Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Sensing and Control of Single Trapped Electrons Above 1 Kelvin

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superconducting resonator reads out and controls single electrons on liquid helium at 1.1 kelvin, with shifts up to about 30 kHz captured by a classical oscillator model.

desk verdict Single-electron dispersive readout on liquid helium at 1.1 K is a credible advance; the modeling is honest but partly fitted, so peer review should push for raw data. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03404 v1 pith:EROAET4D submitted 2024-12-04 quant-ph

K. E. Castoria , N. R. Beysengulov , G. Koolstra , H. Byeon , E. O. Glen , M. Sammon , S. A. Lyon , J. Pollanen
show 1 more author
D. G. Rees
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords electrononheliumsingle-electrondetectiondispersivereadoutsuperconductingresonatorsurfaceelectronschargequbitcavityQEDcryogenicquantumcomputing
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 reports that a single electron trapped on the surface of liquid helium can be detected and controlled at 1.1 kelvin, using a superconducting coplanar-waveguide resonator as a dispersive charge sensor. This matters because cryostats that run above 1 kelvin deliver orders of magnitude more cooling power than dilution refrigerators, so a qubit platform that works at these temperatures sidesteps a major scaling bottleneck. The experiment resolves reproducible frequency-shift plateaus as the trap is loaded, with the last plateau corresponding to one electron and a maximum shift near 30 kilohertz. The authors match the measured shifts with a classical model in which each electron is an oscillator coupled to the cavity field, extracting a single-electron coupling of $g_e/2\pi = 9.8$ MHz and an effective single-electron capacitance of about 0.45 aF.

What carries the argument

The central object is the electric susceptibility $\chi_e(\omega) = \sum_n 4g_n^2/(\omega_n^2 - \omega^2 + 2i\omega\Gamma_n)$ of the confined electron system, entered into the dispersive shift $\Delta f = -f_r\,\mathrm{Re}\{\chi_e(2\pi f_r)/2\}$. The index $n$ runs over the vibrational eigenmodes of the electron cluster, found by numerically diagonalizing the coupled equations of motion for $N_e$ electrons in the finite-element-computed trap potential $\varphi(x,y)$; $g_n$ is the mode's coupling to the resonator's differential field, and $\Gamma_n$ is a phenomenological damping rate. For the single electron, $g_e$ follows from the dipole energy of the zero-point motion, and for two electrons the in-phase mode inherits the same frequency as the single electron while its coupling grows as $\sqrt{2}g_e$. This machinery converts an electrostatic trap geometry and a voltage configuration into a quantitative prediction of the frequency shift.

What would settle it

Perform an independent count of the electrons in the trap during the same loading sequence, for instance with image-current detection in the microchannel, and check whether the lowest resonance-shift plateau truly corresponds to one electron. A second decisive test is to fabricate devices with deliberately controlled split-gate asymmetry and confirm that the position of the frequency-shift minimum in the $V_r$–$V_b$ plane moves by the predicted amount; failure of either test would show that the FEM-based assignment of $N_e$ is not capturing the real device.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At $T = 1.1$ K, where the thermal energy exceeds the electron's motional frequency several times over and helium vapor is non-negligible, the device isolates single electrons in a gate-defined potential well at the open end of a superconducting resonator, separated from a reservoir of roughly $10^6$ electrons in an adjacent microchannel. Dispersive readout of the resonator's differential mode produces discrete, irreversible downward shifts in resonance frequency as the trap is loaded one electron at a time, and the deepest plateau, assigned to $N_e = 1$, reaches about $-30$ kHz. The measured shifts agree with a classical many-electron oscillator model: electron motion modifies the trap's polarization, which renormalizes the resonator capacitance and lowers its frequency. For two electrons the in-phase mode couples as $\sqrt{2}g_e$, giving twice the single-electron shift, and the extracted single-electron coupling $g_e/2\pi = 9.8$ MHz is twice the value reported in earlier electron-on-helium cQED experiments at millikelvin temperatures.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the finite-element-computed electrostatic potential, including an inferred 20 mV asymmetry between the split-gate electrodes, faithfully represents the real trapping device; if fabrication misalignment, trapped charge, or helium-film effects distort the actual potential, the inferred electron numbers and the claimed agreement between model and measurement would be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Charge readout of single surface-state electrons becomes possible in pumped $^4$He cryostats with cooling powers above 100 mW, removing the dilution-refrigerator bottleneck for this qubit platform.
  • The demonstrated no-error single-electron loading and unloading gives a deterministic electron source for clocked charge transport and for future spin readout via local magnetic-field gradients.
  • The classical susceptibility model applies generally to LC resonators capacitively coupled to bound electrons, so the same formulas can predict dispersive shifts in radio-frequency electron traps and semiconductor quantum dots.
  • Engineering both the common and differential resonator modes would let the same device drive out-of-phase two-electron motion, opening a route to study Coulomb-correlated dynamics and Wigner-molecule states at elevated temperature.
  • With higher-kinetic-inductance resonators and faster readout, the scheme should resolve single-electron relaxation rates and test whether confinement suppresses helium-vapor scattering above 1 K.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the inferred 20 mV split-gate asymmetry is a real fabrication offset, then deliberately biasing the two gates asymmetrically could restore single-well confinement; a device study varying that offset would turn the model's free parameter into a controlled design variable.
  • The predicted $N_e \approx 30$ loading and the single-electron plateau rest on unscreened Coulomb interactions, which the paper notes electrode screening may weaken; cross-checking the inferred electron number with an independent image-current measurement would separate potential-model error from interaction-model error.
  • At temperatures where $k_B T \ll \hbar \omega_e$, the same device should cross over from the classical oscillator response to the Jaynes-Cummings dispersive regime, so cooling this exact geometry would directly test the classical model's domain of validity.
  • Because the decoupled reservoir leaves the resonator sensing only the trap, the factor-of-two improvement in coupling over the prior 10 mK experiment may be a geometric benefit rather than a temperature effect; a comparative device with the reservoir coupled to the resonator would test that attribution.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports measurements on a superconducting CPW resonator with an integrated gate-defined electron trap on a superfluid helium film at 1.1 K. The authors observe discrete, reproducible shifts in the resonator frequency as electrons are loaded into and unloaded from the trap, resolving a series of plateaus that they attribute to Ne = 1, 2, 3, and 4 trapped electrons. They compare the measured shifts with a classical oscillator model combined with FEM electrostatic potentials, reporting agreement to within the plotted accuracy, and they demonstrate a repeated single-electron loading/unloading cycle with ~25 kHz shifts per electron. They quote a single-electron coupling strength ge/2π = 9.8 MHz and discuss implications for quantum information processing above 1 K.

Significance. The direct observation of discrete, repeatable frequency-step plateaus is strong evidence that the device can detect single electrons; this part of the paper does not rely on the model and is a genuinely useful experimental result. The separation of the electron reservoir from the resonator is a practical improvement over earlier electron-on-helium cQED devices. The theoretical framework (classical susceptibility from coupled equations of motion) is clearly presented and the appendices contain complete derivations. However, the quantitative agreement with the model is achieved with several adjustable parameters (γ, Lr factor, Γn, Vr offset, split-gate asymmetry), and no statistical or independent calibration is provided. The paper therefore establishes single-electron detection more firmly than it establishes the model's predictive power.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.B and Appendix C] The identification of the final plateau with Ne = 1, and the claimed quantitative agreement of the model, rest on several parameters that are adjusted to the measured data: the resonator capacitance correction γ = 0.85 in Eq. (C3) and Appendix C, the ×1.3 adjustment to Lr in Appendix B, the phenomenological damping Γn/2π = 1–2 GHz, the +50 mV offset in Vr added in Fig. 4(b), and the 20 mV split-gate asymmetry introduced in Sec. III.B. None of these is independently calibrated. Because the plateau assignment follows from comparing measured Δf with model predictions for Ne = 1, 2, 3, 4, a plausible change in the FEM potential (e.g., from fabrication misalignment, trapped charge, or helium film effects) could change the inferred Ne. Please provide a sensitivity analysis showing that the "last plateau = 1" assignment is robust to variations in these parameters and to the FEM potential, or give an independent determination of the absolute electron number. Without such an analysis, the single-electron claim remains model-dependent.
  2. [III.B, Fig. 4(a)] The statement "We observe no errors in this single electron control cycle" is not supported by the data shown: Fig. 4(a) displays one sequence of about fourteen loading/unloading events, and the text does not define what counts as an error or report the total number of cycles attempted. Please specify the number of trials and the error criterion, or replace the claim with a quantitative error bound such as "N consecutive successful cycles without an error event."
  3. [III.B, Fig. 3] The claimed agreement between model and experiment in Fig. 3(b)–(c) and Fig. 4(c) is presented without error bars or a goodness-of-fit statistic. The phrases "good agreement" and "reasonable accuracy" are not sufficient, especially because the model contains at least five adjustable parameters and the same data are used to fix them. Please report the best-fit parameter values with uncertainties, the number of independent data points, and a quantitative comparison (e.g., reduced chi-square or maximum absolute deviation) so that the reader can judge whether the model is genuinely predictive.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The paper notes in Appendix C that the linear Coulomb coupling κij = e2/2πϵ0medij^3 represents unscreened interactions and that screening by nearby electrodes can reduce this coupling in the trap geometry. The multi-electron predictions shown in Fig. 3(c), and the statement that the Ne = 2 in-phase coupling scales as g2+ = √2 ge, rely on the unscreened κij. Please estimate the screening correction using the FEM geometry or provide a quantitative argument that it is negligible; otherwise the agreement for the multi-electron plateaus may be fortuitous, and the two-electron scaling claim is not established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III.B, first paragraph] The reference to the loading/unloading curves "shown in Fig. 3" should be "shown in Fig. 2", since those curves are introduced in Fig. 2.
  2. [III.B, second paragraph] The sentence "In Fig. 4(b) we demonstrate the repeated loading and unloading of the trap with a single electron" should refer to Fig. 4(a); Fig. 4(b) is the Vr–Vb map.
  3. [Section III.B and Fig. 4(c) caption] The variable Vtr in the Fig. 4(c) caption is undefined; the text indicates a fixed Vb, so please replace Vtr with Vb or define it.
  4. [Fig. 4(a) caption] The phrase "with Vr = Vsg = −0.4 V" during the loading/unloading pulse sequences is ambiguous because Vsg is swept and the readout points have Vr = −0.1 V; please clarify which electrodes are held at which values during the pulses.
  5. [Appendix B] The reflection spectrum is referenced as "shown in Fig. 2(b)", but the spectrum is shown in Fig. 5(b); please correct the cross-reference.
  6. [Fig. 3(a) axis label] The axis label "Vun (V)max" should be formatted as "Vun^max (V)" for clarity.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Quantitative model agreement is partly constructed by fitting γ, Γn, and gate-voltage offsets to the same measured frequency shifts, though the discrete single-electron observation remains independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix C (Electron-Resonator Coupling Model), paragraph defining ge and γ]
    "For these calculations, we used Eq. C3 with a slight adjustment to the resonator capacitance, γC, where γ serves as a fitting parameter. We find that γ = 0.85 provides good agreement with the experimental data for the single and multi-electron frequency shifts presented in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4."

    The parameter γ multiplies the resonator capacitance C in Eq. C3, directly setting the single-electron coupling ge and hence, through Eq. C2/1, the magnitudes of the computed Δf curves. The quoted value γ=0.85 is chosen to make those computed curves agree with the same measured shifts in Figs. 3 and 4 that the paper later presents as reproduced predictions. The amplitude scale of the theoretical curves is therefore calibrated on the data being compared. Since the identification of the last plateau with Ne=1 is made by matching these curves to plateau magnitudes, that assignment is model-dependent rather than independently calibrated.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Fig. 4(b) caption]
    "The voltage configurations for which ωe reaches its minimum are given by the dashed line, with a small +50 mV offset added to Vr to aid comparison with the experimental result."

    The FEM-computed line of minimum ωe is shifted by +50 mV in Vr in order to align with the measured dip. This is an ad hoc calibration of the model's voltage axis, not an independent prediction; the subsequent 'good agreement' between FEM curvature and the measured minimum is therefore partly manufactured by the offset.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.B, paragraph after Fig. 4(c)]
    "We find that this scenario is only possible if a small uncompensated electric field exists along the y-axis (modeled in our study by applying a 20 mV difference between the two split-gate electrodes)."

    A 20 mV split-gate asymmetry is inserted into the FEM potential specifically to reproduce the requirement that ωe>ωr while the trap transitions from single-well to double-well, a condition chosen to match the observed single minimum in Δf(Vr). This adjusts the trapping potential, and therefore ωe(Vr) and the computed Δf(Vr) curves, using the data being modeled. Without an independent measurement of such a y-axis field, this is a fitted input rather than a first-principles prediction.

full rationale

Most of the experimental content is self-contained and not circular: the repeated discrete loading/unloading plateaus and the 'no errors' single-electron control cycle are direct observations, and the model's mode structure (Ne scaling, double-well evolution of ωe) is not simply a restatement of the data. However, the quantitative agreement advertised as a theoretical prediction is partially constructed: γC is explicitly a fitting parameter tuned to the same frequency shifts in Figs. 3 and 4; Γn/2π=1–2 GHz is chosen for better agreement; a +50 mV Vr offset and a 20 mV split-gate asymmetry are inserted to align the FEM potential's minimum and to keep ωe>ωr. Because the Ne=1 assignment rests on matching computed single- and few-electron curves to these measured plateau magnitudes, the 'prediction' is not parameter-free and is partly calibrated on the data it claims to reproduce. This is partial circularity, not a definitional equivalence; the discreteness and reproducibility of the signal remain independent evidence. No self-citation loop or uniqueness-imported-from-authors issue is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative comparison depends on several fitted or assumed inputs (γ, Γn, Lr correction, split-gate asymmetry) plus domain assumptions about 1D motion, unscreened Coulomb coupling, classical dynamics, and FEM potential accuracy. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • γ (resonator capacitance correction) = 0.85
    Multiplies the resonator capacitance in the coupling calculation (Eq. C3) to make the predicted frequency shifts match the measured single and multi-electron data.
  • Lr inductance adjustment factor = ×1.3
    Applied to the resonator inductance Lr in Appendix B to better fit the measured bare resonance frequencies; affects the cavity model.
  • Electron damping rate Γn/2π = 1-2 GHz
    Chosen post hoc because no statistically significant linewidth change was observed; the Discussion states this range provides more accurate agreement.
  • Split-gate voltage asymmetry = 20 mV difference
    Added between the two split-gate electrodes in the model to reproduce the observed single minimum in the frequency shift versus Vr, attributed to possible fabrication misalignment.
  • Vr offset for comparison line = +50 mV
    Added to the FEM-derived line of minimum ωe in Fig. 4(b) to aid comparison with the experimental dip.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The electron system is one-dimensional along the y-axis because of potential anisotropy.
    Invoked in Appendix C before Eq. C1 to reduce the trap dynamics to scalar displacements y_i.
  • domain assumption Coulomb interactions between trapped electrons are unscreened and given by κij = e²/(2πϵ₀ m d³).
    Used in Eq. C1 and Appendix E; the paper itself notes that screening by nearby electrodes can reduce this coupling.
  • domain assumption At T = 1.1 K, kBT > ℏωe, so a classical oscillator description of electron motion is sufficient.
    Section II and Appendix C justify the classical equations of motion and the susceptibility treatment.
  • domain assumption The FEM-computed electrostatic potential φ(x,y) accurately represents the real trap.
    Used throughout to compute equilibrium positions, eigenmodes, coupling strengths, and Ne; the ad hoc 20 mV asymmetry suggests this assumption is imperfect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensing and Control of Single Trapped Electrons Above 1 Kelvin." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EROAET4D

@misc{pith2026241203404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensing and Control of Single Trapped Electrons Above 1 Kelvin},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EROAET4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03404}
}
read the original abstract

Electrons trapped on the surface of cryogenic substrates (liquid helium, solid neon or hydrogen) are an emerging platform for quantum information processing made attractive by the inherent purity of the electron environment, the scalability of trapping devices and the predicted long lifetime of electron spin states. Here we demonstrate the spatial control and detection of single electrons above the surface of liquid helium at temperatures above 1 K. A superconducting coplanar waveguide resonator is used to read out the charge state of an electron trap defined by gate electrodes beneath the helium surface. Dispersive frequency shifts are observed as the trap is loaded with electrons, from several tens down to single electrons. These frequency shifts are in good agreement with our theoretical model that treats each electron as a classical oscillator coupled to the cavity field. This sensitive charge readout scheme can aid efforts to develop large-scale quantum processors that require the high cooling powers available in cryostats operating above 1 K.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03404 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic cross-section of a microchannel filled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Loading and unloading the electron trap at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Surface plot of ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (c), we estimate δCe ≈ 0.45 aF. To contextualize this value, we compare it to other measurement tech￾niques. For instance, δCe ≈ 10−3 aF was estimated for a single electron’s out-of-plane motion from many electron image-charge Rydberg state detection methods [41]. For …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Schematic diagram of the circuit model used to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Electric field lines (white arrows) in the trap region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Electrons in quantum dots on helium: from charge qubits to synthetic color centers

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Electron-ripplon coupling in a quantum dot on helium produces a tunable synthetic color center spectrum and limits coherent charge-qubit operation when the coupling is strong.

  2. Image-charge detection of electrons on helium in an on-chip trapping device

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Rydberg transitions of a small ensemble of electrons on helium were detected in an on-chip microchannel trap with an image-charge detector, approaching single-electron sensitivity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Hornibrook, J

    J. Hornibrook, J. Colless, I. Conway Lamb, S. Pauka, H. Lu, A. Gossard, J. Watson, G. Gardner, S. Fallahi, M. Manfra, et al., Cryogenic control architecture for large-scale quantum computing, Physical Review Applied 3, 024010 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Here αa,b are the coupling constants for the resonator’s upper and lower arms, respectively. Equa- tion C2 clearly shows that the largest response in the frequency shift will be induced by vibrational modes where the eigenfrequencies are closest to the resonator frequency and the dipole coupling gn is large. −0.5 0.0 0.5 x (μm) −1 0 1 y (μm) differential ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    As x2 + + x2 − = δx2 1 + δx2 1, the two electron Hamiltonian takes the final form: H = m ˙x2 + 2 + mω2 2+x2 + 2 + m ˙x2 − 2 + mω2 2−x2 − 2 , (E4) where the frequency of the in-phase and out-of-phase mo- tion is given by ω2 2+ = ω2 e and ω2 2− = ω2 e + 2ω2 C, respec- tively. The in-phase electron motion couples to the differential mode, which is evident fr...

    work page

  4. [4]

    C. G. Almudever, L. Lao, X. Fu, N. Khammassi, I. Ashraf, D. Iorga, S. Varsamopoulos, C. Eichler, A. Wallraff, L. Geck, et al., The engineering challenges in quantum computing, in Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2017(IEEE, 11

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Krinner, S

    S. Krinner, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, P. Magnard, J. Hein- soo, R. Keller, J. Luetolf, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Engineering cryogenic setups for 100-qubit scale super- conducting circuit systems, EPJ Quantum Technology 6, 2 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Clerk, K

    A. Clerk, K. Lehnert, P. Bertet, J. Petta, and Y. Naka- mura, Hybrid quantum systems with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature Physics 16, 257 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Anferov, S

    A. Anferov, S. P. Harvey, F. Wan, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Superconducting qubits above 20 ghz operating over 200 mk, PRX Quantum 5, 030347 (2024)

    2024

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    C. H. Yang, R. Leon, J. Hwang, A. Saraiva, T. Tanttu, W. Huang, J. Camirand Lemyre, K. W. Chan, K. Tan, F. E. Hudson, et al., Operation of a silicon quantum pro- cessor unit cell above one kelvin, Nature 580, 350 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    J. Y. Huang, R. Y. Su, W. H. Lim, M. Feng, B. van Straaten, B. Severin, W. Gilbert, N. Dumoulin Stuyck, T. Tanttu, S. Serrano, et al., High-fidelity spin qubit op- eration and algorithmic initialization above 1 k, Nature 627, 772 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    F. M. Piegsa, B. Van den Brandt, and K. Kirch, High- power closed-cycle 4he cryostat with top-loading sample exchange, Cryogenics 87, 24 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    C. Wang, T. Hanrahan, and M. Johnson, High capacity closed-cycle 1 k cryocooler, Cryogenics 95, 64 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Crippa, R

    A. Crippa, R. Ezzouch, A. Apr´ a, A. Amisse, R. Lavieville, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, M. Vinet, M. Ur- dampilleta, T. Meunier, et al., Gate-reflectometry dis- persive readout and coherent control of a spin qubit in silicon, Nature communications 10, 2776 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Y.-Y. Liu, S. Philips, L. Orona, N. Samkharadze, T. McJunkin, E. MacQuarrie, M. Eriksson, L. Vander- sypen, and A. Yacoby, Radio-frequency reflectometry in silicon-based quantum dots, Physical Review Applied16, 014057 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    N. Ares, F. Schupp, A. Mavalankar, G. Rogers, J. Grif- fiths, G. Jones, I. Farrer, D. Ritchie, C. Smith, A. Cot- tet, et al., Sensitive radio-frequency measurements of a quantum dot by tuning to perfect impedance matching, Physical Review Applied 5, 034011 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Schuster, A

    D. Schuster, A. Fragner, M. Dykman, S. Lyon, and R. Schoelkopf, Proposal for manipulating and detecting spin and orbital states of trapped electrons on helium using cavity quantum electrodynamics, Physical Review Letters 105, 040503 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Platzman and M

    P. Platzman and M. Dykman, Quantum computing with electrons floating on liquid helium, Science 284, 1967 (1999)

    1999

  10. [18]

    Lyon, Spin-based quantum computing using electrons on liquid helium, Physical Review A 74, 052338 (2006)

    S. Lyon, Spin-based quantum computing using electrons on liquid helium, Physical Review A 74, 052338 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Papageorgiou, P

    G. Papageorgiou, P. Glasson, K. Harrabi, V. Antonov, E. Collin, P. Fozooni, P. Frayne, M. Lea, D. Rees, and Y. Mukharsky, Counting individual trapped electrons on liquid helium, Applied Physics Letters 86 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Koolstra, G

    G. Koolstra, G. Yang, and D. I. Schuster, Coupling a single electron on superfluid helium to a superconducting resonator, Nature Communications 10, 5323 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    X. Zhou, G. Koolstra, X. Zhang, G. Yang, X. Han, B. Dizdar, X. Li, R. Divan, W. Guo, K. W. Murch, et al., Single electrons on solid neon as a solid-state qubit plat- form, Nature 605, 46 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Strong coupling of a single photon to a super- conducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature 431, 162 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    X. Zhou, X. Li, Q. Chen, G. Koolstra, G. Yang, B. Diz- dar, Y. Huang, C. S. Wang, X. Han, X. Zhang, et al., Electron charge qubit with 0.1 millisecond coherence time, Nature Physics 20, 116 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Troyanovski ˇ ı, A

    A. Troyanovski ˇ ı, A. Volodin, and M. Kha ˇ ıkin, Electron localization over the surface of crystalline hydrogen and neon, JETP Letters 29, 421 (1979)

    1979

  17. [25]

    Kajita and W

    K. Kajita and W. Sasaki, Two-dimensional electrons on the helium film—solid neon system, Surface Science 113, 419 (1982)

    1982

  18. [26]

    Dykman, O

    M. Dykman, O. Asban, Q. Chen, D. Jin, and S. Lyon, Spin dynamics in quantum dots on liquid helium, Physi- cal Review B 107, 035437 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Grimes and G

    C. Grimes and G. Adams, Observation of two- dimensional plasmons and electron-ripplon scattering in a sheet of electrons on liquid helium, Physical Review Letters 36, 145 (1976)

    1976

  20. [28]

    D. G. Rees, I. Kuroda, C. A. Marrache-Kikuchi, M. H¨ ofer, P. Leiderer, and K. Kono, Point-contact trans- port properties of strongly correlated electrons on liquid helium, Physical Review Letters 106, 026803 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Kawakami, P

    E. Kawakami, P. Scarlino, D. R. Ward, F. Braakman, D. Savage, M. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, and L. Vandersypen, Electrical control of a long-lived spin qubit in a si/sige quantum dot, Nature nanotechnology 9, 666 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Bradbury, M

    F. Bradbury, M. Takita, T. Gurrieri, K. Wilkel, K. Eng, M. Carroll, and S. A. Lyon, Efficient clocked electron transfer on superfluid helium, Physical Review Letters 107, 266803 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Takita, F

    M. Takita, F. Bradbury, T. Gurrieri, K. Wilkel, K. Eng, M. Carroll, and S. A. Lyon, Spatial distribution of elec- trons on a superfluid helium charge-coupled device, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 400 (IOP Publishing, 2012) p. 042059

    2012

  24. [32]

    Jennings, X

    A. Jennings, X. Zhou, I. Grytsenko, and E. Kawakami, Quantum computing using floating electrons on cryogenic substrates: Potential and challenges, Applied Physics Letters 124 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Daniilidis, D

    N. Daniilidis, D. J. Gorman, L. Tian, and H. H¨ affner, Quantum information processing with trapped electrons and superconducting electronics, New Journal of Physics 15, 073017 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Burkard, M

    G. Burkard, M. J. Gullans, X. Mi, and J. R. Petta, Superconductor–semiconductor hybrid-circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 129 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    G. Yang, A. Fragner, G. Koolstra, L. Ocola, D. Czaplewski, R. Schoelkopf, and D. Schuster, Coupling an ensemble of electrons on superfluid helium to a super- conducting circuit, Physical Review X 6, 011031 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    N. R. Beysengulov, ZeroHeliumKit (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Hecht, New development in freefem++, J

    F. Hecht, New development in freefem++, J. Numer. Math. 20, 251 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Koolstra, E

    G. Koolstra, E. Glen, N. Beysengulov, H. Byeon, K. Cas- toria, M. Sammon, B. Dizdar, C. Wang, D. Schuster, S. Lyon, J. Pollanen, and D. Rees, High-impedance res- 12 onators for strong coupling to an electron on helium, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.19592 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Koolstra, Quantum Electron (2024)

    G. Koolstra, Quantum Electron (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Frisk Kockum, A

    A. Frisk Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 19 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Vigneau, F

    F. Vigneau, F. Fedele, A. Chatterjee, D. Reilly, F. Kuem- meth, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, E. Laird, and N. Ares, Probing quantum devices with radio-frequency reflectom- etry, Applied Physics Reviews 10 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    S. Park, C. Metzger, L. Tosi, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Pothier, and A. L. Yeyati, From adiabatic to disper- sive readout of quantum circuits, Physical Review Letters 125, 077701 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Kawakami, A

    E. Kawakami, A. Elarabi, and D. Konstantinov, Image- charge detection of the rydberg states of surface electrons on liquid helium, Physical Review Letters 123, 086801 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Gonzalez-Zalba, S

    M. Gonzalez-Zalba, S. Barraud, A. Ferguson, and A. Betz, Probing the limits of gate-based charge sens- ing, Nature communications 6, 1 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Colless, A

    J. Colless, A. Mahoney, J. Hornibrook, A. Doherty, H. Lu, A. Gossard, and D. Reilly, Dispersive readout of a few-electron double quantum dot with fast rf gate sensors, Physical Review Letters 110, 046805 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Kawakami, J

    E. Kawakami, J. Chen, M. Benito, and D. Konstantinov, Blueprint for quantum computing using electrons on he- lium, Physical Review Applied 20, 054022 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Belianchikov, J

    M. Belianchikov, J. A. Kraus, and D. Konstantinov, Cryogenic resonant amplifier for electron-on-helium im- age charge readout, Journal of Low Temperature Physics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    D. G. Rees, N. R. Beysengulov, Y. Teranishi, C.-S. Tsao, S.-S. Yeh, S.-P. Chiu, Y.-H. Lin, D. A. Tayurskii, J.- J. Lin, and K. Kono, Structural order and melting of a quasi-one-dimensional electron system, Physical Review B 94, 045139 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    N. R. Beysengulov, Ø. S. Schøyen, S. D. Bilek, J. B. Flaten, O. Leinonen, M. Hjorth-Jensen, J. Pollanen, H. E. Kristiansen, Z. J. Stewart, J. D. Weidman, et al., Coulomb interaction-driven entanglement of electrons on helium, PRX Quantum 5, 030324 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses, Physical Review 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  43. [51]

    Hopfield, Theory of the contribution of excitons to the complex dielectric constant of crystals, Physical Review 112, 1555 (1958)

    J. Hopfield, Theory of the contribution of excitons to the complex dielectric constant of crystals, Physical Review 112, 1555 (1958)

    1958

  44. [52]

    Rokaj, M

    V. Rokaj, M. Ruggenthaler, F. G. Eich, and A. Ru- bio, Free electron gas in cavity quantum electrodynamics, Physical Review Research 4, 013012 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Mehrotra, C

    R. Mehrotra, C. J. Guo, Y. Z. Ruan, D. B. Mast, and A. J. Dahm, Density-dependent mobility of a two-dimensional electron fluid, Physical Review B 29, 5239–5242 (1984)

    1984

  46. [54]

    Kawakami, A

    E. Kawakami, A. Elarabi, and D. Konstantinov, Relax- ation of the excited rydberg states of surface electrons on liquid helium, Physical Review Letters 126, 106802 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Saitoh, Warm electrons on the liquid 4he surface, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 42, 201–209 (1977)

    M. Saitoh, Warm electrons on the liquid 4he surface, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 42, 201–209 (1977)

    1977

  48. [56]

    Monarkha and K

    Y. Monarkha and K. Kono, Two-dimensional Coulomb liquids and solids, Vol. 142 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Z. Chen, A. Megrant, J. Kelly, R. Barends, J. Bochmann, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, J. Mutus, et al., Fabrication and characterization of aluminum air- bridges for superconducting microwave circuits, Applied Physics Letters 104 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Glasson, V

    P. Glasson, V. Dotsenko, P. Fozooni, M. Lea, W. Bai- ley, G. Papageorgiou, S. Andresen, and A. Kristensen, Observation of dynamical ordering in a confined wigner crystal, Physical Review Letters 87, 176802 (2001)

    2001

  51. [59]

    Sommer and D

    W. Sommer and D. J. Tanner, Mobility of electrons on the surface of liquid 4he, Physical Review Letters 27, 1345 (1971)

    1971

  52. [60]

    Tavis and F

    M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Exact solution for an n-molecule–radiation-field hamiltonian, Physical Review 170, 379 (1968)

    1968

  53. [61]

    Blaha, A

    M. Blaha, A. Johnson, A. Rauschenbeutel, and J. Volz, Beyond the tavis-cummings model: Revisiting cavity qed with ensembles of quantum emitters, Physical Review A 105, 013719 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.