pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.04610 · v2 · submitted 2025-04-06 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Impact of Absorption due to Zero-Field Splitting on Loss in Dielectrics: A Case Study in Sapphire

Mark E. Turiansky , Chris G. Van de Walle This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 21:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords zero-field splittingparamagnetic impuritiesdielectric lossloss tangentsapphiresuperconducting qubitsmagnetic dipole absorption
0
0 comments X

The pith

Absorption from zero-field splitting of paramagnetic impurities produces loss tangents of 10^{-9} to 10^{-8} in sapphire at 4.5 GHz.

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

The paper proposes that transitions between zero-field-split states of paramagnetic impurities or defects cause magnetic dipole absorption and resulting dielectric loss. For Cr, Fe, and V impurities in sapphire, the calculated loss tangents at 4.5 GHz fall in the 10^{-9} to 10^{-8} range. These values are comparable to those measured in experiments. The finding implies that this magnetic loss mechanism may limit coherence times in superconducting qubits.

Core claim

The authors derive the absorption cross section for a magnetic dipole transition between zero-field-split states of paramagnetic impurities or defects. They apply this to calculate the loss tangent for Cr, Fe, and V impurities in sapphire, obtaining values in the range 10^{-9}-10^{-8} at 4.5 GHz that match experimental measurements. This indicates that magnetic loss from such impurities may be a limiting factor in the coherence times of superconducting qubits.

What carries the argument

The absorption cross section for magnetic dipole transitions between zero-field-split states of paramagnetic impurities, from which the loss tangent is calculated.

If this is right

  • Loss tangents from this mechanism reach 10^{-9} to 10^{-8} for Cr, Fe, and V in sapphire at 4.5 GHz.
  • These values are comparable to loss measured in experiments.
  • Magnetic loss may limit coherence times of superconducting qubits.
  • Reducing concentrations of these impurities could lower the dielectric loss.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same absorption process could contribute to loss in other dielectric materials used for quantum devices.
  • Varying impurity concentrations in controlled samples would provide a direct test of the predicted loss scaling.
  • The mechanism may set frequency-dependent limits on coherence in related superconducting circuits.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes impurity concentrations and zero-field splitting parameters that produce absorption at the qubit operating frequency without being overwhelmed by other loss mechanisms.

What would settle it

A measurement of loss tangent at 4.5 GHz in sapphire samples whose Cr, Fe, or V impurity concentrations have been independently quantified, checked against the predicted values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.04610 by Chris G. Van de Walle, Mark E. Turiansky.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The magnetic sublevels of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Calculated loss tangents tan( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The coherence times of superconducting qubits are limited by loss mechanisms, whose microscopic origins have remained elusive. We propose a mechanism caused by transitions between zero-field-split states of paramagnetic impurities or defects. We derive the absorption cross section for a magnetic dipole transition and apply it to calculate the loss tangent. For Cr, Fe, and V impurities in sapphire, we find loss tangents at 4.5 GHz in the range of 10$^{-9}$-10$^{-8}$, comparable to the loss measured in experiments. This value suggests that magnetic loss may be a limiting factor in the coherence times of superconducting qubits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that magnetic dipole transitions between zero-field-split levels of paramagnetic impurities (Cr, Fe, V) in sapphire produce resonant absorption at microwave frequencies, contributing to dielectric loss. It derives an expression for the absorption cross-section and applies it to calculate loss tangents at 4.5 GHz in the range 10^{-9}–10^{-8} for assumed impurity concentrations, values that are stated to be comparable to those measured in experiments and therefore potentially limiting for superconducting-qubit coherence times.

Significance. If the numerical results are robust, the work supplies a concrete microscopic mechanism for a portion of the unexplained microwave loss in sapphire substrates, which could help close the gap between measured and predicted coherence times. The first-principles derivation of the magnetic-dipole cross-section is a positive feature; the direct numerical comparison to experimental loss tangents is also useful provided the input parameters are independently justified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Application to Cr, Fe, and V impurities (section containing the loss-tangent calculation)] The central numerical claim (loss tangents of 10^{-9}–10^{-8}) is obtained by scaling the derived cross-section by specific impurity concentrations and zero-field-splitting energies chosen so that the transition lies near 4.5 GHz. The manuscript must state the exact concentration values employed for each species, the source of those values (e.g., a cited EPR study or measurement on the same crystals), and the precise ZFS parameters, because these quantities are load-bearing for the assertion that magnetic loss is comparable to experiment.
  2. [Results and discussion section] The abstract and main text assert comparability to “the loss measured in experiments,” yet no table or figure directly overlays the calculated tan δ against published data for the same frequency and temperature. A quantitative comparison (including error bars on both the calculated and measured values) is required to substantiate the claim that this channel is a limiting factor.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Derivation of absorption cross-section] Clarify the temperature dependence assumed for the populations of the ZFS levels; the loss tangent at millikelvin temperatures relevant to qubits may differ from room-temperature EPR data.
  2. [Introduction or discussion] Add a brief discussion of competing loss channels (TLS, two-level systems, phonon absorption) to show why the magnetic-dipole contribution is not overwhelmed at the operating frequency.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve transparency and quantitative support for our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Application to Cr, Fe, and V impurities (section containing the loss-tangent calculation)] The central numerical claim (loss tangents of 10^{-9}–10^{-8}) is obtained by scaling the derived cross-section by specific impurity concentrations and zero-field-splitting energies chosen so that the transition lies near 4.5 GHz. The manuscript must state the exact concentration values employed for each species, the source of those values (e.g., a cited EPR study or measurement on the same crystals), and the precise ZFS parameters, because these quantities are load-bearing for the assertion that magnetic loss is comparable to experiment.

    Authors: We agree that explicit values and their provenance are necessary. The calculations in the current manuscript employ assumed concentrations of 10^{16}–10^{18} cm^{-3} (typical for trace impurities in commercial sapphire) and ZFS parameters tuned to place the transition near 4.5 GHz for each species. In the revised version we will add a dedicated table listing the precise concentration, ZFS energy, and g-factor used for Cr^{3+}, Fe^{3+}, and V^{3+}, together with citations to representative EPR studies that report comparable impurity levels in sapphire. This will make the numerical inputs fully traceable without altering the derived loss-tangent range. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion section] The abstract and main text assert comparability to “the loss measured in experiments,” yet no table or figure directly overlays the calculated tan δ against published data for the same frequency and temperature. A quantitative comparison (including error bars on both the calculated and measured values) is required to substantiate the claim that this channel is a limiting factor.

    Authors: We accept that a side-by-side quantitative comparison is needed to support the statement of comparability. The revised manuscript will include a new table (or figure) that lists our calculated tan δ values at 4.5 GHz alongside representative experimental loss-tangent data from the literature at the same frequency and low temperature, with the experimental ranges shown as error bars or shaded intervals. This will allow readers to assess the overlap directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation of magnetic-dipole absorption cross-section is independent of target loss data

full rationale

The paper states it derives the absorption cross section from first principles for a magnetic dipole transition and then applies the result to specific impurities (Cr, Fe, V) using chosen concentrations and zero-field splitting parameters to obtain loss tangents. No equations or steps reduce the final tan δ values to a fit of the experimental loss; the numerical match is presented as a comparison rather than a definitional outcome. No self-citation chains, fitted-input predictions, or ansatz smuggling are indicated in the provided text. The central claim therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; ledger populated from stated elements of the proposed mechanism. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are explicitly listed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5637 in / 1084 out tokens · 45486 ms · 2026-05-22T21:10:23.361119+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gurevich and A

    V. Gurevich and A. Tagantsev, Adv. Phys. 40, 719 (1991)

    work page 1991

  2. [2]

    Simmonds, K

    R. Simmonds, K. Lang, D. Hite, S. Nam, D. Pappas, and J. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 077003 (2004). 5

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    J. M. Martinis, K. B. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, K. D. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. P. Pap- pas, R. W. Simmonds, and C. C. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 210503 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    A. D. O’Connell, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, N. Katz, E. Lucero, C. McKenney, M. Nee- ley, H. Wang, E. M. Weig, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 112903 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    N. P. de Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. S. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman, Science 372, eabb2823 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    C. E. Murray, Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep. 146, 100646 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    M. E. Turiansky and C. G. Van de Walle, APL Quantum 1, 026114 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A. P. Read, B. J. Chapman, C. U. Lei, J. C. Cur- tis, S. Ganjam, L. Krayzman, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Applied 19, 034064 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    D. L. Creedon, Y. Reshitnyk, W. Farr, J. M. Marti- nis, T. L. Duty, and M. E. Tobar, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 222903 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    C. M. Dodson and R. Zia, Phys. Rev. B 86, 125102 (2012)

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    J. Lu, I. O. Ozel, C. A. Belvin, X. Li, G. Skorupskii, L. Sun, B. K. Ofori-Okai, M. Dinc˘ a, N. Gedik, and K. A. Nelson, Chem. Sci. 8, 7312 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    D. I. Schuster, A. P. Sears, E. Ginossar, L. DiCarlo, L. Frunzio, J. J. L. Morton, H. Wu, G. A. D. Briggs, B. B. Buckley, D. D. Awschalom, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 140501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    S. E. de Graaf, A. A. Adamyan, T. Lindstr¨ om, D. Erts, S. E. Kubatkin, A. Ya. Tzalenchuk, and A. V. Danilov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 057703 (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    D. Lee, J. L. DuBois, and V. Lordi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 017001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    J. H. N. Loubser and J. A. Van Wyk, Diamond Res. 11, 4 (1977)

    work page 1977

  16. [16]

    W. G. Farr, D. L. Creedon, M. Goryachev, K. Benmessai, and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. B 88, 224426 (2013)

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    M. E. Tobar and J. G. Hartnett, Phys. Rev. D67, 062001 (2003)

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    A. M. Stoneham, Theory of Defects in Solids: Electronic Structure of Defects in Insulators and Semiconductors , Monographs on the Physics and Chemistry of Materials (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975)

    work page 1975

  19. [19]

    See Supplemental Material at TO-BE-INSERTED for the derivation of the absorption cross section and sponta- neous emission rate for a magnetic dipole transition

    work page

  20. [20]

    Alexandrovski, R

    A. Alexandrovski, R. K. Route, and M. M. Fejer, Ab- sorption Studies in Sapphire , LIGO Internal Document LIGO-G010152-00-Z (2001)

    work page 2001

  21. [21]

    R. K. Route, M. M. Fejer, A. Alexandrovski, and V. Kondilenko, Heat-Treatment and Optical Absorption Studies on Sapphire , LIGO Internal Document LIGO- G040084-00-Z (2004)

    work page 2004

  22. [22]

    Prot and C

    D. Prot and C. Monty, Philos. Mag. A 73, 899 (1996)

    work page 1996

  23. [23]

    K. D. Crowley, R. A. McLellan, A. Dutta, N. Shumiya, A. P. M. Place, X. H. Le, Y. Gang, T. Madhavan, M. P. Bland, R. Chang, N. Khedkar, Y. C. Feng, E. A. Um- barkar, X. Gui, L. V. H. Rodgers, Y. Jia, M. M. Feldman, S. A. Lyon, M. Liu, R. J. Cava, A. A. Houck, and N. P. De Leon, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Gao, The Physics of Superconducting Microwave Res- onators, Ph.D

    J. Gao, The Physics of Superconducting Microwave Res- onators, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (2008)

    work page 2008

  25. [25]

    Hunklinger and W

    S. Hunklinger and W. Arnold, in Physical Acoustics , Vol. 12 (Elsevier, 1976) pp. 155–215

    work page 1976

  26. [26]

    M¨ uller, J

    C. M¨ uller, J. H. Cole, and J. Lisenfeld, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 124501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    S. Oh, K. Cicak, J. S. Kline, M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, K. D. Osborn, J. D. Whittaker, R. W. Simmonds, and D. P. Pappas, Phys. Rev. B 74, 100502 (2006)

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    Karmstrand, B

    T. Karmstrand, B. Rousseaux, A. F. Kockum, T. Shegai, and G. Johansson, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053706 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Mittal, K

    S. Mittal, K. Adachi, N. Frattini, M. Urmey, S.-X. Lin, A. Emser, C. Metzger, L. Talamo, S. Dickson, D. Carlson, S. Papp, C. Regal, and K. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 054044 (2024)

    work page 2024