Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Quasiparticle-induced decoherence of a driven superconducting qubit

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Microwave drives reopen a quasiparticle-induced decoherence channel in gap-engineered transmon qubits.

desk verdict Solid, novel rate theory for microwave-assisted quasiparticle decoherence in gap-engineered transmons; the gate-fidelity bound is a stated but unverified estimate and should be labeled as such. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00769 v2 pith:47QOVOHL submitted 2025-05-01 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con

Mykola Kishmar , Pavel D. Kurilovich , Andrey Klots , Thomas Connolly , Igor L. Aleiner , Vladislav D. Kurilovich This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con
keywords superconductingqubitstransmonquasiparticletunnelinggapengineeringmicrowavedriveCooperpairbreakingreadoutfidelitydecoherence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a microwave drive reopens quasiparticle-induced decoherence in gap-engineered superconducting qubits, the devices designed to be insensitive to quasiparticles when idle. Two mechanisms are identified: an existing quasiparticle can tunnel across the Josephson junction while absorbing drive photons together with the qubit excitation, and several drive photons can break a Cooper pair at the junction, again changing the qubit state. The resulting rates depend on drive power through the ac-Stark shift, on drive frequency through sharp thresholds, and linearly on quasiparticle density. If the theory is right, readout and gate fidelities in these qubits have a quasiparticle-set floor that gap engineering alone cannot remove.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a diagrammatic perturbation theory in which the microwave drive enters the Hamiltonian twice, once in the qubit phase potential and once in the quasiparticle tunneling operator. Expanding the tunneling operator in the drive amplitude $a$ and the qubit phase $\hat\phi$, and summing the interfering contributions, yields the renormalized single-photon amplitude of Eq. (6) with the factor $\omega_d^2/(\omega_d^2-\omega_q^2)$; the same expansion generates two-photon amplitudes whose particle-hole channel interference is constructive at $\Phi=0$, and $n$-photon Cooper-pair-breaking amplitudes at order $a^n$. The rates are assembled with Fermi's Golden rule and expressed through structure factors $S_\pm[\omega]$, which carry the dependence on the quasiparticle energy distribution and produce the threshold steps at $\hbar\omega=\delta\Delta$.

What would settle it

Measure the qubit relaxation rate $1/T_1$ of a gap-engineered transmon while sweeping drive frequency and drive amplitude, with the quasiparticle density $x_{\mathrm{QP}}$ independently characterized. Process 1 predicts a turn-on at $\omega_d+\omega_q(\Phi)=\delta\Delta/\hbar$ and a rate linear in $|\omega_{\mathrm{ac}}|x_{\mathrm{QP}}$; process 2 predicts additional step-like turn-ons at $\omega_d=(2\Delta-\hbar\omega_{if})/n$. Observing neither threshold, or rates that do not scale with $x_{\mathrm{QP}}$, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a microwave drive can reanimate quasiparticle transitions in a flux-tunable transmon whose two superconducting gaps differ. For an existing quasiparticle, the single-photon-assisted relaxation rate is $\Gamma^{(1)}_{1\to0} = (|\omega_{\mathrm{ac}}|x_{\mathrm{QP}}/4\pi)\{S_+[\omega_d+\omega_q(\Phi)](\omega_q^2(0)/\omega_q^2(\Phi)-1)+S_-[\omega_d+\omega_q(\Phi)](\omega_q^2(0)/\omega_q^2(\Phi)+1)\}$, with structure factors $S_\pm$ that turn on at $\omega_d+\omega_q(\Phi)>\delta\Delta/\hbar$ for cold quasiparticles. The two-photon variant, Eq. (10), is not suppressed at zero flux because its particle-hole interference is constructive. Independently, when $n\hbar\omega_d$ exceeds the sum of the gaps, the drive breaks a Cooper pair at the junction and drives qubit transitions at the rate of Eq. (13), with thresholds at $\omega_d=(2\Delta-\hbar\omega_{if})/n$. The paper concludes that microwave operations, readout and gates, face a quasiparticle-imposed fidelity bound: $1-F\gtrsim\alpha|\omega_{\mathrm{ac}}|t_{\mathrm{RO}}x_{\mathrm{QP}}$ for readout, and roughly $\beta x_{\mathrm{QP}}/(E_C t_{\mathrm{gate}}/\hbar)$ for gates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the weak-drive, weakly nonlinear oscillator treatment of the qubit remains valid in the near-resonant and strong-drive regimes where the predicted rates are largest; the single-photon amplitude diverges at $\omega_d=\omega_q$, and the paper defers its regularization by qubit nonlinearity to an unperformed calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Readout fidelity in a gap-engineered transmon has a floor $1-F\gtrsim\alpha|\omega_{\mathrm{ac}}|t_{\mathrm{RO}}x_{\mathrm{QP}}$; with $|\omega_{\mathrm{ac}}|t_{\mathrm{RO}}\sim100$ and post-radiation $x_{\mathrm{QP}}\sim10^{-4}$, this floor exceeds $10^{-2}$.
  • At zero flux bias, destructive interference suppresses the one-photon process, but the two-photon-assisted process remains active and can be comparable in rate at realistic readout parameters.
  • High-frequency readout cannot be raised without limit: for a 5 GHz aluminum qubit read out at 60 GHz, two-photon Cooper-pair breaking caps fidelity at $1-F\gtrsim0.05$.
  • Increasing the gap difference pushes single- and multi-photon thresholds to higher drive frequencies, and quasiparticle traps near the junction reduce $x_{\mathrm{QP}}$, so the error floor can be mitigated but not eliminated by hardware design.
  • The same mechanisms should appear in other microwave-driven superconducting circuits beyond transmon qubits, wherever drives couple to Josephson junctions and quasiparticles are present.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A clean experimental discriminator is the predicted threshold turn-on of the relaxation rate at $\omega_d+\omega_q=\delta\Delta/\hbar$; measuring $1/T_1$ versus drive frequency across this threshold in a device with characterized $x_{\mathrm{QP}}$ would test process 1 directly.
  • Because the pair-breaking thresholds sit at $\omega_d=(2\Delta-\hbar\omega_{if})/n$ with parity-dependent behavior, the theory predicts discrete steps in qubit error rates as a function of drive frequency, a signature that could be used to infer the local gap sum $2\Delta$.
  • The leakage rate $\Gamma_{1\to2}\approx2\Gamma_{0\to1}$ suggests that repeated gates could populate non-computational states and then return through the same microwave-assisted channels, producing correlated, gate-frequency-dependent error patterns that a single-pulse fidelity measurement would miss.
  • Extending the calculation to finite drive amplitude beyond the weak-drive expansion would replace the resonant divergence in Eq. (6) with a width set by $E_C$, turning the gate bound into a quantitative prediction that could be compared with error-per-gate measurements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a microscopic theory of two quasiparticle-induced decoherence mechanisms in a driven flux-tunable transmon qubit. In the first mechanism, an existing quasiparticle absorbs one or more drive photons while tunneling across the Josephson junction, with the qubit making a transition; the one- and two-photon rates are given by Eqs. (7) and (10) for relaxation and Eq. (11) for excitation. In the second mechanism, n drive photons break a Cooper pair at the junction and induce a qubit transition, with rate given by Eq. (13). The authors derive structure factors from the quasiparticle energy distribution, identify frequency thresholds and flux dependence, and use the rates to claim fundamental fidelity limits for readout and gates of gap-engineered qubits.

Significance. If the results hold, this is an important contribution: it identifies an operational constraint that is not captured by idle-time coherence studies of gap-engineered transmons, and it provides concrete, falsifiable predictions (thresholds, flux dependence, and rate scalings with drive power and quasiparticle density). The rates are obtained from a microscopic Hamiltonian with no parameters fitted to the data; the Supplement gives a general diagrammatic framework and generalizes the main-text expressions to arbitrary flux and to arbitrary qubit transitions. The authors also disclose and compare with an independent numerical study (Ref. [48]). The main caveat is that the quantitative gate-fidelity claim is not actually derived, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion and conclusions, gate-fidelity paragraph] The asserted bound 1 − F ≥ β x_QP/(E_C t_gate/ℏ) is not derived. The one-photon amplitude, Eq. (6), diverges at ω_d = ω_q, and the text states that the divergence should be regularized by the qubit nonlinearity, ω_d − ω_q → E_C/ℏ, and that a detailed calculation yields the bound, but no such calculation appears in the main text or in the Supplement. The Supplement's perturbative framework (Eqs. (S1)–(S8)) is built on the harmonic unperturbed Hamiltonian and therefore cannot justify a strong or near-resonant drive result. The regularization is an unverified assumption at the operating point where the predicted rate is largest. Because the abstract and conclusions claim a fundamental limitation on gate fidelity, this is a load-bearing gap. Please either provide a Floquet or exact nonlinear calculation, or explicitly restrict the fundamental-limitation claim to off-resonant operation and readout.
  2. [Supplement, Sec. IV (Eqs. (S12)–(S14))] The two-photon excitation rate Γ^(2)_{0→1} in Eq. (S12) diverges at ω_d = ω_q through D(2ω_d − ω_q), as acknowledged after Eq. (S13). The Supplement states that the accuracy of the derivation does not capture the difference between ω_02 and 2ω_q, but it does not provide a regularized expression. Since the main text invokes excitation processes as a source of leakage errors after Eq. (11), this is a second place where a resonant-drive claim outruns the supplied perturbative calculation. A unified Floquet treatment, or at least a regularization with an explicit justification, is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] As typeset, Eq. (9) is ambiguous: the ±1/2 appears not to be an exponent, although the subsequent claim S_+ ≫ S_- for ℏω − δΔ ≪ Δ requires the exponent reading. Please clarify the notation.
  2. [Final discussion, 60 GHz readout estimate] The estimate 1 − F ≥ 0.05 for a 60 GHz readout tone should state the assumed readout duration and ac-Stark shift so that the reader can reproduce the number from Eq. (13).
  3. [References] Ref. [35] is cited as 'See supplmental materials,' but it is not resolvable as a numbered bibliography entry; please fix the citation.
  4. [Eqs. (7) and (8)] Please specify whether x_QP in Eq. (7) and in the structure factors of Eq. (8) refers to the global quasiparticle density or to the density in the low-gap lead, and define the normalization of n_L(ε)/x_QP explicitly.
  5. [Eq. (16)] In Eq. (16), the statement 'we can bound the fidelity by' with 1 − F ≥ Γ t_RO is a lower bound on the infidelity; consider rewording to avoid implying an upper bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the two QP-induced decoherence rates are derived from a stated Hamiltonian via Golden-rule perturbation theory with physical inputs; self-citations are context only, and the unregularized gate bound is a verification gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the Hamiltonian in Eqs. (1)-(4), the paper computes the one-photon tunneling amplitude M in Eq. (6) from two explicit diagrams (direct drive absorption plus qubit screening), inserts it into Fermi's Golden rule Eq. (5), and obtains the rate Eq. (7) with structure factors Eq. (8) defined directly from the quasiparticle distribution n_L(epsilon). The two-photon rate Eq. (10) and the pair-breaking rate Eq. (13) follow from the same Hamiltonian together with H_CP in Eq. (12); no parameter is fitted to the rates, and no 'prediction' is a rescaled input. The ac-Stark shift is used as a bookkeeping variable for drive amplitude through the standard relation after Eq. (2), not as a fitted quantity. Self-citations (Refs. 12, 13, 41, 48) supply experimental context or comparable numerics, but none is the load-bearing derivation; no uniqueness theorem or prior ansatz is imported to force the result. The gate-fidelity statement, 'The divergence should be regularized by the qubit non-linearity, omega_d - omega_q -> E_C/hbar. A detailed calculation yields 1 - F >= beta x_QP/(E_C t_gate/hbar)', is an unshown bridging calculation and should be checked by a Floquet or nonlinear treatment, but that is a missing verification, not an identity between input and output, and it does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation is self-contained apart from standard BCS and perturbation theory inputs. All numerical inputs are physical device parameters (gaps, E_C, E_J, temperature, x_QP, drive amplitude) treated as given, not fitted to make the predicted rates come out. The main fragility is the harmonic/weak-drive treatment near resonance, listed in axioms.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption BCS mean-field description of the superconducting leads and quasiparticles, with coherence factors u_k and v_k in Eq. (4).
    The QP tunneling Hamiltonian, the structure factors S+ and S-, and the pair-breaking term all assume BCS quasiparticle states; non-BCS pairing would alter the rates.
  • standard math Fermi's Golden Rule applied to the tunneling term to first order in the tunneling matrix element t_j.
    Rates in Eqs. (5), (13) and Supplement (S17) use lowest-order perturbation theory in tunneling; higher-order Andreev processes are neglected.
  • domain assumption Transmon regime E_J >> E_C, with the qubit treated as a weakly anharmonic oscillator and the drive amplitude expanded perturbatively.
    The model and diagrammatic rules use harmonic qubit propagators; near resonance the expansion diverges and is regularized only qualitatively in the Discussion.
  • domain assumption Quasiparticles exist only on the low-gap side and are cold, delta_E << delta_Delta, so structure factors have sharp thresholds.
    Threshold formulas Eq. (9) and the gap-engineering picture assume this one-sided cold distribution; hot or high-gap-side QPs would broaden or shift the thresholds.
  • standard math Ambegaokar-Baratoff relation links the tunneling matrix element to Josephson energy, E_J = hbar f(Delta_L, Delta_R) G_T/e^2.
    Used to express rates in terms of measurable E_J and to eliminate the microscopic tunneling amplitude.
  • domain assumption Bessel renormalization factors Z_n(a) are approximated by 1, i.e., leading order in drive amplitude a.
    Main text and Supplement (S17) compute rates to leading order in the drive; strong-drive corrections from Z_n(a/2) are not included in the central formulas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasiparticle-induced decoherence of a driven superconducting qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/47QOVOHL

@misc{pith2026250500769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasiparticle-induced decoherence of a driven superconducting qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/47QOVOHL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00769}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a theory for two quasiparticle-induced decoherence mechanisms of a driven superconducting qubit. In the first mechanism, an existing quasiparticle (QP) tunnels across the qubit's Josephson junction while simultaneously absorbing a qubit excitation and one (or several) photons from the drive. In the second mechanism, a qubit transition occurs during the non-linear absorption process converting multiple drive quanta into a pair of new QPs. Both mechanisms can remain significant in gap engineered qubits whose coherence is insensitive to QPs without the drive. Our theory establishes a fundamental limitation on fidelity of the microwave qubit operations, such as readout and gates, stemming from QPs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00769 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diagrammatic representation of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Full characterization of measurement-induced transitions of a superconducting qubit

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Readout-induced leakage in high-frequency transmon readout is dominated by inelastic single-photon Raman scattering, with rate proportional to drive power and to the dissipative impedance at the emitted-photon frequency.

  2. Floquet Quasiparticle Poisoning of Frozonium

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Dynamical freezing in a driven fluxonium circuit does not suppress quasiparticle-induced decay, and the paper identifies drive-frequency operating windows that balance freezing quality against pair-breaking and tunnel...

  3. The perfect entangler spectrum as a tool to analyze crosstalk

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A frequency-scanned perfect-entangler-distance spectrum detects and explains crosstalk from spectator qubits during two-qubit gates.

  4. Effect of quasiparticles on the parameters of a gap-engineered transmon

    cond-mat.supr-con 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a gap-engineered transmon, quasiparticles cause a resonant enhancement of frequency shift and relaxation when the qubit frequency matches the gap difference, giving a new spectroscopic probe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [48]

    Riwar and G

    R.-P. Riwar and G. Catelani, Phys. Rev. B 100, 144514 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    describes tunneling of QPs across the two junctions in the presence of a microwave drive [ 32]: ˆHT(t) = ∑ kk′σj tj,kk ′ ( e i 2 [ϕ d(t)− ˆϕ j ]ukRuk′L − e− i 2 [ϕ d(t)− ˆϕ j ]vkRvk′L ) ˆγ † kσR ˆγk′σL + h.c. (4) The tunneling matrix element tj,kk ′ is the same matrix element that defines the Josephson en- ergy via the Ambegaokar-Baratoff relation, EJj = ℏf...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Microwave-assisted QP tunneling — First, we find the rate of qubit transitions due to the QP tunneling assisted by the absorption of one drive photon [process 1 in Fig

    describes processes of Cooper pair breaking; we will specify its form below when discussing the qubit transitions due to such processes. Microwave-assisted QP tunneling — First, we find the rate of qubit transitions due to the QP tunneling assisted by the absorption of one drive photon [process 1 in Fig. 1]. To accomplish this task, we treat ˆHT(t) of Eq. ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    M. D. Shaw, R. M. Lutchyn, P. Delsing, and P. M. Echternach, Phys. Rev. B 78, 024503 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    The second contribution accounts for the screening of the drive by the qubit’s plasma oscilla- tion

    to the first order in ϕ d(t) and ˆϕ j]. The second contribution accounts for the screening of the drive by the qubit’s plasma oscilla- tion. Combining the two contributions, we obtain M1→ 0 j,kk ′ ⏐ ⏐ 1 ph = a 4 ω 2 d tj ω 2 d − ω 2q(Φ) ( EC ℏω q(Φ) ) 1/ 2 (6) × ( ukLuk′R ei(− 1)j π Φ 2Φ 0 − i ϕ m 2 − vkLvk′Re− i(− 1)j π Φ 2Φ 0 +i ϕ m 2 ) , where a is the ...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Ristè, C

    D. Ristè, C. C. Bultink, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, K. W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, Nat. Commun. 4, 1913 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    L. I. Glazman and G. Catelani, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 31 (2021)

    2021

  8. [7]

    Aumentado, M

    J. Aumentado, M. W. Keller, J. M. Martinis, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 066802 (2004)

    2004

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    C. Wang, Y. Y. Gao, I. M. Pop, U. Vool, C. Axline, T. Brecht, R. W. Heeres, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, G. Catelani, L. I. Glazman, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nat. Commun. 5, 5836 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Lenander, H

    M. Lenander, H. Wang, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, M. Weides, J. Wenner, T. Yamamoto, Y. Yin, J. Zhao, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. B 84, 024501 (2011)

    2011

  3. [10]

    Serniak, M

    K. Serniak, M. Hays, G. de Lange, S. Diamond, S. Shankar, L. D. Burkhart, L. Frunzio, M. Houzet, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 157701 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    I. M. Pop, K. Geerlings, G. Catelani, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Nature 508, 369 (2014)

    2014

  5. [12]

    U. Vool, I. M. Pop, K. Sliwa, B. Abdo, C. Wang, T. Brecht, Y. Y. Gao, S. Shankar, M. Hatridge, G. Cate- lani, M. Mirrahimi, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 247001 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    for n = 2, we estimate that the fidelity is limited to 1 − F ≳ 0. 05. The mechanisms we uncover are relevant for applica- tions of microwave drives to superconducting circuits be- yond transmon qubits [ 44– 47]. Note — Similar QP-induced decoherence mechanisms are also consider...

  7. [14]

    Bespalov, M

    A. Bespalov, M. Houzet, J. S. Meyer, and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 117002 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. A. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. D’Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, C. H. Liu, A. Opremcak, B. G. Christensen, J. L. DuBois, and R. McDermott, Nature 594, 369 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    Serniak, S

    K. Serniak, S. Diamond, M. Hays, V. Fatemi, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. Schoelkopf, and M. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 014052 (2019)

    2019

  10. [17]

    Diamond, V

    S. Diamond, V. Fatemi, M. Hays, H. Nho, P. D. Kurilovich, T. Connolly, V. R. Joshi, K. Serniak, L. Frun- zio, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, PRX Quantum 3, 040304 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Connolly, P

    T. Connolly, P. D. Kurilovich, S. Diamond, H. Nho, C. G. L. Bøttcher, L. I. Glazman, V. Fatemi, and M. H. Devoret, Physical Review Letters 132 (2024), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.217001

    2024 doi

  12. [19]

    A. P. Vepsäläinen, A. H. Karamlou, J. L. Orrell, A. S. Do- gra, B. Loer, F. Vasconcelos, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, J. L. Yoder, S. Gustavsson, J. A. For- maggio, B. A. VanDevender, and W. D. Oliver, Nature 584, 551 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    Lutchyn, L

    R. Lutchyn, L. Glazman, and A. Larkin, Phys. Rev. B 72, 014517 (2005)

    2005

  14. [21]

    Cardani, F

    L. Cardani, F. Valenti, N. Casali, G. Catelani, T. Char- pentier, M. Clemenza, I. Colantoni, A. Cruciani, G. D’Imperio, L. Gironi, L. Grünhaupt, D. Gusenkova, F. Henriques, M. Lagoin, M. Martinez, G. Pettinari, C. Rusconi, O. Sander, C. Tomei, A. V. Ustinov, M. We- ber, W. Wer...

    2021

  15. [22]

    J. M. Martinis, Npj Quantum Inf. 7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    McEwen, L

    M. McEwen, L. Faoro, K. Arya, A. Dunsworth, T. Huang, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Fowler, F. Arute, J. C. Bardin, et al. , Nature Physics 18, 107 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Yelton, C

    E. Yelton, C. P. Larson, V. Iaia, K. Dodge, G. La Magna, P. G. Baity, I. V. Pechenezhskiy, R. McDermott, N. A. Kurinsky, G. Catelani, and B. L. T. Plourde, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024519 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Catelani, S

    G. Catelani, S. E. Nigg, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B 86, 184514 (2012)

    2012

  19. [26]

    R. M. Lutchyn, L. I. Glazman, and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Rev. B 74, 064515 (2006)

    2006

  20. [27]

    J. M. Martinis, M. Ansmann, and J. Aumentado, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 097002 (2009)

    2009

  21. [28]

    Catelani, J

    G. Catelani, J. Koch, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 077002 (2011)

    2011

  22. [29]

    Catelani, R

    G. Catelani, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B 84, 064517 (2011)

    2011

  23. [30]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Suppression of quasiparticle poisoning in transmon qubits by gap engineering,

    P. Kamenov, T. DiNapoli, M. Gershenson, and S. Chakram, “Suppression of quasiparticle poisoning in transmon qubits by gap engineering,” (2024), arXiv:2309.02655 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    McEwen, K

    M. McEwen, K. C. Miao, J. Atalaya, A. Bilmes, A. Crook, J. Bovaird, J. M. Kreikebaum, N. Zo- brist, E. Jeffrey, B. Ying, A. Bengtsson, H.-S. Chang, A. Dunsworth, J. Kelly, Y. Zhang, E. Forati, R. Acharya, J. Iveland, W. Liu, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Megrant, Y. Chen, C. Neill, D....

    2024

  26. [33]

    Marchegiani, L

    G. Marchegiani, L. Amico, and G. Catelani, PRX Quan- tum 3, 040338 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    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, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  28. [35]

    leakage errors

    A direct 4 counterpart of Eq. ( 7) is Γ (1) 0→ 1 = |ω ac|xQP 4π { S+[ω d − ω q(Φ)] ( ω 2 q(0) ω 2 q(Φ) − 1 ) (11) + S− [ω d − ω q(Φ)] ( ω 2 q(0) ω 2 q(Φ) + 1 )} , with structure factors given by Eqs. ( 8, 9). Compared to the relaxation process, the excitation process has a mor...

  29. [36]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 (2021), 10.1103/RevMod- Phys.93.025005

    2021 doi

  30. [37]

    49 in the context of QP effects in superconducting cat qubits

    A similar model was recently considered in Ref. 49 in the context of QP effects in superconducting cat qubits

  31. [38]

    We make a conventional approximation, and drop the dependence of tj,kk′ on k and k′

  32. [39]

    Ambegaokar and A

    V. Ambegaokar and A. Baratoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 486 (1963)

    1963

  33. [40]

    See supplmental materials for details,

    “See supplmental materials for details,”

  34. [41]

    Houzet, K

    M. Houzet, K. Serniak, G. Catelani, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 107704 (2019)

    2019

  35. [42]

    L. V. Keldysh, (1964), 10.1142/9789811279461_0008

    1964 doi

  36. [43]

    This is justified for a generic Φ ̸= 0 , provided both processes are above the respective thresholds

    We assume Γ (1) 1→0 k Γ (2) 1→0. This is justified for a generic Φ ̸= 0 , provided both processes are above the respective thresholds

  37. [44]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  38. [45]

    Swiadek, R

    F. Swiadek, R. Shillito, P. Magnard, A. Remm, C. Hellings, N. Lacroix, Q. Ficheux, D. C. Zanuz, G. J. Norris, A. Blais, S. Krinner, and A. Wallraff, PRX Quan- tum 5, 040326 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    J. M. Chow, L. DiCarlo, J. M. Gambetta, F. Motzoi, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 82, 040305 (2010)

    2010

  40. [49]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Science 326, 113 (2009) , https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1175552

    2009 doi

  41. [50]

    Leghtas, S

    Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlas- takis, A. Petrenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge, M. Reagor, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Science 347, 853–857 (2015)

    2015

  42. [51]

    Grimm, N

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Nature 584, 205 (2020)

    2020

  43. [52]

    Frozonium: Freezing anhar- monicity in floquet superconducting circuits,

    K. Lewellen, R. Mukherjee, H. Guo, S. Roy, V. Fatemi, and D. Chowdhury, “Frozonium: Freezing anhar- monicity in floquet superconducting circuits,” (2025), arXiv:2501.10503 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  44. [53]

    Theory of quasi- particle generation by microwave drives in superconduct- ing qubits,

    S. Chowdhury, M. Hays, S. R. Jha, K. Serniak, T. P. Or- lando, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, “Theory of quasi- particle generation by microwave drives in superconduct- ing qubits,” (2025), arXiv:2505.00773 [quant-ph]

    2025

  45. [54]

    Quasiparticle-induced decoherence of a driven superconducting qubit

    K. S. Dubovitskii, D. M. Basko, J. S. Meyer, and M. Houzet, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024505 (2024) . Supplemental Materials for “Quasiparticle-induced decoherence of a driven superconducting qubit” Mykola Kishmar, 1 Pavel D. Kurilovich, 2 Andrey Klots, 3 Thomas Connolly,2 Igor L. Ale...

    2024

  46. [55]

    9 GHz, and |ω ac|/ω q ≈ 0. 02. In addition to these parameters, the estimate depends on the closeness of the drive frequency to the absorption threshold; we will take ω d + ω q − δ∆ / ℏ = 2π · 1GHz. In this case, we obtain Γ (2) 1→0/ Γ (1) 1→0 ≈

  47. [56]

    + ” if n is even and “ −

    15. A similar estimate for the parameters of Ref. 4 yields Γ (2) 1→0/ Γ (1) 1→0 ≈ 0. 4. Thus, the rates of one- and two-photon processes are comparable at Φ = 0 . 5 IV. TWO-PHOTON PROCESS OF QUBIT EXCIT A TION As we showed in the main text, in addition to qubit relaxation, QP ...

  48. [57]

    Koch, J. et al. Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the cooper pair box. Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042319. 6

    2007 doi

  49. [58]

    Elements of Advanced Quantum Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1969)

    Ziman, J. Elements of Advanced Quantum Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1969)

    1969

  50. [59]

    Swiadek, F. et al. Enhancing dispersive readout of superconducting qubits through dynamic control of the dispersive shift: Experiment and theory. PRX Quantum 5, 040326 (2024). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum. 5.040326

    2024 doi

  51. [60]

    Kurilovich, P. D. et al. High-frequency readout free from transmon multi-excitation resonances (2025). URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2501.09161. 2501.09161

    2025 arXiv

  52. [61]

    ( S12) was derived does not capture the difference between ω 02 and 2ω q; this difference is ∼ EC and is beyond the scope of tree-level diagrams

    The accuracy with which Eq. ( S12) was derived does not capture the difference between ω 02 and 2ω q; this difference is ∼ EC and is beyond the scope of tree-level diagrams

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.