pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.17005 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-22 · 🪐 quant-ph

On-chip stencil lithography for superconducting qubits

Roudy Hanna , S\"oren Ihssen , Simon Geisert , Umut Kocak , Matteo Arfini , Albert Hertel , Thomas J. Smart , Michael Schleenvoigt
show 17 more authors
Tobias Schmitt Joscha Domnick Kaycee Underwood Abdur Rehman Jalil Jin Hee Bae Benjamin Bennemann Mathieu F\'echant Mitchell Field Martin Spiecker Nicolas Zapata Christian Dickel Erwin Berenschot Niels Tas Gary A. Steele Detlev Gr\"utzmacher Ioan M. Pop Peter Sch\"uffelgen
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 02:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords stencil lithographysuperconducting qubitsJosephson junctionstransmon qubitsquantum coherencefabrication methodsaluminum evaporation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Inorganic on-chip stencil masks enable high-coherence aluminum transmon qubits.

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

The paper develops an alternative to organic resists for fabricating Josephson junctions by using an inorganic SiO2/Si3N4 on-chip stencil mask. This mask survives aggressive cleaning and temperatures up to 1200°C, allowing shadow evaporation of aluminum followed by selective lift-off with vapor hydrofluoric acid. The resulting transmon qubits achieve average T1 times of 75 ± 11 μs across a 200 MHz range in one device over multiple cool-downs and 44 ± 8 μs in a second device. These coherence times match current state-of-the-art performance, showing the stencil approach does not introduce new decoherence. The work therefore supports broader exploration of junction materials and surface treatments.

Core claim

We developed an inorganic SiO2/Si3N4 on-chip stencil lithography mask for JJ fabrication. The stencil mask is resilient to aggressive cleaning agents and it withstands high temperatures up to 1200°C. We performed shadow evaporation of Al-based transmon qubits followed by stencil mask lift-off using vapor hydrofluoric acid, which selectively etches SiO2. We demonstrate average T1 ≈ 75 ± 11 μs over a 200 MHz frequency range in multiple cool-downs for one device, and T1 ≈ 44± 8 μs for a second device. These results confirm the compatibility of stencil lithography with state-of-the-art superconducting quantum devices.

What carries the argument

The SiO2/Si3N4 on-chip stencil mask for shadow evaporation of aluminum Josephson junctions, removed by selective vapor HF etching of the SiO2 layer.

If this is right

  • The mask's high-temperature resilience opens avenues for exploring new JJ materials and interface optimization.
  • The process remains compatible with aggressive surface cleaning agents that organic resists cannot tolerate.
  • Achieved T1 values of 75 μs and 44 μs validate that the stencil approach reaches state-of-the-art coherence.
  • The technique motivates further work on materials engineering, film deposition, and surface cleaning for qubits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Removing organic resist residues may reduce a common source of decoherence and improve reproducibility across devices.
  • The same stencil process could extend to other quantum circuits that require clean, high-temperature-tolerant fabrication steps.
  • Selective lift-off might enable tighter control over junction geometry in multi-layer or 3D qubit architectures.

Load-bearing premise

The vapor hydrofluoric acid lift-off selectively etches the SiO2 without damaging the aluminum Josephson junctions or introducing new decoherence sources.

What would settle it

Fabricating identical transmons with the stencil method and measuring T1 values well below 40 μs or finding clear junction damage after the HF lift-off step.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17005 by Abdur Rehman Jalil, Albert Hertel, Benjamin Bennemann, Christian Dickel, Detlev Gr\"utzmacher, Erwin Berenschot, Gary A. Steele, Ioan M. Pop, Jin Hee Bae, Joscha Domnick, Kaycee Underwood, Martin Spiecker, Mathieu F\'echant, Matteo Arfini, Michael Schleenvoigt, Mitchell Field, Nicolas Zapata, Niels Tas, Peter Sch\"uffelgen, Roudy Hanna, Simon Geisert, S\"oren Ihssen, Thomas J. Smart, Tobias Schmitt, Umut Kocak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: On-chip stencil-lithography fabrication steps of a Josephson junction. The top row schematically presents the stencil fabrication steps while the bottom row shows scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of a stencil Dolan￾bridge [28] for a JJ device. a) After LPCVD deposition of the inorganic SiO2/Si3N4 bi-layer, the Si3N4 is dry-etched, following a standard e-beam lithography and resist-development, to … view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: More details can be found in App. A. III. STENCIL QUBIT To test the validity of the on-chip stencil lithography fabrication, we use a tunable transmon qubit layout, as shown in Fig. 2a,b. The design features a lumped element resonator capacitively coupled to two islands connected through a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) with two nominally identical Manhattan-style Al-AlOx-Al junctions.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stencil fabrication of an Al-AlOx-Al trans￾mon qubit. a) The tunable transmon consists of two su￾perconducting islands connected via a superconducting loop interrupted by two JJs, forming a SQUID device. Zoom-in (blue): The design features Manhattan-style junctions and a hexagonal grid of holes for faster V-HF lift-off, see App. A4. Their size is optimized to block unwanted deposition while al￾lowing the V… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time-domain measurement of the stencil transmon qubits Q1 and Q2. a,c) Decay curves of maximal, median and minimal qubit T1 lifetimes (red, blue and green, respectively) within a measurement period of 60 hours and 3.5 hours for Q1 and Q2, respectively. The measurements are taken at zero external flux bias. b,d) T Ramsey 2 coherence measurement where a beating pattern is visible due to a 0.028 MHz and 2.5 M… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two-tone spectroscopy over flux of Q1. a) Two-tone spectroscopy of the transmon qubit while tuning its frequency (fq(ϕext = 0) = 3.114 GHz) with an external flux (ϕext) over 200 MHz. The qubit frequency is continu￾ously tracked with a 3 MHz span range. The characteristic parabolic curve is here converted to a linear one for better visibility: The x-axis shows the expected qubit frequency ∆fq from the circu… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral and time resolved coherence mea￾surements of Q1. a) Spectral and temporal resolution of T1 in a different cool-down than before. Every point in this plot represents the lifetime of a decay curve measured with 50 stro￾boscopic projective qubit measurements spaced 10 µs apart. b-c) Line-cuts of T1 as a function of flux and time, shown for three representative points each with the corresponding distr… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Improvements in circuit design and more recently in materials and surface cleaning have contributed to a rapid development of coherent superconducting qubits. However, organic resists commonly used for shadow evaporation of Josephson junctions (JJs) pose limitations due to residual contamination, poor thermal stability and compatibility under typical surface-cleaning conditions. To provide an alternative, we developed an inorganic SiO$_2$/Si$_3$N$_4$ on-chip stencil lithography mask for JJ fabrication. The stencil mask is resilient to aggressive cleaning agents and it withstands high temperatures up to 1200{\deg}C, thereby opening new avenues for JJ material exploration and interface optimization. To validate the concept, we performed shadow evaporation of Al-based transmon qubits followed by stencil mask lift-off using vapor hydrofluoric acid, which selectively etches SiO$_2$. We demonstrate average $T_1 \approx 75 \pm 11 \mu$s over a 200 MHz frequency range in multiple cool-downs for one device, and $T_1 \approx 44\pm 8 \mu$s for a second device. These results confirm the compatibility of stencil lithography with state-of-the-art superconducting quantum devices and motivate further investigations into materials engineering, film deposition and surface cleaning techniques.

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 introduces an inorganic SiO₂/Si₃N₄ on-chip stencil mask for shadow-evaporation fabrication of Al Josephson junctions in transmon qubits. The stencil is presented as an alternative to organic resists because it tolerates aggressive surface cleaning and temperatures up to 1200 °C. After vapor-HF lift-off, the authors report average T₁ ≈ 75 ± 11 μs over a 200 MHz range in multiple cool-downs for one device and T₁ ≈ 44 ± 8 μs for a second device, concluding that the process is compatible with state-of-the-art superconducting qubits.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work provides a practical route to materials and interface studies that are currently blocked by organic-resist limitations. The reported coherence times are competitive with contemporary Al devices and constitute a direct experimental demonstration that the inorganic stencil plus vapor-HF lift-off can produce functional qubits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section (and abstract): the claim that the measured T₁ values demonstrate compatibility with state-of-the-art devices rests on the premise that the stencil mask and vapor-HF lift-off introduce neither junction damage nor additional decoherence channels. No side-by-side control devices fabricated with conventional PMMA/MAA organic resists under otherwise identical conditions are reported, so the T₁ figures cannot be attributed specifically to the new process rather than to film quality, substrate preparation, or geometry that would be present in any fabrication run.
  2. [Methods] Methods / Fabrication section: post-lift-off junction characterization (I–V curves, critical-current density) and interface analysis (TEM/SEM) that would confirm unchanged junction properties and absence of etch-induced defects are not described. These data are load-bearing for the weakest assumption that vapor-HF selectively removes the SiO₂ without damaging the Al junctions.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states averages and uncertainties but does not specify the number of individual qubits or the exact statistical procedure used to obtain the reported ±11 μs and ±8 μs values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section (and abstract): the claim that the measured T₁ values demonstrate compatibility with state-of-the-art devices rests on the premise that the stencil mask and vapor-HF lift-off introduce neither junction damage nor additional decoherence channels. No side-by-side control devices fabricated with conventional PMMA/MAA organic resists under otherwise identical conditions are reported, so the T₁ figures cannot be attributed specifically to the new process rather than to film quality, substrate preparation, or geometry that would be present in any fabrication run.

    Authors: We agree that the lack of side-by-side control devices fabricated with conventional organic resists prevents a direct, isolated attribution of the observed T1 performance to the stencil process alone. The manuscript demonstrates that the inorganic stencil enables fabrication of functional transmon qubits with T1 times (75 ± 11 μs and 44 ± 8 μs) that fall within the range of contemporary high-quality Al devices reported in the literature. We have revised the abstract and results section to clarify that these values establish compatibility and feasibility of the method rather than a quantitative comparison of process-induced effects. A sentence has been added noting that systematic comparative studies with organic-resist controls are planned for future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods / Fabrication section: post-lift-off junction characterization (I–V curves, critical-current density) and interface analysis (TEM/SEM) that would confirm unchanged junction properties and absence of etch-induced defects are not described. These data are load-bearing for the weakest assumption that vapor-HF selectively removes the SiO₂ without damaging the Al junctions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that direct post-lift-off I–V characterization and TEM/SEM interface analysis would provide stronger confirmation that the vapor-HF step leaves the Al junctions intact. The present evidence for junction functionality is the successful qubit operation and measured coherence times. We have added a short paragraph in the methods section referencing the known high selectivity of vapor-HF for SiO2 over aluminum and have noted that dedicated electrical and microscopic characterization of junctions after lift-off will be included in follow-up studies. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental fabrication and direct T1 measurements

full rationale

The manuscript reports an experimental process for fabricating Al transmon qubits via inorganic SiO2/Si3N4 stencil masks followed by vapor-HF lift-off, with results consisting solely of measured coherence times (average T1 ≈ 75 ± 11 μs and 44 ± 8 μs). No equations, first-principles derivations, fitted parameters, or predictions appear in the provided text; the T1 values are raw experimental outputs rather than quantities reduced by construction to inputs or self-citations. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks because the compatibility claim rests on direct comparison to state-of-the-art T1 values, not on any internal redefinition or load-bearing self-reference.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on established microfabrication techniques and the experimental demonstration of qubit performance without introducing new theoretical entities or fitted parameters.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Vapor HF etching selectively removes the SiO2 layer without damaging the Al junctions or introducing additional loss mechanisms
    This assumption is necessary for the lift-off step to succeed and for the measured T1 values to support the mask's compatibility.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5856 in / 1355 out tokens · 49139 ms · 2026-05-19T02:55:44.474588+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.

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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Resist-free shadow deposition using silicon trenches for Josephson junctions in superconducting qubits

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A resist-free silicon-trench shadow deposition method fabricates Al-AlOx-Al Josephson junctions and qubits with median relaxation times up to 184 microseconds and minimal substrate-metal contamination.

  2. Resist-free shadow deposition using silicon trenches for Josephson junctions in superconducting qubits

    quant-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    Resist-free shadow deposition via etched silicon trenches produces Al-AlOx-Al Josephson junctions with median qubit energy relaxation times of 184 microseconds and minimal substrate-metal interface contamination.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    On-chip stencil lithography for superconducting qubits

    of the desired circuit element geometry. However, in the case of lift-off, the presence of the relatively fragile polymer mask limits pre-growth cleaning methods such as hydrofluoric acid (HF) treatments and deposition tem- peratures above ∼ 300°C. This could lead to amorphous or poly-crystalline layers [41, 42], oxidized substrate sur- faces [21, 23] and...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.5281/zenodo.15976967 2025

  2. [2]

    Material evaporation

    work page

  3. [3]

    On-chip stencil fabrication details

    Stencil lift-off a b c Low angle deposition High angle deposition Deposition Deposition Si3N4 SiO2 S Sapphire hole Blocked Deposition Deposition Si3N4 SiO2 S Sapphire Al dots Deposition-free hole 100 nm100 nm α Figure A1. On-chip stencil fabrication details. a) Three main steps of the stencil transmon qubit fabrication: 1) stencil mask preparation and int...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    A. I. Braginski, Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 32, 23 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Peacock, P

    A. Peacock, P. Verhoeve, N. Rando, A. van Dordrecht, B. G. Taylor, C. Erd, M. A. C. Perryman, R. Venn, J. Howlett, D. J. Goldie, J. Lumley, and M. Wallis, Na- ture 381, 135 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    P. K. Day, H. G. LeDuc, B. A. Mazin, A. Vayonakis, and J. Zmuidzinas, Nature 425, 817 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. Brandao, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, J. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. M. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. Harrigan, M. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. R. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. Humble, S. Isako...

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Jurcevic, A

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

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    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)

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Science 339, 1169 (2013)

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Siddiqi, Nature Reviews Materials 6, 1 (2021)

    I. Siddiqi, Nature Reviews Materials 6, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, Na- ture (2004)

    work page 2004

  13. [13]

    J. Koch, T. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. Houck, D. Schus- ter, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. Devoret, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A 76 (2007)

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    J. Q. You, X. Hu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B 75, 140515 (2007)

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Barends, J

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, D. Sank, E. Jef- frey, Y. Chen, Y. Yin, B. Chiaro, J. Mutus, C. Neill, P. O’Malley, P. Roushan, J. Wenner, T. White, A. Cle- land, and J. Martinis, Physical review letters 111, 080502 (2013)

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Gyenis, P

    A. Gyenis, P. S. Mundada, A. Di Paolo, T. M. Hazard, X. You, D. I. Schuster, J. Koch, A. Blais, and A. A. Houck, PRX Quantum 2, 010339 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    B. N. Long, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. Manucharyan, Physical Review X 9 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Martinis, K

    J. Martinis, K. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, K. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. Pappas, R. Simmonds, and C. Yu, Physical Review Letters 95, 210503 (2005)

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

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

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    Lisenfeld, A

    J. Lisenfeld, A. Bilmes, A. Megrant, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Klimov, G. Weiss, J. Martinis, and A. Ustinov, npj Quantum Information 5, 105 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Quintana, A

    C. Quintana, A. Megrant, Z. Chen, A. Dunsworth, B. Chiaro, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, I.- C. Hoi, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, J. Mutus, P. O’Malley, C. Neill, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wen- ner, T. White, and J. Martinis, Applied Physics Letters 105 (2014)

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    C. Wang, C. Axline, Y. Gao, T. Brecht, L. Frunzio, M. Devoret, and R. Schoelkopf, Applied Physics Letters 107 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    O. Dial, D. McClure, S. Poletto, J. Gambetta, D. Abra- ham, J. Chow, and M. Steffen, Superconductor Science and Technology 29 (2015)

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Gambetta, C

    J. Gambetta, C. Murray, Y. Fung, D. McClure, O. Dial, W. Shanks, J. Sleight, and M. Steffen, IEEE Transac- tions on Applied Superconductivity PP (2016)

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Bizn´ arov´ a, A

    J. Bizn´ arov´ a, A. Osman, E. Rehnman, L. Chayanun, C. Kriˇ zan, P. Malmberg, M. Rommel, C. Warren, P. Dels- ing, A. Yurgens, J. Bylander, and A. Fadavi Roudsari, npj Quantum Information 10, 78 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    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

  27. [27]

    Place, L

    A. Place, L. Rodgers, P. Mundada, B. Smitham, M. Fitz- patrick, Z. Leng, A. Premkumar, J. Bryon, A. Vraji- toarea, S. Sussman, G. Cheng, T. Madhavan, H. Babla, H. Le, Y. Gang, B. Jaeck, A. Gyenis, N. Yao, R. Cava, and A. Houck, Nature Communications 12 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    M. P. Bland, F. Bahrami, J. G. Martinez, P. H. Preste- gaard, B. M. Smitham, A. Joshi, E. Hedrick, A. Pakpour- Tabrizi, S. Kumar, A. Jindal, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14798 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    C. Wang, X. Li, H. Xu, Z. Li, J. Wang, Z. Yang, Z. Mi, X. Liang, T. Su, Y. Chuhong, G. Wang, W. Wang, Y. Li, M. Chen, C. Li, K. Linghu, J. Han, Y. Zhang, Y. Feng, and H. Yu, npj Quantum Information 8 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Bal et al., npj Quantum Inf.10, 43 (2024), 2304.13257 [quant-ph]

    M. Bal et al., npj Quantum Inf.10, 43 (2024), 2304.13257 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    G. J. Dolan, Applied Physics Letters 31, 337 (1977)

    work page 1977

  32. [32]

    Muthusubramanian, M

    N. Muthusubramanian, M. Finkel, P. Duivestein, C. Zachariadis, S. L. M. van der Meer, H. M. Veen, M. W. Beekman, T. Stavenga, A. Bruno, and L. DiCarlo, Quan- tum Science and Technology 9, 025006 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, D. A. Ezenkova, E. A. Krivko, E. V. Zikiy, D. O. Moskalev, A. I. Ivanov, N. D. Korshakov, and I. A. Rodionov, Scientific Reports 13, 6772 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Van Damme, S

    J. Van Damme, S. Massar, R. Acharya, T. Ivanov, D. Perez Lozano, Y. Canvel, M. Demarets, et al. , Na- ture 634, 74 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Ke, J.-Y

    C.-T. Ke, J.-Y. Tsai, Y.-C. Chen, Z.-W. Xu, E. Black- well, M. A. Snyder, S. Weeden, P.-S. Chen, C.-M. Lai, S.- 14 S. Sheu, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11010 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Marchegiani, L

    G. Marchegiani, L. Amico, and G. Catelani, PRX Quan- tum 3, 040338 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Kamenov, T

    P. Kamenov, T. DiNapoli, M. Gershenson, and S. Chakram, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02655 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    McEwen, K

    M. McEwen, K. C. Miao, J. Atalaya, A. Bilmes, A. Crook, J. Bovaird, J. M. Kreikebaum, N. Zo- brist, E. Jeffrey, B. Ying, A. Bengtsson, H.-S. Chang, A. Dunsworth, J. Kelly, Y. Zhang, E. Forati, R. Acharya, J. Iveland, W. Liu, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Megrant, Y. Chen, C. Neill, D. Sank, M. Devoret, and A. Oprem- cak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 240601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Osman, J

    A. Osman, J. Simon, A. Bengtsson, S. Kosen, P. Krantz, D. P. Lozano, M. Scigliuzzo, P. Delsing, J. Bylander, and A. Fadavi Roudsari, Applied Physics Letters118, 064002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    S. Kim, H. Terai, T. Yamashita, W. Qiu, T. Fuse, F. Yoshihara, S. Ashhab, K. Inomata, and K. Semba, Communications Materials 2, 98 (2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Lecocq, I

    F. Lecocq, I. Pop, Z. Peng, M. Iulian, T. Crozes, T. Fournier, C. Naud, W. Guichard, and O. Buisson, Nanotechnology 22, 315302 (2011)

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    J. M. Kreikebaum, K. P. O’Brien, A. Morvan, and I. Sid- diqi, Superconductor Science and Technology33, 06LT02 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Schoof, M

    B. Schoof, M. Singer, S. Lang, H. Gupta, D. Zahn, J. We- ber, and M. Tornow, in 2024 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01 (2024) pp. 1228–1232

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    L. Zeng, S. Nik, T. Greibe, P. Krantz, C. Wilson, P. Dels- ing, and E. Olsson, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 48 (2015)

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    L. Zeng, D. Tran, C.-W. Tai, G. Svensson, and E. Olsson, Scientific Reports 6, 29679 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    I. M. Pop, T. Fournier, T. Crozes, F. Lecocq, I. Matei, B. Pannetier, O. Buisson, and W. Guichard, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B 30, 010607 (2012)

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Milchakov, Optimized transmon molecule for high fi- delity quantum non demolition readout using cross-Kerr coupling, Theses, Universit´ e Grenoble Alpes (2022)

    V. Milchakov, Optimized transmon molecule for high fi- delity quantum non demolition readout using cross-Kerr coupling, Theses, Universit´ e Grenoble Alpes (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Johnson, Atomic Layer Etching of Metal Films, Metal Nitrides, and Metal Oxides with BCl3 and HF/XeF2 , Ph.D

    N. Johnson, Atomic Layer Etching of Metal Films, Metal Nitrides, and Metal Oxides with BCl3 and HF/XeF2 , Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder (2019)

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Vazquez-Mena, L

    O. Vazquez-Mena, L. Gross, S. Xie, L. Villanueva, and J. Brugger, Microelectronic Engineering 132, 236 (2015), micro and Nanofabrication Breakthroughs for Electron- ics, MEMS and Life Sciences

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Tsioutsios, K

    I. Tsioutsios, K. Serniak, S. Diamond, V. V. Sivak, Z. Wang, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, AIP Advances 10, 065120 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Welander, V

    P. Welander, V. Bolkhovsky, T. Weir, M. Gouker, and W. Oliver, arXiv (2012)

    work page 2012

  52. [52]

    T. Hoss, C. Strunk, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Microelec- tronic engineering 46, 149 (1999)

    work page 1999

  53. [53]

    Sch¨ uffelgen, D

    P. Sch¨ uffelgen, D. Rosenbach, C. Li, T. Schmitt, M. Schleenvoigt, A. R. Jalil, S. Schmitt, J. K¨ olzer, M. Wang, B. Bennemann, U. Parlak, L. Kibkalo, S. Trel- lenkamp, T. Grap, D. Meertens, M. Luysberg, G. Mus- sler, J. Berenschot, N. Tas, and D. Gr¨ utzmacher, Nature Nanotechnology 14, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    T. W. Schmitt, M. R. Connolly, M. Schleenvoigt, C. Liu, O. Kennedy, J. M. Ch´ avez-Garcia, A. R. Jalil, et al. , Nano letters 22, 2595 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Witvrouw, B

    A. Witvrouw, B. Bois, P. De Moor, A. Verbist, C. Van Hoof, H. Bender, and C. Baert, Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering 4174 (2000)

    work page 2000

  56. [56]

    Dunsworth, R

    A. Dunsworth, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, P. V. Klimov, E. Lucero, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quin- tana, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, H. Neven, J. M. Martinis, and A. Megrant, Applied Physics Letters 112, 063502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    Bakke, J

    T. Bakke, J. Schmidt, M. Friedrichs, B. V¨ olker, and De, Proc. MicroMechanics Eur. Workshop 16 (2005)

    work page 2005

  58. [58]

    Blais, A

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

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

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

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    Gr¨ unhaupt, M

    L. Gr¨ unhaupt, M. Spiecker, D. Gusenkova, N. Maleeva, S. Skacel, I. Takmakov, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, H. Rotzinger, W. Wernsdorfer, A. Ustinov, and I. Pop, Nature Materials 18 (2019)

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Thorbeck, A

    T. Thorbeck, A. Eddins, I. Lauer, D. T. McClure, and M. Carroll, PRX Quantum 4, 020356 (2023)

    work page 2023

  62. [62]

    Spiecker, P

    M. Spiecker, P. Paluch, N. Gosling, N. Drucker, S. Matityahu, D. Gusenkova, S. G¨ unzler, D. Rieger, I. Takmakov, F. Valenti, et al., Nature Physics 19, 1320 (2023)

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Martinis, M

    J. Martinis, M. Ansmann, and J. Aumentado, Physical Review Letters 103, 097002 (2009)

    work page 2009

  64. [64]

    I. Pop, K. Geerlings, G. Catelani, R. Schoelkopf, L. Glaz- man, and M. Devoret, Nature 508, 369 (2014)

    work page 2014

  65. [65]

    P. V. Klimov, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, M. Neeley, A. Megrant, B. Burkett, R. Barends, K. Arya, B. Chiaro, Y. Chen, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 090502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    HEM ® sap- phire,

    Crystal Systems LLC, Salem, MA, USA, “HEM ® sap- phire,” (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Martinussen, E

    S. Martinussen, E. Berenschot, D. Bonneville, K. Wang, M. Dijkstra, N. Tas, S. Garc´ ıa-Blanco, and R. Tiggelaar, Optics express 32, 36835 (2024)

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    AR-P 6200.09 – CSAR 62 Series E- Beam Resist,

    Allresist GmbH, “AR-P 6200.09 – CSAR 62 Series E- Beam Resist,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  69. [69]

    AR-PC 5090.02 – Electra 92 Protective Coating,

    Allresist GmbH, “AR-PC 5090.02 – Electra 92 Protective Coating,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Espacer ™ 300Z Conductive Poly- mer,

    Resonac Corporation, “Espacer ™ 300Z Conductive Poly- mer,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    Braun, M

    W. Braun, M. J¨ ager, G. Laskin, P. Ngabonziza, W. Voesch, P. Wittlich, and J. Mannhart, APL Ma- terials 8, 071112 (2020)

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    T. J. Smart, D. Y. Kim, and W. Braun, Journal of Vac- uum Science and Technology B 42, 062204 (2024)

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    D. Y. Kim, T. J. Smart, J. Mannhart, and W. Braun, Crystal Growth & Design 23, 8087 (2023)

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    R. J. Carter, J. R. Hauser, and R. J. Nemanich, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 147, 3512 (2000)

    work page 2000

  75. [75]

    Saloniemi and M

    H. Saloniemi and M. Tuohiniemi, Solid State Phenomena 187, 45 (2012)

    work page 2012

  76. [76]

    Guillemin, P

    S. Guillemin, P. Mumbauer, H. Radtke, M. Fimberger, S. Fink, J. Kraxner, A. Faes, and J. Siegert, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 28, 717 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    Primaxx ® uEtch – HF Vapor Etch Systems,

    KLA Corporation, “ Primaxx ® uEtch – HF Vapor Etch Systems,” (2025)

    work page 2025