Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Non-demolition fluorescence readout and high-fidelity unconditional reset of a fluxonium qubit via dissipation engineering

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that a fluxonium qubit can be read out non-destructively and reset to better than 99.5% fidelity using only a planar filter and its own internal transitions, with no readout resonator.

desk verdict Solid resonator-free fluxonium readout and reset with clean derivations and honest caveats; the quasiparticle attribution and reset-from-|e>-only are the main soft spots. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15901 v1 pith:QTKCFO5R submitted 2025-04-22 quant-ph

Shu Watanabe , Kotaro Hida , Kohei Matsuura , Yasunobu Nakamura This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords fluxoniumfluorescencereadoutquantumnon-demolitionunconditionalresetdissipationengineeringcoplanarwaveguidefiltersuperconductingqubitsall-microwave
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 claims that a superconducting fluxonium qubit can be read out and reset without the usual readout resonator, by engineering how fast each of its internal transitions decays. A single on-chip coplanar-waveguide filter lets the $|e\rangle$–$|f\rangle$ transition decay quickly for fluorescence readout while keeping the computational $|g\rangle$–$|e\rangle$ transition long-lived. The same filter makes the $|g\rangle$–$|h\rangle$ transition a fast drain, so two microwave tones pump any excitation into $|h\rangle$ and let it decay to $|g\rangle$, giving unconditional reset. If right, this offers a path to superconducting quantum computing whose readout and reset do not rely on dispersive qubit–resonator interaction and its failure modes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a single-stage coplanar-waveguide filter, a flat on-chip microwave transmission-line filter, whose power transmittance $T(\omega)$ rescales every external decay rate as $\Gamma_{\rm ext}^{ij} \propto |T(\omega_{ij})\omega_{ij}|\,|\langle i|\hat{n}|j\rangle|^2\,[\coth(\hbar\omega_{ij}/2k_BT)+1]$. The filter is placed between the qubit and the readout transmission line so $T$ is near unity at the 5.369 GHz $|e\rangle$–$|f\rangle$ transition and at the 7.814 GHz $|g\rangle$–$|h\rangle$ transition, while giving more than 30 dB attenuation below 1 GHz, where the 255 MHz $|g\rangle$–$|e\rangle$ transition lives. This contrast in decay rates is what lets the $|e\rangle$–$|f\rangle$ transition serve as a fast, bright readout channel without shortening $|e\rangle$'s lifetime, and what makes $|h\rangle$–$|g\rangle$ a fast drain for reset. The closed readout cycle relies on the $|g\rangle$–$|f\rangle$ transition being dipole-forbidden at the sweet spot, so fluorescence from the readout transition does not leak population back into the computational basis.

What would settle it

Measure the $|h\rangle$–$|g\rangle$ decay rate directly by preparing $|h\rangle$ and watching its fluorescence: the reset model predicts a lifetime of about $1/(2\pi\times6.5\,\mathrm{MHz}) \approx 24$ ns, set by the filter passband; a large deviation, or a reset fidelity that does not track the filter transmission at 7.814 GHz, would break the filter-as-environment assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fluxonium qubit's internal level structure plus a planar filter can replace the resonator for both readout and reset. With the filter passing 5.369 GHz and 7.814 GHz while strongly attenuating the 255 MHz computational transition, the external decay rate of the readout transition is $\Gamma_r/2\pi = 5.4$ MHz while the qubit's energy-relaxation time is $T_1 = 51$ µs. Because the $|g\rangle$–$|f\rangle$ transition is dipole-forbidden at the sweet spot, driving $|e\rangle$–$|f\rangle$ forms a closed fluorescence cycle, giving a QND figure $N_{\rm QND} = \Gamma_r T_1^{\rm meas} = 1.6\times 10^3$. Two-tone driving of $|e\rangle$–$|f\rangle$ and $|f\rangle$–$|h\rangle$ then resets any population in the excited manifold to $|g\rangle$, with corrected residual excitation below 1% after 200 ns and below 0.5% after 250 ns.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the filter acts purely as a frequency-dependent energy-loss rate for the qubit, holding no energy itself and introducing no memory or new states; if it instead behaves like a small resonator, the extracted decay rates and the closed reset picture collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • - Because $\Gamma_r$ scales with the square of the qubit–waveguide coupling capacitance, increasing that capacitance tenfold would make fluorescence readout about 100 times faster, potentially reaching dispersive-readout speeds.
  • - The reset is all-microwave, uses no fast flux-bias pulse, and involves no second-order process, so it requires more than two orders of magnitude less microwave power than earlier resonator-based Raman reset schemes.
  • - If the $|f\rangle$–$|g\rangle$ quasiparticle decay is made smaller than the $|e\rangle$–$|g\rangle$ decay, the readout's QNDness can exceed the ordinary $T_1$ limit, so suppressing quasiparticles directly improves the non-demolition character.
  • - Removing the resonator eliminates a whole class of readout modeling difficulties and the ionization/measurement-induced state-transition failures that plague dispersive readout, simplifying both analysis and architecture design.
  • - One of the two reset drives is at the same frequency as the readout drive, so the reset protocol adds minimal microwave hardware over what readout already requires.

Reading between the lines

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

  • - A direct time-resolved measurement of the $|h\rangle$–$|g\rangle$ lifetime would test the paper's estimate of $\Gamma_{hg}/2\pi = 6.5$ MHz; the paper infers this rate from Eq. (2) and the measured $\Gamma_r$ rather than observing it directly.
  • - The same dissipation-engineering idea could serve as a built-in leakage drain in error-corrected circuits: if the filter passband is placed on a high-lying transition, leakage population would decay away automatically without dedicated reset pulses, something the paper does not explore.
  • - The paper's own mention of lumped-element and spiral filters suggests the same physics could be packaged much more compactly, which would matter for multiplexed chips, but that integration step is not demonstrated here.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a resonator-free fluorescence readout and an all-microwave unconditional reset of a fluxonium qubit, enabled by a planar CPW filter that suppresses computational-basis decay while allowing fast decay of the readout and reset transitions. The authors measure Γr/2π = 5.4(1) MHz from the reflection of the |e⟩–|f⟩ transition, T1 = 51(1) µs, and T1^meas = 46(1) µs under the readout drive, yielding N_QND = 1.6×10^3, an order of magnitude beyond a previous fluorescence-readout implementation. They also demonstrate a two-tone reset protocol with corrected residual excitation of 0.7(2)% at 200 ns and report better than 0.5% at 250 ns. The paper includes a first-principles master-equation derivation of the reflection coefficient, a rate-equation model of the readout-induced decay, and a transparent correction for the state transition during readout.

Significance. If the results hold, this work provides a scalable alternative to dispersive readout and reset for fluxonium, with the advantages of eliminating the resonator degree of freedom and associated modeling complexity, and using only microwave drives at orders-of-magnitude lower power than existing all-microwave reset schemes. The experimental characterization is careful: the external decay rate of the readout transition is measured directly from a Lorentzian reflection fit, the intrinsic T1 and readout-induced decay are separately quantified, and the reset residual is corrected for the finite readout-induced decay. The paper also identifies the residual non-QNDness as due to quasiparticle tunneling with an estimated density within the literature range, while acknowledging that the physical mechanism is not fully understood.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. III C and Appendix C] The claim that the reset protocol is unconditional is not fully established. The two-tone drive scheme on the |e⟩–|f⟩ and |f⟩–|h⟩ transitions possesses a coherent dark state |D⟩ ∝ Ω_fh|e⟩ − Ω_ef|h⟩ that is decoupled from both drives; its decay is controlled by its |h⟩ component and the |h⟩–|g⟩ relaxation rate. The manuscript does not state the relative amplitudes of the two reset drives, and the statement that the optimal |e⟩–|f⟩ drive is an order of magnitude larger than the readout drive does not determine the ratio Ω_ef/Ω_fh. Since the experiment prepares only |e⟩, the assertion that any excitation in {|e⟩,|f⟩,|h⟩} is unconditionally reset is supported by construction rather than by a complete dynamical analysis. The authors should add an explicit dark-state analysis, report the measured drive amplitudes, and ideally demonstrate reset from at least one additional initial state (e.g., |f⟩ or a superposition) to substantiate the unconditionality claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eq. (6)] Using the quoted central values T1 = 51 µs and T1^meas = 46 µs gives (1/T1^meas − 1/T1)^−1 ≈ 0.47 ms, not 0.55 ms; please correct the arithmetic or specify the values used in the calculation.
  2. [Sec. III C] The sentence 'The qubit is prepared in |e⟩ by calibrated 1-µs reset pulses, followed by a π pulse between |g⟩ and |e⟩' is confusing; presumably the reset pulses prepare |g⟩, after which the π pulse excites the qubit to |e⟩. Please rephrase for clarity.
  3. [Sec. III C] The corrected residual excitation for a 250 ns reset pulse is not reported numerically; the text says only that it is comparable to statistical errors (~0.3%). Since the abstract and conclusion claim below 0.5% at 250 ns, please provide the actual corrected value and its uncertainty.
  4. [Appendix C] Please report the measured values of the optimized |e⟩–|f⟩ and |f⟩–|h⟩ drive amplitudes (for example in frequency units) so that the dark-state composition and the reset dynamics can be checked quantitatively.
  5. [Sec. II and Fig. 2(d)] The filter is designed as a band-pass filter with center 4.6 GHz and bandwidth 1.0 GHz, yet the |e⟩–|f⟩ transition at 5.369 GHz lies outside this nominal passband. The text mentions high-pass-like transmission and transmission at integer multiples of the center frequency; please clarify explicitly how the 5.369 GHz and 7.814 GHz transitions fall within the filter transmission bands.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims are supported by independent measurements and an acknowledged interpretative estimate.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The external decay rate Gamma_r/2pi = 5.4(1) MHz is extracted from a reflection-coefficient fit to Eq. (3), which is a first-principles master-equation result (Appendix B 1); it is a measured parameter, not a target that the paper then claims to predict. The QNDness metric N_QND = Gamma_r T1_meas = 1.6e3 is the product of two independent measurements: Gamma_r from the reflection fit and T1_meas from the exponential decay of the ground-state population under the readout drive. The measurement-induced decay time 0.55 ms is obtained by combining T1_meas with the independently measured intrinsic T1 = 51(1) us. The reset claim is likewise supported by direct measurement of the residual excitation after the reset pulses, with the correction for readout-induced transitions based on the independently measured T1_meas (Appendix D). The estimate of the |h>-to-|g> decay rate uses Eq. (2) together with the measured Gamma_r, giving a parameter-free prediction for a different transition; the reset fidelity itself is measured, not derived from that rate. The only fitted quantity in the interpretive chain is the quasiparticle density xqp = 4e-7 in Appendix B 3, which the paper explicitly labels as an estimate used to account for residual non-QNDness, acknowledges is not independently constrained, and notes is inconsistent with the T1 bound on the array. This is an interpretive consistency check, not a load-bearing prediction. Self-citations appear only for context and comparison (e.g., prior all-microwave reset work and readout work) and do not carry the central argument. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or author-imported ansatz is invoked to force the result. The central claims therefore stand on direct measurement and independent modeling.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental results (readout contrast, QND lifetime, reset residual) are measured directly and do not depend on fitted parameters. One fitted parameter, xqp, enters only the interpretation of the residual non-QNDness. The modeling rests on standard Markovian, rotating-wave, and low-temperature assumptions, plus the fluxonium-specific dipole-forbidden |g>-|f> transition at the sweet spot. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Quasiparticle density xqp = 4×10^-7
    Fitted in Appendix B3 to reproduce the readout-induced relaxation rate Γfg (41.6 µs) via Eq. (B15). The paper notes this density exceeds the upper bound set by T1 for the junction array (xqp < 5×10^-8) and cites prior reports of higher densities around single junctions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CPW filter can be treated as a Markovian, frequency-dependent environment that modulates external decay rates via Eq. (2) without introducing coherent dynamics or memory effects.
    Stated in Sec. II: 'If the coupling between the filter and the transmission line is sufficiently large, the filter can also be treated as part of the external environment for the qubit.' The entire dissipation engineering and reset model depends on this.
  • domain assumption The |g>-|f> transition is dipole-forbidden at the sweet spot, so the |e>-|f> readout forms a closed cycle.
    Invoked in Sec. III B and Fig. 1(a); the QNDness analysis and the closed fluorescence cycle rely on the absence of direct |g>-|f> coupling.
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation and neglect of off-resonant drives, with |ωef - ωd| << |ωge - ωd|.
    Used in Appendix B1 to derive the driven three-level Hamiltonian (B2) and the reflection coefficient (B6).
  • domain assumption The environment temperature is low enough that ℏωef >> kBT, so thermal excitation of the |e>-|f> transition can be neglected.
    Assumed in Appendix B1 when writing the Lindblad master equation (B3); the computational transition at 255 MHz is not similarly protected (thermal population Pg = 0.77).
  • domain assumption Qubit populations change slowly compared to Γr, so the |e>-|f> subspace reaches steady state and the ratio ρee/ρff stays constant.
    Adiabatic assumption in Appendix B3 leading to Eq. (B14), which underlies the extraction of the readout-induced relaxation and the QNDness interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-demolition fluorescence readout and high-fidelity unconditional reset of a fluxonium qubit via dissipation engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTKCFO5R

@misc{pith2026250415901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-demolition fluorescence readout and high-fidelity unconditional reset of a fluxonium qubit via dissipation engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTKCFO5R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15901}
}
read the original abstract

Non-demolition readout and high-fidelity unconditional reset of qubits are key requirements for practical quantum computation. For superconducting qubits, readout and reset are typically realized using resonators based on dispersive approximation. However, violations of the approximation often lead to detrimental effects on the qubit. In this work, we demonstrate non-demolition fluorescence readout and high-fidelity unconditional reset of a fluxonium qubit via dissipation engineering without employing a resonator. We design and implement a planar filter to protect the qubit from energy relaxation while enhancing the relaxation of the readout transition. By appropriately selecting the readout transition, we achieve fluorescence readout with enhanced quantum non-demolitionness. We also realize fast, high-fidelity and all-microwave unconditional reset of the fluxonium qubit. These results highlight the potential of superconducting-quantum computing architectures without relying on dispersive interaction between qubits and resonators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Energy-level diagrams of fluorescence readout and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Device studied in this work. (a) False-colored op [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Real and (b) imaginary parts of the reflection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fluorescence readout using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Unconditional reset of the fluxonium. (a) Pulse se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.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. Floquet Quasiparticle Poisoning of Frozonium

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Reflection coefficient We consider a fluxonium system up to the second- excited state ({|g⟩,|e⟩,|f⟩}). The Hamiltonian of the driven system with the drive frequency ωd and ampli- tude Ω is given by ˆH/ℏ =ωge|e⟩⟨e| + (ωge +ωef)|f⟩⟨f| + Ω cosωdt (η|e⟩⟨g| +|f⟩⟨e| + h.c.), (B1) where ωge and ωef are the |g⟩–|e⟩ and |e⟩–|f⟩ transi- tion frequencies, respective...

    work page

  2. [2]

    As derived from Eq

    Readout signals and state populations Figure B1(b) shows the histograms of time-integrated single-shot reflection coefficients. As derived from Eq. (B6), the reflection coefficients take real values when the detuning ∆ is zero. Therefore, we project the re- flection coefficient onto the real axis to discriminate the outcome of the readout. From the fits t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    III B with a rate-equation model

    Rate-equation model Here, we analyze the non-QNDness of our readout ob- served in Sec. III B with a rate-equation model. We as- sume that the qubit population changes slowly compared to Γr, allowing us to consider that the |e⟩–|f⟩ subspace stays in the steady state and that the ratio ρee/ρff re- mains constant: ρee ρff = Pe Pf = Γr Ω 2 + 1, (B11) 8 FIG. B...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Bravyi, O

    S. Bravyi, O. Dial, J. M. Gambetta, D. Gil, and Z. Nazario, J. Appl. Phys. 132, 160902 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Nakamura, Y

    Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai, Nature398, 786 (1999)

    1999

  7. [7]

    J. E. Mooij, T. P. Orlando, L. Levitov, L. Tian, van der Wal CH, and S. Lloyd, Science 285, 1036 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, A. Kamal, J. Birenbaum, A. P. Sears, D. Hover, T. J. Gudmundsen, D. Rosenberg, G. Samach, S. Weber, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, J. Clarke, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Oliver, Nat. Com- mun. 7, 12964 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Gyenis, A

    A. Gyenis, A. Di Paolo, J. Koch, A. Blais, A. A. Houck, and D. I. Schuster, PRX Quantum 2, 030101 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin,...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Jurcevic, A

    P. Jurcevic, A. Javadi-Abhari, L. S. Bishop, I. Lauer, D. F. Bogorin, M. Brink, L. Capelluto, O. G¨ unl¨ uk, T. Itoko, N. Kanazawa, A. Kandala, G. A. Keefe, K. Kr- sulich, W. Landers, E. P. Lewandowski, D. T. McClure, G. Nannicini, A. Narasgond, H. M. Nayfeh, E. Pritchett, M. ...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature 638, 920 (2025). 10

    2025

  6. [14]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Science 326, 113 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    L. B. Nguyen, G. Koolstra, Y. Kim, A. Morvan, T. Chis- tolini, S. Singh, K. N. Nesterov, C. J¨ unger, L. Chen, Z. Pedramrazi, B. K. Mitchell, J. M. Kreikebaum, S. Puri, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, PRX Quantum 3, 037001 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Somoroff, Q

    A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, H. Xiong, R. Kuzmin, and V. E. Manucharyan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 267001 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    F. Wang, K. Lu, H. Zhan, L. Ma, F. Wu, H. Sun, H. Deng, Y. Bai, F. Bao, X. Chang, R. Gao, X. Gao, G. Gong, L. Hu, R. Hu, H. Ji, X. Ma, L. Mao, Z. Song, C. Tang, H. Wang, T. Wang, Z. Wang, T. Xia, H. Xu, Z. Zhan, G. Zhang, T. Zhou, M. Zhu, Q. Zhu, S. Zhu, X. Zhu, Y. Shi, H.-H. ...

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    D. A. Rower, L. Ding, H. Zhang, M. Hays, J. An, P. M. Harrington, I. T. Rosen, J. M. Gertler, T. M. Hazard, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, S. Gustavsson, K. Ser- niak, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, PRX Quantum 5, 040342 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    W.-J. Lin, H. Cho, Y. Chen, M. G. Vavilov, C. Wang, and V. E. Manucharyan, PRX Quantum 6, 010349 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    T. V. Stefanski and C. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 014079 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Schirk, F

    J. Schirk, F. Wallner, L. Huang, I. Tsitsilin, N. Bruck- moser, L. Koch, D. Bunch, N. J. Glaser, G. B. P. Huber, M. Knudsen, G. Krylov, A. Marx, F. Pfeif- fer, L. Richard, F. A. Roy, J. H. Romeiro, M. Singh, L. S¨ odergren, E. Dionis, D. Sugny, M. Werninghaus, K. Liegener, C. ...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    W.-J. Lin, H. Cho, Y. Chen, M. G. Vavilov, C. Wang, and V. E. Manucharyan, New J. Phys.27, 033012 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    M. D. Reed, B. R. Johnson, A. A. Houck, L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Applied Physics Letters 96, 203110 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    D. Sank, Z. Chen, M. Khezri, J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Mu- tus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quin- tana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, T. White, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, a...

    2016

  19. [27]

    Shillito, A

    R. Shillito, A. Petrescu, J. Cohen, J. Beall, M. Hauru, M. Ganahl, A. G. Lewis, G. Vidal, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 034031 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Khezri, A

    M. Khezri, A. Opremcak, Z. Chen, K. C. Miao, M. McEwen, A. Bengtsson, T. White, O. Naaman, D. Sank, A. N. Korotkov, Y. Chen, and V. Smelyanskiy, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 054008 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    K. N. Nesterov and I. V. Pechenezhskiy, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 064038 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    M. F. Dumas, B. Groleau-Par´ e, A. McDonald, M. H. Mu˜ noz Arias, C. Lled´ o, B. D’Anjou, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041023 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

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

    2014

  24. [32]

    A. Kou, W. C. Smith, U. Vool, I. M. Pop, K. M. Sliwa, M. Hatridge, L. Frunzio, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Appl. 9, 064022 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Ficheux, L

    Q. Ficheux, L. B. Nguyen, A. Somoroff, H. Xiong, K. N. Nesterov, M. G. Vavilov, and V. E. Manucharyan, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021026 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Gusenkova, M

    D. Gusenkova, M. Spiecker, R. Gebauer, M. Willsch, D. Willsch, F. Valenti, N. Karcher, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, I. Tak- makov, P. Winkel, D. Rieger, A. V. Ustinov, N. Roch, W. Wernsdorfer, K. Michielsen, O. Sander, and I. M. Pop, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 064030 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Melville, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031035 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Cottet, H

    N. Cottet, H. Xiong, L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, and V. E. Manucharyan, Nat. Commun. 12, 6383 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Nagourney, J

    W. Nagourney, J. Sandberg, and H. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2797 (1986)

    1986

  30. [38]

    Blatt and P

    R. Blatt and P. Zoller, Eur. J. Phys. 9, 250 (1988)

    1988

  31. [39]

    Monroe, D

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, S. R. Jefferts, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and P. Gould, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4011 (1995)

    1995

  32. [40]

    P. O. Schmidt, T. Rosenband, C. Langer, W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, and D. J. Wineland, Science 309, 749 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120502 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    Magnard, P

    P. Magnard, P. Kurpiers, B. Royer, T. Walter, J.-C. Besse, S. Gasparinetti, M. Pechal, J. Heinsoo, S. Storz, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 060502 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Sunada, S

    Y. Sunada, S. Kono, J. Ilves, S. Tamate, T. Sugiyama, Y. Tabuchi, and Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 044016 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Zhang, S

    H. Zhang, S. Chakram, T. Roy, N. Earnest, Y. Lu, Z. Huang, D. K. Weiss, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011010 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    F. Bao, H. Deng, D. Ding, R. Gao, X. Gao, C. Huang, X. Jiang, H.-S. Ku, Z. Li, X. Ma, X. Ni, J. Qin, Z. Song, H. Sun, C. Tang, T. Wang, F. Wu, T. Xia, W. Yu, F. Zhang, G. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Zhou, X. Zhu, Y. Shi, J. Chen, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 010502 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    T. Wang, F. Wu, F. Wang, X. Ma, G. Zhang, J. Chen, H. Deng, R. Gao, R. Hu, L. Ma, Z. Song, T. Xia, M. Ying, H. Zhan, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 230601 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    M. A. Rol, L. Ciorciaro, F. K. Malinowski, B. M. Tarasin- ski, R. E. Sagastizabal, C. C. Bultink, Y. Salathe, N. Haandbaek, J. Sedivy, and L. DiCarlo, Applied Physics Letters 116, 054001 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Y. Sung, L. Ding, J. Braum¨ uller, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, B. Kan- nan, M. Kjaergaard, A. Greene, G. O. Samach, C. Mc- Nally, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021058 (2021). 11

    2021

  41. [49]

    R. Li, K. Kubo, Y. Ho, Z. Yan, Y. Nakamura, and H. Goto, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041050 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    H. Yan, X. Wu, A. Lingenfelter, Y. J. Joshi, G. Anders- son, C. R. Conner, M.-H. Chou, J. Grebel, J. M. Miller, R. G. Povey, H. Qiao, A. A. Clerk, and A. N. Cleland, Applied Physics Letters 123, 134001 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    S. H. Park, G. Choi, G. Kim, J. Jo, B. Lee, G. Kim, K. Park, Y.-H. Lee, and S. Hahn, Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 044003 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Paik and K

    H. Paik and K. D. Osborn, Applied Physics Letters 96, 072505 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    K.-H. Cho, U. Patel, J. Podkaminer, Y. Gao, C. M. Folkman, C. W. Bark, S. Lee, Y. Zhang, X. Q. Pan, R. McDermott, and C. B. Eom, APL Materials 1, 042115 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    C. Deng, M. Otto, and A. Lupascu, Applied Physics Let- ters 104, 043506 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Zotova, R

    J. Zotova, R. Wang, A. Semenov, Y. Zhou, I. Khrapach, A. Tomonaga, O. Astafiev, and J.-S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 044067 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Zotova, S

    J. Zotova, S. Sanduleanu, G. Fedorov, R. Wang, J. S. Tsai, and O. Astafiev, Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 102601 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Geerlings, S

    K. Geerlings, S. Shankar, E. Edwards, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Applied Physics Letters 100, 192601 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    Jiang, Z

    J. Jiang, Z. Li, T. Guo, W. Xu, X. Wei, K. Zhang, T. Zhou, Y. Sheng, C. Cao, G. Sun, and P. Wu, Applied Physics Letters 121, 254001 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden

    COMSOL Multiphysics 6.1 (2022), www.comsol.com. COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden

    2022

  52. [60]

    Margraf, QucsStudio 4.3.1 (2022), https: //qucsstudio.de

    M. Margraf, QucsStudio 4.3.1 (2022), https: //qucsstudio.de

    2022

  53. [61]

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

    2009

  54. [62]

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

    2014

  55. [63]

    Serniak, M

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

    2018

  56. [64]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041041 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Connolly, P

    T. Connolly, P. D. Kurilovich, S. Diamond, H. Nho, C. G. L. Bøttcher, L. I. Glazman, V. Fatemi, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 217001 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Aumentado, M

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

    2004

  59. [67]

    Kalashnikov, W

    K. Kalashnikov, W. T. Hsieh, W. Zhang, W.-S. Lu, P. Kamenov, A. Di Paolo, A. Blais, M. E. Gershenson, and M. Bell, PRX Quantum 1, 010307 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    McEwen, K

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

    2024

  61. [69]

    I. N. Moskalenko, I. A. Simakov, N. N. Abramov, A. A. Grigorev, D. O. Moskalev, A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, E. V. Zikiy, I. A. Rodionov, and I. S. Besedin, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 130 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Walter, P

    T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Mag- nard, A. Potoˇ cnik, Y. Salath´ e, M. Pechal, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Appl. 7, 054020 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Swiadek, R

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

    2024

  64. [72]

    Sunada, K

    Y. Sunada, K. Yuki, Z. Wang, T. Miyamura, J. Ilves, K. Matsuura, P. A. Spring, S. Tamate, S. Kono, and Y. Nakamura, PRX Quantum 5, 010307 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    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 (2024), arXiv:2409.04967 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Chatterjee, J

    A. Chatterjee, J. Schwinger, and Y. Y. Gao, Demonstra- tion of enhanced qubit readout via reinforcement learning (2024), arXiv:2412.04053 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Catelani, J

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

    2011

Pith tools

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