Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims a 1024-core RISC-V cluster can process the 5G uplink physical layer in software at 66 Gb/s within a 6 W power envelope.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A 1024-core RISC-V cluster is claimed to process 5G NR uplink (PUSCH) at 66 Gb/s in 1.7 ms at under 6 W, from a placed-and-routed simulation in 12-nm CMOS.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The abstract promises a significant many-core baseband result, but the attached full text is a different paper entirely, so nothing beyond the abstract can be verified. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.06176 v1 pith:YNG4CFUY submitted 2025-08-08 eess.SP

A 66-Gb/s/5.5-W RISC-V Many-Core Cluster for 5G+ Software-Defined Radio Uplinks

Marco Bertuletti , Yichao Zhang , Alessandro Vanelli-Coralli , Luca Benini This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords RISC-Vmany-core cluster5G basebandsoftware-defined radioPUSCHphysical layerbase stationenergy efficiency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tries to establish that a single many-core RISC-V cluster can handle the lower physical layer of the 5G uplink (PUSCH) in pure software, at throughput and power levels previously reserved for dedicated baseband hardware. It reports a design with 1024 streamlined RISC-V cores, domain-specific floating-point extensions, and 4 MiB of shared memory. On a placed-and-routed 12-nm CMOS instance at 800 MHz, 0.8 V, and 25 °C, the cluster is claimed to deliver 66 Gb/s per TTI end-to-end, with stage-level rates of 9.4–302 Gb/s, while drawing under 6 W. If true, software-defined radio uplinks could replace dedicated chips, easing base station deployment and standard upgrades.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the PUSCH lower-PHY processing chain—the computationally heavy part of a 5G base station uplink—can be executed entirely in software on a 1024-core RISC-V cluster built from streamlined cores with domain-specific floating-point extensions and a 4 MiB shared memory. The paper claims this cluster satisfies high-end throughput requirements: 66 Gb/s per transmission time interval (TTI), and 9.4–302 Gb/s depending on the processing stage. Throughput metrics for the implemented functions are said to be ten times higher than in state-of-the-art application-specific instruction processors (ASIPs). Energy efficiency on key new-radio kernels ranges from 2 to 41 Gb/s/W, me

What carries the argument

The enabling object is a 1024-core many-core cluster: streamlined RISC-V cores with domain-specific floating-point extensions, coupled through a 4 MiB shared memory. The paper uses this shared-memory many-core architecture to map the PUSCH lower-PHY kernels onto the cluster, and reports power and throughput from a placed-and-routed 12-nm CMOS instance at 800 MHz, 0.8 V, 25 °C. The core identity is that the parallelism of 1024 cores, together with the FP extensions, is sufficient to run the entire uplink chain in software within a 6 W budget.

Load-bearing premise

The result holds only if the 5G uplink kernels can spread across 1024 cores sharing 4 MiB of memory without bandwidth or contention bottlenecks, and if simulation at 800 MHz, 0.8 V predicts a real fabricated chip accurately.

What would settle it

Fabricate the 12-nm cluster and run the full PUSCH chain at 800 MHz; the claim fails if end-to-end throughput drops below 66 Gb/s per TTI, average power exceeds 6 W, or the processing time exceeds 1.7 ms. Alternatively, a cycle-accurate simulation with real memory contention that reproduces the same numbers would support it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • 5G base stations could process uplink data on a general-purpose programmable cluster, enabling firmware-only updates when the physical-layer standard evolves.
  • A single cluster fits the under-10 W power envelope for base stations while exceeding the 20 Gb/s uplink data rate requirement.
  • If multiple clusters are tiled, baseband capacity could scale beyond 66 Gb/s to support higher modulation orders, wider bandwidths, or multiple sectors.
  • The 1.7 ms end-to-end PUSCH latency sits within typical 5G TTI budgets, suggesting the design is usable in real-time scheduling loops.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 10x throughput comparison to ASIPs is per function; a system-level benchmark that includes host I/O, memory traffic, and the complete modem stack would test whether the advantage survives integration.
  • Since the power and frequency numbers come from a placed-and-routed instance rather than fabricated silicon, real chips could differ; a tape-out would settle this.
  • The 4 MiB shared memory may become a bottleneck for massive-MIMO configurations or multiple concurrent streams; a multi-cluster or distributed-memory variant is a natural stress test of the architecture.
  • If the software-defined approach holds, the same cluster could be retargeted to downlink or beamforming workloads without hardware changes, a consequence the paper does not claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The abstract of arXiv:2508.06176 describes a 1024-core RISC-V many-core cluster with domain-specific FP extensions and 4 MiB shared memory, claiming it meets 5G NR PUSCH lower-PHY processing requirements at 66 Gb/s per TTI, 9.4-302 Gb/s per processing stage, running end-to-end in 1.7 ms at <6 W (12 Gb/s/W). The energy efficiency is quoted as 2-41 Gb/s/W from a placed-and-routed 12-nm instance at 800 MHz, 0.8 V, 25 °C, and a 10x throughput advantage over unnamed SoTA ASIPs is claimed. However, the supplied full text is an unrelated condensed-matter paper on Ge Josephson junctions (arXiv:2508.06180); none of the abstract's technical content appears in the body.

Significance. If the claimed throughput and power figures are correct, the design would be a notable advance in programmable baseband processing for 5G+ base stations, potentially matching dedicated accelerators while retaining software programmability. The headline energy efficiency (12 Gb/s/W) and 10x ASIP advantage would be significant if properly substantiated. However, because the manuscript body is entirely missing, I cannot assess the significance of the claims beyond the abstract's statements.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full text (first page)] The manuscript body provided for review is a completely different paper: 'Finite Length Effects and Coulomb Interaction in Ge Quantum Well-Based Josephson Junctions Probed with Microwave Spectroscopy' (arXiv:2508.06180). None of the abstract's assertions about the RISC-V cluster, 5G PUSCH workload, memory system, or power measurements are supported by any accompanying text, equations, figures, or tables. This is a load-bearing deficit: every central quantitative claim (66 Gb/s, 1.7 ms, <6 W, 12 Gb/s/W, 10x ASIP) is unverifiable from the submitted material.
  2. [Abstract, operating-condition sentence] The abstract states energy efficiency is 'measured at 800 MHz, 25 °C, and 0.8 V, on a placed and routed instance in 12-nm CMOS technology.' A placed-and-routed instance is a simulation model, not fabricated silicon; 'measured' is therefore an overstatement. If the figures come from post-layout simulation, the word 'measured' must be replaced with 'simulated' or 'estimated.' The distinction is critical because post-layout power/timing at one corner does not establish fabricated-silicon behavior.
  3. [Abstract, throughput sentence] The phrase '66 Gb/s for a transition time interval (TTI)' is dimensionally ambiguous: Gb/s is already a rate, and 'for a TTI' suggests a quantity of data per TTI (e.g., 66 Gb per TTI). Additionally, the range '9.4-302 Gb/s depending on the processing stage' spans over 30x and is not explained by any per-kernel breakdown in the supplied text. These loose formulations prevent the reader from checking whether the aggregate throughput claim is internally consistent with the TTI budget.
  4. [Abstract, ASIP comparison] The claim of throughput 'ten times higher than in state-of-the-art ASIPs' is presented without naming the baselines, their configurations, operating points, or workloads. Since no comparison methodology appears in the supplied body, the factor of 10 cannot be verified or reproduced. The authors should identify the specific ASIP references and state whether the comparison is on kernel throughput, end-to-end throughput, energy efficiency, or some combined metric.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] 'transition time interval' should presumably read 'transmission time interval' (the standard 5G term).
  2. [Abstract] The energy-efficiency range '2-41 Gb/s/W' is reported without specifying which kernels correspond to the endpoints; this should be clarified once the body is available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity identified: no derivation chain in the supplied body reduces a prediction to a fitted input or self-citation; the main issue is an evidentiary mismatch, not circularity.

full rationale

The abstract claims a 1024-core RISC-V cluster achieves 5G PUSCH lower-PHY throughput of 66 Gb/s per TTI at <6 W, with 10x advantage over SoTA ASIPs, with figures reported as measured at 800 MHz, 0.8 V, 25 deg C on a placed-and-routed 12-nm instance. However, the supplied full text is arXiv:2508.06180, a Ge quantum-well Josephson-junction microwave-spectroscopy paper, not the RISC-V cluster paper. There is therefore no derivation chain, no equations, and no fitted parameters in the supplied body that could be shown by quotation to reduce to the paper's own inputs. The reader's concern that SoTA ASIP baselines may include the authors' own prior designs is a fair verification question, but the provided material does not exhibit any such comparison or any specific reduction, so it cannot be classified as circularity under the requirement to quote the paper and exhibit the reduction. The discrepancy between the advertised paper and the supplied body creates an evidentiary gap: the central engineering claims cannot be checked from the provided text, and 'measured' results attributed to a placed-and-routed simulation would be a correctness/evidence concern rather than a circular-derivation concern. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness-imported-from-authors, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming pattern is identifiable in the supplied text. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0, with the caveat that the paper's claims remain unverifiable from the supplied material.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four pillars not proven in the abstract: workload representativeness, post-layout simulation standing in for silicon, absence of bandwidth bottlenecks, and fairness of the unnamed ASIP baselines. One hand-chosen operating point carries all energy efficiency numbers. No new physical entities are proposed.

free parameters (1)
  • Operating point (800 MHz, 0.8 V, 25 deg C, 12-nm CMOS) = 800 MHz, 0.8 V, 25 deg C
    The energy efficiency range (2-41 Gb/s/W) is quoted only at this hand-picked corner; the choice of corner largely determines the power numbers and is not derived from any stated requirement.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The 5G NR PUSCH lower-PHY workload decomposes into kernels the cluster runs, and the kernel mix represents real base station processing.
    The 66 Gb/s and 1.7 ms claims depend entirely on the workload model; the abstract states no NR numerology, antenna count, or channel model.
  • domain assumption Post-layout timing and power extraction predicts fabricated-silicon behavior.
    The abstract reports results on a placed-and-routed instance as if measured; the transfer from layout simulation to silicon is an unstated reliability assumption.
  • domain assumption 1024 cores on a 4-MiB shared memory have enough bandwidth and low enough contention for the PUSCH kernels.
    The aggregate throughput claim implicitly assumes no memory or interconnect bottleneck; not checkable from the abstract.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A 66-Gb/s/5.5-W RISC-V Many-Core Cluster for 5G+ Software-Defined Radio Uplinks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNG4CFUY

@misc{pith2026250806176,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A 66-Gb/s/5.5-W RISC-V Many-Core Cluster for 5G+ Software-Defined Radio Uplinks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNG4CFUY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06176}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Following the scale-up of new radio (NR) complexity in 5G and beyond, the physical layer's computing load on base stations is increasing under a strictly constrained latency and power budget; base stations must process > 20-Gb/s uplink wireless data rate on the fly, in < 10 W. At the same time, the programmability and reconfigurability of base station components are the key requirements; it reduces the time and cost of new networks' deployment, it lowers the acceptance threshold for industry players to enter the market, and it ensures return on investments in a fast-paced evolution of standards. In this article, we present the design of a many-core cluster for 5G and beyond base station processing. Our design features 1024, streamlined RISC-V cores with domain-specific FP extensions, and 4-MiB shared memory. It provides the necessary computational capabilities for software-defined processing of the lower physical layer of 5G physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), satisfying high-end throughput requirements (66 Gb/s for a transition time interval (TTI), 9.4-302 Gb/s depending on the processing stage). The throughput metrics for the implemented functions are ten times higher than in state-of-the-art (SoTA) application-specific instruction processors (ASIPs). The energy efficiency on key NR kernels (2-41 Gb/s/W), measured at 800 MHz, 25 {\deg}C, and 0.8 V, on a placed and routed instance in 12-nm CMOS technology, is competitive with SoTA architectures. The PUSCH processing runs end-to-end on a single cluster in 1.7 ms, at <6-W average power consumption, achieving 12 Gb/s/W.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. $\mu_\mathrm{2T}(n)$: A Method for Extracting the Density Dependent Mobility in Two-Terminal Nanodevices

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A two-terminal conductance-based procedure, mu_2T(n), is introduced to extract density-dependent mobility in nanoscale FETs and validated against Hall measurements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. F. Andreev, The thermal conductivity of the interme- diate state in superconductors, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 46, 1823 (1964)

    work page 1964

  2. [2]

    G. E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T. M. Klapwijk, Tran- sition from metallic to tunneling regimes in supercon- ducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge im- balance, and supercurrent conversion, Phys. Rev. B 25, 4515 (1982)

    1982

  3. [3]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Universal limit of critical-current fluctuations in mesoscopic Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 3836 (1991)

    1991

  4. [4]

    Furusaki and M

    A. Furusaki and M. Tsukada, Current-carrying states in Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B 43, 10164 (1991)

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    Pillet, P

    J.-D. Pillet, P. Joyez, R. ˇZitko, and M. F. Goffman, Tun- neling spectroscopy of a single quantum dot coupled to a superconductor: From Kondo ridge to Andreev bound states, Phys. Rev. B 88, 045101 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Nichele, E

    F. Nichele, E. Portol´ es, A. Fornieri, A. M. Whiticar, A. C. C. Drachmann, S. Gronin, T. Wang, G. C. Gardner, C. Thomas, A. T. Hatke, M. J. Manfra, and C. M. Mar- cus, Relating Andreev bound states and supercurrents in hybrid Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 226801 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Coraiola, D

    M. Coraiola, D. Z. Haxell, D. Sabonis, H. Weisbrich, A. E. Svetogorov, M. Hinderling, S. C. ten Kate, E. Cheah, F. Krizek, R. Schott, W. Wegscheider, J. C. Cuevas, W. Belzig, and F. Nichele, Phase-engineering the Andreev band structure of a three-terminal Josephson junction, Nat. Commun. 14, 6784 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Janvier, L

    C. Janvier, L. Tosi, L. Bretheau, C ¸ . ¨O. Girit, M. Stern, P. Bertet, P. Joyez, D. Vion, D. Esteve, M. F. Goffman, H. Pothier, and C. Urbina, Coherent manipulation of An- dreev states in superconducting atomic contacts, Science 349, 1199 (2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    M. Hays, G. de Lange, K. Serniak, D. J. van Wo- erkom, D. Bouman, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, A. Geresdi, and M. H. Devoret, Direct microwave measurement of Andreev-bound-state dynamics in a semiconductor- nanowire Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 047001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    L. Tosi, C. Metzger, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Poth- ier, S. Park, A. L. Yeyati, J. Nyg ˚ ard, and P. Krogstrup, Spin-orbit splitting of Andreev states revealed by mi- crowave spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011010 (2019)

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    M. Hays, V. Fatemi, K. Serniak, D. Bouman, S. Dia- mond, G. de Lange, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, A. Geresdi, and M. H. Devoret, Continuous monitoring of a trapped superconducting spin, Nat. Phys. 16, 1103 (2020)

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    M. Hays, V. Fatemi, D. Bouman, J. Cerrillo, S. Dia- mond, K. Serniak, T. Connolly, P. Krogstrup, J. Ny- gaard, A. Levy Yeyati, et al. , Coherent manipulation of an Andreev spin qubit, Science 373, 430 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Chidambaram, A

    V. Chidambaram, A. Kringhøj, L. Casparis, F. Kuem- meth, T. Wang, C. Thomas, S. Gronin, G. C. Gardner, Z. Cui, C. Liu, K. Moors, M. J. Manfra, K. D. Peters- son, and M. R. Connolly, Microwave sensing of Andreev bound states in a gate-defined superconducting quantum point contact, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023170 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    F. J. Matute-Ca˜ nadas, C. Metzger, S. Park, L. Tosi, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Pothier, and A. L. Yeyati, Signatures of interactions in the Andreev spectrum of nanowire Josephson junctions, 13 Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 197702 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Zellekens, R

    P. Zellekens, R. S. Deacon, P. Perla, D. Gr¨ utzmacher, M. I. Lepsa, T. Sch¨ apers, and K. Ishibashi, Microwave spectroscopy of Andreev states in InAs nanowire-based hybrid junctions using a flip-chip layout, Commun. Phys. 5, 267 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Fatemi, P

    V. Fatemi, P. D. Kurilovich, M. Hays, D. Bouman, T. Connolly, S. Diamond, N. E. Frattini, V. D. Kurilovich, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, A. Geresdi, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Microwave susceptibility observation of interacting many-body Andreev states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 227701 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Hinderling, D

    M. Hinderling, D. Sabonis, S. Paredes, D. Haxell, M. Coraiola, S. ten Kate, E. Cheah, F. Krizek, R. Schott, W. Wegscheider, and F. Nichele, Flip-chip-based mi- crowave spectroscopy of Andreev bound states in a planar Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 054026 (2023)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    J. J. Wesdorp, F. J. Matute-Ca˜ nadas, A. Vaartjes, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, T. Laeven, S. Roelofs, L. J. Split- thoff, M. Pita-Vidal, A. Bargerbos, D. J. van Woerkom, P. Krogstrup, L. P. Kouwenhoven, C. K. Andersen, A. L. Yeyati, B. van Heck, and G. de Lange, Microwave spec- troscopy of interacting Andreev spins, Phys. Rev. B 109, 045302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Hinderling, S

    M. Hinderling, S. C. ten Kate, M. Coraiola, D. Hax- ell, M. Stiefel, M. Mergenthaler, S. Paredes, S. Be- dell, D. Sabonis, and F. Nichele, Direct microwave spec- troscopy of Andreev bound states in planar Ge Josephson junctions, PRX Quantum 5, 030357 (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    B. H. Elfeky, K. Dindial, D. S. Brand˜ ao, B. m. c. Pekerten, J. Lee, W. M. Strickland, P. J. Strohbeen, A. Danilenko, L. Baker, M. Mikalsen, W. Schiela, Z. Liang, J. Issokson, I. Levy, I. ˇZuti´ c, and J. Sha- bani, Microwave Andreev bound state spectroscopy in a semiconductor-based planar Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013248 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    P. D. Kurilovich, V. D. Kurilovich, V. Fatemi, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Microwave response of an Andreev bound state, Phys. Rev. B 104, 174517 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    P. D. Kurilovich, V. D. Kurilovich, A. E. Svetogorov, W. Belzig, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, On- demand population of Andreev levels by their ionization in the presence of Coulomb blockade, Phys. Rev. B 110, 184508 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Tosato, V

    A. Tosato, V. Levajac, J.-Y. Wang, C. J. Boor, F. Bor- soi, M. Botifoll, C. N. Borja, S. Mart ´ ı-S´ anchez, J. Arbiol, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, and G. Scappucci, Hard su- perconducting gap in germanium, Commun. Mater. 4, 23 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Lodari, A

    M. Lodari, A. Tosato, D. Sabbagh, M. A. Schubert, G. Capellini, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, and G. Scap- pucci, Light effective hole mass in undoped Ge/SiGe quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B 100, 041304 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Scappucci, C

    G. Scappucci, C. Kloeffel, F. A. Zwanenburg, D. Loss, M. Myronov, J.-J. Zhang, S. De Franceschi, G. Katsaros, and M. Veldhorst, The germanium quantum information route, Nat. Rev. Mater. 6, 926 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Lakic, W

    L. Lakic, W. I. L. Lawrie, D. van Driel, L. E. A. Ste- houwer, Y. Su, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, F. Kuem- meth, and A. Chatterjee, A quantum dot in germanium proximitized by a superconductor, Nat. Mater. 24, 552 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Hinderling, S

    M. Hinderling, S. t. Kate, D. Haxell, M. Coraiola, S. Paredes, E. Cheah, F. Krizek, R. Schott, W. Wegschei- der, D. Sabonis, and F. Nichele, Flip-chip-based fast in- ductive parity readout of a planar superconducting is- land, PRX Quantum 5, 030337 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Probst, F

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

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    S. W. Bedell, S. Hart, S. Bangsaruntip, C. Durfee, J. A. Ott, M. Hopstaken, M. S. Carroll, and P. Gumann, (in- vited) low-temperature growth of strained germanium quantum wells for high mobility applications, ECS Trans. 98, 215 (2020)

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Watanabe, K

    M. Watanabe, K. Inomata, T. Yamamoto, and J.-S. Tsai, Power-dependent internal loss in Josephson bifurcation amplifiers, Phys. Rev. B 80, 174502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  31. [31]

    Romero, I

    G. Romero, I. Lizuain, V. S. Shumeiko, E. Solano, and F. S. Bergeret, Circuit quantum electrodynamics with a superconducting quantum point contact, Phys. Rev. B 85, 180506 (2012)

    2012

  32. [32]

    S. Park, C. Metzger, L. Tosi, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Pothier, and A. L. Yeyati, From adiabatic to disper- sive readout of quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 077701 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Metzger, S

    C. Metzger, S. Park, L. Tosi, C. Janvier, A. A. Reynoso, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, A. Levy Yeyati, and H. Poth- ier, Circuit-QED with phase-biased Josephson weak links, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013036 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Haller, G

    R. Haller, G. F¨ ul¨ op, D. Indolese, J. Ridderbos, R. Kraft, L. Y. Cheung, J. H. Ungerer, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Beckmann, R. Danneau, P. Virtanen, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Phase-dependent microwave re- sponse of a graphene Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013198 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    P. F. Bagwell, Suppression of the Josephson current through a narrow, mesoscopic, semiconductor channel by a single impurity, Phys. Rev. B 46, 12573 (1992)

    1992

  36. [36]

    M. R. Sahu, F. J. Matute-Ca˜ nadas, M. Benito, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, A. L. Yeyati, and H. Pothier, Ground-state phase dia- gram and parity-flipping microwave transitions in a gate- tunable Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. B 109, 134506 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Massai, B

    L. Massai, B. Het´ enyi, M. Mergenthaler, F. J. Schupp, L. Sommer, S. Paredes, S. W. Bedell, P. Harvey-Collard, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, and N. W. Hendrickx, Impact of interface traps on charge noise and low-density trans- port properties in Ge/SiGe heterostructures, Commun. Mater. 5, 151 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Bosco, M

    S. Bosco, M. Benito, C. Adelsberger, and D. Loss, Squeezed hole spin qubits in Ge quantum dots with ul- trafast gates at low power, Phys. Rev. B 104, 115425 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Adelsberger, S

    C. Adelsberger, S. Bosco, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Enhanced orbital magnetic field effects in Ge hole nanowires, Phys. Rev. B 106, 235408 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    Hoffman and C

    S. Hoffman and C. Tahan, Resolving Andreev spin qubits in germanium-based Josephson junctions, arXiv:2506.13988 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Luethi, K

    M. Luethi, K. Laubscher, S. Bosco, D. Loss, and J. Kli- novaja, Planar Josephson junctions in germanium: Effect of cubic spin-orbit interaction, Phys. Rev. B 107, 035435 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Costa, P

    D. Costa, P. D. Vecchio, K. Hudson, L. E. A. Ste- houwer, A. Tosato, D. D. Esposti, M. Lodari, S. Bosco, 14 and G. Scappucci, Buried unstrained germanium chan- nels: a lattice-matched platform for quantum technology, arXiv:2506.04724 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    O. O. Shvetsov, A. Khola, V. Buccheri, I. P. C. Cools, N. Trnjanin, T. Kanne, J. Nyg ˚ ard, and A. Geresdi, Approaching the ultrastrong coupling regime between an Andreev level and a microwave resonator, arXiv:2502.09243 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Park and A

    S. Park and A. L. Yeyati, Andreev spin qubits in mul- tichannel Rashba nanowires, Phys. Rev. B 96, 125416 (2017)

    work page 2017

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.