Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Multiplexed Readout of Superconducting Qubits Using a 3D Re-entrant Cavity Filter

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 single 3D re-entrant cavity, coupled out-of-plane to an array of on-chip readout resonators, acts as a broadband bandpass filter with intrinsic Purcell protection, achieving 98.6% average multiplexed readout fidelity in one microsecond…

desk verdict A credible four-qubit multiplexed readout demo with a novel 3D cavity filter, but the Purcell-filtering advantage rests entirely on simulation and is not confirmed by the measured T1. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14853 v2 pith:3I7S4P47 submitted 2024-12-19 quant-ph

Mustafa Bakr , Simone D. Fasciati , Shuxiang Cao , Giulio Campanaro , James Wills , Mohammed Alghadeer , Michele Piscitelli , Boris Shteynas
show 2 more authors
Vivek Chidambaram Peter J. Leek
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 85.25.Cp03.67.Lx
keywords multiplexedreadoutsuperconductingqubitsre-entrantcavityfilterPurcelldispersive3Dintegrationcrosstalkmeasurement-induceddephasing
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

This paper argues that a machined three-dimensional cavity can replace the usual on-chip network of readout resonators and Purcell filters. The cavity, capacitively coupled out-of-plane to an array of on-chip readout resonators, acts as a wideband bandpass filter that also suppresses the qubit's spontaneous-emission channel (Purcell decay). The authors demonstrate the idea on a four-qubit device, reporting an average single-shot readout fidelity of 98.6% within a 1 microsecond integration time, measurement-induced dephasing rates below 0.15 kHz for untargeted qubits, and no parametric amplifier. If the approach scales, it would simplify the chip footprint of multiplexed readout in superconducting quantum processors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 3D re-entrant cavity multiplexer: a rectangular cavity with a re-entrant section and four extruded pins that capacitively couple to readout resonators on the opposite side of the substrate. The cavity is a quarter-wave resonator, miniaturised by a shunt-to-ground capacitor Cshunt, and is read out through a single coaxial port; its low external quality factor (about 9) makes it a wideband bandpass filter with a 3 dB bandwidth of 1.6 GHz. The Purcell protection is engineered through the coupling network: parasitic and intentional cross-couplings (Cx1 and Cxq) create destructive-interference notches at the qubit frequencies, and the environment admittance seen by a qubit junction is shown by finite-element simulation to drop by an order of magnitude relative to the unfiltered case. This machinery carries the argument because it provides both the multiplexing bandwidth and the qubit protection in one passive, off-chip component.

What would settle it

Measure qubit T1 as the qubit frequency is swept across the predicted 5.5 GHz interference notch: if the interferometric model is correct, the Purcell-limited decay rate should drop sharply at the notch. Alternatively, measure the admittance seen from a qubit port with a network analyser and compare it to the finite-element prediction; a substantial mismatch would invalidate the claimed Purcell suppression.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a re-entrant cavity filter, integrated in the 3D package rather than on the chip, can perform frequency-multiplexed dispersive readout while intrinsically suppressing Purcell decay. The cavity is a capacitively loaded quarter-wave resonator whose open end faces an array of readout resonators through extruded pins; the coupling is purely capacitive and out-of-plane, so no galvanic connections or on-chip filter elements are needed. With a 1.6 GHz passband centered at 9.8 GHz and an external quality factor of about 9, the cavity provides a wideband readout channel, while its coupling network — including cross-coupling capacitors Cx1 and Cxq — forms interferometric notches at 5.5 GHz and 7.7 GHz that eliminate transmission paths responsible for Purcell decay. On a four-qubit device the authors achieve an average assignment fidelity of 98.6% in one microsecond, a 16-state assignment fidelity of 94.2% close to the product of the individual fidelities, and off-diagonal measurement-induced dephasing rates below 0.15 kHz.

Load-bearing premise

The Purcell protection and the extra notch suppression are validated only by finite-element simulations of the fabricated geometry, including assumed parasitic capacitances; the paper does not directly measure the qubit's electromagnetic environment or compare T1 with and without the filter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding more extruded pins and multi-pole filtering sections to the same cavity could extend multiplexed readout to tens or hundreds of qubits without enlarging the chip footprint.
  • Because the filter lives off-chip, the readout linewidth can be tuned by adjusting the pin-to-resonator gap rather than by redesigning on-chip components.
  • Measured off-diagonal dephasing below 0.15 kHz means simultaneous readout of all qubits introduces negligible crosstalk, supporting the use of multiplexed readout for error-correction feedback.
  • The 16-state assignment fidelity of 94.2%, nearly equal to the product of individual fidelities, indicates that readout errors are largely uncorrelated across qubits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the interferometric notch model holds, the same capacitive-cross-coupling trick could place suppression notches at arbitrary frequencies — for example, to filter control-line crosstalk or to isolate qubits from other noise sources, not just readout decay.
  • A direct with-and-without-filter comparison of qubit T1 on the same device would test the core Purcell claim; the present paper offers only simulation support for that part.
  • The 98.6% fidelity achieved without a parametric amplifier suggests the cavity's wide bandwidth already provides much of the signal-to-noise benefit; adding a quantum-limited amplifier would likely trade some of that simplicity for higher fidelity or shorter measurement time.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 3D re-entrant cavity multiplexer that capacitively couples out-of-plane to an array of on-chip readout resonators, with the goal of providing broadband bandpass filtering, intrinsic Purcell protection, and frequency-multiplexed readout without additional on-chip filter components. The authors demonstrate the concept on a four-qubit coaxial transmon device, reporting an average single-shot readout fidelity of 98.6% with a 1 µs integration time and no parametric amplifier, off-diagonal measurement-induced dephasing rates below 0.15 kHz, and a 16-state assignment matrix with average fidelity 94.2%. The Purcell-filtering and interferometric-suppression claims are supported by finite-element and lumped-element simulations, not by direct experimental isolation of the filter's effect.

Significance. If the Purcell-filtering and interferometric-suppression claims were experimentally validated, the out-of-plane 3D re-entrant cavity would be a useful hardware-efficient alternative to on-chip Purcell filters, particularly for scaling because it removes filter footprint from the qubit chip. The experimental readout results are credible and useful: the single-shot histograms, the 16-state assignment matrix, and the Hahn-echo dephasing measurements directly support the headline readout fidelity and off-diagonal crosstalk numbers. The paper also demonstrates simultaneous multiplexed readout with low crosstalk without a parametric amplifier, which is a practical contribution. The principal weakness is that the central Purcell-protection mechanism is asserted on the basis of simulation alone, and the measured coherence times cannot distinguish a filtered from an unfiltered device.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II, Fig. 2(b); Section V] The claim that the re-entrant cavity provides 'intrinsic Purcell filtering' rests solely on the FEM/lumped-element admittance simulation in Fig. 2(b). There is no experimental measurement of the qubit-environment admittance, no with/without-filter comparison of T1, and no T1-versus-frequency data. This is not a minor omission: using the Table I parameters (ωq/2π ≈ 5.7–6.0 GHz, ωR/2π ≈ 10 GHz, χ/2π ≈ 1.5 MHz, κ/2π ≈ 1 MHz) gives an unfiltered Purcell T1 of roughly 0.4 ms, which is about eight times longer than the measured T1 ≈ 50 µs. The measured T1 is therefore dominated by other loss channels, and it would be essentially unchanged whether the filter provided the simulated suppression or not. The manuscript should either add a direct test of the Purcell suppression (for example, admittance measurement or T1 as a function of qubit frequency across a filter edge) or explicitly qualify the Purcell claim as simulation-based and not experimentally isolated in this work.
  2. [Section II, Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 2(b)] The text states that the interferometric Purcell filter creates bandstop notches designed at 5.5 GHz and 7.7 GHz, but the qubit frequencies in Table I are 5.658–6.034 GHz. The 5.5 GHz notch is not at any qubit frequency, and 7.7 GHz is far from all qubits. As written, the demonstrated device does not implement interferometric suppression at the operating qubit frequencies, and the claim that the fabricated device includes such protection is unsupported. If the notches belong to a different or future geometry, the text and Fig. 2(b) caption need to say so; if the device was intended to have notches at the qubit frequencies, the quoted notch frequencies and the simulation need to be reconciled.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract states 'measurement-induced dephasing rates below 0.15 kHz' without the qualifier that this refers only to off-diagonal crosstalk between different qubit–resonator pairs; the diagonal self-dephasing rates in Fig. 6(b) are orders of magnitude larger (tens of MHz). Please qualify the claim in the abstract to avoid overstatement.
  2. [Section II, Fig. 2(a)] The two-port simulation used to extract the filter bandwidth replaces the single physical port with two ports displaced along y and mirrored; the caption should explain how this two-port representation corresponds to the actual single-port device and whether it affects the extracted external quality factor.
  3. [Section V] The closing sentence contains a grammatical error: 'the design could capacitively couples to larger arrays' should read 'the design could capacitively couple to larger arrays.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the readout metrics are measured and the Purcell-filtering claim rests on an independent electromagnetic simulation, not on a fitted input or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claims split into two categories. First, the four-qubit multiplexed readout demonstration (98.6% average fidelity, <0.15 kHz off-diagonal dephasing, T1 around 50 us) is presented as measured experimental data, and no fit parameter connects those outputs to the claimed filter mechanism. Second, the intrinsic Purcell filtering and interferometric notch suppression are supported by finite-element simulations of the device geometry shown in Fig. 2. The notch frequencies at 5.5 GHz and 7.7 GHz are chosen by adjusting the coupling strengths Cx1 and Cxq, but the paper explicitly describes these as designed notches ('notch filters designed at 5.5 GHz and 7.7 GHz'), not as predictions from a fitted model. The simulated admittance curves are the output of an independent electromagnetic simulation rather than a refit of the measured readout data. No equation in the paper reduces a claimed result to an input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing assertion is justified solely by a self-citation: references [23] and [24] merely place the device in a previously reported 3D-integrated coaxial architecture and do not carry the Purcell-filter claim. The residual concern that the Purcell suppression is not separately validated by experiment, such as a with/without-filter T1 comparison, is a verification gap rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated; the 3D re-entrant cavity is a hardware component, not a new particle, force, or conserved quantity. The interferometric filter is a circuit arrangement, not a new entity. The free parameters are design and fitting choices that the experimental demonstration depends on, but they are not hiding a derived prediction.

free parameters (6)
  • Feedline position r0 = 4.75 mm
    Design parameter setting external coupling and filter bandwidth; used in simulations and device fabrication.
  • Pin-resonator gap dr = 0.35 mm
    Design parameter controlling capacitive coupling between cavity pins and readout resonators.
  • Cavity dimensions L, d, W = 5.5, 2.0, 4.0 mm
    Geometric dimensions determining cavity resonance frequency and internal quality factor.
  • Shunt capacitance Cshunt
    Lumped capacitance loading the cavity open end to reduce size and set the resonance; value not reported in text.
  • Readout pulse amplitude and frequency (per qubit)
    Optimized individually to maximize SNR; final values not reported.
  • Dephasing rate Gamma = Not tabulated; shown in Fig. 6
    Fitted from echo contrast decay c(xi)=c0 exp(-Gamma*taup*xi^2); values used to quantify crosstalk.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dispersive readout model: qubit state shifts the readout resonator frequency, enabling state assignment from the resonator response.
    The entire measurement and state classification rely on the standard dispersive approximation; used throughout Section III.
  • standard math The group-delay relation kappa_e/2pi = 2/(pi*tao_D) extracts the resonator linewidth.
    Used in Section III to extract linewidths from reflection group delay; standard for a single-port resonant reflection.
  • domain assumption FEM simulation accurately models the fabricated 3D cavity and the multi-path capacitive couplings (Cx1, Cxq).
    The Purcell suppression and interferometric notch claims come entirely from Fig. 2 simulations; no direct experimental validation of the environment admittance is provided.
  • domain assumption The device operates in the dispersive regime with negligible qubit-resonator hybridization.
    Required for the dispersive shift chi and QND measurement; consistent with reported parameters but not explicitly verified.
  • domain assumption The lumped-element equivalent circuit of Fig. 1(c) is a valid representation of the 3D electromagnetic structure.
    The interferometric Purcell filter design and its prescribed notches are based on this circuit model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiplexed Readout of Superconducting Qubits Using a 3D Re-entrant Cavity Filter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3I7S4P47

@misc{pith2026241214853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiplexed Readout of Superconducting Qubits Using a 3D Re-entrant Cavity Filter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3I7S4P47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14853}
}
read the original abstract

Hardware efficient methods for high fidelity quantum state measurements are crucial for superconducting qubit experiments, as qubit numbers grow and feedback and state reset begin to be employed for quantum error correction. We present a 3D re-entrant cavity filter designed for frequency-multiplexed readout of superconducting qubits. The cavity filter is situated out of the plane of the qubit circuit and capacitively couples to an array of on-chip readout resonators in a manner that can scale to large qubit arrays. The re-entrant cavity functions as a large-linewidth bandpass filter with intrinsic Purcell filtering. We demonstrate the concept with a four-qubit multiplexed device.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14853 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Side (a) and top (b) schematics of the device (false-colour cartoon), illustrating the 4:1 3D re-entrant cavity multiplexer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Reflection measurement of phase derivative (group [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Simulated scattering parameters for the 4:1 multi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Histogram of integrated single-shot readout signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Assignment probability matrix for the four qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Measurement-induced dephasing of qubits Q1–Q4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Low Crosstalk in a Scalable Superconducting Quantum Lattice

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 16-qubit square lattice in a tileable 3D-integrated package shows localized inter-qubit couplings and low simultaneous single-qubit gate errors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Ryan-Anderson, J

    C. Ryan-Anderson, J. G. Bohnet, K. Lee, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, J. P. Gaebler, D. Francois, A. Chernoguzov, D. Lucchetti, N. C. Brown, T. M. Gatterman, S. K. Halit, K. Gilmore, J. A. Gerber, B. Neyenhuis, D. Hayes, and R. P. Stutz, Realization of real-time fault-tolerant quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. X11, 041058 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, ´E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Laz˘ ar, F. Swiadek, J. Her- rmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. Muller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature 605, 669 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Acharya et al., Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676 (2022)

    R. Acharya et al., Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsiout- sios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. De- voret, Real-time quantum error correction beyond break- even, Nature 616, 50–55 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. S. Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Paetznick, M

    A. Paetznick, M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, J. P. Campora III, A. Chernoguzov, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gat- terman, L. Grans-Samuelsson, D. Gresh, D. Hayes, N. Hewitt, C. Holliman, C. V. Horst, J. Johansen, D. Luc- chetti, Y. Matsuoka, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyen- huis, A. Paz, J. Pino, P. Sieg...

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Acharya, L

    R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Ander- sen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. As- trakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, B. Bal- lard, J. C. Bardin, J. Bausch, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Blackwell, S. Boixo, et al., Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold, arXiv preprint, arXiv:2408.13687v1 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Ma- jer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Approaching unit visibility for control of a superconduct- ing qubit with dispersive readout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 060501 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Aumentado, Superconducting parametric amplifiers: The state of the art in Josephson parametric amplifiers, IEEE Microwave Magazine21, 45 (2020)

    J. Aumentado, Superconducting parametric amplifiers: The state of the art in Josephson parametric amplifiers, IEEE Microwave Magazine21, 45 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Esposito, A

    M. Esposito, A. Ranadive, L. Planat, and N. Roch, Per- spective on traveling wave microwave parametric ampli- fiers, Appl. Phys. Lett.119, 120501 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Walter, P

    T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Magnard, A. Potoˇ cnik, Y. Salath´ e, M. Pechal, M. Mondal, M. 7 Oppliger, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Rapid high-fidelity single-shot dispersive readout of superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.7, 054020 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Kundu, N

    S. Kundu, N. Gheeraert, S. Hazra, T. Roy, K. V. Salunkhe, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, Multiplexed readout of four qubits in 3D circuit QED architecture using a broadband Josephson parametric amplifier, Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 172601 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Sunada, S

    Y. Sunada, S. Kono, J. Ilves, S. Tamate, T. Sugiyama, Y. Tabuchi, and Y. Nakamura, Fast readout and reset of a superconducting qubit coupled to a resonator with an intrinsic Purcell filter, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 044016 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    A. A. Houck et al., Controlling the spontaneous emission of a superconducting transmon qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 080502 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    M. D. Reed, B. R. Johnson, A. A. Houck, L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Fast reset and suppressing spontaneous emis- sion of a superconducting qubit, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 203110 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Jeffrey, D

    E. Jeffrey, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White, J. Kelly, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Megrant, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Neill, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Marti- nis, Fast accurate state measurement with superconduc...

    2014

  10. [18]

    Sunada, K

    Y. Sunada, K. Yuki, Z. Wang, T. Miyamura, J. Ilves, K. Matsuura, P. A. Spring, S. Tamate, S. Kono, and Y. Nakamura, Photon-noise-tolerant dispersive readout of a superconducting qubit using a nonlinear Purcell filter, PRX Quantum 5, 010307 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Y. Chen, D. Sank, P. O’Malley, T. White, R. Barends, B. Chiaro, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, A. Megrant, C. Neill, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, Y. Yin, A. N. Cle- land, and J. M. Martinis, Multiplexed dispersive readout of superconducting phase qubits, Appl. Phys. Lett.10...

    2012

  12. [20]

    Heinsoo, C

    J. Heinsoo, C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Krinner, T. Walter, Y. Salath´ e, S. Gasparinetti, J.-C. Besse, A. Potoˇ cnik, A. Wallraff, and C. Eichler, Rapid high-fidelity multiplexed readout of superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 034040 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    N. T. Bronn, Y. Liu, J. B. Hertzberg, A. D. C´ orcoles, A. A. Houck, J. M. Gambetta, and J. M. Chow, Broadband filters for abatement of spontaneous emission in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Appl. Phys. Lett.107, 172601 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    P. A. Spring, L. Milanovic, Y. Sunada, S. Wang, A. F. van Loo, S. Tamate, and Y. Nakamura, Fast multiplexed superconducting qubit readout with intrinsic Purcell fil- tering, arXiv preprint, arXiv:2409.04967 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Rahamim, T

    J. Rahamim, T. Behrle, M. J. Peterer, A. Patterson, P. A. Spring, T. Tsunoda, R. Manenti, G. Tancredi, and P. J. Leek, Double-sided coaxial circuit QED with out-of- plane wiring, Appl. Phys. Lett.110, 222602 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    P. A. Spring, S. Cao, T. Tsunoda, G. Campanaro, S. Fas- ciati, J. Wills, M. Bakr, V. Chidambaram, B. Shteynas, L. Carpenter, et al., High coherence and low cross-talk in a tileable 3D integrated superconducting circuit archi- tecture, Science Advances8, eabl6698 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    J. E. Johnson, C. Macklin, D. H. Slichter, R. Vijay, E. B. Weingarten, J. Clarke, and I. Siddiqi, Heralded state preparation in a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 050506 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    J. M. Gambetta, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Qubit-photon interactions in a cavity: Measurement-induced dephasing and number splitting, Phys. Rev. A74, 042318 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

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