Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Intrinsic Multi-Mode Interference for Passive Suppression of Purcell Decay in Superconducting Circuits

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A controlled geometric asymmetry in a transmon's capacitor suppresses radiative Purcell decay through multi-mode interference, and the paper reports a measured factor-of-two improvement in qubit relaxation time.

desk verdict The multi-mode interference theory is novel and internally consistent, but the experiment does not support the suppression claim once Q3's weak external coupling is accounted for. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09715 v1 pith:MGUWBMO4 submitted 2025-07-13 quant-ph

Mustafa Bakr , Mohammed Alghadeer , Simon Pettersson Fors , Simone D. Fasciati , Shuxiang Cao , Atharv Mahajan , Smain Amari , Anton Frisk Kockum
show 1 more author
Peter Leek
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords Purcelldecaytransmonmulti-modeinterferencemodehybridizationsymmetrybreakingcoherenceprotectionsuperconductingcircuitscircuitQED
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 claims that the radiative decay of a superconducting transmon qubit can be suppressed passively by engineering destructive interference among the device's intrinsic electromagnetic modes, without adding any filter elements. The key move is a small geometric asymmetry—a 'mouse-bite' notch in the capacitor pad—that hybridizes otherwise orthogonal higher modes and opens multiple decay pathways whose amplitudes can cancel. The authors derive analytic conditions for this cancellation from a multi-mode Hamiltonian, confirm them in full-wave simulations, and report experimental $T_1$ values about twice as long for the symmetry-broken qubit (Q3, mean $T_1 = 66\,\mu\text{s}$ vs roughly $30\,\mu\text{s}$ for the symmetric qubits), with an inferred Purcell-limited $T_1$ of about $1.2\,\text{ms}$. The paper frames this as a hardware-efficient alternative to conventional Purcell filters that could scale to many qubits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multi-mode effective Hamiltonian (Eq. 2) with qubit-mode couplings $g_i e^{i\phi_i}$, mode frequencies $\omega_i$, loss rates $\kappa_i$, and inter-mode couplings $J_{ij} e^{i\theta_{ij}}$. In the single-excitation subspace, the Purcell rate is derived as $\Gamma_{\text{eff}} = \sum_i \frac{\kappa_i g_i^2}{\Delta_i^2 + (\kappa_i/2)^2} + \sum_{i<j} \frac{2(\kappa_i \Delta_j + \kappa_j \Delta_i) g_i g_j J_{ij} \cos(\phi_i-\phi_j+\theta_{ij})}{(\Delta_i^2 + (\kappa_i/2)^2)(\Delta_j^2 + (\kappa_j/2)^2)}$, where the cross term destructively cancels the direct term. The 'mouse-bite' notch is what turns on the $J_{ij}$ couplings by hybridizing the modal field distributions, and its position relative to the Josephson junction sets the phases that steer the interference to the qubit frequency.

What would settle it

Fabricate a twin device without the mouse-bite notch but with identical external coupling and qubit frequency, and compare $T_1$: if the notched qubit does not show a factor-of-two advantage over its notch-free twin, the interference mechanism is not responsible. Alternatively, measure $T_1$ of Q3 at a frequency where the simulation predicts no transmission zero; if the qubit still shows $T_1 \approx 66\,\mu\text{s}$, the observed enhancement is not caused by the engineered interference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Purcell decay rate of a transmon is not fixed by its single-mode coupling to the readout resonator: once the capacitor geometry is made asymmetric, the total decay rate becomes the coherent sum of direct decay into each mode plus interference terms proportional to the inter-mode couplings $J_{ij}$, arranged so that the interference terms can cancel the direct terms. Equation (11) gives the effective rate $\Gamma_{\text{eff}}$ whose cross terms involve $\cos(\phi_i - \phi_j + \theta_{ij})$, and suppression occurs when these phases align to make the interference contribution negative at the qubit frequency. The paper demonstrates this in a four-qubit device where two qubits carry the notch; the one with correct alignment (Q3) shows a factor-of-two $T_1$ improvement and a variance signature consistent with the Purcell channel being nearly shut off, with $T_{1,\text{Purcell}} \approx 1.2\,\text{ms}$, about 94% of the estimated intrinsic limit.

Load-bearing premise

The experimental proof assumes that all four qubits share the same non-radiative decay rate, $T_{1,\text{others}} \approx 70\,\mu\text{s}$, taken from a separate Purcell-filtered device with different qubit frequencies and different port couplings; if local two-level-system noise or dielectric loss differs between Q3 and the other qubits, the improved $T_1$ of Q3 could be explained without any interference mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Purcell suppression becomes a layout feature rather than an added circuit: filter elements, their chip area, and their design complexity are all removed, which eases scaling to many qubits.
  • The method works for fixed-frequency transmons at their operating point, so it is compatible with existing gate and readout schemes (Q3 reaches 99.82% single-qubit gate fidelity).
  • The interference condition is tunable through the notch size, position, and orientation relative to the junction, giving a design knob complementary to coupling-rate engineering.
  • Under microwave drive, the analysis predicts the suppression steepens with photon number (roughly $(1 + \bar{n}/n_{\text{crit}})^{-\alpha}$), potentially providing extra protection during readout.
  • The same multi-mode interference framework may be reused for suppressing other error channels, such as ZZ coupling, in future layout-aware design tools.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The variance signature—a qubit whose $T_1$ fluctuates strongly over time while its mean stays high—could serve as a cheap diagnostic for whether a qubit is Purcell-limited or interference-protected, without needing full spectroscopic mapping.
  • The mechanism is a geometric realization of a notch filter: the 'transmission zero' in the qubit-to-environment response is placed by the geometry, suggesting that microwave filter synthesis tools could be applied directly to qubit environment design.
  • If the drive-dependent suppression holds in practice, readout power could be increased without the usual Purcell penalty, potentially improving readout signal-to-noise; this is an untested extension of the paper's Eq. (25) scaling.
  • The assumption of uniform non-radiative decay across qubits is testable by measuring a Purcell-filtered version of the same chip; if confirmed, the method's experimental support would be considerably stronger.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the intrinsic multi-mode electromagnetic environment of a transmon, activated by controlled geometric asymmetry, can produce destructive interference among multiple decay pathways and thereby suppress Purcell decay without any external filter elements. The authors derive an analytic expression for the Purcell rate (Eq. 11), cross-check it by three independent derivations (semiclassical, non-Hermitian perturbation theory, and density-matrix), support it with finite-element simulations of a four-qubit device, and report T1 measurements on four qubits claiming a factor-of-two improvement for one asymmetry-broken qubit (Q3).

Significance. If the mechanism is confirmed, the proposal is a genuinely useful, hardware-efficient alternative to conventional Purcell filters: it replaces added circuit elements with an intrinsic, geometry-controlled interference effect. The theoretical core is a real contribution: Eq. (11) is derived from the stated Hamiltonian rather than fitted, the three derivations in Section III, Appendix C, and Appendix D agree, and Appendix B gives a defensible justification for the first-order-in-J truncation when sum(|J|) << |Delta|. The paper also contains concrete, falsifiable predictions about transmission zeros and drive-dependent scaling. However, the experimental support as presented does not yet isolate the interference mechanism; the paper itself acknowledges the main weakness, and the data are consistent with Q3 being limited by non-radiative loss.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI, Eqs. (26)-(27), Fig. 6(c)] The central experimental attribution rests on the assumption that T1,others is approximately uniform across the four qubits and equal to the value inferred from a separate, Purcell-filtered device with different qubit frequencies (about 4.2 GHz vs 5.24 GHz for Q3) and different port couplings. This assumption is not supported by a matched control. With the paper's own parameters, the no-interference simulation predicts T1 = 90 us for Q3, which is larger than the observed mean T1 = 66 us. The measured value therefore lies below the no-interference prediction and cannot, by itself, demonstrate any suppression. A symmetric control qubit with matched external coupling is needed; without it, local non-radiative loss (e.g., two-level-system or dielectric loss) fully explains the data.
  2. [Section VI, Table I, standard Purcell estimate] Q3 is not Purcell-limited even in the absence of any interference. Using the Table I parameters (kappa_ext/2pi = 0.18 MHz, chi/2pi = -329 kHz, alpha/2pi = -228 MHz, Delta/2pi = -3.77 GHz) and the standard relation g^2 ~ |chi Delta(Delta-alpha)/alpha| gives g/2pi ~ 140 MHz and a no-interference Purcell T1 ~ Delta^2/(kappa_ext g^2) ~ 4 ms, which is two orders of magnitude above the assumed non-radiative ceiling of 70 us. The measured T1 ~ 66 us is therefore dominated by non-radiative loss, and the inferred T1,Purcell ~ 1.2 ms is determined by the assumed 70 us ceiling rather than by any measured suppression. The claim in Section VI that reduced coupling alone cannot account for the observed enhancement is contradicted by these numbers.
  3. [Section VI, Eqs. (28)-(30) and Appendix F] The variance analysis used to argue that Purcell decay is strongly suppressed for Q3 is not quantitative. Equation (F3) relies on a first-order expansion in deltaT/T, requiring |deltaT/T| << 1, but for Q3 sigma_Q3/mean ~ 30 us / 66 us ~ 0.45, so the expansion is invalid. Furthermore, Eqs. (29) and (30) weight variance contributions by ratios of mean T1 values raised to the fourth power, which does not follow from the stated independent-channel model; the result sigma_TPurcell ~ 0 is therefore an artifact of the assumed uniformity of T1,others rather than evidence for interference.
  4. [Eqs. (10) and (11)] There is a sign inconsistency between Eq. (10) and Eq. (11). From Eq. (9), the coefficient Gamma_P defined in Eq. (10) has Re[g_i^2/(iDelta_i - kappa_i/2)] = -kappa_i/2 / (Delta_i^2 + kappa_i^2/4), so Gamma_eff = 2 Re(Gamma_P) would be negative for the direct term alone, opposite to the positive direct term in Eq. (11). The appendices (C and D) obtain the correct positive formula, so this is likely a sign error in the semiclassical presentation, but it must be fixed because Eq. (10) is presented as the basis for Eq. (11) and for Eq. (20).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI, Fig. 6 caption area] There is a duplicate word in the main text: 'respectively respectively' appears in the paragraph before Eq. (26).
  2. [Section II, Eq. (3)] The relative difference matrix in Eq. (3) is not symmetric, although capacitance matrices are expected to be symmetric. Please clarify whether the printed matrix is the relative difference of full capacitance matrices or a different quantity, and correct the apparent asymmetry.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (2) discussion] The statement that theta_ij = -theta_ji follows from Hermiticity is not generally true for complex coupling phases in the form used; one can always choose a gauge where the phases are absorbed into the mode operators, but the antisymmetry claim needs a clear convention or a derivation.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The value Qinternal = 10^7 is asserted without derivation or citation; please provide the basis for this estimate, since it directly sets the 'intrinsic' T1 ceiling in the simulation.
  5. [Appendix F] The variance-propagation formula Eq. (F3) is derived only to first order in deltaT/T; the paper should state this limitation explicitly, since the Q3 data violate the small-fluctuation condition.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Core theory is derived self-consistently, but the experimental evidence for Purcell suppression reduces to a back-calculation from an assumed non-radiative ceiling taken from a same-group reference device.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI (Experiment), Eqs. (26)-(27) and the paragraph beginning 'First, we draw attention...' / 'For Q3 we estimate T1,Purcell ≈1.2 ms.']
    "The total decay rate is expressed as 1/T1 = 1/T1,Purcell + 1/T1,others. Since all qubits are fabricated on a common substrate and measured in a shared cryogenic and electromagnetic environment, we assume T1,others to be approximately uniform across the four qubits. ... Based on this, we estimate: T1,others ≈70µs. ... For Q3 we estimate T1,Purcell ≈1.2 ms, indicating significantly suppressed Purcell decay with Q3 achieving 94% of the estimated intrinsic limit."

    T1,Purcell for Q3 is not predicted by the interference theory; it is the algebraic residual of Eq. (26) after inserting the assumed non-radiative ceiling T1,others = 70 µs (taken from a separate Purcell-filtered device, Ref. [24]) and the measured T1,Q3 = 66 µs: 1/T1,Purcell = 1/66 µs - 1/70 µs ≈ 1/1.2 ms. The statement '94% of the estimated intrinsic limit' merely restates that the measured value nearly equals the assumed ceiling. The claimed validation of suppression therefore reduces, by construction, to the assumption that the same T1,others = 70 µs applies to Q3. If the true non-radiative limit for Q3 is lower, the inferred Purcell suppression vanishes. The paper itself flags the assumption as an oversimplification.

full rationale

The analytic core of the paper is not circular. Equation (11) is derived from the multi-mode Hamiltonian (2) via a Heisenberg-Langevin treatment with a Born-Oppenheimer approximation and a first-order expansion in Jij; it is independently reproduced by the non-Hermitian perturbation derivation in Appendix C and the density-matrix derivation in Appendix D. These derivations do not fit parameters to the target T1 values, and the full-wave HFSS simulations predict a T1 structure from geometry with measured κ and χ inputs rather than by inverting the measured T1. The circularity concern is confined to the experimental validation. The estimate T1,Purcell ≈ 1.2 ms for Q3 is not an independent measurement of radiative decay: it is exactly the value forced by Eq. (26) once T1,others = 70 µs is assumed. That assumed ceiling is imported from a prior same-group device (Ref. [24]) with different qubit frequencies and port couplings, and the paper's own no-interference simulation predicts T1 ≈ 90 µs for Q3, which is already larger than the observed 66 µs. Thus the data are statistically underdetermined: with Q3's weak external coupling (κ_ext/2π = 0.18 MHz), the standard Purcell estimate already gives T1,Purcell at the millisecond level, so the experiment does not discriminate between the multi-mode interference mechanism and the absence of any interference effect. The variance analysis in Section VI/Appendix F likewise rests on the same uniformity assumption for T1,others and its fluctuations. This is a load-bearing assumption and a mild self-citation dependency, but the central analytic derivation remains self-contained; hence a moderate score of 4 rather than a charge of full circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It reinterprets existing high-frequency electromagnetic modes of the transmon capacitor and readout resonator as a multi-mode environment. The main bookkeeping is carried by J_ij and phases, which are design parameters rather than entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Inter-mode coupling strengths J_ij = e.g., J/2pi = 180 MHz (Fig. 3), Jij = 0.05 (dimensionless, Fig. 4), 50 MHz (App. C)
    Chosen in simulations to put transmission zeros near the qubit; never independently measured in the device.
  • Coupling phases theta_ij and phi_i = controlled by notch position (135 degrees in device)
    Phases determine the sign of the interference term cos(phi_i - phi_j + theta_ij); not measured directly, only asserted to be engineerable.
  • Non-radiative ceiling T_1,others = 70 microseconds
    Inferred from the upper bound of T1 histograms of a separate Purcell-filtered device; used in Eq. (26) to compute T1,Purcell for each qubit.
  • High-frequency mode decay rates kappa_i = not specified for modes beyond readout
    Enter Eq. (11) for both direct and cross terms; only the fundamental readout kappa is reported in Table I.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The resonator modes reach steady state much faster than the qubit decays, so the Born-Oppenheimer approximation d a_i/dt = 0 is valid.
    Invoked in Section III before Eq. (8); fails if any mode has kappa_i comparable to the effective qubit decay rate.
  • domain assumption The inter-mode couplings are weak, sum_j |J_ij| << |Delta_i|, justifying truncation to first order in J.
    Appendix B keeps terms to O(J) and drops O(J^2) paths; device parameters are not shown to satisfy this with a range.
  • ad hoc to paper The multi-mode environment is described by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) with m discrete damped modes, each with its own kappa_i and phase phi_i.
    The high-frequency modes are obtained from HFSS simulation, but their dissipative rates kappa_i and phases in the real device are not measured.
  • domain assumption Non-radiative loss is uniform across the four qubits and equal to a separate filtered device.
    Section VI states 'we assume T1,others to be approximately uniform across the four qubits.' This is the load-bearing calibration for the Purcell suppression estimate.
  • standard math Transmon anharmonicity can be treated perturbatively through second-order dispersive shifts chi_k (Eq. 15).
    Used in the driven case in Section IV; standard cQED Schrieffer-Wolff result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intrinsic Multi-Mode Interference for Passive Suppression of Purcell Decay in Superconducting Circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MGUWBMO4

@misc{pith2026250709715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intrinsic Multi-Mode Interference for Passive Suppression of Purcell Decay in Superconducting Circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MGUWBMO4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09715}
}
read the original abstract

Decoherence due to radiative decay remains an important consideration in scaling superconducting quantum processors. We introduce a passive, interference-based methodology for suppressing radiative decay using only the intrinsic multi-mode structured environment of superconducting circuits. By taking into account the full electromagnetic mode-mode couplings within the device, we derive analytic conditions that enable destructive interference. These conditions are realized by introducing controlled geometric asymmetries -- such as localized perturbations to the transmon capacitor -- which increase mode hybridization and activate interference between multiple decay pathways. We validate this methodology using perturbation theory, full-wave electromagnetic simulations, and experimental measurements of a symmetry-broken transmon qubit with improved coherence times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09715 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Conceptual illustration of the multi-mode nature of a transmon circuit, where the shunt capacitor is replaced by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Device schematic and simulation setup. A simplified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of single-mode and multi-mode Pur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Purcell-decay suppression in multi-mode interference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Four-qubit superconducting device with engineered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (c). Examining the upper bound of the T1 distri￾butions across all four qubits, and noting their narrow spread and consistent shape, we infer that all four qubits a 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Count Number 101 102 T 1 ( s) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 b c 20 40 60 80 T1 ( s) 0 20 Occurren…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Numerical simulation of qubit relaxation time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scaling up superconducting quantum computers,

    A. Megrant and Y. Chen, “Scaling up superconducting quantum computers,”Nature Electronics8(2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Suppressing quan- tumerrorsbyscalingasurfacecodelogicalqubit,

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allenet al., “Suppressing quan- tumerrorsbyscalingasurfacecodelogicalqubit,”Nature 614, 676–681 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Superconducting qubits: current state of play,

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumülleret al., “Superconducting qubits: current state of play,”Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11, 369–395 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvinet al., “Circuit quantum electrodynamics,”Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Microwave photonicswith superconductingquantumcircuits,

    X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowiczet al., “Microwave photonicswith superconductingquantumcircuits,”Phys. Rep.718–719, 1–102 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Strong cou- pling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blaiset al., “Strong cou- pling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics,”Nature431, 162–167 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [8]

    A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yanet al., “A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,”Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021318 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [9]

    Supercon- ducting qubit readout enhanced by path signature,

    S. Cao, Z. Shao, J.-Q. Zhenget al., “Supercon- ducting qubit readout enhanced by path signature,” arXiv:2402.09532 [quant-ph] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

Show all 57 references
  1. [10]

    Proceedings of the American Physical Society,

    E. M. Purcell, “Proceedings of the American Physical Society,”Phys. Rev.69, 674 (1946)

    1946

  2. [11]

    Dynamics of dispersive single-qubit readout in circuit quantum elec- trodynamics,

    R. Bianchetti, S. Filipp, M. Bauret al., “Dynamics of dispersive single-qubit readout in circuit quantum elec- trodynamics,”Phys. Rev. A80, 043840 (2009)

    2009

  3. [12]

    Sub-resonant wideband superconducting Purcell filters,

    B. M. Smitham, J. G. C. Martinez, C. S. Chiuet al., “Sub-resonant wideband superconducting Purcell filters,” arXiv:2503.10750 [quant-ph] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  4. [13]

    High-suppression-ratio and wide bandwidth four-stage Purcell filter for multi- plexed superconducting qubit readout,

    Y. Zhou, X. Cai, Y. Zhenget al., “High-suppression-ratio and wide bandwidth four-stage Purcell filter for multi- plexed superconducting qubit readout,”J. Appl. Phys. 135, 024402 (2024)

    2024

  5. [14]

    Broadband band- pass Purcell filter for circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    H. Yan, X. Wu, A. Lingenfelteret al., “Broadband band- pass Purcell filter for circuit quantum electrodynamics,” Appl. Phys. Lett.123, 134001 (2023)

    2023

  6. [15]

    The waves-in-space Pur- cell effect for superconducting qubits,

    P. Patel, M. Xia, C. Zhouet al., “The waves-in-space Pur- cell effect for superconducting qubits,” arXiv:2503.11644 [quant-ph] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Interferometric Purcell suppression of spontaneous emission in a superconduct- ing qubit,

    A. Yen, Y. Ye, K. Penget al., “Interferometric Purcell suppression of spontaneous emission in a superconduct- ing qubit,”Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 024068 (2025)

    2025

  8. [17]

    Fastreadoutandreset of a superconducting qubit coupled to a resonator with an intrinsic Purcell filter,

    Y.Sunada, S.Kono, J.Ilveset al., “Fastreadoutandreset of a superconducting qubit coupled to a resonator with an intrinsic Purcell filter,”Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 044016 (2022)

    2022

  9. [18]

    Superconduct- ing qubit with Purcell protection and tunable coupling,

    J. M. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, A. Blais, “Superconduct- ing qubit with Purcell protection and tunable coupling,” Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 030502 (2011)

    2011

  10. [19]

    Fast reset and suppressing spontaneous emission of a super- conducting qubit,

    M. D. Reed, B. R. Johnson, A. A. Houcket al., “Fast reset and suppressing spontaneous emission of a super- conducting qubit,”Appl. Phys. Lett.96, 203110 (2010)

    2010

  11. [20]

    Fast multi- plexed superconducting qubit readout with intrinsic Pur- cell filtering,

    P. A. Spring, L. Milanovic, Y. Sunadaet al., “Fast multi- plexed superconducting qubit readout with intrinsic Pur- cell filtering,” arXiv:2409.04967 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Break- ing the trade-off between fast control and long lifetime of a superconducting qubit,

    S. Kono, K. Koshino, D. Lachance-Quirionet al., “Break- ing the trade-off between fast control and long lifetime of a superconducting qubit,”Nat. Commun.11, 3683 (2020)

    2020

  13. [22]

    Protection of a qubit via subradiance: A Josephson quantum filter,

    K. Koshino, S. Kono, Y. Nakamura, “Protection of a qubit via subradiance: A Josephson quantum filter,” Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 014051 (2020)

    2020

  14. [23]

    Engineering the environment of a superconducting qubit with an artificial giant atom,

    J. Hu, D. Li, Y. Qieet al., “Engineering the environment of a superconducting qubit with an artificial giant atom,” arXiv:2410.15377 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Multiplexed read- out of superconducting qubits using a three-dimensional reentrant-cavity filter,

    M. Bakr, S. D. Fasciati, S. Caoet al., “Multiplexed read- out of superconducting qubits using a three-dimensional reentrant-cavity filter,”Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 054089 (2025)

    2025

  16. [25]

    Rapid high- fidelity multiplexed readout of superconducting qubits,

    J. Heinsoo, C. K. Andersen, A. Remmet al., “Rapid high- fidelity multiplexed readout of superconducting qubits,” Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 034040 (2018)

    2018

  17. [26]

    Multiplexed readout of four qubits in 3D circuit QED architecture us- ing a broadband Josephson parametric amplifier,

    S. Kundu, N. Gheeraert, S. Hazraet al., “Multiplexed readout of four qubits in 3D circuit QED architecture us- ing a broadband Josephson parametric amplifier,”Appl. Phys. Lett.114, 172601 (2019)

    2019

  18. [27]

    Triple-mode microwave filters with arbitrary prescribed transmission zeros,

    M. S. Bakr, “Triple-mode microwave filters with arbitrary prescribed transmission zeros,”IEEE Access9, 22045– 22052 (2021)

    2021

  19. [28]

    Miniature triple- mode dielectric resonator filters,

    M. S. Bakr, I. C. Hunter, W. Bösch, “Miniature triple- mode dielectric resonator filters,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn.66, 5625–5631 (2018)

    2018

  20. [29]

    Dual- modedual-bandconductor-loadeddielectricresonatorfil- ters,

    M. S. Bakr, S. W. O. Luhaib, I. C. Hunteret al., “Dual- modedual-bandconductor-loadeddielectricresonatorfil- ters,” inProc. 47th Eur. Microw. Conf. (EuMC),908–910 (2017)

    2017

  21. [30]

    Singular Azimuthally 19 Propagating Electromagnetic Fields,

    M. Bakr and S. Amari, “Singular Azimuthally 19 Propagating Electromagnetic Fields,” arXiv:2305.08869 [physics.class-ph] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Ahmadi, M

    S. Ahmadi, M. Akbari, S. Saeidianet al.,Quantum inter- ference in atomic systems, arXiv:2502.01398 [quant-ph] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Quantum optics with giant atoms—the first five years,

    A. F. Kockum, “Quantum optics with giant atoms—the first five years,” inInt. Symp. on Mathematics, Quantum Theory, and Cryptography, T. Takagiet al., Eds., Springer, Singapore, pp. 125–146 (2021). doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5191-8_12

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    Low crosstalk in a scalable superconducting quantum lattice,

    M. Alghadeer, S. Cao, S. D. Fasciatiet al., “Low crosstalk in a scalable superconducting quantum lattice,” arXiv:2505.22276 [quant-ph] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Comprehensive explanation of ZZ coupling in supercon- ducting qubits,

    S. Pettersson Fors, J. Fernández-Pendás, A. F. Kockum, “Comprehensive explanation of ZZ coupling in supercon- ducting qubits,” arXiv:2408.15402 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Simple all-microwave entangling gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits,

    J. M. Chow, A. D. Córcoles, J. M. Gambettaet al., “Simple all-microwave entangling gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits,”Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 080502 (2011)

    2011

  27. [36]

    Realization of high-fidelityCZ andZZ-free iSWAPgates witha tunable coupler,

    Y. Sung, L. Ding, J. Braumülleret al., “Realization of high-fidelityCZ andZZ-free iSWAPgates witha tunable coupler,”Phys. Rev. X11, 021058 (2021)

    2021

  28. [37]

    Coupler-assisted controlled-phase gate with enhanced adiabaticity,

    J. Chu and F. Yan, “Coupler-assisted controlled-phase gate with enhanced adiabaticity,”Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 054020 (2021)

    2021

  29. [38]

    Charge- insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box,

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambettaet al., “Charge- insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box,”Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  30. [39]

    Con- trolling the spontaneous emission of a superconducting transmon qubit,

    A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnsonet al., “Con- trolling the spontaneous emission of a superconducting transmon qubit,”Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 080502 (2008)

    2008

  31. [40]

    Climbing the Jaynes–Cummings ladder and observing its nonlinearity in a cavity QED system,

    J. M. Fink, M. Göppl, M. Bauret al., “Climbing the Jaynes–Cummings ladder and observing its nonlinearity in a cavity QED system,”Nature454, 315–318 (2008)

    2008

  32. [41]

    Cavityquantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation,

    A.Blais, R.S.Huang, A.Wallraffet al., “Cavityquantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation,”Phys. Rev. A69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  33. [42]

    Model- ing enclosures for large-scale superconducting quantum circuits,

    P. A. Spring, T. Tsunoda, B. Vlastakiset al., “Model- ing enclosures for large-scale superconducting quantum circuits,”Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 024061 (2020)

    2020

  34. [43]

    Theory of azimuthally prop- agating electromagnetic waves in cylindrical cavities,

    M. Bakr and S. Amari, “Theory of azimuthally prop- agating electromagnetic waves in cylindrical cavities,” arXiv:2505.04756 [physics.optics] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Energy- participation quantization of Josephson circuits,

    Z. K. Minev, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhadaet al., “Energy- participation quantization of Josephson circuits,”npj Quantum Inf.7, 131 (2021)

    2021

  36. [45]

    Characteriza- tion of nanostructural imperfections in superconducting quantum circuits,

    M. Alghadeer, S. D. Fasciati, S. Caoet al., “Characteriza- tion of nanostructural imperfections in superconducting quantum circuits,” arXiv:2501.15059 [quant-ph] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Interaction be- tween giant atoms in a one-dimensional structured envi- ronment,

    A. Soro, C. S. Muñoz, A. F. Kockum, “Interaction be- tween giant atoms in a one-dimensional structured envi- ronment,”Phys. Rev. A107, 013710 (2023)

    2023

  38. [47]

    Avoiding deco- herence with giant atoms in a two-dimensional structured environment,

    E. R. Ingelsten, A. F. Kockum, A. Soro, “Avoiding deco- herence with giant atoms in a two-dimensional structured environment,”Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043222 (2024)

    2024

  39. [48]

    Com- plementing the transmon by integrating a geometric shunt inductor,

    S. D. Fasciati, B. Shteynas, G. Campanaroet al., “Com- plementing the transmon by integrating a geometric shunt inductor,” arXiv:2410.10416 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Purcell effect with microwave drive: Suppression of qubit relax- ation rate,

    E. A. Sete, J. M. Gambetta, A. N. Korotkov, “Purcell effect with microwave drive: Suppression of qubit relax- ation rate,”Phys. Rev. B89, 104516 (2014)

    2014

  41. [50]

    High coher- ence and low cross-talk in a tileable 3D integrated super- conducting circuit architecture,

    P. A. Spring, S. Cao, T. Tsunodaet al., “High coher- ence and low cross-talk in a tileable 3D integrated super- conducting circuit architecture,”Sci. Adv.8, eabl6698 (2022)

    2022

  42. [51]

    Dynamic Josephson junction metasurfaces for multiplexed control of superconducting qubits,

    M. Bakr, “Dynamic Josephson junction metasurfaces for multiplexed control of superconducting qubits,” arXiv:2411.01345 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    Emulating two qubits with a four-level trans- mon qudit for variational quantum algorithms,

    S. Cao, M. Bakr, G. Campanaro, S. D. Fasciati, J. Wills, D. Lall, B. Shteynas, V. Chidambaram, I. Rungger, and P. Leek, “Emulating two qubits with a four-level trans- mon qudit for variational quantum algorithms,”Quan- tum Sci. Technol.9, 035003 (2024)

    2024

  44. [53]

    Simple Pulses for Elimination of Leak- age in Weakly Nonlinear Qubits,

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, “Simple Pulses for Elimination of Leak- age in Weakly Nonlinear Qubits,”Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 110501 (2009)

    2009

  45. [54]

    The Singlet: Direct Syn- thesis of Pseudo-Elliptic Inline Filters With Frequency Variant Couplings,

    E. Musonda and M. S. Bakr, “The Singlet: Direct Syn- thesis of Pseudo-Elliptic Inline Filters With Frequency Variant Couplings,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn. 71, 4969–4981 (2023)

    2023

  46. [55]

    Properties of building blocks comprising strongly interacting posts and their consideration in advanced coaxial filter designs,

    S. Amari, M. Bakr, and U. Rosenberg, “Properties of building blocks comprising strongly interacting posts and their consideration in advanced coaxial filter designs,” arXiv:2505.15729 [physics.class-ph] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Blackbox quantization of superconducting circuits using exact impedance synthesis,

    F. Solgun, D. W. Abraham, and D. P. DiVincenzo, “Blackbox quantization of superconducting circuits using exact impedance synthesis,”Phys. Rev. B90, 134504 (2014)

    2014

  48. [57]

    A direct design technique for dual-mode inline microwave bandpass filters,

    M. Bekheit and S. Amari, “A direct design technique for dual-mode inline microwave bandpass filters,”IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn.57, 2193–2202 (2009)

    2009

  49. [58]

    Quan- tumtheoryofabandpassPurcellfilterforqubitreadout,

    E. A. Sete, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Korotkov, “Quan- tumtheoryofabandpassPurcellfilterforqubitreadout,” Phys. Rev. A92, 012325 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.