Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Magnetic-Field and Temperature Limits of a Kinetic-Inductance Traveling-Wave Parametric Amplifier

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A kinetic-inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifier made of NbTiN on a Nb ground plane provides >3 dB signal-to-noise improvement up to 0.35 T in-plane and 50 mT out-of-plane, and stable gain to 3 K—roughly an order of magnitude more f

desk verdict First real field/temperature characterization of a KI-TWPA—worth taking seriously, with one methodological caveat on pump optimization. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.15043 v2 pith:KTEJKCT5 submitted 2025-09-18 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con

Lucas M. Janssen , Farzad Faramarzi , Henry G. LeDuc , Sahil Patel , Gianluigi Catelani , Peter K. Day , Yoichi Ando , Christian Dickel This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con
keywords kineticinductancetraveling-waveparametricamplifiermagneticfieldresilienceNbTiNsuperconductingvortexlossesSNRimprovementMattis-Bardeen
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

This paper demonstrates that a kinetic-inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifier (KI-TWPA) built from NbTiN on a niobium ground plane keeps working in magnetic fields up to 0.35 T in-plane and 50 mT out-of-plane, and at temperatures up to 3 K. The signal-to-noise improvement stays above 3 dB across these ranges, which is roughly an order of magnitude better field tolerance than Josephson-junction-based traveling-wave amplifiers. The field limit is set not by the superconductor's critical field but by vortex motion in the niobium ground plane, so the paper argues that adding vortex traps or switching to higher-critical-field materials should push the range further. The temperature behavior is captured by a Mattis-Bardeen surface-impedance model combined with an ideal four-wave-mixing amplifier noise model.

What carries the argument

The central object is a nonlinear transmission line using the kinetic inductance of a thin NbTiN microstrip—the extra inductance carried by the inertia of Cooper pairs—with a Nb ground plane, modulated by capacitive stubs to create a photonic bandgap (dispersion engineering). Four-wave mixing parametric gain arises from the nonlinear kinetic inductance; field and temperature behavior is modeled with Mattis-Bardeen surface impedance plus gap suppression, and the discrepancy at field is attributed to vortices. The important operating metric is ΔSNR (gain minus added noise), which degrades before gain at out-of-plane fields.

What would settle it

Measure ΔSNR versus in-plane field with the pump fixed at the zero-field optimum rather than re-optimized at each field; if the >3 dB threshold collapses well below 0.35 T, the claimed range depends on re-optimization. Alternatively, fabricate the same amplifier with vortex traps in the ground plane: if in-plane tolerance does not extend toward several tesla, the vortex-loss mechanism proposed here is not the limiting factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At base temperature and zero field, optimizing pump power and frequency at each field point, the amplifier provides >3 dB SNR improvement up to 0.35 T for in-plane fields and up to 50 mT for out-of-plane fields, with stable gain and even improved bandwidth at intermediate in-plane fields. The degradation mechanism is vortex dynamics in the niobium ground plane and center conductor rather than simple gap suppression; hysteresis and the steep drop near 60 mT out-of-plane support this. Gain plateaus to 4 K while insertion loss and pump requirements rise, and the SNR improvement decreases with temperature in quantitative agreement with an ideal parametric amplifier model with thermal input noise

Load-bearing premise

The quoted field and temperature limits are obtained after re-optimizing the pump at every point over a pump landscape the paper calls chaotic, so the measured thresholds may reflect the optimizer finding favorable but history-dependent operating points rather than intrinsic device capability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KI-TWPAs can amplify at in-plane fields up to 0.35 T and out-of-plane fields up to 50 mT with >3 dB SNR improvement, enabling high-field experiments without magnetic shielding if the amplifier is positioned away from the magnet center.
  • Gain remains flat up to roughly 3–4 K, so the amplifier can serve at still-stage temperatures (~1 K) with far lower power dissipation than a HEMT.
  • The field threshold is set by vortex losses in the Nb ground plane, so adding vortex-trapping structures or using NbTiN/NbN ground planes should extend in-plane tolerance toward several tesla.
  • Measuring only gain overestimates field tolerance: added noise rises (vortices raise the effective amplifier temperature) before gain drops, so ΔSNR is the necessary figure of merit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the authors re-optimized pump settings at every field and temperature, the stated limits are best-case operating points; a user who deploys the amplifier without re-optimizing may measure a lower tolerance.
  • The chaotic pump landscape suggests the field thresholds could be sensitive to optimization history and starting points; independent verification with a different optimizer or a second device would test whether 0.35 T is intrinsic.
  • The vortex-loss explanation predicts that a device with vortex-trapping structures in the ground plane should show suppressed hysteresis and a higher in-plane threshold; that is a direct, testable consequence not measured here.
  • The noise model (ideal four-wave mixer cascaded with a 13 K second-stage effective noise) could be reused to predict ΔSNR at other temperatures and to infer added inter-stage loss, which the paper estimates at roughly 3.9 dB.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental characterization of a NbTiN/Nb kinetic-inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifier under applied magnetic field and temperature. The authors measure true gain, insertion loss, and signal-to-noise-ratio improvement ΔSNR using a bypass-cable calibration, and they optimize pump power and frequency at every field/temperature point. They report that the amplifier maintains >3 dB ΔSNR up to 0.35 T in-plane and 50 mT out-of-plane, with gain stable up to ~3 K before the Nb ground plane limits operation. The temperature dependence is modeled with Mattis-Bardeen surface impedance, and the ΔSNR temperature decrease is modeled with a cascaded parametric amplifier plus a second amplifier noise term. Field degradation is attributed to vortex losses rather than simple gap suppression, and the authors provide operational guidelines for applications. Data and code are provided on Zenodo.

Significance. If the field and temperature thresholds hold, this is a practically important result: it extends the operating envelope of broadband near-quantum-limited TWPAs to magnetic fields and temperatures relevant for spin qubits, spin ensembles, NMR, and axion searches. The measurements are carefully executed: bypass calibration, pump re-optimization with multiple starts, percentile error bars, and explicit hysteresis tracking are all strengths. The manuscript also ships reproducible analysis code and data, which strengthens confidence. The main risk is that the headline thresholds are obtained under per-field pump optimization in a pump landscape that the authors themselves call chaotic, so the robustness of those thresholds to optimizer choice and sweep history needs quantitative support.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV–V, Fig. 3/4 captions; Appendix B] The headline field thresholds (0.35 T in-plane, 50 mT out-of-plane) are extracted after re-optimizing the pump at every field and after selecting data for optimum ⟨ΔSNR⟩4−8 GHz. Appendix B describes the pump landscape as 'chaotic' and states that different starting conditions gave consistent results, but no quantitative spread is reported. In a chaotic landscape, best-of-many selection can bias the per-field ΔSNR upward, so the thresholds could reflect optimizer success rather than an intrinsic device limit. Please report the distribution of ⟨ΔSNR⟩ over restarts at representative fields (e.g., 0, 0.2, 0.35 T in-plane and 0, 30, 50 mT out-of-plane), or validate the thresholds with a fixed-pump sweep at the same fields. This is load-bearing for the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [§V, Fig. 4; Appendix E3] The out-of-plane behavior is strongly history-dependent: ΔSNR is not recovered on subsequent sweeps, and transmission returns only after sweeping past zero field. The 50 mT threshold is quoted for a single up-sweep after a thermal cycle. Please state the exact sweep/thermal protocol used for the quoted threshold and report whether the threshold is reproducible across thermal cycles or depends on sweep direction/history. Without this, 'up to 50 mT' is not well defined as an operational limit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III, Fig. 2] The temperature-dependent ΔSNR model uses two fitted parameters (T_min = 0.48 K and T_2nd = 13 K). The 13 K value is significantly above the nominal HEMT noise temperature and requires about 3.9 dB of excess loss. Please provide confidence intervals or a sensitivity analysis for these fitted parameters, and clarify whether the 'good agreement' is a fit or a prediction.
  2. [Appendix B] The statement that 'results of different optimizations ... were consistent' is too vague. Give the actual spread of optima (e.g., standard deviation of ⟨ΔSNR⟩ and ΔPp, Δfp between restarts) so the reader can judge the ruggedness of the landscape quantitatively.
  3. [Appendix A / Appendix D] Table I lists tanδ_super = 0.03, which is a large superstrate loss tangent. Since this is one of only two parameters adjusted to match data, its value and uncertainty should be justified or at least discussed in terms of physical plausibility.
  4. [§VI] The abstract and conclusion say the field resilience is 'considerably higher than what has been demonstrated with TWPAs based on Josephson junctions.' This comparison would be strengthened by a brief table or explicit citation of the specific J-TWPA field limits being compared, rather than a single reference [15].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; central claims are direct measurements, and the models are explanatory with clearly disclosed fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that the KI-TWPA maintains >3 dB SNR improvement up to B∥,1 = 0.35 T and B⊥ = 50 mT, and that gain persists to 3 K—are direct measurements of S21 and noise spectra against a calibrated bypass, not outputs of a model. The pump settings are re-optimized at every field and temperature using ⟨ΔSNR⟩4-8 GHz as figure of merit, and the paper discloses the 'chaotic' landscape and the use of multiple starting points with consistent results (Appendix B); this is a measurement protocol, not a fitted parameter presented as a prediction. The temperature model uses Mattis-Bardeen theory with only two fitted parameters (dielectric loss and α_KI) to match low-T insertion loss and the bandgap, and the ΔSNR model uses a standard Friis cascade with fitted T_min and second-stage noise temperature; these are explanatory and the measured temperature trend is not defined by the fits. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [3] for device design, Ref. [15] for J-TWPA comparison) are descriptive and not load-bearing; the observed thresholds do not reduce to those references. The vortex-entry estimate Eq. (1) is independent of the measured threshold. Thus no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a direct measurement. The model layer relies on standard superconductivity frameworks plus several fitted parameters, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • T_min (minimum noise floor) = 0.48 K
    Inserted into the ΔSNR(T) model to match the low-temperature plateau; Section III and Fig. 2(b).
  • T_2nd (second amplifier noise temperature) = 13 K
    Fitted using Friis formula to match ΔSNR(T); exceeds the nominal 3 K HEMT specification. Section III.
  • alpha_KI (kinetic inductance enhancement factor) = 1.6
    Adjusted to match the bandgap frequency measured in a helium dipstick; Appendix C/D and Table I.
  • tan_delta_super (superstrate loss tangent) = 0.03
    Adjusted to match low-temperature insertion loss; Appendix C/D and Table I.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Mattis-Bardeen conductivity theory applies to thin Nb and NbTiN films with finite-thickness corrections.
    Invoked in Appendix D2 to compute surface impedances for the temperature model.
  • domain assumption BCS gap ratio 2Δ0/kBTc = 3.5 and the Gross et al. gap temperature formula are used for both materials.
    Appendix D1; the authors note actual ratios can be larger and thickness-dependent.
  • domain assumption Field-dependent gap suppression has the stated linear and Ginzburg-Landau forms.
    Appendix D1; the authors explicitly state this form is insufficient to explain the observed field loss.
  • domain assumption An ideal four-wave-mixing parametric amplifier cascaded with a second amplifier, via Friis formula, describes ΔSNR.
    Section III; the model uses fitted noise parameters and fixed 12 dB gain.
  • domain assumption The vortex-entry field formula H_s = 2Φ0/(πW^2) ln(2W/πξ) applies to the NbTiN strip.
    Section V, Eq. (1); used to interpret the 50 mT out-of-plane threshold with W = 340 nm and ξ = 4.9 nm.
  • standard math WHH and Abrikosov-Gorkov dirty-limit formulas connect the critical field slope to Bc(0).
    Appendix F; used to estimate Bc values and coherence length ξ.
  • domain assumption Setup components have negligible field and temperature dependence in the 4-8 GHz band.
    Appendix H reports bypass-configuration checks; the claim that observed effects are device effects relies on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic-Field and Temperature Limits of a Kinetic-Inductance Traveling-Wave Parametric Amplifier." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTEJKCT5

@misc{pith2026250915043,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic-Field and Temperature Limits of a Kinetic-Inductance Traveling-Wave Parametric Amplifier},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTEJKCT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.15043}
}
abstract

Kinetic-inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifiers (KI-TWPAs) offer broadband near-quantum-limited amplification with high saturation power. Due to the high critical magnetic fields of high-kinetic-inductance materials, KI-TWPAs should be resilient to magnetic fields. In this work, we study how magnetic field and temperature affect the performance of a KI-TWPA based on a thin-NbTiN inverse microstrip with a Nb ground plane. This KI-TWPA can provide substantial signal-to-noise ratio improvement ($\Delta SNR$) up to in-plane magnetic fields of 0.35T and out-of-plane fields of 50mT, considerably higher than what has been demonstrated with TWPAs based on Josephson junctions. The field compatibility can be further improved by incorporating vortex traps and by using materials with higher critical fields. We also find that the gain does not degrade when the temperature is raised to 3K (limited by the Nb ground plane) while $\Delta SNR$ decreases with temperature consistently with expectation. This demonstrates that KI-TWPAs can be used in experiments that need to be performed at relatively high temperatures. The operability of KI-TWPAs in high magnetic field opens the door to a wide range of applications in spin qubits, spin ensembles, topological qubits, low-power NMR, and the search for axion dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.15043 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Schematic of the cryogenic measurement setup, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows TWPA S21 for a B∥,1 range beyond where the TWPA provides gain (as presented in the main text), up to transmission breakdown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [15]

    Bockstiegel, J

    C. Bockstiegel, J. Gao, M. Vissers, M. Sandberg, S. Chaudhuri, A. Sanders, L. Vale, K. Irwin, and D. Pap- pas, Journal of Low Temperature Physics176, 476 (2014)

    2014

  2. [3]

    Calculate transmission line parameters (character- istic impedanceZ 0, propagation constantγ) includ- ing kinetic inductance contributions (Section D 3)

  3. [1]

    Calculate the superconducting gap ∆(T, B) for both Nb and NbTiN materials (Section D 1)

  4. [2]

    Compute surface impedancesZ s =R s +jX s using Mattis-Bardeen theory with the temperature- and field-dependent gaps (Section D 2)

  5. [4]

    Use cascaded ABCD matrices to model the com- plete device with modulated unit cells (Sec- tion D 4)

  6. [5]

    Convert the total ABCD matrix to theS 21 param- eter

  7. [6]

    We have estimates for theT c of NbTiN and Nb based on our DC characterization and cooldown data (see Section F and 11 Section G)

    T emperature and field dependence of the gap This section explains how we model superconducting gap parameter ∆(T, B) as a function of temperature and magnetic field, which is the key input parameter for the Mattis-Bardeen surface impedance calculations. We have estimates for theT c of NbTiN and Nb based on our DC characterization and cooldown data (see S...

  8. [7]

    The key material parameters are the normal state conductiv- itiesσ n and the superconducting gaps ∆(T, B), as well as the angular frequencyωand the temperatureT

    Mattis-Bardeen Surface Impedance We use Mattis-Bardeen theory to calculate the sur- face impedanceZ s =R s +jX s for both the NbTiN strip and the Nb ground plane, which provides the electromag- netic losses and kinetic inductance contributions needed for the transmission line parameter calculations. The key material parameters are the normal state conduct...

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    T ransmission line parameters of the inverse microstrip We calculate the distributed transmission line param- eters of the inverse microstrip, characteristic impedance Z0 and propagation constantγ=α+jβ, which are re- quired for the ABCD matrix modeling of the TWPA unit 12 cell...

  2. [9]

    The TWPA modulation is implemented using a unit cell with periodically spaced capacitive stubs

    ABCD Matrix F ormalism to calculate S21 Using the transmission line parameters from the pre- vious section (characteristic impedanceZ 0 and propaga- tion constantγ=α+jβ), we model the TWPA using cascaded ABCD matrices to calculate the overallS 21. The TWPA modulation is implem...

  3. [10]

    Ho Eom, P

    B. Ho Eom, P. K. Day, H. G. LeDuc, and J. Zmuidzinas, Nature Physics8, 623 (2012)

    2012

  4. [11]

    Malnou, M

    M. Malnou, M. R. Vissers, J. D. Wheeler, J. Aumentado, J. Hubmayr, J. N. Ullom, and J. Gao, PRX Quantum2, 010302 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    Faramarzi, R

    F. Faramarzi, R. Stephenson, S. Sypkens, B. H. Eom, H. LeDuc, and P. Day, APL Quantum1, 036107 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Faramarzi, S

    F. Faramarzi, S. Sypkens, R. Stephenson, B. H. Eom, H. LeDuc, S. Chaudhuri, and P. Day, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 024063 (2025)

    2025

  7. [14]

    L. Howe, A. Giachero, M. Vissers, J. Wheeler, J. Auster- mann, J. Hubmayr, and J. Ullom, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity35, 1 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Zobrist, B

    N. Zobrist, B. H. Eom, P. Day, B. A. Mazin, S. R. Meeker, B. Bumble, H. G. LeDuc, G. Coiffard, P. Szypryt, N. Fruitwala, I. Lipartito, and C. Bockstiegel, Applied Physics Letters115, 042601 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Giachero, C

    A. Giachero, C. Barone, M. Borghesi, G. Cara- pella, A. Caricato, I. Carusotto, W. Chang, A. Cian, D. Di Gioacchino, E. Enrico,et al., Journal of Low Tem- perature Physics209, 658 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    M. A. Castellanos-Beltran, L. Howe, A. Giachero, M. R. Vissers, D. Labranca, J. N. Ullom, and P. F. Hopkins, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity35, 1 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Macklin, K

    C. Macklin, K. O’Brien, D. Hover, M. E. Schwartz, V. Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. D. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, Science350, 307 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    T. C. White, J. Y. Mutus, I.-C. Hoi, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey,et al., Applied Physics Letters 106, 242601 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Planat, A

    L. Planat, A. Ranadive, R. Dassonneville, J. Puer- tas Mart ´ ınez, S. L´ eger, C. Naud, O. Buisson, W. Hasch- Guichard, D. M. Basko, and N. Roch, Phys. Rev. X10, 021021 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Renberg Nilsson, A

    H. Renberg Nilsson, A. Fadavi Roudsari, D. Shiri, P. Delsing, and V. Shumeiko, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044056 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Gaydamachenko, C

    V. Gaydamachenko, C. Kissling, and L. Gr¨ unhaupt, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 064053 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Janssen, G

    L. Janssen, G. Butseraen, J. Krause, A. Coissard, L. Planat, N. Roch, G. Catelani, Y. Ando, and C. Dickel, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 054018 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Khalifa and J

    M. Khalifa and J. Salfi, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 034024 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    M. Xu, R. Cheng, Y. Wu, G. Liu, and H. X. Tang, PRX Quantum4, 010322 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    L. J. Splitthoff, J. J. Wesdorp, M. Pita-Vidal, A. Barg- erbos, Y. Liu, and C. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 014052 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Zapata, I

    N. Zapata, I. Takmakov, S. G¨ unzler, S. Geisert, S. Ihssen, M. Field, A. Nambisan, D. Rieger, T. Reisinger, W. Wernsdorfer, and I. M. Pop, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 260604 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Frasca, C

    S. Frasca, C. Roy, G. Beaulieu, and P. Scarlino, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 024011 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Vaartjes, A

    A. Vaartjes, A. Kringhøj, W. Vine, T. Day, A. Morello, and J. J. Pla, Nature Communications15, 4229 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Uilhoorn, J

    W. Uilhoorn, J. G. Kroll, A. Bargerbos, S. D. Nabi, C.- K. Yang, P. Krogstrup, L. P. Kouwenhoven, A. Kou, and G. de Lange, arXiv:2105.11038 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Z. Wang, L. Balembois, M. Ranˇ ci´ c, E. Billaud, M. Le Dantec, A. Ferrier, P. Goldner, S. Bertaina, T. Chaneli` ere, D. Esteve, D. Vion, P. Bertet, and E. Flurin, Nature619, 276 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Bartram, T

    C. Bartram, T. Braine, R. Cervantes, N. Crisosto, N. Du, G. Leum, P. Mohapatra, T. Nitta, L. J. Rosenberg, G. Rybka,et al., Review of Scientific Instruments94, 044703 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Di Vora, A

    R. Di Vora, A. Lombardi, A. Ortolan, R. Pengo, G. Ru- oso, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, L. Taffarello, G. Cappelli, N. Crescini,et al., Phys. Rev. D108, 062005 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Elhomsy, L

    V. Elhomsy, L. Planat, D. J. Niegemann, B. Cardoso- Paz, A. Badreldin, B. Klemt, V. Thiney, R. Lethiecq, E. Eyraud, M. C. Dartiailh, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojew- ski, C. B¨ auerle, M. Vinet, T. Meunier, N. Roch, and M. Urdampilleta, arXiv:2307.14717 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Aghaee, A

    Microsoft Azure Quantum, M. Aghaee, A. Al- caraz Ramirez, Z. Alam, R. Ali, M. Andrzejczuk, A. An- tipov, M. Astafev, A. Barzegar, B. Bauer,et al., Nature 638, 651 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Aghaee, Z

    M. Aghaee, Z. Alam, R. Andersen, M. Andrzejczuk, A. Antipov, M. Astafev, L. Avilovas, A. Azizimanesh, B. Bauer, J. Becker,et al., arXiv:2507.08795 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 100502 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Schneider, T

    A. Schneider, T. Wolz, M. Pfirrmann, M. Spiecker, H. Rotzinger, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Weides, Phys. Rev. Research1, 023003 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Pita-Vidal, A

    M. Pita-Vidal, A. Bargerbos, C.-K. Yang, D. J. van Wo- erkom, W. Pfaff, N. Haider, P. Krogstrup, L. P. Kouwen- hoven, G. de Lange, and A. Kou, Phys. Rev. Applied14, 064038 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Kringhøj, T

    A. Kringhøj, T. W. Larsen, O. Erlandsson, W. Uil- hoorn, J. G. Kroll, M. Hesselberg, R. P. G. McNeil, P. Krogstrup, L. Casparis, C. M. Marcus, and K. D. Pe- tersson, Phys. Rev. Applied15, 054001 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Krause, C

    J. Krause, C. Dickel, E. Vaal, M. Vielmetter, J. Feng, R. Bounds, G. Catelani, J. M. Fink, and Y. Ando, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 034032 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Krause, G

    J. Krause, G. Marchegiani, L. Janssen, G. Catelani, Y. Ando, and C. Dickel, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 044063 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    G¨ unzler, J

    S. G¨ unzler, J. Beck, D. Rieger, N. Gosling, N. Za- pata, M. Field, S. Geisert, A. Bacher, J. K. Hohmann, M. Spiecker, W. Wernsdorfer, and I. M. Pop, arXiv:2501.03661 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Zheng, N

    G. Zheng, N. Samkharadze, M. L. Noordam, N. Kalhor, D. Brousse, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature nanotechnology14, 742 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Schaal, I

    S. Schaal, I. Ahmed, J. A. Haigh, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, S. Barraud, M. Vinet, C.-M. Lee, N. Stelmashenko, J. W. A. Robinson, J. Y. Qiu, S. Hacohen-Gourgy, I. Sid- diqi, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, and J. J. L. Morton, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 067701 (2020). 20

    2020

  39. [47]

    de Jong, C

    D. de Jong, C. G. Prosko, D. M. A. Waardenburg, L. Han, F. K. Malinowski, P. Krogstrup, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. V. Koski, and W. Pfaff, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 014007 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Bienfait, J

    A. Bienfait, J. J. Pla, Y. Kubo, M. Stern, X. Zhou, C. C. Lo, C. D. Weis, T. Schenkel, M. L. W. Thewalt, D. Vion, D. Esteve, B. Julsgaard, K. Mølmer, J. J. L. Morton, and P. Bertet, Nature Nanotechnology11, 253 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    W. Vine, M. Savytskyi, A. Vaartjes, A. Kringhøj, D. Parker, J. Slack-Smith, T. Schenkel, K. Mølmer, J. C. McCallum, B. C. Johnson, A. Morello, and J. J. Pla, Science Advances9, eadg1593 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Kounalakis, Y

    M. Kounalakis, Y. M. Blanter, and G. A. Steele, Physical Review Research2, 023335 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    T. Bera, S. Majumder, S. K. Sahu, and V. Singh, Com- munications Physics4, 12 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Science349, 405 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Kounalakis, G

    M. Kounalakis, G. E. W. Bauer, and Y. M. Blanter, Phys- ical Review Letters129, 037205 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Chaudhuri, inAPS April Meeting Abstracts, APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    S. Chaudhuri, inAPS April Meeting Abstracts, APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2024 (2024) p. J14.005

    2024

  47. [55]

    Ramanathan, N

    K. Ramanathan, N. Klimovich, R. Basu Thakur, B. H. Eom, H. G. Leduc, S. Shu, A. D. Beyer, and P. K. Day, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 231001 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Malnou, J

    M. Malnou, J. Aumentado, M. R. Vissers, J. D. Wheeler, J. Hubmayr, J. N. Ullom, and J. Gao, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 044009 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    D. C. Mattis and J. Bardeen, Physical Review111, 412 (1958)

    1958

  50. [58]

    H. T. Friis, Proceedings of the IRE34, 254 (1946)

    1946

  51. [59]

    S. Kwon, A. Fadavi Roudsari, O. W. B. Benningshof, Y.-C. Tang, H. R. Mohebbi, I. A. J. Taminiau, D. Lan- genberg, S. Lee, G. Nichols, D. G. Cory, and G.-X. Miao, Journal of Applied Physics124(2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Bothner, T

    D. Bothner, T. Gaber, M. Kemmler, D. Koelle, R. Kleiner, S. W¨ unsch, and M. Siegel, Phys. Rev. B86, 014517 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    Nulens, N

    L. Nulens, N. Lejeune, J. Caeyers, S. Marinkovi´ c, I. Cools, H. Dausy, S. Basov, B. Raes, M. J. Van Bael, A. Geresdi, A. V. Silhanek, and J. Van de Vondel, Com- munications Physics6, 267 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    C. Song, T. W. Heitmann, M. P. DeFeo, K. Yu, R. Mc- Dermott, M. Neeley, J. M. Martinis, and B. L. T. Plourde, Phys. Rev. B79, 174512 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    Bothner, T

    D. Bothner, T. Gaber, M. Kemmler, D. Koelle, and R. Kleiner, Applied Physics Letters98, 102504 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    J. G. Kroll, F. Borsoi, K. L. van der Enden, W. Uil- hoorn, D. de Jong, M. Quintero-P´ erez, D. J. van Wo- erkom, A. Bruno, S. R. Plissard, D. Car, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, M. C. Cassidy, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 064053 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Samkharadze, A

    N. Samkharadze, A. Bruno, P. Scarlino, G. Zheng, D. P. DiVincenzo, L. DiCarlo, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Phys. Rev. Appl.5, 044004 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    J. H. Nielsen, M. Astafev, W. H. Nielsen, D. Vogel, lakho- tiaharshit, A. Johnson, A. Hardal, Akshita, sohail cha- toor, F. Bonabi, Liang, G. Ungaretti, S. Pauka, T. Mor- gan, Adriaan, P. Eendebak, B. Nijholt, qSaevar, P. Een- debak, S. Droege, Samantha, J. Darulova, R. van Gu...

    2024

  59. [67]

    M. A. Rol, C. Attryde, J. C. van Oven, K. Loh, J. Gloude- mans, V. Neg ˆ ırneac, T. Last, and C. C. Bultink, inAPS March Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2021 (2021) pp. M34–001

    2021

  60. [68]

    S. Shu, N. Klimovich, B. H. Eom, A. D. Beyer, R. B. Thakur, H. G. Leduc, and P. K. Day, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023184 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, The Computer Journal7, 308 (1965)

    1965

  62. [70]

    J. Gao, M. Daal, A. Vayonakis, S. Kumar, J. Zmuidzinas, B. Sadoulet, B. A. Mazin, P. K. Day, and H. G. Leduc, Applied Physics Letters92, 152505 (2008)

    2008

  63. [71]

    Abdisatarov, D

    B. Abdisatarov, D. Bafia, A. Murthy, G. Eremeev, H. E. Elsayed-Ali, J. Lee, A. Netepenko, C. P. A. Carlos, S. Leith, G. J. Rosaz, A. Romanenko, and A. Grassellino, Applied Physics Letters125, 124002 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    Klimovich, S

    N. Klimovich, S. Wood, P. K. Day, and B.-K. Tan, Jour- nal of Applied Physics135, 124402 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    M. W. Coffey and J. R. Clem, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 386 (1991)

    1991

  66. [74]

    T. Hong, K. Choi, K. I. Sim, T. Ha, B. C. Park, H. Ya- mamori, and J. H. Kim, Journal of Applied Physics114, 243905 (2013)

    2013

  67. [75]

    F. Khan, A. V. Khudchenko, A. M. Chekushkin, and V. P. Koshelets, IEEE Transactions on Applied Super- conductivity32, 1 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    Gross, B

    F. Gross, B. S. Chandrasekhar, D. Einzel, K. Andres, P. J. Hirschfeld, H. R. Ott, J. Beuers, Z. Fisk, and J. L. Smith, Z. Physik B - Condensed Matter64, 175 (1986)

    1986

  69. [77]

    Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed

    M. Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed. (Dover Publications, 2004)

    2004

  70. [78]

    Hammerstad and O

    E. Hammerstad and O. Jensen, in1980 IEEE MTT-S In- ternational Microwave Symposium Digest(IEEE, 1980) pp. 407–409

    1980

  71. [79]

    Semenov, B

    A. Semenov, B. G¨ unther, U. B¨ ottger, H.-W. H¨ ubers, H. Bartolf, A. Engel, A. Schilling, K. Ilin, M. Siegel, R. Schneider, D. Gerthsen, and N. A. Gippius, Phys. Rev. B80, 054510 (2009)

    2009

  72. [80]

    Zhang, A

    X. Zhang, A. Engel, Q. Wang, A. Schilling, A. Semenov, M. Sidorova, H.-W. H¨ ubers, I. Charaev, K. Ilin, and M. Siegel, Phys. Rev. B94, 174509 (2016)

    2016

  73. [81]

    N. R. Werthamer, E. Helfand, and P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev.147, 295 (1966)

    1966

  74. [82]

    Zaytseva, A

    I. Zaytseva, A. Abaloszew, B. C. Camargo, Y. Syryanyy, and M. Z. Cieplak, Scientific Reports10, 19062 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.