Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 49 references

Transmon qubit using Sn as a junction superconductor

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 transmon qubit using tin as the junction superconductor and an InAs nanowire as the weak link achieves gate-tunable frequencies over 3 GHz and a relaxation time of 27 microseconds.

desk verdict A real first demonstration of an Sn-junction transmon with credible coherence data; the 'on par with Al hybrids' claim is ahead of the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04007 v1 pith:6CHRW7HT submitted 2025-08-06 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

Amrita Purkayastha , Amritesh Sharma , Param J. Patel , An-Hsi Chen , Connor P. Dempsey , Shreyas Asodekar , Subhayan Sinha , Maxime Tomasian
show 6 more authors
Mihir Pendharkar Christopher J. Palmstr{o}m Moïra Hocevar Kun Zuo Michael Hatridge Sergey M. Frolov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-conquant-ph
keywords transmonqubitbeta-SnsuperconductorInAsnanowiregate-tunableJosephsonjunctioncoherencetimehybridsuperconductor-semiconductorsuperconductingmaterials
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 sets out to show that transmon qubits do not have to be built on aluminum-oxide tunnel junctions: a Josephson junction made from an InAs semiconductor nanowire coated with a superconducting shell of $\beta$-Sn can serve as the nonlinear inductance. Two such qubits are operated, and their frequencies are tuned by more than 3 GHz with less than 0.5 V on a side gate, through the gate dependence of the Josephson energy. The best measured relaxation time is $T_1 \approx 27\ \mu\mathrm{s}$, which the authors argue is set by on-chip resonator and substrate losses rather than by the junction itself; the best echo dephasing time is $T_2 \approx 1.8\ \mu\mathrm{s}$. If this holds, the junction superconductor can be swapped away from aluminum without losing transmon operation, and tin's larger superconducting gap may bring practical benefits for operating temperature and quasiparticle robustness.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Sn--InAs nanowire Josephson junction: a semiconducting InAs weak link between two sections of superconducting $\beta$-Sn, formed by shadowing during shell evaporation. A side gate changes the critical current $I_c$, and with it the Josephson energy $E_J = \Phi_0 I_c / 2\pi$, so the transmon frequency $f_{01} = \sqrt{8 E_C E_J}/h$ becomes gate-tunable. The demonstration rests on this junction acting as the nonlinear inductance of an otherwise standard NbTiN transmon circuit.

What would settle it

Build the same Sn-InAs nanowire junctions on a low-loss substrate such as sapphire with improved magnetic shielding and a high-$Q$ package: if $T_1$ stays near $27\ \mu\mathrm{s}$ instead of rising with the resonator quality factor, the circuit-limited attribution is wrong and the junction itself sets the lifetime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates coherent control of a transmon whose Josephson element is a shadow-defined break in a 15 nm $\beta$-Sn shell on an InAs nanowire, contacted to a NbTiN circuit with aluminum patches. Qubit A is gate-tunable from roughly 6.5 GHz down to 3.5 GHz, and Rabi oscillations are used to calibrate $\pi$ pulses. $T_1$ grows as the qubit frequency decreases, reaching $26.9 \pm 0.7\ \mu\mathrm{s}$ at $f_{01} = 3.494$ GHz; the echo time is $T_{2E} = 1.8 \pm 0.1\ \mu\mathrm{s}$ at $f_{01} = 6.616$ GHz. The authors interpret the $T_1$-versus-frequency trend as consistent with the readout resonators' quality factors, suggesting on-chip losses dominate, and state that the Sn-based qubit

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported coherence values are representative of the Sn-InAs platform, and that the $T_1$ ceiling is set by the surrounding circuit and substrate rather than by the junction itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gate-voltage tuning over 3 GHz with less than 0.5 V allows qubit frequency adjustment without flux lines, which can simplify wiring in multi-qubit circuits.
  • Because T1 rises at lower qubit frequency and tracks resonator quality factors, improving substrate, package, and cavity design should directly extend relaxation times.
  • Echo and Ramsey dephasing times are similar, indicating high-frequency noise rather than slow charge drift dominates dephasing in these devices.
  • At low qubit frequencies the EJ/Ec ratio drops to roughly 10-20, making the qubit more sensitive to offset charge noise; raising EJ/Ec or operating at a sweet spot should improve T2.
  • The larger superconducting gap of tin relative to aluminum motivates reduced sensitivity to quasiparticles and less stringent base-temperature requirements, though the paper does not measure this benefit directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A same-chip head-to-head comparison of Sn-shell and Al-shell nanowire transmons would isolate whether tin's larger gap changes coherence; the paper compares only with literature values.
  • If the circuit-limited attribution is correct, the same Sn-InAs junction on a sapphire substrate with improved shielding should show substantially longer T1, and 27 microseconds should not be read as the materials ceiling.
  • The yield data (7 of 20 devices with measurable coherence) suggest that fabrication variability in shell coverage, aluminum patch contacts, and nanowire placement is the near-term engineering bottleneck, separate from the choice of tin as the superconductor.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the fabrication and microwave characterization of transmon qubits whose Josephson element is an InAs nanowire segment coated with a β-Sn shell. Two devices ('Qubit A' and 'Qubit B') are measured on NbTiN/Si circuits with readout resonators; the qubit frequency is gate-tunable over about 3 GHz, coherent Rabi oscillations are demonstrated, and the authors report T1 up to 26.9 ± 0.7 µs at f01 = 3.494 GHz and T2E = 1.8 ± 0.1 µs at higher frequency. The paper discusses possible loss channels (TLS in substrate/resonator, Sn oxidation, Al patch contacts, package losses, charge noise) and concludes that the Sn-based device performs on par with Al-based hybrids. Section VIII discloses that 20 devices were measured, only 7 showed measurable coherence, and the main text shows data for 2. The central claim is an existence proof: a working, gate-tunable transmon using Sn as junction superconductor, with coherence times in the tens-of-microseconds range.

Significance. If the reported coherence times are representative, this is a meaningful materials advance: it is one of very few demonstrations of a transmon with a non-aluminum elemental junction superconductor, with tens-of-microseconds T1. The gate tunability over ~3 GHz and the availability of data and code at Zenodo are strengths. The work is direct measurement; I find no circular derivation: the EJ/Ec extraction in Fig. 1(e) is a standard inversion of f01 = sqrt(8EcEJ)/h using a designed Ec. The principal caveat is that the quantitative comparison to Al-based hybrid qubits and the attribution of the T1 limit to the circuit rather than the junction are not yet proven, because no same-chip Al control is shown and only two of the seven coherent devices are presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VII (Conclusions) and Sec. VI (Discussion)] The statement 'As it stands, the Sn-based qubit performs on par with its Al-based hybrid qubit counterparts [19]' is not supported by the presented evidence. The loss attribution in Sec. VI is qualitative: the T1 data in Fig. 4 are compared with fixed-Q contours, but Q = 2π f01 T1 changes from ≈5.9×10^5 at 3.494 GHz to ≈1.7×10^5 at 6.616 GHz for Qubit A, so a single fixed-Q circuit-loss channel does not reproduce the frequency dependence. The resonator Qi data in Fig. S2 come from qubit-free resonators, and there is no same-chip Al-junction control. I recommend either adding a control device or rewriting the conclusions to state that the materials platform is demonstrated but the loss budget is not yet decomposed.
  2. [Sec. VIII (Duration and Volume of Study), Figs. 3, S6] Section VIII discloses that only 7 of 20 measured devices exhibited measurable coherence, while the main text presents detailed data for only two qubits. Without the distribution of T1/T2 among the seven coherent devices and a statement of selection criteria, the 27 µs value cannot be assessed as representative of the Sn-InAs platform. Please add a supplementary table listing each coherent device, its operating point, T1/T2 values, and any reasons for excluding it from the main text. This is important because the 'on par with Al' claim depends on the platform's typical performance, not just the best device.
  3. [Sec. V (Coherence Times), Fig. 3(e)] The dephasing data are reported but not quantitatively connected to the proposed mechanisms. At f01 = 6.616 GHz, T2E = 1.8 ± 0.1 µs while T1 ≈ 4.1 µs, so dephasing is far from the T1 limit. The text attributes the decrease of T2* at lower f01 to reduced EJ/Ec, but no EJ/Ec values or charge-dispersion measurements are given for the operating points. Please report the extracted EJ/Ec (or anharmonicity) for each T2 measurement and, if possible, a quantitative estimate of the expected charge-noise-limited T2. Without this, the dephasing comparison to Al-based hybrids is incomplete.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains garbled expressions 'Qi=10/five.numerator' and 'Qi=10/six.numerator'; these should read 10^5 and 10^6.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. V] Use 'T2E' rather than 'T2' in the abstract to match the echo measurement; 'T2 = 1.8 µs' is ambiguous.
  3. [Sec. III] The sentence about anharmonicity—'it is generally gate-voltage tunable at each Vg which also varies as a function of Vg'—is redundant and unclear; state the measured anharmonicity range explicitly.
  4. [Sec. VIII title] Typo in section title: 'DURA TION' should be 'DURATION'.
  5. [Sec. I] The phrase 'superconductor/barrier combinations' is imprecise; the junction uses a semiconductor weak link, so 'superconductor/semiconductor combinations' would be more accurate.
  6. [Sec. III and Fig. S5] The main text says the 3 GHz tunability is obtained from separate gate sweeps; clarify whether the full 3 GHz is accessible within the <0.5 V range claimed in the Conclusions, and how the separate sweeps are combined.
  7. [Eq. (S0)] In the resonator fitting equation, define τ, Q′c and φ in the caption; currently some quantities are explained in the text but the equation itself is dense.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an experimental demonstration whose central claims are direct measurements, with only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations to prior materials characterization.

full rationale

This is an experimental device paper, not a derivation. The central claims—gate-tunable qubit frequency over ~3 GHz, T1 = 26.9 ± 0.7 µs, T2E = 1.8 µs—are direct measurements of spectroscopy, Rabi oscillations, and decay/echo traces. The main quantitative conversions are standard identities applied to measured data: f01 = sqrt(8EcEJ)/h used to extract EJ/Ec from a designed Ec; anharmonicity α/2h = f02/2 − f01; and T1 = Q/(2πf01) used only to overlay constant-Q contours. None of these is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; they are interpretations of measured frequencies and lifetimes. The paper's attribution of T1 limits to on-chip loss is explicitly hedged in Section VI ('hints at', 'may indicate', 'do not align perfectly') and is a physical interpretation supported by external resonator Qi measurements (Fig. S2), not a circular reduction. Self-citations [26] and [30] supply prior characterization of Sn/InAs materials (gap, switching currents, shadow-defined junctions), but the qubit coherence results are independently measured in this work and do not logically reduce to those cited values; the citations are thus not load-bearing for the main demonstration. Section VIII's disclosure that 7 of 20 devices showed measurable coherence and that only two qubits are shown is a limitation on generality, not circularity. The absence of a same-chip aluminum-junction control weakens the 'on par with Al-based hybrids' comparison, but that is a correctness/interpretation concern, not a self-reference in the derivation chain. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new theory or entities are introduced. The load-bearing inputs are the standard transmon model, prior Sn-InAs junction characterization used as a material premise, and a representative-loss assumption from bare resonators.

free parameters (2)
  • Charging energy Ec/h = ≈ 380 MHz (design estimate, e^2/2C)
    Design value used to convert measured f01 into the EJ/Ec ratio plotted in Fig. 1(e); not directly measured on these devices, and its uncertainty is not propagated.
  • Resonator-qubit coupling quality factor Qc = ≈ 2000 (design value)
    Stated in Section II as the designed coupling; relevant to the Purcell-loss part of the T1 analysis in Sections V and VI.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math The transmon formula f01 = sqrt(8 Ec EJ)/h and the two-level approximation of the transmon Hamiltonian
    Used in Section III to extract EJ/Ec from spectroscopy; standard model from Koch et al. [45].
  • domain assumption The measured devices contain a gate-tunable Josephson weak link formed by the InAs nanowire, the 15 nm β-Sn shell, and the shell break, with Sn superconductivity as characterized in prior transport work (gap ~600 µeV, switching currents up to 500 nA)
    Carried over from refs [26, 30] (same groups); not re-verified on the specific qubit dies in this paper (S1).
  • domain assumption Bare NbTiN-Si readout resonators without nanowires are representative of the on-chip loss environment seen by the qubits
    Underlies the Section VI argument that T1 is circuit-limited; based on the power-dependent Qi of 8 bare resonators in Fig. S2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transmon qubit using Sn as a junction superconductor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6CHRW7HT

@misc{pith2026250804007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transmon qubit using Sn as a junction superconductor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6CHRW7HT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04007}
}
read the original abstract

Superconductor qubits typically use aluminum-aluminum oxide tunnel junctions to provide the non-linear inductance. Junctions with semiconductor barriers make it possible to vary the superconductor material and explore beyond aluminum. We use InAs semiconductor nanowires coated with thin superconducting shells of beta-Sn to realize transmon qubits. By tuning the Josephson energy with a gate voltage, we adjust the qubit frequency over a range of 3 GHz. The longest energy relaxation time, T1 = 27 microseconds, is obtained at the lowest qubit frequencies, while the longest echo dephasing time, T2 = 1.8 microseconds, is achieved at higher frequencies. We assess the possible factors limiting coherence times in these devices and discuss steps to enhance performance through improvements in materials fabrication and circuit design.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Luthi, T

    F. Luthi, T. Stavenga, O. W. Enzing, A. Bruno, C. Dickel, N. K. Langford, M. A. Rol, T. S. Jespersen, J. Nyg ˚ ard, P. Krogstrup, and L. DiCarlo, Evolution of Nanowire Transmon Qubits and Their Coherence in a Magnetic Field, Physical Review Letters 120, 100502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    M. Liu, R. Shaydulin, P. Niroula, et al. , Certified ran- domness using a trapped-ion quantum processor, Nature 640, 343 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [2]

    Aghaee Rad, T

    H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. N. Alexander, et al. , Scaling and networking a modular photonic quantum computer, Nature 638, 912 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [3]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, et al. , Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting pro- cessor, Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature 638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  6. [5]

    Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  7. [6]

    Putterman, K

    H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, et al. , Hardware- efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits, Nature 638, 927 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [7]

    Krinner, S

    S. Krinner, S. Lazar, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, C. Hellings, T. Walter, S. J. Pauka, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, Y. Salath´ e, J. Heinsoo, P. Kurpiers, P. Magnard, M. Pechal, L. Mon- dada, V. Lundberg, K. Serniak, M. McEwen, M. Kjaer- gaard, R. E. Lake, T. Frey, S. Ivanov, E. Dumur, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Engineering cryogenic setups for 100- qubit scale supercon...

    work page 2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    A. P. M. Place, L. V. H. Rodgers, P. Mundada, B. M. Smitham, et al., New material platform for superconduct- ing transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds, Nature Communications 12, 1779 ((2021))

    2021

  2. [9]

    M. P. Bland, F. Bahrami, J. G. C. Martinez, P. H. Preste- gaard, 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, 2D transmons with lifetimes and coherence times e...

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    C. Wang, C. Axline, Y. Y. Gao, T. Brecht, Y. Chu, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Sur- face participation and dielectric loss in superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Letters 107, 162601 (2015)

    2015

  4. [11]

    A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. Koch, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Con- trolling the spontaneous emission of a superconducting transmon qubit, Physical Review Letters 101, 080502 (2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    Huang et al

    S. Huang et al. , Microwave package design for supercon- ducting quantum processors, PRX Quantum 2, 020306 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    McDermott, Materials origins of decoherence in super- conducting qubits, IEEE Transactions on Applied Super- conductivity 19, 2 (2009)

    R. McDermott, Materials origins of decoherence in super- conducting qubits, IEEE Transactions on Applied Super- conductivity 19, 2 (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    J. M. Martinis, K. B. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, K. D. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. P. Pap- pas, R. W. Simmonds, and J. M. Martinis, Decoherence in josephson qubits from dielectric loss, Physical Review Letters 95, 210503 (2005)

    2005

  8. [15]

    M¨ uller, J

    C. M¨ uller, J. H. Cole, and J. Lisenfeld, Towards under- standing two-level systems in amorphous solids: insights from quantum circuits, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 124501 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    S. Kim, H. Terai, T. Yamashita, K. Makise, Y. Uzawa, G. Fujii, and M. Fujiwara, Enhanced coherence of all- nitride superconducting qubits epitaxially grown on sili- con substrate, Communications Materials 2, 98 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Anferov, K.-H

    A. Anferov, K.-H. Lee, F. Zhao, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Improved coherence in optically defined nio- bium trilayer-junction qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 024047 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    T. W. Larsen, K. D. Petersson, F. Kuemmeth, T. S. Jespersen, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, and C. M. Marcus, Semiconducting-nanowire-based superconducting qubit, Physical Review Letters 115, 127001 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Casparis, M

    L. Casparis, M. R. Connolly, M. Kjaergaard, N. J. Pear- son, A. Kringhoj, T. W. Larsen, F. Kuemmeth, T. Wang, C. Thomas, S. Gronin, et al. , Superconducting gatemon qubit based on a proximitized two-dimensional electron gas, Nature Nanotechnology 13, 915 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Hertel et al

    A. Hertel et al. , Gate-tunable transmon using selective- area-grown superconductor-semiconductor hybrid struc- tures on silicon, Physical Review Applied 18, 034042 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Zheng et al

    H. Zheng et al. , Coherent control of a few-channel hole type gatemon qubit, Nano Letters 24, 7173 ((2024))

    2024

  15. [23]

    E. Zhuo, Z. Lyu, X. Sun, et al., Hole-type superconduct- ing gatemon qubit based on Ge/Si core/shell nanowires, npj Quantum Information 9, 51 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    O. Sagi, A. Crippa, M. Valentini, N. W. Hendrickx, T. A. de Jong, M. Tagliaferri, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, A gate tunable transmon qubit in planar Ge, Nature Communications 15, 6400 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    J. I.-J. Wang et al. , Coherent control of a hybrid super- conducting circuit made with graphene-based Van der Waals heterostructures, Nature Nanotechnology 14, 120 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Pendharkar, B

    M. Pendharkar, B. Zhang, H. Wu, A. Zarassi, S. D. Har- rington, P. Yu, M. Nahum, T. Nguyen, K. Wickramas- inghe, J. S. Lee, and et al., Parity-preserving and mag- netic field–resilient superconductivity in InSb nanowires with Sn shells, Science 372, 508 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Perla, H

    P. Perla, H. A. Fonseka, P. Zellekens, R. Deacon, Y. Han, J. K¨ olzer, T. M¨ orstedt, B. Bennemann, A. Espiari, K. Ishibashi, et al., Fully in situ nb/inas-nanowire joseph- son junctions by selective-area growth and shadow evap- oration, Nanoscale Advances 3, 1413 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Y. Chen, D. van Driel, C. Lampadaris, S. A. Khan, K. Alattallah, L. Zeng, E. Olsson, T. Dvir, P. Krogstrup, and Y. Liu, Gate-tunable superconductivity in hybrid insb–pb nanowires, Applied Physics Letters 123, 102601 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Bjergfelt, D

    M. Bjergfelt, D. J. Carrad, T. Kanne, M. Aagesen, E. M. Fiordaliso, E. Johnson, B. Shojaei, C. J. Palmstrøm, P. Krogstrup, T. S. Jespersen, et al. , Superconducting vanadium/indium-arsenide hybrid nanowires, Nanotech- nology 30, 294005 (2019). 7

    2019

  22. [30]

    Sharma, A.-H

    A. Sharma, A.-H. Chen, C. P. Dempsey, A. Purkayastha, M. Pendharkar, S. Tan, C. J. Palmstrøm, S. M. Frolov, and M. Hocevar, Sn-inas nanowire shadow- defined josephson junctions, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2503.13725 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    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, Quasiparticle poisoning of superconducting qubits from resonant absorption of pair- breaking photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 017001 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Serniak, M

    K. Serniak, M. Hays, G. de Lange, S. Diamond, S. Shankar, L. D. Burkhart, L. Frunzio, M. Houzet, and M. H. Devoret, Hot nonequilibrium quasiparticles in transmon qubits, Physical Review Letters 121, 157701 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    A. D. C´ orcoles, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, C. Rigetti, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Protecting superconducting qubits from radiation, Applied Physics Letters 99, 181906 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Anferov, S

    A. Anferov, S. P. Harvey, F. Wan, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Superconducting qubits above 20 ghz operating over 200 mk, PRX Quantum 5, 030347 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    S. B. Kaplan, C. C. Chi, D. N. Langenberg, J. J. Chang, S. Jafarey, and D. J. Scalapino, Quasiparticle and phonon lifetimes in superconductors, Physical Review B 14, 4854 (1976)

    1976

  28. [36]

    McEwen, K

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

    2024

  29. [37]

    Chuang, Q

    S. Chuang, Q. Gao, R. Kapadia, A. C. Ford, J. Guo, and A. Javey, Ballistic InAs nanowire transistors, Nano Letters 13, 555 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Strambini, A

    E. Strambini, A. Iorio, O. Durante, R. Citro, C. Sanz- Fern´ andez, C. Guarcello, I. V. Tokatly, A. Braggio, M. Rocci, N. Ligato, V. Zannier, L. Sorba, F. S. Berg- eret, and F. Giazotto, A josephson phase battery, Nature Nanotechnology 15, 656 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Goswami, S

    A. Goswami, S. R. Mudi, et al. , Sn/InAs Josephson Junctions on Selective Area Grown Nanowires with in Situ Shadowed Superconductor Evaporation, Nano Let- ters 23, 6860 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    S. A. Khan, S. Mart ´ ı-S´ anchez, D. Olsteins, C. Lam- padaris, D. J. Carrad, Y. Liu, J. Qui˜ nones, M. Chiara S., T. S. Jespersen, P. Krogstrup, et al. , Epitaxially driven phase selectivity of Sn in hybrid quantum nanowires, ACS Nano 17, 11794 ((2023))

    2023

  33. [41]

    S. A. Khan, C. Lampadaris, A. Cui, L. Stampfer, Y. Liu, S. J. Pauka, M. E. Cachaza, E. M. Fiordaliso, J.-H. Kang, S. Korneychuk, et al. , Highly transparent gatable su- perconducting shadow junctions, ACS Nano 14, 14605 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Kringhøj, L

    A. Kringhøj, L. Casparis, M. Hell, T. W. Larsen, F. Kuemmeth, M. Leijnse, K. Flensberg, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, K. D. Petersson, and C. M. Marcus, An- harmonicity of a superconducting qubit with a few- mode Josephson junction, Physical Review B 97, 060508 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Shtrikman, R

    H. Shtrikman, R. Popovitz-Biro, A. Kretinin, L. Houben, M. Heiblum, M. Bukala, M. Galicka, R. Buczko, and P. Kacman, Method for suppression of stacking faults in wurtzite iii–v nanowires, Nano Letters 9, 1506 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Huang, Y.-H

    Y. Huang, Y.-H. Huang, H. Wang, Z. Steffen, J. Cripe, F. C. Wellstood, and B. S. Palmer, Identification and mit- igation of conducting package losses for quantum super- conducting devices, Applied Physics Letters 123, 044001 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design de- rived from the Cooper pair box, Physical Review A 76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Flanigan, Resonator, https://github.com/ danielflanigan/resonator (2023)

    D. Flanigan, Resonator, https://github.com/ danielflanigan/resonator (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Khalil, M

    M. Khalil, M. Stoutimore, F. Wellstood, and K. Osborn, An analysis method for asymmetric resonator transmis- sion applied to superconducting devices, Journal of Ap- plied Physics 111, 054510 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Probst, H

    S. Probst, H. F. Song, P. A. Bushev, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Weides, Efficient and robust analysis of complex scat- tering data under noise in microwave resonators, Review of Scientific Instruments 86, 024706 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    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, Improving the coherence time of super- conducting coplanar resonators, Applied Physics Letters 95, 233508 (20...

    2009

Pith tools

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