Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

High-fidelity QND readout and measurement back-action in a Tantalum-based high-coherence fluxonium qubit

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tantalum-based fluxonium qubit is read out single-shot with 96.2% assignment fidelity (97.8% with a Josephson parametric amplifier) and a QND repeatability of 99.6%.

desk verdict Solid experimental readout benchmark for tantalum fluxonium; the 99.6% QND headline is slightly oversold but the body admits the caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16691 v1 pith:O5OE2BAF submitted 2025-01-28 quant-ph

Gaurav Bothara , Srijita Das , Kishor V Salunkhe , Madhavi Chand , Jay Deshmukh , Meghan P Patankar , R Vijay This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords fluxoniumqubitdispersivereadoutQNDmeasurementJosephsonparametricamplifiermeasurement-inducedstatetransitionstantalumsingle-shotfidelityback-action
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 reports single-shot dispersive readout of a tantalum-based fluxonium qubit, a superconducting circuit with a highly anharmonic spectrum that is a candidate building block for quantum processors. The authors demonstrate an assignment fidelity of $96.2\%$ with about $\bar{n}\sim 112$ cavity photons and a $2.82\,\mu$s integration time, improving to $97.8\%$ with a Josephson parametric amplifier at $\bar{n}\sim 126$ and $260$ ns. A two-measurement protocol gives a QND repeatability fidelity of $99.6\%$, meaning the same answer is returned on immediate repetition almost every time. The paper also shows that increasing readout power beyond the optimum causes the qubit to leak outside the computational subspace, so fidelity is ultimately limited by state-mixing rather than by signal-to-noise. If these results hold, fast high-fidelity measurement is available for fluxonium-based error correction and reset protocols.

What carries the argument

The central object is a fluxonium qubit, a superconducting circuit in which a small Josephson junction is shunted by a large inductance, producing a highly anharmonic spectrum; here the capacitor is tantalum and the junctions are aluminium. Readout is dispersive: the qubit is transversely coupled to a 3D copper cavity at $7.167$ GHz, shifting the cavity frequency by $\chi_{ge}\approx 1.2$ MHz depending on the qubit state, and a reflected readout pulse is demodulated into IQ quadrature blobs that are thresholded for single-shot assignment. Assignment fidelity is decomposed with double-Gaussian fits: the overlap of the dominant Gaussians gives the SNR error, while the weight in the secondary Gaussians captures state-preparation and state-mixing errors. The CKP (chi-kappa-power) calibration converts room-temperature readout power into cavity photon number via the ac-Stark shift, and QND character is tested with two identical readout pulses $M_1$ and $M_2$ separated by $200$ ns. Back-action is probed with a leaked readout tone of variable amplitude and duration followed by a final ensemble measurement.

What would settle it

Perform the CKP ac-Stark calibration at the half-flux operating point and, in the same run, measure the population beyond $\{|g\rangle, |e\rangle\}$ with a third readout discriminator that distinguishes leaked levels; if the inferred photon numbers shift significantly or the measured leakage at optimal power is negligible compared with the total assignment error, the back-action and error-budget claims would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At half-flux bias, where the qubit frequency is $328.12$ MHz, the paper reports that a single-shot dispersive readout of a tantalum/aluminium fluxonium qubit reaches an assignment fidelity of $96.2\%$ with an average of about $112$ cavity photons and $2.82$ $\mu$s integration, and $97.8\%$ with a Josephson parametric amplifier at about $126$ photons and $260$ ns. A two-measurement protocol yields a QND repeatability fidelity $F_Q = 99.6\%$, with $\bar{P}(0|0)=0.995$ and $\bar{P}(1|1)=0.997$. The authors attribute the remaining error mainly to state preparation and state mixing, not to signal-to-noise; with the JPA the SNR error is only about $0.01\%$. At photon numbers beyond the optimum, the IQ blobs merge and the qubit leaks outside the computational subspace, and a leaked-tone relaxation experiment shows accelerated decay and saturation above the expected equilibrium, evidence of measurement-induced transitions analogous to transmon ionization.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion from room-temperature readout power to cavity photon number is calibrated at integer flux bias with the qubit at $4.85$ GHz, but all readout experiments run at half-flux bias with the qubit at $328.12$ MHz, and the paper assumes the conversion is unchanged; if it differs, the quoted photon numbers and back-action trends shift, though the raw assignment fidelities do not.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A tantalum fluxonium with a conventional Josephson-junction-array superinductor can be read out in a single shot at $96.2\%$ without an amplifier and $97.8\%$ with one, so high-coherence fluxonium does not need a granular-aluminium superinductor for good readout.
  • With the JPA, the $260$ ns integration time is about two orders of magnitude shorter than the measured coherence times, making the readout fast enough for iterative quantum error correction.
  • Since the SNR error is only $0.01\%$ with the JPA, near-term improvements in readout fidelity must come from better state preparation and from suppressing measurement-induced mixing, not from more amplification.
  • Pushing the readout photon number above the optimum makes the IQ blobs merge and leaks the qubit out of the computational subspace; keeping the photon number near $\bar{n}\sim 126$ preserves QND behavior at $99.6\%$.
  • The observed high-power leakage behavior parallels transmon ionization, so theoretical models of measurement-induced transitions in fluxonium are needed to predict and avoid the loss of QND-ness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A leakage-aware three-outcome readout that classifies $|h\rangle$ and $|i\rangle$ as a separate error channel would turn the observed IQ-blob merging into a quantitative leakage rate and a corrected QND fidelity.
  • Performing the CKP calibration in situ at the half-flux operating point would test whether the photon-number dependence of the back-action curves is quantitatively accurate; the raw single-shot fidelities would stand either way.
  • Because the optimal photon number is where SNR gain is balanced by the onset of measurement-induced transitions, designs that push the higher fluxonium levels further from the cavity frequency should tolerate larger photon numbers and faster readout.
  • The same double-Gaussian error decomposition could be applied to other fluxonium readout demonstrations to compare state-mixing rates directly rather than headline fidelities.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a characterization of dispersive readout for a tantalum-based fluxonium qubit at half-flux bias. The authors measure single-shot assignment fidelities of 96.2% without a Josephson parametric amplifier and 97.8% with a JPA, at operating photon numbers of about 112 and 126 respectively. They also perform two successive measurements and report a QND repeatability fidelity FQ = 99.6%, and they study back-action by measuring readout errors versus photon number and by observing qubit relaxation in the presence of a leaked readout tone. The overall narrative is that high-fidelity readout is possible despite a relatively small dispersive shift, and that the main limitations are state-mixing and leakage outside the computational subspace.

Significance. If the reported numbers are substantiated, the paper is a useful experimental data point for fluxonium readout: it shows that a conventional junction-array super-inductor can support single-shot fidelities above 96% without a parametric amplifier and above 97% with one, with a fast (260 ns) amplifier-assisted readout. The systematic comparison of JPA-off and JPA-on behavior, the study of integration time versus photon number, and the back-action experiments are valuable for the fluxonium community. The paper also deserves credit for explicitly identifying leakage and state-mixing as limiting factors, and for reporting measurement efficiency and noise temperature. The main caveats are that the headline QND fidelity is an overestimate by the authors' own admission, and that the photon-number calibration is transferred from a different operating point; these need to be resolved for the quantitative claims to be fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.A, Eq. (2) and Fig. 2(b)] The abstract and conclusion quote 'QND (repeatability) fidelity FQ = 99.6%' without qualification, but the body states that 'FQ slightly overestimates the true QND fidelity, as the protocol does not account for leakage outside the computational subspace.' Since QND by definition requires that a measurement preserve the computational subspace, the quoted number is not a leakage-inclusive QND fidelity. This is load-bearing because the QND claim is a headline result. The authors should report a leakage-inclusive repeatability number, or at least an explicit leakage fraction extracted from the same M1/M2 data, and should adjust the abstract and conclusion wording accordingly.
  2. [Supplementary §II (CKP calibration) and §II.A (photon numbers)] The CKP calibration is performed at integer flux bias with the qubit at 4.85 GHz (Supplementary §II), but all readout experiments are at half-flux bias where the qubit frequency is 328.12 MHz (Table I). The paper assumes the same room-temperature-power to cavity-photon conversion at the operating point without an in-situ calibration. If the conversion differs, the quoted operating photon numbers n ≈ 112 and n ≈ 126 and the photon-number trends in Fig. 3 would shift. The raw assignment fidelities are not invalidated, but the central quantitative readout model and the back-action analysis as a function of n depend on this calibration. The authors should calibrate at the operating point or provide a quantitative argument that the conversion is flux-insensitive.
  3. [§II.A and Table I] No statistical or systematic uncertainties are reported for the assignment fidelities, the QND fidelity, or the extracted measurement efficiency and noise temperature. With 10,000 repetitions the statistical error on a 97% fidelity is nontrivial at the quoted precision (about ±0.3% at one standard deviation for a binomial proportion), and there are additional systematic effects from threshold choice, residual excited-state population after cooling, and photon-number calibration. The 'best fidelity' claims should be accompanied by error bars or at least by a statement of the dominant systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and conclusion] Typo in the abstract: 'we extract a QND fidelity if 99.6%' should read 'of 99.6%'.
  2. [§II.A] The sentence 'the calculated QND fidelity (FQ) for M2 is the same as the heraled assignment fidelity (F) for M2' contains a typo ('heraled'); consider clarifying the distinction between QND repeatability and heralded assignment fidelity, since the latter is a different quantity.
  3. [§II.B] Minor typo: 'The data is plotted or a few different fractional amplitudes' should read 'for a few different fractional amplitudes'.
  4. [Fig. 4] The caption states that the dashed circle indicates one standard deviation of the IQ distribution, but it would be helpful to state whether the circle is centered on the mean and whether the standard deviation is computed for the |g> or |e> blob; the current figure may be ambiguous to readers.
  5. [Supplementary §III] The SNR definition in Eq. (1), SNR = |<Ig> - <Ie>|/(σg + σe), is unusual; more standard definitions use the quadrature sum in the denominator. Since this definition is used to extract efficiency and noise temperature, please clarify why σg + σe is appropriate or supply the standard definition.
  6. [Author list metadata] The parenthetical 'and R Vijaya)' in the author list appears to be a formatting artifact; the correct name appears to be 'R Vijay' from the corresponding-author email and references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports direct experimental measurements; the QND-fidelity caveat is an interpretation issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

This paper is an experimental characterization, not a derivation. The headline numbers—assignment fidelity of 96.2% and 97.8%, and QND repeatability fidelity of 99.6%—are obtained directly from single-shot histograms and conditional M1/M2 histograms via Eqs. (1) and (2). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the CKP photon-number calibration is auxiliary, the SNR linear fit is used only to extract measurement efficiency and noise temperature, and these extracted values do not feed back into the reported fidelities. The references to prior work, including the authors' own, are contextual or methodological and are not load-bearing for the central claims; there is no uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled in through self-citation. The paper itself explicitly states that FQ 'slightly overestimates the true QND fidelity, as the protocol does not account for leakage outside the computational subspace.' That is an admitted limitation of the headline metric, but it is a correctness/interpretation caveat, not circularity: the quantity is defined by Eq. (2) and measured, not derived from an equivalent input. Likewise, performing the CKP calibration at integer flux bias while operating at half-flux bias is a calibration-transfer concern, not a circular one. The derivation chain is self-contained against the measured data, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard dispersive readout theory and several unvalidated calibration/modeling assumptions, most notably transferring a photon-number calibration across a large change in flux bias.

free parameters (2)
  • Readout photon number conversion (CKP calibration) = n ~ 27 +/- 1 at 20 mV IF; operating n ~ 112 (JPA off), n ~ 126 (JPA on)
    Calibrated via CKP at integer flux bias; the paper uses this to report operating points and back-action versus photon number. The conversion relies on a two-port resonator factor f = -11.67 dB from simulation.
  • Measurement efficiency and added noise photon number = eta = 2.7% (JPA off), 57.4% (JPA on); n_n = 37.5 (off), 1.7 (on)
    Extracted from a linear fit of SNR versus sqrt(n) at low photon number (Supplementary Fig. S4). Used to characterize the readout chain, not the central fidelity calculation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dispersive readout approximation
    Readout relies on a state-dependent cavity frequency with dispersive shift chi_ge = 1.2 MHz and ac Stark shift delta_omega_Q = chi_ge * nbar. Standard circuit QED but an approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-port resonator power model with factor f
    Conversion from room-temperature power to cavity photons uses f = -11.67 dB from AWR simulation plus reflection and two-port corrections. Not independently verified at the operating point.
  • ad hoc to paper CKP calibration transfers from integer flux bias to half-flux operating point
    Calibration is done at qubit frequency 4.85 GHz but used at half-flux where the qubit is 328 MHz; no in-situ validation is shown.
  • domain assumption Double Gaussian histogram model separates SNR and mixing errors
    The error budget decomposes histograms into two Gaussians; the minority Gaussian's weight is interpreted as state preparation and mixing error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-fidelity QND readout and measurement back-action in a Tantalum-based high-coherence fluxonium qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5OE2BAF

@misc{pith2026250116691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-fidelity QND readout and measurement back-action in a Tantalum-based high-coherence fluxonium qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5OE2BAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16691}
}
read the original abstract

Implementing a precise measurement of the quantum state of a qubit is very critical for building a practical quantum processor as it plays an important role in state initialization and quantum error correction. While the transmon qubit has been the most commonly used design in small to medium-scale processors, the fluxonium qubit is emerging as a strong alternative with the potential for high-fidelity gate operation as a result of the high anharmonicity and high coherence achievable due to its unique design. Here, we explore the measurement characteristics of a tantalum-based high-coherence fluxonium qubit and demonstrate single-shot measurement fidelity (assignment fidelity) of 96.2% and 97.8% without and with the use of a Josephson Parametric Amplifier respectively. We study the back-action of the measurement photons on the qubit and measure a QND (repeatability) fidelity of 99.6%. We find that the measurement fidelity and QND nature are limited by state-mixing errors and our results suggest that a careful study of measurement-induced transitions in the fluxonium is needed to further optimize the readout performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16691 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Single-shot readout. Histograms with the double-gaussian fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) QND experiment protocol. Measurement was done [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Means of IQ blobs measured with the parametric amplifier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

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. Mitigating state transition errors during readout with a synchronized flux pulse

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A synchronized flux pulse that compensates the readout-induced frequency shift avoids two-level-system resonances and achieves 99% (98.4%) fluxonium readout fidelity in 1 microsecond (0.5 microsecond).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    author DiVincenzo, D. P. title The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation . journal Fortschritte der Physik volume 48 , pages 771--783 ( year 2000 ). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1521-3978 note \_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/1521-3978\

    work page doi:10.1002/1521-3978

  2. [2]

    author Jeffrey, E. et al. title Fast Accurate State Measurement with Superconducting Qubits . journal Physical Review Letters volume 112 , pages 190504 ( year 2014 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.190504. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.190504 2014

  3. [3]

    author Gusenkova, D. et al. title Quantum Nondemolition Dispersive Readout of a Superconducting Artificial Atom Using Large Photon Numbers . journal Physical Review Applied volume 15 , pages 064030 ( year 2021 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.15.064030. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.15.064030 2021

  4. [4]

    author Houck, A. A. et al. title Controlling the Spontaneous Emission of a Superconducting Transmon Qubit . journal Physical Review Letters volume 101 , pages 080502 ( year 2008 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.080502. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.080502 2008

  5. [5]

    author Sunada, Y. et al. title Fast Readout and Reset of a Superconducting Qubit Coupled to a Resonator with an Intrinsic Purcell Filter . journal Physical Review Applied volume 17 , pages 044016 ( year 2022 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.17.044016. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.17.044016 2022

  6. [6]

    author Bravyi, S. et al. title High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory . journal Nature volume 627 , pages 778--782 ( year 2024 ). ://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07107-7. note Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    author Fowler, A. G. , author Mariantoni, M. , author Martinis, J. M. & author Cleland, A. N. title Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation . journal Physical Review A volume 86 , pages 032324 ( year 2012 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    doi:10.1103/physreva.86.032324 2012

  8. [8]

    author Chen, Z. et al. title Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction . journal Nature volume 595 , pages 383--387 ( year 2021 ). ://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03588-y. note Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    & author Cummings, F

    author Jaynes, E. & author Cummings, F. title Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser . journal Proceedings of the IEEE volume 51 , pages 89--109 ( year 1963 ). ://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1443594. note Conference Name:...

    1963

  2. [10]

    , author Huang, R.-S

    author Blais, A. , author Huang, R.-S. , author Wallraff, A. , author Girvin, S. M. & author Schoelkopf, R. J. title Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation . journal Physical Review A volume 69 , pages 06...

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    author Wallraff, A. et al. title Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics . journal Nature volume 431 , pages 162--167 ( year 2004 ). ://www.nature.com/articles/nature02851. note Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2004

  4. [12]

    author Sank, D. et al. title Measurement- Induced State Transitions in a Superconducting Qubit : Beyond the Rotating Wave Approximation . journal Physical Review Letters volume 117 , pages 190503 ( year 2016 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.190503. note Publisher...

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    author Nesterov, K. N. & author Pechenezhskiy, I. V. title Measurement-induced state transitions in dispersive qubit-readout schemes . journal Phys. Rev. Appl. volume 22 , pages 064038 ( year 2024 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.064038

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    author Koch, J. et al. title Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box . journal Physical Review A volume 76 , pages 042319 ( year 2007 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042319. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    author Arute, F. et al. title Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor . journal Nature volume 574 , pages 505--510 ( year 2019 ). ://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5. note Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2019

  8. [16]

    author Zhang, E. J. et al. title High-performance superconducting quantum processors via laser annealing of transmon qubits . journal Science Advances volume 8 , pages eabi6690 ( year 2022 ). ://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi6690. note Publisher: American Association f...

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    author Manucharyan, V. E. , author Koch, J. , author Glazman, L. I. & author Devoret, M. H. title Fluxonium: Single Cooper - Pair Circuit Free of Charge Offsets . journal Science volume 326 , pages 113--116 ( year 2009 ). ://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1175552. note Pu...

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    author Nguyen, L. B. et al. title High- Coherence Fluxonium Qubit . journal Physical Review X volume 9 , pages 041041 ( year 2019 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.041041. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    author Somoroff, A. et al. title Millisecond Coherence in a Superconducting Qubit . journal Physical Review Letters volume 130 , pages 267001 ( year 2023 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.267001. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    author Vool, U. et al. title Non- Poissonian Quantum Jumps of a Fluxonium Qubit due to Quasiparticle Excitations . journal Physical Review Letters volume 113 , pages 247001 ( year 2014 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.247001. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    author Sun, H. et al. title Characterization of Loss Mechanisms in a Fluxonium Qubit . journal Physical Review Applied volume 20 , pages 034016 ( year 2023 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.034016. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    author Ficheux, Q. et al. title Fast Logic with Slow Qubits : Microwave - Activated Controlled - Z Gate on Low - Frequency Fluxoniums . journal Physical Review X volume 11 , pages 021026 ( year 2021 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021026. note Publisher: American Ph...

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    author Lin, W.-J. et al. title 24 days-stable CNOT -gate on fluxonium qubits with over 99.9\ ://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15783v1

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    author Ma, X. et al. title Native approach to controlled- z gates in inductively coupled fluxonium qubits . journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 132 , pages 060602 ( year 2024 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.060602

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    author Weiss, D. et al. title Fast High - Fidelity Gates for Galvanically - Coupled Fluxonium Qubits Using Strong Flux Modulation . journal PRX Quantum volume 3 , pages 040336 ( year 2022 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040336. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    author Xiong, H. et al. title Arbitrary controlled-phase gate on fluxonium qubits using differential ac Stark shifts . journal Physical Review Research volume 4 , pages 023040 ( year 2022 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023040. note Publisher: American Physica...

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    author Dogan, E. et al. title Two- Fluxonium Cross - Resonance Gate . journal Physical Review Applied volume 20 , pages 024011 ( year 2023 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.024011. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    author Place, A. P. et al. title New material platform for superconducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds . journal Nature communications volume 12 , pages 1779 ( year 2021 )

    2021

  21. [29]

    author Wang, F. et al. title Achieving millisecond coherence fluxonium through overlap josephson junctions ( year 2024 ). ://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05481. 2405.05481

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    author Nguyen, L. B. et al. title Blueprint for a High - Performance Fluxonium Quantum Processor . journal PRX Quantum volume 3 , pages 037001 ( year 2022 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.037001. note Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    author Sank, D. et al. title System Characterization of Dispersive Readout in Superconducting Qubits ( year 2024 ). ://arxiv.org/abs/2402.00413. note ArXiv:2402.00413

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    author Hazra, S. et al. title Benchmarking the readout of a superconducting qubit for repeated measurements ( year 2024 ). ://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10934. note ArXiv:2407.10934 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    author Khezri, M. et al. title Measurement-induced state transitions in a superconducting qubit: Within the rotating-wave approximation . journal Phys. Rev. Appl. volume 20 , pages 054008 ( year 2023 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.054008

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    author Dumas, M. F. et al. title Measurement-induced transmon ionization . journal Phys. Rev. X volume 14 , pages 041023 ( year 2024 ). ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.14.041023

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    , author Refael, G

    author Singh, S. , author Refael, G. , author Clerk, A. & author Rosenfeld, E. title Impact of josephson junction array modes on fluxonium readout ( year 2024 ). ://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14788. 2412.14788

    2024

  28. [36]

    author Stefanski, T. V. et al. title Improved fluxonium readout through dynamic flux pulsing ( year 2024 ). ://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13437. note ArXiv:2411.13437 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    author Huber, G. B. P. et al. title Parametric multi-element coupling architecture for coherent and dissipative control of superconducting qubits ( year 2024 ). ://arxiv.org/abs/2403.02203. note ArXiv:2403.02203

    2024

  30. [38]

    author Zhou, Y. et al. title Rapid and unconditional parametric reset protocol for tunable superconducting qubits . journal Nature Communications volume 12 , pages 5924 ( year 2021 ). ://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26205-y. note Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2021

  31. [39]

    author Hatridge, M. et al. title Quantum Back - Action of an Individual Variable - Strength Measurement . journal Science volume 339 , pages 178--181 ( year 2013 ). ://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1226897. note Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.