Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

A Low-Noise and High-Stability DC Source for Superconducting Quantum Circuits

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A compact two-channel DC source achieves 20 nV/√Hz noise and keeps a 66-qubit processor's qubit frequencies stable to ±40 kHz for 12 hours.

desk verdict Useful 66-qubit integration work, but the headline ripple and RMS noise numbers contradict each other mathematically, so the central specs are not credible as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00297 v1 pith:TGMADCYB submitted 2025-05-01 quant-ph

Daxiong Sun , Jiawei Zhang , Peisheng Huang , Yubin Zhang , Zechen Guo , Tingjin Chen , Rui Wang , Xuandong Sun
show 11 more authors
Jiajian Zhang Wenhui Huang Jiawei Qiu Ji Chu Ziyu Tao Weijie Guo Xiayu Linpeng Ji Jiang Jingjing Niu Youpeng Zhong Dapeng Yu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords superconductingquantumcircuitsqubitlow-noiseDCsourceQPowerfluxbiascoherencecryogenicamplifiercontrolelectronics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a custom dual-channel DC voltage source, QPower, built for the biasing needs of superconducting quantum processors: flux bias for tunable qubits and couplers, and supply for cryogenic and room-temperature amplifiers. It claims that one compact 2U module can deliver ±7 V at up to 200 mA per channel with a noise spectral density of 20 nV/√Hz at 10 kHz, ripple below 500 µVpp over 20 MHz bandwidth, and drift below 5 µVpp over 12 hours. The point of these specifications is that DC biasing, not just fast microwave control, becomes a bottleneck as qubit counts grow, and a small low-power module that matches commercial instruments removes that bottleneck. Integration into a 66-qubit processor is reported to preserve T1 = 87.6 µs, Ramsey T2 = 5.1 µs, and qubit frequency drift within ±40 kHz over 12 hours.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing hardware chain is the voltage-reference-to-output cascade: an LTZ1000ACH reference (1.2 µV/√Hz noise, 0.05 ppm/°C) feeding a 20-bit AD5791 DAC, followed by a buffered amplifier array with a phase-compensation network. The compensation network is the element that makes the high-current output stable: it raises the feedback phase margin from 18.1° to 64.8° and the unity-gain bandwidth from 5.95 MHz to 8.12 MHz, eliminating self-oscillation and reducing output ripple from 5 mVpp to 500 µVpp. The three-stage power-conditioning chain (isolating DC-DC converters, LT3045/LT3094 LDOs, and a π-type low-pass filter) is what keeps the output noise below 20 nV/√Hz at 10 kHz and the long-term drift below 5 µVpp.

What would settle it

Take a QPower channel set to 7 V and measure its output noise with an independently calibrated, battery-powered low-noise preamplifier and digitizer whose input noise is below 5 nV/√Hz at 10 kHz and below 1 µVrms; if the measured noise and ripple do not remain at or below the claimed levels after subtracting this front-end's noise, then the published numbers include instrument floor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that QPower, a distributed-reference DC source using an LTZ1000ACH reference, a 20-bit DAC, LDO regulation, and a phase-compensated amplifier array, can deliver precision DC bias with performance comparable to premium commercial instruments while occupying a two-channel board and drawing 15 W per channel. The paper argues this is achieved by a three-stage noise-suppression architecture—DC-DC isolation, low-dropout regulation, and a π-type 100 Hz low-pass filter—and by a compensation network that raises the output stage's phase margin from 18.1° to 64.8°, cutting ripple from 5 mVpp to below 500 µVpp. As validation, QPower modules bias a Josephson parametric amplifier, a cryogenic HEMT and room-temperature LNA, and a qubit/coupler on a 66-qubit processor, yielding T1 = 87.6 ± 2.0 µs, T2,ramsey = 5.1 ± 0.4 µs, T2,echo = 23.5 ± 1.2 µs, and 12-hour qubit frequency stability within ±40 kHz. Underlying the significance is the scalability argument: the module replaces racks of commercial DC sources with small, low-power units.

Load-bearing premise

The headline noise and ripple figures assume the measurement instruments' own noise floors were cleanly separated from the module's output, since the claimed ripple is only about five times the oscilloscope floor and the claimed noise only about twice the spectrum analyzer floor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single QPower module can simultaneously bias a qubit flux line, a tunable coupler, a Josephson parametric amplifier, and cryogenic and room-temperature LNAs, replacing several bench instruments.
  • At 15 W per channel and two channels per board, scaling to hundreds of qubits requires far less power and rack space than commercial DC sources.
  • The reported 12-hour drift below 5 µVpp and ±40 kHz qubit frequency stability mean long calibration and data-acquisition runs need not be interrupted by DC drift.
  • The distributed-reference, modular design is presented as extensible to other quantum platforms such as silicon spin qubits and to precision measurement applications.
  • With 200 mA maximum output per channel, the module can power active amplifier chains, not just provide bias voltages.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the headline noise and ripple figures are confirmed with a lower-floor measurement chain, the same reference-and-LDO topology could be adapted to bipolar current sources or programmable bias ramps, since the module already has a digital interface.
  • The reported ±40 kHz qubit frequency drift over 12 hours implies about 16 kHz per µV of voltage drift if source drift were the only cause; comparing that slope with independent flux-noise spectroscopy would separate source drift from intrinsic qubit flux noise.
  • A natural next test is to measure crosstalk across multiple QPower modules in a rack, since the reported 0.3 ppm figure is within a single board and inter-module isolation is the quantity that matters for thousand-qubit systems.
  • The high-frequency spurious spec below −95 dBm suggests the module could also bias sensitive RF amplifiers in precision metrology outside quantum computing.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the design and characterization of QPower, a custom dual-channel DC source module intended for biasing superconducting quantum processors and cryogenic amplifiers. The claimed key specifications are a ±7 V, 200 mA output with noise spectral density below 20 nV/√Hz at 10 kHz, output ripple below 500 µVpp over a 20 MHz bandwidth, long-term drift below 5 µVpp over 12 hours, and channel-to-channel crosstalk below 0.3 ppm. The authors also integrate three QPower modules into the control stack of a 66-qubit processor and report T1 = 87.6 µs, Ramsey T2 = 5.1 µs, and qubit-frequency drift within ±40 kHz over 12 hours, which they interpret as evidence that the source enables state-of-the-art qubit coherence and stability.

Significance. If the reported electronics specifications are correct, QPower would be a useful, compact, low-power alternative to commercial DC sources for intermediate-scale superconducting quantum systems, and the qubit-level integration provides a relevant end-to-end demonstration. The strengths of the paper are that the performance numbers are direct measurements rather than fitted parameters, and the qubit benchmark is an honest integration test. However, the central electronics claims contain an internal mathematical inconsistency and several headline numbers sit close to the instrument floors, so the significance of the work cannot be assessed until the measurement protocol and the reported values are reconciled.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Fig. 3(a)-(b)] The reported ripple and RMS noise figures cannot both describe the same output signal. For any AC signal, the peak-to-peak amplitude Vpp and RMS value satisfy Vrms ≤ Vpp/2, because every sample is bounded by ±Vpp/2. Fig. 3(b) reports a maximum RMS noise of 335 µVrms at 7 V output, which therefore requires Vpp ≥ 670 µV. This is incompatible with the ripple claim of <500 µVpp in Fig. 3(a), even after subtracting the stated 80 µVrms oscilloscope floor, which would still force Vpp ≥ 650 µV. If 'ripple' is intended to exclude random noise or to refer only to deterministic periodic components, that distinction must be stated explicitly in Section II and in the abstract; as written, the text defines ripple as 'residual AC voltage superimposed on DC output' and presents '<500 µVpp' as an unconditional headline specification. This is a load-bearing inconsistency in the central electronics benchmark and must be resolved.
  2. [Section II, Fig. 3 captions and Section II 'Electronics performance'] The claimed performance margins over the measurement-instrument floors are small and the measurement protocol is not sufficiently specified. The ripple claim of <500 µVpp is only a factor of five above the stated oscilloscope floor of ~100 µVpp, and the noise spectral density of 20 nV/√Hz is only a factor of two above the analyzer floor of ~10 nV/√Hz. The manuscript does not report how the floor was subtracted (or whether it was subtracted), the number of acquisitions, the resolution bandwidth, averaging settings, or repeated measurements on more than one unit. Without this information, the reader cannot distinguish a genuine specification from instrumentation-limited bounds. Please provide a complete metrology description for each panel of Fig. 3, including same-settings floor measurements at the same bandwidths and output conditions, and state the uncertainty or reproducibility of each headline number.
  3. [Section III and Conclusion] The causal claim that QPower 'directly correlates DC source noise performance with quantum coherence preservation' is not supported by the data as presented. The qubit coherence times and frequency drift are measured at a single flux-sensitive operating point using QPower, but there is no control measurement with a commercial reference source under otherwise identical conditions, and no quantitative model that connects the measured DC noise or drift to the observed ±40 kHz frequency fluctuation and T2 values. The integration test demonstrates that QPower does not visibly degrade the processor, which is valuable, but the stronger causal wording in the Conclusion should be softened or supported by a comparative benchmark.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Use consistent notation for 'QPower' and 'Qpower', and consistently write peak-to-peak quantities as 'µVpp' in Table I and the abstract; the table currently gives '<500 µV (20 MHz bandwidth)' without the 'pp' subscript.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 5] There is a typo in the Fig. 5(d) label 'Ramsy' (should be 'Ramsey'), and in the text '87.6±3 µs s' contains a stray 's'.
  3. [Section II, long-term stability and crosstalk measurements] Please specify the load conditions (output current, cable/termination, and integration time) for the 12-hour drift measurement in Fig. 3(e) and the crosstalk measurement in Fig. 3(f), since DC source drift and crosstalk can depend strongly on load.
  4. [References and part numbering] The DAC reference [33] is an unrelated conference paper; the AD5791 and AD8676 datasheets should be cited directly, and the reference list should be checked for part-number and citation consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QPower's headline electronics specs and qubit benchmarks are direct measurements, and the self-citations are ordinary references to prior hardware used as a testbed.

full rationale

The paper's central results are self-contained, measured quantities rather than derived predictions. The ripple (<500 µVpp), RMS noise (335 µVrms max), noise spectral density (20 nV/√Hz at 10 kHz), long-term drift (<5 µVpp over 12 hours), and crosstalk (<0.3 ppm) are all presented as laboratory measurements made with oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, and multimeters, with instrument noise floors explicitly characterized under 50 Ω loads. The qubit benchmarks (T1 = 87.6 µs, T2,ramsey = 5.1 µs, frequency drift <80 kHz peak-to-peak) are measured via standard decay, Ramsey, and spin-echo sequences on a 66-qubit processor; they are not obtained by fitting the DC source's noise as an input. The only 'prediction' language appears in the phase-margin compensation discussion, where LTspice simulations predict an improvement in phase margin and bandwidth, and the subsequent experimental ripple measurement independently confirms the suppression of self-oscillation; this is design validation, not a fit disguised as prediction. The self-citations to earlier work (M2CS control system [8], the 66-qubit processor [32], and related hardware [16,28]) are used to identify the benchmark platform and background, not to supply the claims being made here; the coherence numbers and electronics specs are new measurements reported in this paper. The reported ripple versus RMS noise figures may raise an internal-consistency or measurement-protocol concern, but that is a correctness question, not a circularity question: neither number is derived from the other or from a fitted parameter. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own input, and no uniqueness claim or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the results.

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

No free parameters are fitted to the central claims; the reported performance is directly measured. The hardware claims rely on vendor datasheet values and on the assumption that the measurement instruments and the qubit processor are well characterized. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LTZ1000ACH reference has the datasheet noise (1.2 µV/√Hz) and stability (0.05 ppm/°C) used in the design.
    Invoked in Section II; sourced only from the vendor datasheet [31], not verified by independent measurement in this paper.
  • domain assumption AD5791 20-bit DAC transfer function in Eq. (1) and its 3.4 kΩ output impedance are accurate and dominate the output chain.
    Eq. (1) is presented as the output transfer function, and the 3.4 kΩ impedance motivates the buffer stage; both come from component documentation.
  • standard math LTspice simulation of the amplifier compensation network predicts the measured phase margin and ripple reduction.
    Simulation tools embody standard circuit theory, but the component models are not shipped, so the match with hardware is asserted in Fig. 2.
  • domain assumption The 66-qubit processor and M2CS control system operate as described and are not themselves sources of the observed drift.
    The qubit-level benchmark in Section III assumes the processor and readout chain are stable, because no comparison run with an alternative bias source is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Low-Noise and High-Stability DC Source for Superconducting Quantum Circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TGMADCYB

@misc{pith2026250500297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Low-Noise and High-Stability DC Source for Superconducting Quantum Circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TGMADCYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00297}
}
abstract

With the rapid scaling of superconducting quantum processors, electronic control systems relying on commercial off-the-shelf instruments face critical bottlenecks in signal density, power consumption, and crosstalk mitigation. Here we present a custom dual-channel direct current (DC) source module (QPower) dedicated for large-scale superconducting quantum processors. The module delivers a voltage range of $\pm$7 V with 200 mA maximum current per channel, while achieving the following key performance benchmarks: noise spectral density of 20 nV/$\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ at 10 kHz, output ripple $<$500 $\mu$V$_{\mathrm{pp}}$ within 20 MHz bandwidth, and long-term voltage drift $<$5 $\mu$V$_{\mathrm{pp}}$ over 12 hours. Integrated into the control electronics of a 66-qubit quantum processor, QPower enables qubit coherence times of $T_1 = 87.6~\mu\mathrm{s}$ and Ramsey $T_2 = 5.1~\mu\mathrm{s}$, with qubit resonance frequency drift constrained to $\pm$40 kHz during 12-hour operation. This modular design is compact in size and efficient in energy consumption, providing a scalable DC source solution for intermediate-scale quantum processors with stringent noise and stability requirements, with potential extensions to other quantum hardware platforms and precision measurement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00297 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a), comprising four functional parts: a digital con￾trol unit based on a microcontroller (MCU), a power sup￾ply unit employing LDOs, an output stage with a high￾resolution digital-to-analog converter (DAC) and ampli￾fier arrays, and a precision reference voltage source. The physical prototype, measuring 210 mm in length and 300 mm in width, is presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [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 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Castelvecchi, Nature 624, 238 (2023)

    D. Castelvecchi, Nature 624, 238 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Xu, Z.-Z

    S. Xu, Z.-Z. Sun, K. Wang, L. Xiang, Z. Bao, Z. Zhu, F. Shen, Z. Song, P. Zhang, W. Ren, et al. , Chinese Physics Letters 40, 060301 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, et al. , Nature (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    D. Gao, D. Fan, C. Zha, J. Bei, G. Cai, J. Cai, S. Cao, F. Chen, J. Chen, K. Chen, et al. , Physical Review Let- ters 134, 090601 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Ball, Nature 599, 10 (2021)

    P. Ball, Nature 599, 10 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    C. Q. Choi, IEEE Spectrum 60, 46 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Ultra-precision DC source for Superconducting Quantum Computer

    F. Liang, P. Miao, J. Lin, Y. Xu, C. Guo, L. Sun, S. Liao, G. Jin, and C. Peng, arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.02645 (2018)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Zhang, X

    J. Zhang, X. Sun, Z. Guo, Y. Yuan, Y. Zhang, J. Chu, W. Huang, Y. Liang, J. Qiu, D. Sun, et al. , Chinese Physics B 33, 120309 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Li, H.-F

    Z.-Y. Li, H.-F. Yu, X.-S. Tan, S.-P. Zhao, and Y. Yu, Chinese Physics B 28, 098505 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    W. D. Kalfus, D. F. Lee, G. J. Ribeill, S. D. Fallek, A. Wagner, B. Donovan, D. Rist` e, and T. A. Ohki, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 1, 1 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Rietsche, C

    R. Rietsche, C. Dremel, S. Bosch, L. Steinacker, M. Meckel, and J.-M. Leimeister, Electronic Markets 32, 2525 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    C. A. Ryan, B. R. Johnson, D. Rist` e, B. Donovan, and T. A. Ohki, Review of Scientific Instruments 88 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    A. D. C´ orcoles, A. Kandala, A. Javadi-Abhari, D. T. Mc- Clure, A. W. Cross, K. Temme, P. D. Nation, M. Steffen, and J. M. Gambetta, Proceedings of the IEEE 108, 1338 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Z. Wang, H. Yu, R. Liu, X. Ma, X. Guo, Z. Xiang, P. Song, L. Su, Y. Jin, and D. Zheng, Chinese Physics B 30, 110305 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Applied physics reviews 6 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Y. Yang, Z. Shen, X. Zhu, Z. Wang, G. Zhang, J. Zhou, X. Jiang, C. Deng, and S. Liu, Review of Scientific In- struments 93 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    C. Ding, M. Di Federico, M. Hatridge, A. Houck, S. Leger, J. Martinez, C. Miao, D. S. I, L. Stefanazzi, C. Stoughton, et al., Physical Review Research 6, 013305 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Stefanazzi, K

    L. Stefanazzi, K. Treptow, N. Wilcer, C. Stoughton, C. Bradford, S. Uemura, S. Zorzetti, S. Montella, G. Can- celo, S. Sussman, A. Houck, S. Saxena, H. Arnaldi, A. Agrawal, H. Zhang, C. Ding, and D. I. Schuster, Re- view of Scientific Instruments 93, 044709 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Y. Xu, G. Huang, N. Fruitwala, A. Rajagopala, R. K. Naik, K. Nowrouzi, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, QubiC 2.0: An Extensible Open-Source Qubit Control System Capable of Mid-Circuit Measurement and Feed-Forward (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Y. Xu, G. Huang, J. Balewski, R. Naik, A. Morvan, B. Mitchell, K. Nowrouzi, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    C. Guo, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, L. Sun, W. Liu, S. Liao, and C. Peng, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 66, 1222 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    J. Lin, F. Liang, Y. Xu, L.-H. Sun, C. Guo, S.-K. Liao, and C.-Z. Peng, AIP Advances 9, 115309 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    L. Sun, F. Liang, J. Lin, C. Guo, Y. Xu, S. Liao, and C. Peng, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 67, 2148 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Lisenfeld, A

    J. Lisenfeld, A. Bilmes, and A. V. Ustinov, npj Quantum Information 9, 8 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Grytsenko, S

    I. Grytsenko, S. van Haagen, O. Rybalko, A. Jennings, R. Mohan, Y. Tian, and E. Kawakami, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09811 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Terai, Y

    H. Terai, Y. Kameda, S. Yorozu, A. Fujimaki, and Z. Wang, IEEE transactions on applied superconductiv- ity 13, 502 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Macklin, K

    C. Macklin, K. O’brien, D. Hover, M. Schwartz, V. Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, Sci- ence 350, 307 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Z. Guo, D. Sun, P. Huang, X. Sun, Y. Yuan, J. Zhang, W. Huang, Y. Liang, J. Qiu, J. Zhang, et al. , Chip , 100146 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    F. A. Quinton, P. A. S. Myhr, M. Barani, P. Crespo del Granado, and H. Zhang, Scientific Reports 15, 12733 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, nature 464, 45 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Analog Devices, LTZ1000 Datasheet and Product Info (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Huang, X.-C

    W. Huang, X.-C. Zhou, L. Zhang, J. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Z. Guo, B.-C. Yao, P. Huang, Q. Li, Y. Liang, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19185 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Wang and X

    W. Wang and X. Zhang, in 2023 5th International Con- 9 ference on Electronic Engineering and Informatics (EEI) (IEEE, 2023) pp. 584–588

    2023

  26. [34]

    Egan, Analog Dialogue 44, 1 (2010)

    M. Egan, Analog Dialogue 44, 1 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    de Cos, A

    J. de Cos, A. Su´ arez, J. A. Garcı, et al. , IEEE Trans- actions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 63, 4284 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Jenkins, Physics Reports 525, 167 (2013)

    A. Jenkins, Physics Reports 525, 167 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    I. M. Pandiev, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications 51, 880 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Safonov and M

    M. Safonov and M. Athans, IEEE Transactions on Au- tomatic Control 22, 173 (1977)

    1977

  31. [39]

    Morroni, R

    J. Morroni, R. Zane, and D. Maksimovic, IEEE Transac- tions on Power Electronics 24, 559 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Y. He, S. Gorman, D. Keith, L. Kranz, J. Keizer, and M. Simmons, Nature 571, 371 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, Nature 601, 343 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    X. Xue, B. Patra, J. P. van Dijk, N. Samkharadze, S. Subramanian, A. Corna, B. Paquelet Wuetz, C. Jeon, F. Sheikh, E. Juarez-Hernandez, et al. , Nature 593, 205 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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