pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.08953 · v3 · submitted 2025-07-11 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · cond-mat.supr-con· quant-ph

Universal bound on microwave dissipation in superconducting circuits

Thibault Charpentier , Anton Khvalyuk , Lev Ioffe , Mikhail Feigel'man , Nicolas Roch , Benjamin Sac\'ep\'e This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 04:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph
keywords microwave dissipationsuperconducting circuitssuperfluid densitynonequilibrium quasiparticlescoherence limitquantum qubitsbulk losses
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Microwave dissipation in superconducting circuits follows a universal scaling with superfluid density set by trapped quasiparticles.

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

The paper establishes an empirical scaling relation between microwave dissipation and superfluid density that holds across many different superconducting materials and device types, from disordered films to clean cavities and qubits. This scaling points to an intrinsic bulk dissipation mechanism rather than surface effects, which the authors link to nonequilibrium quasiparticles caught in local variations of the superconducting gap with density fixed by one universal material parameter. A sympathetic reader would care because this identifies a fundamental limit on coherence times in superconducting quantum devices that depends on bulk material properties themselves. If correct, it shifts focus from only improving surfaces to selecting or engineering materials with better bulk characteristics to reduce losses.

Core claim

We report an empirical scaling relation between microwave dissipation and the superfluid density, a bulk property of superconductors related to charge carrier density and disorder. Our analysis spans a wide range of superconducting materials and device geometries, from highly disordered amorphous films to ultra-clean systems with record-high quality factors, including resonators, 3D cavities, and transmon qubits. This scaling reveals an intrinsic bulk dissipation channel, independent of surface dielectric losses, which we attribute to nonequilibrium quasiparticles trapped within disorder-induced spatial variations of the superconducting gap, with a density set by a universal material param

What carries the argument

The empirical scaling relation between microwave dissipation and superfluid density, which carries the argument that a bulk channel from trapped quasiparticles dominates over surface losses.

If this is right

  • This sets an empirical coherence limit associated with intrinsic material properties.
  • Provides a data-driven basis for materials selection in future superconducting quantum circuits.
  • Explains residual energy dissipation even in ultra-clean systems with record quality factors.
  • Holds across resonators, 3D cavities, and transmon qubits independent of specific geometry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Materials engineered for more uniform superconducting gaps could lower the trapped quasiparticle density and raise coherence times.
  • The same scaling may limit performance in related superconducting devices such as parametric amplifiers or single-photon detectors.
  • Controlled experiments that vary disorder while holding surfaces fixed could test whether the universal parameter is truly material-intrinsic.

Load-bearing premise

The scaling between dissipation and superfluid density arises from nonequilibrium quasiparticles with density fixed by one universal material parameter and is independent of surface dielectric losses or post-hoc data selection.

What would settle it

A measurement in new samples showing that dissipation changes strongly with surface passivation or fabrication details while superfluid density stays constant would falsify the bulk quasiparticle origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08953 by Anton Khvalyuk, Benjamin Sac\'ep\'e, Lev Ioffe, Mikhail Feigel'man, Nicolas Roch, Thibault Charpentier.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Improving the coherence of superconducting qubits is essential for advancing quantum technologies. While superconductors are theoretically perfect conductors, they consistently exhibit residual energy dissipation when driven by microwave currents, limiting coherence times. Here, we report an empirical scaling relation between microwave dissipation and the superfluid density, a bulk property of superconductors related to charge carrier density and disorder. Our analysis spans a wide range of superconducting materials and device geometries, from highly disordered amorphous films to ultra-clean systems with record-high quality factors, including resonators, 3D cavities, and transmon qubits. This scaling reveals an intrinsic bulk dissipation channel, independent of surface dielectric losses, which we attribute to nonequilibrium quasiparticles trapped within disorder-induced spatial variations of the superconducting gap, with a density set by a universal material parameter. Our findings identify an empirical coherence limit associated with intrinsic material properties and provide a data-driven basis for materials selection in future superconducting quantum circuits.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an empirical scaling relation between microwave dissipation and superfluid density across diverse superconducting materials and geometries (amorphous films to ultra-clean systems, resonators, 3D cavities, and transmon qubits). It claims this reveals an intrinsic bulk dissipation channel independent of surface dielectric losses, attributed to nonequilibrium quasiparticles trapped in disorder-induced gap variations whose density is fixed by a single universal material parameter, thereby setting an empirical coherence limit and guiding materials selection.

Significance. If the scaling is robustly independent of surface contributions and the mechanism attribution holds, the result would be significant for superconducting quantum circuits by providing a data-driven intrinsic limit tied to bulk material properties. The breadth of systems examined strengthens potential impact for coherence optimization, though this depends on transparent data curation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the scaling is independent of surface dielectric losses and produced by a single fixed quasiparticle density set by one universal material parameter is load-bearing for the universality and bulk attribution. The manuscript does not supply explicit controls (e.g., surface-treatment series at fixed superfluid density) or a tabulated list of all considered versus retained data points, leaving open the possibility that surface losses mimic the observed scaling or that universality arises from post-hoc selection.
  2. [Results] Results and discussion sections: The empirical fit details, error bars, and data-exclusion criteria are not visible, and the universal material parameter functions as a fitted constant chosen to match observed dissipation rather than a first-principles derivation; this reduces predictive content and requires explicit justification to support the claimed bound.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Consider adding a quantitative statement on the number of materials or data points analyzed to support the description of a 'wide range'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. Below, we address each of the major comments point by point. We have made revisions to enhance the transparency of our data analysis and fitting procedures.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the scaling is independent of surface dielectric losses and produced by a single fixed quasiparticle density set by one universal material parameter is load-bearing for the universality and bulk attribution. The manuscript does not supply explicit controls (e.g., surface-treatment series at fixed superfluid density) or a tabulated list of all considered versus retained data points, leaving open the possibility that surface losses mimic the observed scaling or that universality arises from post-hoc selection.

    Authors: We agree that dedicated surface-treatment series at fixed superfluid density would provide stronger direct evidence for independence from surface losses. Our existing dataset, however, spans devices with independently reported variations in surface preparation, geometry, and surface-to-volume ratio, and the scaling persists across this range. To improve transparency on data selection, we have added a supplementary table listing all considered data points together with the explicit retention criteria (primarily the joint availability of reliable microwave dissipation and superfluid-density measurements). This addition makes the curation process fully traceable and shows that the observed universality is not the result of post-hoc exclusion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results and discussion sections: The empirical fit details, error bars, and data-exclusion criteria are not visible, and the universal material parameter functions as a fitted constant chosen to match observed dissipation rather than a first-principles derivation; this reduces predictive content and requires explicit justification to support the claimed bound.

    Authors: We have revised the manuscript to include a dedicated subsection detailing the empirical fitting procedure, the precise method used to extract the universal material parameter, and the associated uncertainties. Error bars are now shown on the relevant figures, and the data-exclusion criteria are stated explicitly in the methods. While the parameter is determined empirically from the observed scaling rather than derived from first principles, this is consistent with the empirical scope of the study. We have expanded the discussion to explain how the fitted value can nevertheless serve as a predictive bound for dissipation in new materials once their superfluid density is measured, and we note the inherent difficulties in constructing a microscopic first-principles model for nonequilibrium quasiparticle trapping in disordered systems. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Universal material parameter functions as a fitted constant matched to observed dissipation

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "This scaling reveals an intrinsic bulk dissipation channel, independent of surface dielectric losses, which we attribute to nonequilibrium quasiparticles trapped within disorder-induced spatial variations of the superconducting gap, with a density set by a universal material parameter."

    The universal material parameter is introduced to set the quasiparticle density so that the resulting dissipation matches the reported scaling; the 'intrinsic bound' is therefore constructed by fitting the parameter to the same data it is said to explain, reducing the predictive content of the universality claim.

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical scaling between microwave dissipation and superfluid density across materials and geometries, then attributes the scaling to nonequilibrium quasiparticles whose density is fixed by one universal material parameter. This parameter is selected to reproduce the measured dissipation values, so the claimed 'universal bound' and its independence from surface losses reduce to a post-hoc fit rather than an independent first-principles derivation. The central claim therefore contains partial circularity of the fitted-input-called-prediction type, but the underlying scaling relation itself remains an empirical observation with independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim depends on the assumption that surface losses have been ruled out and that a single universal parameter governs the quasiparticle density across all examined materials.

free parameters (1)
  • universal material parameter
    Sets the density of trapped nonequilibrium quasiparticles; its value is chosen to match the observed dissipation scaling.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Microwave dissipation is independent of surface dielectric losses
    Stated explicitly in the abstract as the basis for identifying a bulk channel.
invented entities (1)
  • nonequilibrium quasiparticles trapped in disorder-induced gap variations no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the observed bulk dissipation channel
    Postulated to account for the scaling; no independent falsifiable signature outside the fit is provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5707 in / 1251 out tokens · 47761 ms · 2026-05-19T04:54:44.464758+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Constants phi_golden_ratio and ladder constants echoes
    ?
    echoes

    ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

    universal dimensionless quasiparticle density nqp ξ² a = η, with η ≳ 0.01–0.001 ... nqp ξ³₀ ~ 1/b³ ... only logarithmically with both the quasiparticle generation rate and the strength of electron-phonon relaxation

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost Jcost uniqueness and functional-equation forcing echoes
    ?
    echoes

    ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

    Qqp = 1/η α h/e² a σ₂ ... recovers the empirical trend ... in excellent agreement with the observed scaling

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Cryogenic growth of aluminum: structural morphology, optical properties, superconductivity and microwave dielectric loss

    cond-mat.supr-con 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Cryogenic growth at 6 K increases structural disorder in aluminum films, enhancing superconductivity with higher Tc and critical field, shifting optical color to yellow, and raising kinetic inductance while microwave ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

177 extracted references · 177 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 7 369 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Ganjam, Y

    S. Ganjam, Y. Wang, Y. Lu, A. Banerjee, C. U. Lei, L. Krayzman, K. Kisslinger, C. Zhou, R. Li, Y. Jia, M. Liu, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature Com- munications 15, 3687 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Tuokkola, Y

    M. Tuokkola, Y. Sunada, H. Kivij¨ arvi, J. Albanese, L. Gr¨ onberg, J.-P. Kaikkonen, V. Vesterinen, J. Gove- nius, and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, arXiv:2407.18778 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    A. Dane, K. Balakrishnan, B. Wacaser, L.-W. Hung, H. Mamin, D. Rugar, R. M. Shelby, C. Murray, K. Rod- bell, and J. Sleight, arXiv:2503.12514 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    M. P. Bland, F. Bahrami, J. G. C. Martinez, P. H. Prestegaard, B. M. Smitham, A. Joshi, E. Hedrick, A. Pakpour-Tabrizi, S. Kumar, A. Jindal, R. D. Chang, A. Yang, G. Cheng, N. Yao, R. J. Cava, N. P. de Leon, and A. A. Houck, arXiv:2503.14798 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    C. R. H. McRae, H. Wang, J. Gao, M. R. Vissers, T. Brecht, A. Dunsworth, D. P. Pappas, and J. Mutus, Review of Scientific Instruments 91, 091101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

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

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Siddiqi, Nature Reviews Materials 6, 875 (2021)

    I. Siddiqi, Nature Reviews Materials 6, 875 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    M¨ uller, J

    C. M¨ uller, J. H. Cole, and J. Lisenfeld, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 124501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Aumentado, M

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

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    P. J. de Visser, J. J. A. Baselmans, P. Diener, S. J. C. Yates, A. Endo, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 167004 (2011)

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    Barends, J

    R. Barends, J. Wenner, M. Lenander, Y. Chen, R. C. Bialczak, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, P. O’Malley, M. Mariantoni, D. Sank, H. Wang, T. C. White, Y. Yin, J. Zhao, A. N. Cleland, J. M. Martinis, and J. J. A. Baselmans, Applied Physics Letters 99, 113507 (2011)

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    L. I. Glazman and G. Catelani, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 31 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Bahrami, M

    F. Bahrami, M. P. Bland, N. Shumiya, R. D. Chang, E. Hedrick, R. A. McLellan, K. D. Crowley, A. Dutta, L. B.-V. Horn, Y. Iguchi, A. K. Anbalagan, G. Cheng, C. Yang, N. Yao, A. L. Walter, A. M. Barbour, S. Gopalakrishnan, R. J. Cava, A. A. Houck, and N. P. de Leon, arXiv:2503.03168 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    S. Kono, J. Pan, M. Chegnizadeh, X. Wang, A. Youssefi, M. Scigliuzzo, and T. J. Kippenberg, Nature Commu- nications 15, 3950 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    L. B. Ioffe, V. B. Geshkenbein, C. Helm, and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 057001 (2004)

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    H. Zhou, E. Li, K. Godeneli, Z.-H. Zhang, S. Jahanbani, K. Yu, M. Odeh, S. Aloni, S. Griffin, and A. Sipahigil, arXiv:2409.10626 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Yu and A

    C. Yu and A. Leggett, Comments Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 231 (1988)

    work page 1988

  19. [19]

    Faoro and L

    L. Faoro and L. B. Ioffe, Phys. Rev. B91, 014201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Gr¨ unhaupt, N

    L. Gr¨ unhaupt, N. Maleeva, S. T. Skacel, M. Calvo, F. Levy-Bertrand, A. V. Ustinov, H. Rotzinger, A. Mon- fardini, G. Catelani, and I. M. Pop, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 117001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Kristen, J

    M. Kristen, J. N. Voss, M. Wildermuth, A. Bilmes, J. Lisenfeld, H. Rotzinger, and A. V. Ustinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 217002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Gupta, P

    V. Gupta, P. Winkel, N. Thakur, P. van Vlaanderen, Y. Wang, S. Ganjam, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 054067 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    P. C. J. J. Coumou, M. R. Zuiddam, E. F. C. Driessen, P. J. de Visser, J. J. A. Baselmans, and T. M. Klapwijk, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 23, 7500404 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    K. R. Amin, C. Ladner, G. Jourdan, S. Hentz, N. Roch, and J. Renard, Applied Physics Letters 120, 164001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Charpentier, D

    T. Charpentier, D. Perconte, S. L´ eger, K. R. Amin, F. Blondelle, F. Gay, O. Buisson, L. Ioffe, A. Khvalyuk, I. Poboiko, M. Feigel’man, N. Roch, and B. Sac´ ep´ e, Na- ture Physics 21, 104 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    T. F. Q. Larson, S. G. Jones, T. Kalm´ ar, P. A. Sanchez, S. P. Chitta, V. Verma, K. Genter, K. Cicak, S. W. Nam, G. F¨ ul¨ up, J. Koch, R. W. Simmonds, and A. Gye- nis, arXiv:2504.07950 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Sac´ ep´ e, M

    B. Sac´ ep´ e, M. Feigel’man, and T. M. Klapwijk, Nature Physics 16, 734 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Javaheri Rahim, T

    M. Javaheri Rahim, T. Lehleiter, D. Bothner, C. Krell- ner, D. Koelle, R. Kleiner, M. Dressel, and M. Schef- fler, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 49, 395501 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Megrant, C

    A. Megrant, C. Neill, R. Barends, B. Chiaro, Y. Chen, L. Feigl, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, P. J. J. O’Malley, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, Y. Yin, J. Zhao, C. J. Palmstr¨ om, J. M. Mar- tinis, and A. N. Cleland, Applied Physics Letters 100, 113510 (2012)

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Verjauw, A

    J. Verjauw, A. Potoˇ cnik, M. Mongillo, R. Acharya, F. Mohiyaddin, G. Simion, A. Pacco, T. Ivanov, D. Wan, A. Vanleenhove, L. Souriau, J. Jussot, A. Thiam, J. Swerts, X. Piao, S. Couet, M. Heyns, B. Govoreanu, and I. Radu, Physical Review Applied 16, 014018 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    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. Feld- man, 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

  32. [32]

    Romanenko, R

    A. Romanenko, R. Pilipenko, S. Zorzetti, D. Frolov, M. Awida, S. Belomestnykh, S. Posen, and A. Gras- sellino, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 034032 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    D. C. Mattis and J. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. 111, 412 (1958)

    work page 1958

  34. [34]

    A. A. Abrikosov and L. P. Gor’kov, Soviet Physics JETP 8, 1090 (1959)

    work page 1959

  35. [35]

    A. B. Pippard, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences216, 547 (1953)

    work page 1953

  36. [36]

    H. Wang, M. Hofheinz, J. Wenner, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, M. Weides, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Applied Physics Letters 95, 233508 (2009)

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    C. Wang, C. Axline, Y. Y. Gao, T. Brecht, Y. Chu, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Ap- plied Physics Letters 107, 162601 (2015)

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    Calusine, A

    G. Calusine, A. Melville, W. Woods, R. Das, C. Stull, V. Bolkhovsky, D. Braje, D. Hover, D. K. Kim, X. Miloshi, D. Rosenberg, A. Sevi, J. L. Yoder, E. Dauler, and W. D. Oliver, Applied Physics Letters 112, 062601 (2018). 8

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Woods, G

    W. Woods, G. Calusine, A. Melville, A. Sevi, E. Golden, D. Kim, D. Rosenberg, J. Yoder, and W. Oliver, Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 014012 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Melville, G

    A. Melville, G. Calusine, W. Woods, K. Serniak, E. Golden, B. M. Niedzielski, D. K. Kim, A. Sevi, J. L. Yoder, E. A. Dauler, and W. D. Oliver, Applied Physics Letters 117, 124004 (2020)

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    J. M. Sage, V. Bolkhovsky, W. D. Oliver, B. Turek, and P. B. Welander, Journal of Applied Physics109, 063915 (2011)

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    Charpentier, Quantum circuits and the superconductor-insulator transition in a dis- ordered superconductor , Ph.D

    T. Charpentier, Quantum circuits and the superconductor-insulator transition in a dis- ordered superconductor , Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versit´ e Grenoble Alpes (2023), Available at https://theses.hal.science/tel-04405951v1

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    H. Deng, Z. Song, R. Gao, T. Xia, F. Bao, X. Jiang, H.- S. Ku, Z. Li, X. Ma, J. Qin, H. Sun, C. Tang, T. Wang, F. Wu, W. Yu, G. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Zhou, X. Zhu, Y. Shi, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 024013 (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    E. T. Mannila, P. Samuelsson, S. Simbierowicz, J. T. Peltonen, V. Vesterinen, L. Gr¨ onberg, J. Hassel, V. F. Maisi, and J. P. Pekola, Nature Physics 18, 145 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    A. V. Semenov, I. A. Devyatov, P. J. de Visser, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 047002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    Catelani and D

    G. Catelani and D. M. Basko, SciPost Phys. 6, 013 (2019)

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Fischer and G

    P. Fischer and G. Catelani, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 054087 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    C. H. Liu, D. C. Harrison, S. Patel, C. D. Wilen, O. Raf- ferty, A. Shearrow, A. Ballard, V. Iaia, J. Ku, B. L. T. Plourde, and R. McDermott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 017001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    P. B. Fischer and G. Catelani, SciPost Phys. 17, 070 (2024)

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Benevides, M

    R. Benevides, M. Drimmer, G. Bisson, F. Adinolfi, U. v. L¨ upke, H. M. Doeleman, G. Catelani, and Y. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 060602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    S. A. H. de Rooij, J. J. A. Baselmans, J. Bueno, V. Murugesan, D. J. Thoen, and P. J. de Visser, arXiv:2503.07443 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Yelton, C

    E. Yelton, C. P. Larson, K. Dodge, K. Okubo, and B. L. T. Plourde, arXiv:2503.09554 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Karatsu, A

    K. Karatsu, A. Endo, J. Bueno, P. J. de Visser, R. Barends, D. J. Thoen, V. Murugesan, N. Tomita, and J. J. A. Baselmans, Applied Physics Letters 114, 032601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    A. P. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, A. H. Karamlou, J. L. Orrell, A. S. Dogra, B. Loer, F. Vasconcelos, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, J. L. Yoder, S. Gustavs- son, J. A. Formaggio, B. A. VanDevender, and W. D. Oliver, Nature 584, 551 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. A. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. D’Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, C. H. Liu, A. Opremcak, B. G. Christensen, J. L. DuBois, and R. McDermott, Nature 594, 369 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    McEwen, L

    M. McEwen, L. Faoro, K. Arya, A. Dunsworth, T. Huang, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Fowler, F. Arute, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, B. B. Buck- ley, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, R. Collins, S. Demura, A. R. Derk, C. Erickson, M. Giustina, S. D. Har- rington, S. Hong, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, P. V. Klimov, F. Kostritsa, P. Laptev, A. Locharla, X. Mi, K. C. Miao, S...

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    Cardani, I

    L. Cardani, I. Colantoni, A. Cruciani, F. D. Do- minicis, G. D’Imperio, M. Laubenstein, A. Mariani, L. Pagnanini, S. Pirro, C. Tomei, N. Casali, F. Fer- roni, D. Frolov, L. Gironi, A. Grassellino, M. Junker, C. Kopas, E. Lachman, C. R. H. McRae, J. Mutus, M. Nastasi, D. P. Pappas, R. Pilipenko, M. Sisti, V. Pet- tinacci, A. Romanenko, D. V. Zanten, M. Vig...

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Kharitonov, T

    M. Kharitonov, T. Proslier, A. Glatz, and M. J. Pellin, Phys. Rev. B 86, 024514 (2012)

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    Y. V. Fominov, M. Houzet, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B 84, 224517 (2011)

    work page 2011

  60. [60]

    Larkin and Y

    A. Larkin and Y. Ovchinnikov, Sov. Phys. JETP 34, 1144 (1972)

    work page 1972

  61. [61]

    M. V. Feigel’man and M. A. Skvortsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 147002 (2012)

    work page 2012

  62. [62]

    M. A. Skvortsov and M. V. Feigel’man, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 117, 487 (2013)

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Sac´ ep´ e, C

    B. Sac´ ep´ e, C. Chapelier, T. I. Baturina, V. M. Vinokur, M. R. Baklanov, and M. Sanquer, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 157006 (2008)

    work page 2008

  64. [64]

    Chand, G

    M. Chand, G. Saraswat, A. Kamlapure, M. Mondal, S. Kumar, J. Jesudasan, V. Bagwe, L. Benfatto, V. Tri- pathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B 85, 014508 (2012)

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    Sac´ ep´ e, T

    B. Sac´ ep´ e, T. Dubouchet, C. Chapelier, M. Sanquer, M. Ovadia, D. Shahar, M. Feigel’man, and L. Ioffe, Na- ture Physics 7, 239 (2011)

    work page 2011

  66. [66]

    Mandal, S

    S. Mandal, S. Dutta, S. Basistha, I. Roy, J. Jesudasan, V. Bagwe, L. Benfatto, A. Thamizhavel, and P. Ray- chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B 102, 060501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Bespalov, M

    A. Bespalov, M. Houzet, J. S. Meyer, and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 117002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    De Graaf, L

    S. De Graaf, L. Faoro, L. Ioffe, S. Mahashabde, J. Bur- nett, T. Lindstr¨ om, S. Kubatkin, A. Danilov, and A. Y. Tzalenchuk, Science advances 6, eabc5055 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    C. Wang, Y. Y. Gao, I. M. Pop, U. Vool, C. Axline, T. Brecht, R. W. Heeres, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, G. Catelani, L. I. Glazman, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Na- ture Communications 5, 5836 (2014)

    work page 2014

  70. [70]

    de Visser, D

    P. de Visser, D. Goldie, P. Diener, S. Withington, J. Baselmans, and T. Klapwijk, Physical Review Let- ters 112, 047004 (2014)

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    S. A. H. de Rooij, R. Fermin, K. Kouwenhoven, T. Cop- pens, V. Murugesan, D. J. Thoen, J. Aarts, J. J. A. Baselmans, and P. J. de Visser, arXiv:2410.18802 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    A. A. Abrikosov and L. P. Gor’kov, Zhur. Eksptl’ . i Teo- ret. Fiz. 39 (1960)

    work page 1960

  73. [73]

    Checchin, D

    M. Checchin, D. Frolov, A. Lunin, A. Grassellino, and A. Romanenko, Physical Review Applied 18, 034013 (2022)

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Zhang, K

    Z.-H. Zhang, K. Godeneli, J. He, M. Odeh, H. Zhou, S. Meesala, and A. Sipahigil, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041022 (2024)

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    A. P. Read, B. J. Chapman, C. U. Lei, J. C. Cur- tis, S. Ganjam, L. Krayzman, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review Applied19, 034064 (2023). 9

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    Winkel, K

    P. Winkel, K. Borisov, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, D. Rieger, M. Spiecker, F. Valenti, A. V. Ustinov, W. Wernsdorfer, and I. M. Pop, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031032 (2020)

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    Sch¨ on, J

    Y. Sch¨ on, J. N. Voss, M. Wildermuth, A. Schneider, S. T. Skacel, M. P. Weides, J. H. Cole, H. Rotzinger, and A. V. Ustinov, npj Quantum Materials5, 18 (2020)

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    A. P. M. Place, L. V. H. Rodgers, P. Mundada, B. M. Smitham, M. Fitzpatrick, Z. Leng, A. Premku- mar, J. Bryon, A. Vrajitoarea, S. Sussman, G. Cheng, T. Madhavan, H. K. Babla, X. H. Le, Y. Gang, B. J¨ ack, A. Gyenis, N. Yao, R. J. Cava, N. P. de Leon, and A. A. Houck, Nature Communications 12, 1779 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    C. Wang, X. Li, H. Xu, Z. Li, J. Wang, Z. Yang, Z. Mi, X. Liang, T. Su, C. Yang, G. Wang, W. Wang, Y. Li, M. Chen, C. Li, K. Linghu, J. Han, Y. Zhang, Y. Feng, Y. Song, T. Ma, J. Zhang, R. Wang, P. Zhao, W. Liu, G. Xue, Y. Jin, and H. Yu, npj Quantum Information 8, 3 (2022)

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    Serniak, S

    K. Serniak, S. Diamond, M. Hays, V. Fatemi, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. Schoelkopf, and M. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 014052 (2019)

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.