pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08515 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🪐 quant-ph

Measurement-induced state transitions across the fluxonium qubit landscape

Alex A. Chapple , Boris M. Varbanov , Alexander McDonald , Alexandre Blais This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords fluxonium qubitmeasurement-induced state transitionsmulti-photon resonancesqubit readoutdispersive shiftsuperinductorcircuit QED
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Lighter fluxonium qubits resist measurement-induced state transitions better than heavier ones.

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

The paper maps measurement-induced state transitions, which occur when readout drives trigger multi-photon resonances that leak population from computational states to higher levels, across the full range of fluxonium parameters used in experiments. It establishes that lighter fluxoniums suffer fewer such transitions than heavier ones. The difference arises because lighter designs have a sparser set of resonances, need weaker coupling to achieve the same dispersive shift, and have a charge operator that behaves more like a harmonic oscillator. This ranking is checked with time-dependent simulations that also track the role of superinductor array modes.

Core claim

Measurement-induced state transitions in fluxonium qubits are caused by multi-photon resonances under readout drive. Lighter fluxoniums, those with higher charging energy relative to Josephson energy, are less susceptible than heavier ones owing to lower resonance density, smaller coupling strength needed for a target dispersive shift, and a more harmonic-like charge operator. Time-dependent readout simulations confirm the trend over experimentally relevant parameters, including the contribution of superinductor array modes.

What carries the argument

Multi-photon resonance counting combined with time-dependent simulations of the driven fluxonium-resonator Hamiltonian, scanned over the space of Josephson, charging, and inductive energies.

If this is right

  • Lighter fluxoniums support readout drives with reduced leakage to non-computational states.
  • The susceptibility ordering guides selection of fluxonium parameters for improved readout fidelity.
  • Superinductor array modes contribute to transitions in a way that can be quantified across the same parameter space.
  • Time-dependent simulations reliably predict the onset of transitions once resonance locations are known.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Circuit designers could favor lighter fluxoniums to relax requirements on readout pulse shaping or error correction overhead.
  • Systematic experimental scans of transition thresholds versus fluxonium weight would provide a direct test of the predicted trend.
  • The same resonance-density and charge-operator arguments might inform optimization of other superconducting qubit families for readout performance.

Load-bearing premise

The multi-photon resonance model and time-dependent simulations capture all relevant dynamics without unmodeled noise, higher-order effects, or fabrication imperfections that could alter the susceptibility ranking.

What would settle it

An experiment in which a heavier fluxonium shows lower transition rates than a lighter one under matched dispersive shift and drive strength would contradict the ranking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08515 by Alex A. Chapple, Alexander McDonald, Alexandre Blais, Boris M. Varbanov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) The system we consider is a fluxonium qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Fluxonium population as a function of the resonator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Average critical photon numbers ¯n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a, b), (c, d) Fluxonium populations starting in the ground and excited states, respectively, as functions of resonator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a, b) Required coupling strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Average coupling strength over resonator frequen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Resonator and (b) leakage population as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. A fluxonium qubit asymmetrically coupled to a read [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Critical photon numbers as a function of resonator (drive) frequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Critical photon numbers as a function of the res [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. (a) Branch analysis for the parameters used in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. (a) Array mode frequencies and (b) their coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding the mechanisms that limit high-fidelity readout in circuit quantum electrodynamics is essential for its optimization. Multi-photon resonances are understood to be a limiting factor, causing population transfer from the computational states to higher-energy states under drive. This effect, known as measurement-induced state transitions, has been extensively studied for the transmon qubit. While this exploration has begun for the fluxonium qubit, a systematic study of this effect is lacking. Here, we bridge this gap by theoretically studying measurement-induced state transitions in the fluxonium qubit over a wide range of parameters, comprising essentially all experimentally explored ranges. We find that lighter fluxoniums are less susceptible to these state transitions when compared to their heavier counterparts. We attribute this effect to the combination of lower density of multi-photon resonances, a smaller requisite coupling for a given dispersive shift, and a more harmonic-like structure of the charge operator. We confirm the validity of our analysis by performing time-dependent readout simulations. Finally, we consider the impact of the superinductor's array modes on measurement-induced state transitions over a large range of parameters.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a theoretical study of measurement-induced state transitions in fluxonium qubits across a broad parameter range (essentially all experimentally relevant E_J/E_L values). It models multi-photon resonances, performs time-dependent readout simulations, and concludes that lighter fluxoniums exhibit lower susceptibility than heavier ones. The reduced susceptibility is attributed to lower resonance density, smaller coupling strength needed for a target dispersive shift, and a more harmonic charge operator. The work also examines the role of superinductor array modes.

Significance. If the central comparison holds, the result offers concrete design guidance for fluxonium-based processors by favoring lighter devices to mitigate readout-induced leakage. The combination of resonance counting and explicit time-dependent simulations, plus the array-mode analysis, provides a systematic extension of prior transmon work to the fluxonium landscape.

major comments (2)
  1. [time-dependent readout simulations] Time-dependent simulations section: the manuscript does not report how the charge/flux basis truncation or total Hilbert-space dimension is chosen or scaled with E_J/E_L. Heavier fluxoniums possess a denser spectrum near readout frequencies; a fixed cutoff (common practice) would therefore miss additional resonances and leakage channels that exist only in the heavy regime, systematically underestimating their susceptibility and biasing the lighter-vs-heavier ranking.
  2. [resonance counting] Resonance-counting analysis (likely §3): while the lower density of multi-photon resonances for light fluxoniums is plausible, the paper must demonstrate that the counted resonances are exhaustive within the same energy window used for the simulations; otherwise the two methods are not directly comparable and the attribution of the susceptibility difference remains incomplete.
minor comments (2)
  1. [figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the Hilbert-space cutoff and drive parameters used for each panel to allow direct reproducibility.
  2. [array modes] Notation for the array-mode frequencies and their coupling to the qubit should be introduced once and used consistently; several symbols appear to be redefined in the array-mode subsection.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below and have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Time-dependent simulations section: the manuscript does not report how the charge/flux basis truncation or total Hilbert-space dimension is chosen or scaled with E_J/E_L. Heavier fluxoniums possess a denser spectrum near readout frequencies; a fixed cutoff (common practice) would therefore miss additional resonances and leakage channels that exist only in the heavy regime, systematically underestimating their susceptibility and biasing the lighter-vs-heavier ranking.

    Authors: We thank the referee for identifying this omission. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit description of the truncation procedure in the time-dependent simulations section. We employ a charge-flux product basis with |n| ≤ 20 and up to 40 flux levels, yielding a total dimension of ~800 states for the heaviest devices; the cutoff is increased proportionally with E_J/E_L so that all eigenstates up to 15 GHz above the readout frequency are retained. Convergence was verified by repeating the heaviest-case simulations with a 50 % larger basis, which altered the extracted leakage rates by less than 2 %. These checks confirm that the denser spectrum of heavy fluxoniums is fully captured within the simulated window, so the reported susceptibility ranking is not biased by truncation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Resonance-counting analysis (likely §3): while the lower density of multi-photon resonances for light fluxoniums is plausible, the paper must demonstrate that the counted resonances are exhaustive within the same energy window used for the simulations; otherwise the two methods are not directly comparable and the attribution of the susceptibility difference remains incomplete.

    Authors: We agree that direct comparability requires an explicit common energy window. The revised manuscript now states that resonances are counted for all states lying between the ground state and 2ω_r (the upper limit of the time-dependent simulations). A new supplementary figure overlays the counted multi-photon resonances on the full spectrum for representative light and heavy parameter sets, confirming that every resonance inside this window has been included. With this clarification the resonance-density comparison and the time-dependent leakage results are placed on the same footing, reinforcing the attribution of reduced susceptibility in lighter fluxoniums to lower resonance density together with the smaller required coupling and more harmonic charge operator. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard circuit-QED modeling

full rationale

The paper derives its central claim (lighter fluxoniums less susceptible to measurement-induced transitions) from direct computation of multi-photon resonance densities, required dispersive couplings, and charge-operator matrix elements across the E_J/E_L landscape, followed by time-dependent Schrödinger simulations. These steps use the standard fluxonium Hamiltonian and readout drive terms without any fitted parameters being relabeled as predictions, without self-definitional loops, and without load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The attribution to lower state density, smaller coupling, and more harmonic charge operator follows immediately from the eigenstructure of the model; the array-mode extension is likewise a direct Hamiltonian augmentation. No step reduces the output to the input by construction. This is the expected outcome for a parameter-sweep theoretical study grounded in established circuit-QED numerics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit list of fitted parameters, background axioms, or new entities; standard circuit-QED Hamiltonian and dispersive approximation are implicitly used but not detailed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5492 in / 1012 out tokens · 38547 ms · 2026-05-10T17:31:00.381150+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    recently showed that array modes can lead to drive- induced transitions during readout in situations where they would otherwise be absent, a process they referred to as parametric MIST (PMIST). The underlying mechanism for these transitions re- mains multi-photon processes which, given that they are mediated by array modes, depends sensitively on the de- ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The vari- ous charging energies are related to the capacitances in Fig

    Phase drop coordinates Our starting point is the LagrangianLof the circuit given by L=L P S +L JJ A +L g +L r +L c,(D1) where, using the node flux variablesφ j coordinate sys- tem, we have LP S = 1 16ECp ( ˙φN −˙φ0)2 +E Jp cos(φN −φ 0 +φ ext),(D2) LJJ A = NX m=1 1 16E(m) Cg,j ( ˙φm −˙φm−1)2 + NX m=1 E(m) Jj cos(φm −φ m−1),(D3) Lg = N−1X m=1 1 16E(m) Cj ˙φ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Cyclic variable The above expressions account for fluxoid quantiza- tion by including the external fluxφ ext in the poten- tial energy of the phase slip junction. There is also a non-dynamical degree of freedom in the coordinate sys- tem of choice, which is most obvious by writing the Lagrangian in the gauge-invariant phase drop coordi- nates (φ r, φ0, φ1...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Qubit and array modes We now want to write the Lagrangian in the qubit and array modes coordinate system. To that end, we define θm = 1 N φf + N−1X µ=1 Wµmξµ (D25) whereW µm is an (N−1)×Nmatrix which satisfies NX m=1 WµmWνm =δ µν,(D26) NX m=1 Wµm = 0.(D27) The first condition ensures the array modes are orthonor- mal, and the second ensures they are ortho...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Perturbation theory Given the choice of array modes, we can compute the matrix elements ofC ′ analytically. We have Cφrφr = 1 8ECr + 1 8ECc ,(D40) 1 N (F |φf) = 1 16ECc 1− Et ECc ,(D41) (ξµ|F) = Et 8ECc ECg,j √ 2N oµcµ s2µ ,(D42) 1 N 2 (φf |C θθ|φf) = 1 8ECp + 1 8N ECj + 1 32Et 1− 2 3 Et(N−1)(N+ 1) ECg,j N − E2 t E2 Cc ,(D43) 1 N (ξµ|C θθ|φf) =− 1 16ECg,j...

    work page

  6. [6]

    VI are summarized in Table I

    Circuit parameters The circuit parameters used in Sec. VI are summarized in Table I. As can be seen in Eq. (D49), the total charging energy of the fluxonium depends on the array junctions’ capacitance to groundC gj, among other circuit param- eters. We choose these to ensure that the fluxonium’s charging energy is fixed atE Cf /2π= 1 GHz for all val- ues ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science326, 113 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-coherence flux- onium qubit, Phys. Rev. X9, 041041 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Zhang, S

    H. Zhang, S. Chakram, T. Roy, N. Earnest, Y. Lu, Z. Huang, D. K. Weiss, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Universal fast-flux control of a coherent, low-frequency qubit, Phys. Rev. X11, 011010 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    L. B. Nguyen, G. Koolstra, Y. Kim, A. Morvan, T. Chis- tolini, S. Singh, K. N. Nesterov, C. J¨ unger, L. Chen, Z. Pedramrazi, B. K. Mitchell, J. M. Kreikebaum, S. Puri, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Blueprint for a high-performance fluxonium quantum processor, PRX Quantum3, 037001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    F. Bao, H. Deng, D. Ding, R. Gao, X. Gao, C. Huang, X. Jiang, H.-S. Ku, Z. Li, X. Ma, X. Ni, J. Qin, Z. Song, H. Sun, C. Tang, T. Wang, F. Wu, T. Xia, W. Yu, F. Zhang, G. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Zhou, X. Zhu, Y. Shi, J. Chen, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, Fluxonium: An alter- native qubit platform for high-fidelity operations, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 010502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Somoroff, Q

    A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, H. Xiong, R. Kuzmin, and V. E. Manucharyan, Millisecond coher- ence in a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 267001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Melville, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, High- fidelity, frequency-flexible two-qubit fluxonium gates with a transmon coupler, Phys. Rev. X13, 031035 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    F. Wang, K. Lu, H. Zhan, L. Ma, F. Wu, H. Sun, H. Deng, Y. Bai, F. Bao, X. Chang, R. Gao, X. Gao, G. Gong, L. Hu, R. Hu, H. Ji, X. Ma, L. Mao, Z. Song, C. Tang, H. Wang, T. Wang, Z. Wang, T. Xia, H. Xu, Z. Zhan, G. Zhang, T. Zhou, M. Zhu, Q. Zhu, S. Zhu, X. Zhu, Y. Shi, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, High- coherence fluxonium qubits manufactured with a wafer- s...

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    D. A. Rower, L. Ding, H. Zhang, M. Hays, J. An, P. M. Harrington, I. T. Rosen, J. M. Gertler, T. M. Haz- ard, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, S. Gustavsson, K. Serniak, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, Suppressing counter-rotating errors for fast single-qubit gates with fluxonium, PRX Quantum5, 040342 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Schirk, F

    J. Schirk, F. Wallner, L. Huang, I. Tsitsilin, N. Bruck- moser, L. Koch, D. Bunch, N. Glaser, G. Huber, M. Knudsen, G. Krylov, A. Marx, F. Pfeiffer, L. Richard, F. Roy, J. Romeiro, M. Singh, L. S¨ odergren, E. Dio- nis, D. Sugny, M. Werninghaus, K. Liegener, C. Schnei- der, and S. Filipp, Subharmonic control of a fluxonium qubit via a purcell-protected fl...

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Zhang, C

    H. Zhang, C. Ding, D. Weiss, Z. Huang, Y. Ma, C. Guinn, S. Sussman, S. P. Chitta, D. Chen, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Tunable inductive coupler for high- fidelity gates between fluxonium qubits, PRX Quantum 5, 020326 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    W.-J. Lin, H. Cho, Y. Chen, M. G. Vavilov, C. Wang, and V. E. Manucharyan, 24 days-stable cnot gate on flux- onium qubits with over 99.9% fidelity, PRX Quantum6, 010349 (2025)

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Y. Li, W. Nuerbolati, C. Deng, X. Ma, H. Xiong, and H. Yu, Mitigating state transition errors during readout with a synchronized flux pulse (2025), arXiv:2507.14436 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Weiss, H

    D. Weiss, H. Zhang, C. Ding, Y. Ma, D. I. Schuster, and J. Koch, Fast high-fidelity gates for galvanically- coupled fluxonium qubits using strong flux modulation, PRX Quantum3, 040336 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Bista, M

    A. Bista, M. Thibodeau, K. Nie, K. Chow, B. K. Clark, and A. Kou, Readout-induced leakage of the fluxonium qubit (2025), arXiv:2501.17807 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    K. N. Nesterov and I. V. Pechenezhskiy, Measurement- induced state transitions in dispersive qubit-readout schemes, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 064038 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    T. V. Stefanski and C. K. Andersen, Flux-pulse-assisted readout of a fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 014079 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    T. V. Stefanski, F. Yilmaz, E. Y. Huang, M. F. S. Zwa- nenburg, S. Singh, S. Wang, L. J. Splitthoff, and C. K. Andersen, Improved fluxonium readout through dynamic flux pulsing (2024), arXiv:2411.13437 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Bothara, S

    G. Bothara, S. Das, K. V. Salunkhe, M. Chand, J. Desh- mukh, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, High-fidelity qnd readout and measurement back-action in a tantalum- based high-coherence fluxonium qubit, APL Quantum2, 026103 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Watanabe, K

    S. Watanabe, K. Hida, K. Matsuura, and Y. Nakamura, Nondemolition fluorescence readout and high-fidelity un- conditional reset of a fluxonium qubit via dissipation en- gineering, Phys. Rev. A112, 012624 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    C. Liu, Y. Li, J. Wang, Q. Guan, L. Jin, L. Ma, R. Hu, T. Wang, X. Zhu, H.-F. Yu, C. Deng, and X. Ma, Con- verting qubit relaxation into erasures with a single flux- onium (2026), arXiv:2601.11086 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    D. Sank, Z. Chen, M. Khezri, J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Mu- tus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quin- tana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, T. White, J. Wen- ner, A. N. Korotkov, and J. M. Martinis, Measurement- induced state transitions in a superconducting...

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Cohen, A

    J. Cohen, A. Petrescu, R. Shillito, and A. Blais, Reminis- cence of classical chaos in driven transmons, PRX Quan- tum4, 020312 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Shillito, A

    R. Shillito, A. Petrescu, J. Cohen, J. Beall, M. Hauru, M. Ganahl, A. G. Lewis, G. Vidal, and A. Blais, Dynam- ics of transmon ionization, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034031 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Khezri, A

    M. Khezri, A. Opremcak, Z. Chen, K. C. Miao, M. McEwen, A. Bengtsson, T. White, O. Naaman, 23 D. Sank, A. N. Korotkov, Y. Chen, and V. Smelyan- skiy, Measurement-induced state transitions in a super- conducting qubit: Within the rotating-wave approxima- tion, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 054008 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    M. F. Dumas, B. Groleau-Par´ e, A. McDonald, M. H. Mu˜ noz Arias, C. Lled´ o, B. D’Anjou, and A. Blais, Measurement-induced transmon ionization, Phys. Rev. X14, 041023 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    A. A. Chapple, O. Benhayoune-Khadraoui, S. Richer, and A. Blais, Balanced cross-kerr coupling for super- conducting qubit readout, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 256002 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    A. A. Chapple, A. McDonald, M. H. Mu˜ noz Arias, M. Lachapelle, and A. Blais, Robustness of longitudinal transmon readout to ionization, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 034026 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Z. Wang, B. D’Anjou, P. Gigon, A. Blais, and M. S. Blok, Probing excited-state dynamics of transmon ionization (2025), arXiv:2505.00639 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    F´ echant, M

    M. F´ echant, M. F. Dumas, D. B´ enˆ atre, N. Gosling, P. Lenhard, M. Spiecker, W. Wernsdorfer, B. D’Anjou, A. Blais, and I. M. Pop, Offset charge dependence of measurement-induced transitions in transmons (2025), arXiv:2505.00674 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    W. Dai, S. Hazra, D. K. Weiss, P. D. Kurilovich, T. Con- nolly, H. K. Babla, S. Singh, V. R. Joshi, A. Z. Ding, P. D. Parakh, J. Venkatraman, X. Xiao, L. Frunzio, and M. H. Devoret, Characterization of drive-induced unwanted state transitions in superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. X16, 011011 (2026)

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

    H. P. Breuer and M. Holthaus, Adiabatic processes in the ionization of highly excited hydrogen atoms, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters11, 1 (1989)

    work page 1989

  40. [40]

    Singh, G

    S. Singh, G. Refael, A. Clerk, and E. Rosenfeld, Impact of josephson junction array modes on fluxonium readout (2025), arXiv:2412.14788 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    D. G. Ferguson, A. A. Houck, and J. Koch, Symmetries and collective excitations in large superconducting cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. X3, 011003 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    G. Zhu, D. G. Ferguson, V. E. Manucharyan, and J. Koch, Circuit qed with fluxonium qubits: Theory of the dispersive regime, Phys. Rev. B87, 024510 (2013)

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    Viola and G

    G. Viola and G. Catelani, Collective modes in the fluxo- nium qubit, Phys. Rev. B92, 224511 (2015)

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    Sorokanich, M

    S. Sorokanich, M. Hays, and N. C. Warrington, Exact and approximate fluxonium array modes, Phys. Rev. B 110, 125404 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Groszkowski and J

    P. Groszkowski and J. Koch, Scqubits: a python package for superconducting qubits, Quantum5, 583 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    S. P. Chitta, T. Zhao, Z. Huang, I. Mondragon-Shem, and J. Koch, Computer-aided quantization and numeri- cal analysis of superconducting circuits, New Journal of Physics24, 103020 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Boissonneault, J

    M. Boissonneault, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Im- proved superconducting qubit readout by qubit-induced nonlinearities, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 100504 (2010)

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    Gusenkova, M

    D. Gusenkova, M. Spiecker, R. Gebauer, M. Willsch, D. Willsch, F. Valenti, N. Karcher, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, I. Tak- makov, P. Winkel, D. Rieger, A. V. Ustinov, N. Roch, W. Wernsdorfer, K. Michielsen, O. Sander, and I. M. Pop, Quantum nondemolition dispersive readout of a su- perconducting artificial atom using large photon num- bers, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 064030 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Rieger, S

    D. Rieger, S. G¨ unzler, M. Spiecker, P. Paluch, P. Winkel, L. Hahn, J. K. Hohmann, A. Bacher, W. Wernsdorfer, and I. M. Pop, Granular aluminium nanojunction fluxo- nium qubit, Nature Materials22, 194 (2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A69, 062320 (2004)

    work page 2004

  51. [51]

    X. Xiao, J. Venkatraman, R. G. Corti˜ nas, S. Chowdhury, and M. H. Devoret, A diagrammatic method to compute the effective hamiltonian of driven nonlinear oscillators, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13656 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Singh, E

    S. Singh, E. Y. Huang, J. Hu, F. Yilmaz, M. F. S. Zwa- nenburg, P. Kumaravadivel, S. Wang, T. V. Stefanski, and C. K. Andersen, Fast microwave-driven two-qubit gates between fluxonium qubits with a transmon coupler (2025), arXiv:2504.13718 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Earnest, S

    N. Earnest, S. Chakram, Y. Lu, N. Irons, R. K. Naik, N. Leung, L. Ocola, D. A. Czaplewski, B. Baker, J. Lawrence, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Realization of a Λ system with metastable states of a capacitively shunted fluxonium, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 150504 (2018)

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    Verney, R

    L. Verney, R. Lescanne, M. H. Devoret, Z. Leghtas, and M. Mirrahimi, Structural instability of driven joseph- son circuits prevented by an inductive shunt, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 024003 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Hassani, M

    F. Hassani, M. Peruzzo, L. N. Kapoor, A. Trioni, M. Zemlicka, and J. M. Fink, Inductively shunted trans- mons exhibit noise insensitive plasmon states and a fluxon decay exceeding 3 hours, Nature Communications 14, 3968 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Kalacheva, G

    D. Kalacheva, G. Fedorov, J. Zotova, S. Kadyrmetov, A. Kirkovskii, A. Dmitriev, and O. Astafiev, Kinemon: An inductively shunted transmon artificial atom, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 024058 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    S. D. Fasciati, B. Shteynas, G. Campanaro, M. Bakr, S. Cao, V. Chidambaram, J. Wills, and P. J. Leek, Complementing the transmon by integrating a geometric shunt inductor (2024), arXiv:2410.10416 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Zobrist, J

    N. Zobrist, J. M. Kreikebaum, M. Khezri, S. V. Isakov, B. J. Lester, Y. Zhang, A. D. Paolo, D. Sank, and W. C. Smith, Measurement-induced state transitions in inductively-shunted transmons (2026), arXiv:2603.12114 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Coulombe, A

    G. Coulombe, A. McDonald, A. A. Chapple, M. F. Du- mas, and A. Blais, (2026), in preparation

    work page 2026

  60. [60]

    Gambetta, A

    J. Gambetta, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Qubit-photon interactions in a cavity: Measurement-induced dephasing and number splitting, Phys. Rev. A74, 042318 (2006)

    work page 2006

  61. [61]

    Esposito, A

    M. Esposito, A. Ranadive, L. Planat, and N. Roch, Per- spective on traveling wave microwave parametric ampli- fiers, Applied Physics Letters119, 120501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Jeffrey, D

    E. Jeffrey, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White, J. Kelly, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Megrant, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Neill, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Fast accurate state measurement with super- conducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 190504 (2014)

    work page 2014

  63. [63]

    Heinsoo, C

    J. Heinsoo, C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Krinner, T. Walter, Y. Salath´ e, S. Gasparinetti, J.-C. Besse, A. Potoˇ cnik, A. Wallraff, and C. Eichler, Rapid high- fidelity multiplexed readout of superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 034040 (2018). 24

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Her- rmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. M¨ uller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature 605, 669 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    P. A. Spring, L. Milanovic, Y. Sunada, S. Wang, A. F. van Loo, S. Tamate, and Y. Nakamura, Fast multiplexed superconducting-qubit readout with intrinsic purcell fil- tering using a multiconductor transmission line, PRX Quantum6, 020345 (2025)

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    Swiadek, R

    F. Swiadek, R. Shillito, P. Magnard, A. Remm, C. Hellings, N. Lacroix, Q. Ficheux, D. C. Zanuz, G. J. Norris, A. Blais, S. Krinner, and A. Wallraff, Enhanc- ing dispersive readout of superconducting qubits through dynamic control of the dispersive shift: Experiment and theory, PRX Quantum5, 040326 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    Battistel, B

    F. Battistel, B. Varbanov, and B. Terhal, Hardware- efficient leakage-reduction scheme for quantum error cor- rection with superconducting transmon qubits, PRX Quantum2, 030314 (2021)

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    B. M. Varbanov, F. Battistel, B. M. Tarasinski, V. P. Ostroukh, T. E. O’Brien, L. DiCarlo, and B. M. Terhal, Leakage detection for a transmon-based surface code, npj Quantum Information6, 102 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    J. F. Marques, H. Ali, B. M. Varbanov, M. Finkel, H. M. Veen, S. L. M. van der Meer, S. Valles-Sanclemente, N. Muthusubramanian, M. Beekman, N. Haider, B. M. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo, All-microwave leakage reduction units for quantum error correction with superconducting transmon qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 250602 (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    Lacroix, L

    N. Lacroix, L. Hofele, A. Remm, O. Benhayoune- Khadraoui, A. McDonald, R. Shillito, S. Lazar, C. Hellings, F. m. c. Swiadek, D. Colao-Zanuz, A. Flasby, M. B. Panah, M. Kerschbaum, G. J. Norris, A. Blais, A. Wallraff, and S. Krinner, Fast flux-activated leakage reduction for superconducting quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 120601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    K. C. Miao, M. McEwen, J. Atalaya, D. Kafri, L. P. Pryadko, A. Bengtsson, A. Opremcak, K. J. Satzinger, Z. Chen, P. V. Klimov, C. Quintana, R. Acharya, K. An- derson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. C. Bardin, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bush- nell, J. Campero, B. Chiaro, R. Collins,...

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    N. A. Masluk, I. M. Pop, A. Kamal, Z. K. Minev, and M. H. Devoret, Microwave Characterization of Josephson Junction Arrays: Implementing a Low Loss Superinduc- tance, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 137002 (2012)

    work page 2012

  73. [73]

    Benhayoune-Khadraoui, C

    O. Benhayoune-Khadraoui, C. Lled´ o, and A. Blais, How the kerr-cat qubit dies – and how to rescue it (2025), arXiv:2507.06160 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Hoyau, A

    B. Hoyau, A. McDonald, B. M. Varbanov, M. H. Mu˜ noz- Arias, and A. Blais, Measurement-induced state tran- sitions in multi-qubit transmon processors (2026), in preparation

    work page 2026

  75. [75]

    Guilmin, A

    P. Guilmin, A. Bocquet, ´E. Genois, D. Weiss, and R. Gautier, Dynamiqs: an open-source python library for gpu-accelerated and differentiable simulation of quantum systems (2025)

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    C. C. Bultink, B. Tarasinski, N. Haandbæk, S. Poletto, N. Haider, D. J. Michalak, A. Bruno, and L. DiCarlo, General method for extracting the quantum efficiency of dispersive qubit readout in circuit QED, Applied Physics Letters112, 092601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  77. [77]

    Gambetta, W

    J. Gambetta, W. A. Braff, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Protocols for optimal readout of qubits using a continuous quantum nondemolition mea- surement, Phys. Rev. A76, 012325 (2007)

    work page 2007

  78. [78]

    Vool and M

    U. Vool and M. Devoret, Introduction to quantum elec- tromagnetic circuits, Int. J. Circuit Theory Appl.45, 897 (2017)

    work page 2017