ mag. A similar curve would be produced by a contact binary with equal sized, prolate components each with $a/b\sim2.7$, elongated along a line connecting their centers.}
\label{fig:lightcurve}
\end{figure*}

We assess the lightcurve of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ by combining our optical photometry from 2017 October 29 (Table~\ref{tab:observations}) with the optical photometry of \citet{Knight:2017arXiv} with the 4.3 m Discovery Channel Telescope (DCT) on 2017 October 30.
The combined, geometrically corrected photometry is in Fig.~\ref{fig:lightcurve}.
We analyze the photometry for periodicity using both the Lomb-Scargle technique \citep{Lomb:1976} and a modified phase-dispersion minimisation (PDM) fitting technique \citep{Stellingwerf:1978}.
Instead of the typical PDM model which bins the data and looks for the place where the points in the bins are not as dispersed as other periods, our modified PDM goes through every possible period and folds the data, then fits a second-order Fourier series to each folded lightcurve. The quality of fit is calculated from the residuals, after which the best fit is chosen (M. W. Buie, pers. comm.).
We obtain a consistent double-peaked period of $8.10 \pm 0.42$ hours, with a peak-to-peak amplitude from the fitted model of $\Delta m = 1.8$ magnitudes.
We note that the last pair of Gemini observations imply an excursion from our lightcurve model; the data are entirely reliable, given the consistent stability of the observing conditions and the calibrations, and from careful inspection of the images.
Our results using only our Gemini and WHT photometry with that from the DCT are independently in agreement with those of \citet{Bolin:2017}, which used photometry from the 3.5 m Apache Point Observatory and the DCT photometry.

Its lightcurve implies that 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ is either a very elongated object, or a contact binary system of two equal sized, prolate components aligned for maximum elongation \citep{Sheppard-Jewitt:2004,Leone:1984}.
From simulations for resolved Centaur binaries in our Solar System \citep{Noll:2006}, a contact binary would stay intact through perihelion.
The light curve yields consistent results in either case.
We consider 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's elongation and density assuming it is a prolate ellipsoid with semi-axes $a>b=c$.
The observed $\Delta m = 1.8$ mags would require an axis ratio of $a/b = 5.3$, or larger if 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ was not observed equator-on \citep{Lacerda:2003}.
Such an ellipsoid spinning in $P=8.1$ hours with $a/b = 5.3$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:lightcurve}) would require a density at least $\rho = (a/b)^2 (3\pi)/(G P^2)=5.9$ g.cm$^{-3}$ to prevent it from shedding regolith, consistent with the observed absence of coma.
If it is instead a contact binary of two prolate components, each with axes ratio $0.5(a/b)$ (to produce the same $\Delta m$) a similar density of 5.9 g.cm$^{-3}$ is required to hold the components in mutual orbit.
As these densities are unreasonably higher than those of likely compositions of silicate or icy materials, it requires that 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ has internal strength.

Small TNOs with $H < 9$ and Centaurs with $H < 11$ typically have 7--9 hour rotation periods with peak-to-peak variations of $\sim$0.3 magnitudes \citep{Duffard:2009}, though light curve amplitude changes of a magnitude or more have been measured for TNOs in this size range \citep{Benecchi:2013}. Small asteroids with 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's degree of elongation are rare but not unknown; examples include the $\sim 200-300$~m diameter Near-Earth Asteroids 2001 FE90 and 2007 MK13, both with lightcurve amplitudes $\geq 2.1$ magnitudes \citep{Warner:2009}.

\section{1I/`Oumuamua in Context with the Colors of the Minor Planets of the Solar System}
\label{sec:discussion}

\begin{figure*}
\plotone{fig3.pdf}
\caption{The grJ colors of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ in context with the known Solar System. The  mean color and range of asteroids and the two color classes of Jupiter Trojans are given from 157 asteroids in 23 of the 26 \citet{Bus:2002taxonomy} spectral types as recorded in SMASS, and 38 Jupiter Trojans \citep{Emery:2011,Marsset:2014}. The much more sparsely sampled distant populations are shown with individual objects, with their measurement uncertainties from MBOSS and Col-OSSOS. The observations of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ and of Col-OSSOS were performed in the same way.}
\label{fig:grJ}
\end{figure*}

For comparison with 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1, we collated colors of minor planet populations in our Solar System from four datasets of optical and near-IR measurements: SMASS for asteroids, \citet{Emery:2011,Marsset:2014} for Jupiter Trojans, MBOSS for a variety of distant populations, and Col-OSSOS for trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs).
The Small Main-Belt Asteroid Spectroscopic Survey (SMASS)\footnote{\url{http://smass.mit.edu/smass.html}} \citep{Xu:1995,Burbine:2002,Bus:2002data} measured spectra for a range of asteroid dynamical groups, from near-Earth objects through the main belt to Mars-crossing asteroids.
SMASS provided 157 objects with both optical and NIR spectra, representing 23 of the 26 spectral types in the \citet{Bus:2002taxonomy} taxonomy (the Cg, D, and Q types were not available in NIR).
For P and D types, we used the 38 Jupiter Trojans with NIR spectra from \citet{Emery:2011} for which \citet{Marsset:2014} collated optical spectra.
We converted each spectra to grJ colors by convolving the filter bandpasses.
The mean and range for each spectral type are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:grJ}.
The Minor Bodies in the Outer Solar System (MBOSS) \citep{Hainaut:2012} database\footnote{\url{http://www.eso.org/~ohainaut/MBOSS/}} indexes the reported colors for objects in outer Solar System dynamical populations, including Jupiter Trojans, short- and long-period comets, Centaurs and TNOs.
47 objects in the MBOSS tabulation have measurements in comparable filters and of sufficiently high-SNR to provide comparison to our grJ measurements of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1.
The MBOSS colors were converted to $g-r$ and $r-J$ assuming a linear spectrum through the $V, R, g, r$ range.
We retained objects if the uncertainties on their color measurements had $d(V-R)<0.4$ and $d(V-J)<0.4$.
Col-OSSOS provides high-precision grJ colors for $m_r < 23.6$ TNOs from the Outer Solar System Origins Survey \citep{Bannister:2016a}, acquired in the same manner as our observations of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ with Gemini (\S~\ref{sec:observations}).
We use the 21 Col-OSSOS TNOs with grz photometry discussed in \citet{Pike:2017gf}; the grJ measurements are forthcoming in \citet{Schwamb:2017inprep}.

The grJ colors of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ are at the neutral end of the Solar System populations (Fig.~\ref{fig:grJ}).
About 15\% of the trans-Neptunian objects have colors consistent with 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1, all in dynamically excited populations.
1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's color is also consistent with that of the less red Jupiter Trojans, which are P type \citep{Emery:2011}, and with \citet{Bus:2002taxonomy, DeMeo:2009} X type in the asteroids, which encompasses the \citet{Tholen:1984} E, M and P classifications.
As its albedo is unknown, we do not describe 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ as consistent with \citet{Tholen:1984} P type.

Notably, 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ does not share the distinctly redder colors of the cold classical TNOs \citep{Tegler:2003,Pike:2017gf}, which may be on primordial orbits.
Nor is its color among the red or ``ultra-red" colors of the larger TNOs on orbits that cross or are well exterior to the heliopause \citep{Sheppard:2010wy,Trujillo:2014ih,Bannister:2017OSSOSV}.
The cause of ultra-red coloration of these TNOs is unknown, but  has been attributed to long-term cosmic ray alteration of organic-rich surfaces \citep{Jewitt:2002}, such as would be expected during the long duration of interstellar travel.

While this work was under review, several other well-constrained color and spectral measurements were reported.
Our optical color is compatible with that observed in $BVR$ by \citet{Jewitt:2017}, but $3\sigma$ discrepant from the mean $g-r = 0.84 \pm 0.05$ over multiple nights of \citet{Meech:2017}.
Our measurements confirm consistent color over  roughly a quarter of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's surface, so the discrepancy likely indicates a change in surface color elsewhere on the body.
This is supported by considering spectral slope through the near-IR; our $r-J$ corresponding to 3.6\%/100nm is more neutral than the $7.7 \pm 1.3$\%/100nm observed by \citet{Fitzsimmons:2017} over $0.63\mu$m to $1.25\mu$m.
Note that our 1.15--1.33$\mu$m J-band data is at longer wavelengths than the \citet{Meech:2017} $Y$-band (0.97--1.07$\mu$m), so we make no direct comparison there.
More extensive modelling of surface color patchiness and non-principal axis rotation (tumbling) of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ is considered by \citet{Fraser:2017}.

1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's largely neutral color opens up a number of possibilities.
It could imply that the correlation of ultra-redness with heliocentric distance has an alternative cause.
It could suggest that 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ formed with an organics-poor surface, within its star's water ice line.
1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's color being within the observed range for minor planets in the Solar System could support that 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ originated from a star from the Sun's birth cluster, which should have a similar chemistry.
A possible additional complication could be resurfacing due to surface activity, which would affect surface color.
This seems unlikely as no surface activity was detected during 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's perihelion passage, but 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ could have had past activity in its origin system or in another close encounter.
We emphasize that our observations only probe the top few microns of 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1's surface.

Our Gemini and WHT observations provide high-precision, lightcurve-independent optical and NIR color measurements for 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1.
With its period of $8.1 \pm 0.4$ hours, highly elongated $\geq 5.3:1$ ellipsoidal or prolate-binary shape, and neutral $grJ$ color, 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ is within the known parameters of minor planets from the Solar System, but lies at the extreme ends of the physical ranges.

\acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the sacred nature of Maunakea and appreciate the opportunity to observe from the mountain.
This work is based on observations from Director's Discretionary Time (DDT) Program GN-2017B-DD-8, obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnolog\'{i}a e Innovaci\'{o}n Productiva (Argentina), and Minist\'{e}rio da Ci\^{e}ncia, Tecnologia e Inova\c{c}\~{a}o (Brazil). The authors thank the queue coordinators,  NIRI and GMOS instrument teams, science operations specialists, and other observatory staff at Gemini North for their support of our DDT program and their support of the Col-OSSOS program. We also thank Andy Stephens for his assistance during the Gemini observations.

The WHT is operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrof\'{i}sica de Canarias. The ACAM data were obtained as part of programme SW2017b11. We thank Ian Skillen for advising on and performing the WHT observations.

The authors greatly thank Atsuko Nitta for her support of the Gemini observing program and for being a sounding board for program ideas and observing strategies. We especially acknowledge and thank the online planetary community on Twitter for productive discourses and sharing of preliminary results related to 1I/`Oumuamua} %{1I/2017 U1\ that helped spur these observations.

M.T.B. appreciates support from UK STFC grant ST/L000709/1. M.E.S., A.B.S. and S.S. were supported by Gemini Observatory.

This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services, the JPL HORIZONS web interface (\url{https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi}), and data and services provided by the International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center.

\vspace{5mm}
\facilities{Gemini:Gillett (GMOSN, NIRI), ING:Herschel (ACAM)}

\software{astropy \citep{TheAstropyCollaboration:2013cd},
		  TRIPPy \citep{Fraser:2016a},
          SExtractor \citep{Bertin:1996},
          SEP \citep{Barbary:2017},
          AstroConda (\url{http://astroconda.readthedocs.io/},
          L.A. Cosmic \citep{vanDokkum:2001})
          }