pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13363 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Scalable Fluxonium Quantum Processors via Tunable-Coupler Architecture

Ze Zhan , Zishuo Li , Fei Wang , Wangwei Lan , Xianchuang Pan , Liang Xiang , Xu Dou , Ran Gao
show 19 more authors
Guicheng Gong Yanbo Guo Quan Guan Lijuan Hu Ruizhi Hu Honghong Ji Lijing Jin Yongyue Jin Chengyao Li Kannan Lu Lu Ma Xizheng Ma Hongcheng Wang Jiahui Wang Huijuan Zhan Tao Zhou Xing Zhu Chunqing Deng Tenghui Wang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 13:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords fluxoniumtunable couplersuperconducting qubitsquantum processorgate fidelityGHZ statesscalable architecture
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fluxonium qubits with tunable couplers scale to a 22-qubit processor without emergent interaction errors.

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

The paper demonstrates a modular unit cell consisting of a fluxonium qubit and a tunable coupler that can be repeated to form larger lattices. It reports single-qubit gate fidelities approaching 99.99 percent and CZ gates reaching 99.9 percent in 32 nanoseconds, then shows these operations working in parallel across a 22-qubit device to produce Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states of up to 10 qubits. The central argument is that residual interactions and spectator errors do not grow when the cells are combined, giving fluxonium a concrete route to system sizes that were previously unproven for this qubit type.

Core claim

The fluxonium-tunable-coupler unit cell composes without emergent interaction pathologies and establishes fluxonium as a scalable superconducting qubit platform. Parallel single-qubit gates achieve fidelities approaching 99.99 percent while two-qubit CZ gates reach around 99 percent, with an optimized duration of 32 nanoseconds yielding 99.9 percent fidelity. Validation in a 22-qubit processor confirms that the same configuration supports deterministic generation of GHZ states involving up to 10 qubits.

What carries the argument

The modular qubit-coupler unit cell engineered to suppress residual interactions and spectator errors in a many-qubit lattice.

Load-bearing premise

Residual interactions and spectator errors remain suppressed without new pathologies when the unit cell is tiled into lattices substantially larger than the demonstrated 22 qubits.

What would settle it

Observation of new interaction pathologies, rising spectator errors, or fidelity collapse in a tiled lattice of 50 or more fluxonium qubits built from the same unit cell would falsify the scalability claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13363 by Chengyao Li, Chunqing Deng, Fei Wang, Guicheng Gong, Hongcheng Wang, Honghong Ji, Huijuan Zhan, Jiahui Wang, Kannan Lu, Liang Xiang, Lijing Jin, Lijuan Hu, Lu Ma, Quan Guan, Ran Gao, Ruizhi Hu, Tao Zhou, Tenghui Wang, Wangwei Lan, Xianchuang Pan, Xing Zhu, Xizheng Ma, Xu Dou, Yanbo Guo, Yongyue Jin, Ze Zhan, Zishuo Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a), all measured ZZ couplings are below ∼ 1 kHz when the couplers are biased in the coupling-OFF config￾uration. We further investigate the residual ZZ coupling when the couplers are tuned to the coupling-ON config￾uration. Similar to the coupling-OFF configuration, the residual ZZ coupling remains strongly suppressed at the ∼ 1 kHz level when the coupler is biased in the coupling￾ON configuration, as det… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) and (b), exhibiting the expected GHZ struc￾ture with dominant populations and coherences between |gg · · · g⟩ and |ee · · · e⟩. For larger systems, where tomog￾raphy becomes impractical, we probe the coherence of the generated states using parity measurements. In this pro￾tocol, a collective phase rotation is applied to the GHZ state RN Z = NN i=1 R (i) z (ϕ), preparing a final state ρˆf . This is foll… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a), we show the measured Ramsey phase as a func￾tion of delay time. The difference in the phase accumu￾lation rates for the control qubit prepared in |g⟩ and |e⟩ directly yields the ZZ coupling strength. In this case, the measured ZZ coupling is around 0.2 kHz. To provide a direct comparison with the main text, we characterized the ZZ coupling for the same set of qubits while the cou￾plers were biased to … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Superconducting quantum processors have largely converged on transmon-based architectures, while alternative qubit modalities with intrinsic error protection have lacked a demonstrated path to scalable system integration. In particular, although tunable-coupler-mediated interactions have been validated for small fluxonium systems, it remains unclear whether such designs can be scaled to a multi-qubit lattice. Here, we establish a scalable fluxonium processor architecture based on a modular qubit-coupler unit cell engineered to suppress residual interactions and spectator errors in a many-qubit lattice. The system enables parallel single-qubit gate fidelities approaching 99.99% and two-qubit CZ gate fidelities around 99%. With an optimized gate duration of 32 ns, the best CZ gate fidelity reaches 99.9%. We further validate this architecture in a 22-qubit processor based on the same configuration, where parallel operations enable the deterministic generation of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states involving up to 10 qubits. Together, these results demonstrate that the fluxonium-tunable-coupler unit cell composes without emergent interaction pathologies and establish fluxonium as a scalable superconducting qubit platform.

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 modular fluxonium-tunable-coupler unit cell for superconducting quantum processors, reporting parallel single-qubit gate fidelities approaching 99.99%, CZ gate fidelities around 99% (best 99.9% at 32 ns), and deterministic GHZ state generation up to 10 qubits in a 22-qubit processor. It concludes that these results demonstrate the unit cell composes without emergent interaction pathologies, establishing fluxonium as a scalable platform.

Significance. If the results hold, this work is significant for providing experimental evidence of a scalable architecture for fluxonium qubits, which offer intrinsic error protection advantages over transmons. The concrete fidelity numbers, optimized gate durations, and multi-qubit GHZ entanglement on 22 qubits with parallel operations represent a concrete advance beyond small-scale fluxonium demonstrations and support the modular design's viability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the fluxonium-tunable-coupler unit cell 'composes without emergent interaction pathologies' and establishes scalability is load-bearing for the central thesis, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative modeling, simulation, or data on how residual ZZ rates, coupler-induced cross-talk, or flux-noise accumulation scale when the unit cell is tiled beyond the demonstrated 22 qubits into 50- or 100-qubit lattices.
  2. [22-qubit processor] 22-qubit processor section: the reported gate fidelities and GHZ generation results are presented without error bars, full raw datasets, or explicit exclusion criteria, which limits independent verification of the 'no new pathologies' assertion at this scale and is central to assessing the architecture's robustness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures and Methods] Figure captions and methods: several figures showing fidelity vs. gate duration or qubit spectra would benefit from clearer labeling of the tunable-coupler bias points used to achieve the reported suppression of residuals.
  2. [Results] Notation: the definition of 'parallel operations' in the context of the 22-qubit GHZ experiment could be clarified to distinguish simultaneous vs. sequential execution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the work's significance and for the detailed, constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating where revisions have been made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the fluxonium-tunable-coupler unit cell 'composes without emergent interaction pathologies' and establishes scalability is load-bearing for the central thesis, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative modeling, simulation, or data on how residual ZZ rates, coupler-induced cross-talk, or flux-noise accumulation scale when the unit cell is tiled beyond the demonstrated 22 qubits into 50- or 100-qubit lattices.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not contain explicit quantitative modeling or simulations projecting residual ZZ rates, cross-talk, or flux-noise accumulation to 50- or 100-qubit scales. The central claim is grounded in the experimental observation that the modular unit cell produces no detectable emergent pathologies in a 22-qubit lattice under parallel operation, as evidenced by the high-fidelity gates and deterministic multi-qubit GHZ generation. We have revised the abstract and added a dedicated paragraph in the discussion section that explicitly qualifies the scalability statement to the demonstrated 22-qubit scale, notes the absence of larger-scale simulations, and outlines why the local suppression of interactions in the unit-cell design provides a plausible path to larger systems without new pathologies. Comprehensive numerical scaling studies remain outside the scope of the present experimental work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [22-qubit processor] 22-qubit processor section: the reported gate fidelities and GHZ generation results are presented without error bars, full raw datasets, or explicit exclusion criteria, which limits independent verification of the 'no new pathologies' assertion at this scale and is central to assessing the architecture's robustness.

    Authors: We have updated the main text to include the statistical uncertainties on all reported gate fidelities (obtained from randomized benchmarking fits) and the error bars on the GHZ-state fidelities (derived from repeated experimental runs). A new supplementary section now provides the full raw datasets, the analysis code used to extract the reported numbers, and the explicit data-exclusion criteria applied during post-processing. These additions directly enable independent verification of the results at the 22-qubit scale. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental demonstration with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports experimental measurements on a 22-qubit fluxonium processor using a tunable-coupler architecture, including parallel single-qubit gate fidelities ~99.99%, CZ gates ~99%, and GHZ states up to 10 qubits. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or predictions are presented that could reduce to inputs by construction. The central claim rests on direct device characterization rather than any self-referential modeling or self-citation chain. This is self-contained experimental evidence; the scalability extrapolation to larger lattices is an untested assumption but does not constitute circularity in any derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental hardware paper with no new mathematical derivations; relies on standard superconducting circuit physics and prior tunable-coupler techniques.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of superconducting quantum circuit theory regarding coherence times, gate operations, and residual coupling suppression
    Invoked implicitly when claiming suppression of spectator errors and scalability of the unit cell.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5595 in / 1134 out tokens · 34149 ms · 2026-05-10T13:59:02.198015+00:00 · methodology

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. System-Level Design of Scalable Fluxonium Quantum Processors with Double-Transmon Couplers

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A system-level design methodology for scalable fluxonium processors with double-transmon couplers that supports high-fidelity gates, fast reset, and dispersive readout through frequency partitioning under realistic co...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    11, we pre- pare anN-qubit GHZ state|GHZ⟩= (|ggg

    GHZ State Preparation Following the sequence illustrated in Fig. 11, we pre- pare anN-qubit GHZ state|GHZ⟩= (|ggg . . . g⟩+ |eee . . . e⟩)/ √

  2. [2]

    As shown in the sequence, the system is first initialized to the ground state by a flux pulse (la- beled R), using a protocol similar to Ref. [16]. Starting from this state, a Hadamard-type rotation prepares the first qubit in an equal superposition. Successive CNOT operations then distribute this coherence across the FTF chain. In the experiment, each CN...

  3. [3]

    To understand this, con- sider the effect of imperfect initialization on one qubit, labeledQ k

    Effect of Initialization Errors and Pre-selection Protocol Initialization errors become increasingly significant for larger GHZ states because a single residual excitation can corrupt the global parity signal. To understand this, con- sider the effect of imperfect initialization on one qubit, labeledQ k. The initial state is modeled as a classical mixture...

  4. [4]

    The full assignment matrix is constructed from measurements of computational basis states

    Readout Error Mitigation and Fidelity Analysis In addition to pre-selection, measurement errors in M2 are further reduced through multi-qubit readout calibra- tion based on a confusion-matrix correction. The full assignment matrix is constructed from measurements of computational basis states. Corrected probability dis- tributions are obtained using a con...

  5. [5]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell,et al., Nature574, 505 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Wu, W.-S

    Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X.Chen, T.-H.Chung, H.Deng, Y.Du, D.Fan, M.Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 180501 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zale- tel, K. Temme,et al., Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature646, 825 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    F. Jin, S. Jiang, X. Zhu, Z. Bao, F. Shen, K. Wang, Z.Zhu, S.Xu, Z.Song, J.Chen, Z.Tan, Y.Wu, C.Zhang, Y. Gao, N. Wang, Y. Zou, A. Zhang, T. Li, J. Zhong, Z. Cui,et al., Nature645, 626 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    T. He, W. Lin, R. Wang, Y. Li, J. Bei, J. Cai, S. Cao, D. Chen, K. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, W. Chu, H. Deng, X. Ding, Z. Ding, B. Fan, D. Fan, Y. Fu,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 260601 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Besedin, M

    I. Besedin, M. Kerschbaum, J. Knoll, I. Hesner, L. Bödeker, L. Colmenarez, L. Hofele, N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, A. Flasby, M. Bahrami Panah, D. Colao Zanuz, M. Müller, and A. Wallraff, Nat. Phys. 22, 189 (2026)

    2026

  15. [15]

    K. Wang, Z. Lu, C. Zhang, G. Liu, J. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, S. Xu, X. Zhu, F. Jin, Y. Gao, Z. Tan, Z. Cui, N. Wang, Y. Zou, A. Zhang, T. Li, F. Shen, J. Zhong, Z. Bao,et al., Nat. Phys.22, 308 (2026)

    2026

  16. [16]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, M. Brink, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, arXiv:0910.3039 (2019)

    work page arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Somoroff, Q

    A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, H. Xiong, R. Kuzmin, and V. E. Manucharyan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 267001 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    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,et al., Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 044064 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Ficheux, L

    Q. Ficheux, L. B. Nguyen, A. Somoroff, H. Xiong, K. N. Nesterov, M. G. Vavilov, and V. E. Manucharyan, Phys. Rev. X11, 021026 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    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,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 010502 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    I. N. Moskalenko, I. A. Simakov, N. N. Abramov, A. A. Grigorev, D. O. Moskalev, A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, E. V. Zikiy, I. A. Rodionov, and I. S. Besedin, npj Quantum Inf.8, 130 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    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, Phys. Rev. X13, 031035 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    X. Ma, G. Zhang, F. Wu, F. Bao, X. Chang, J. Chen, H. Deng, R. Gao, X. Gao, L. Hu, H. Ji, H.-S. Ku, K. Lu, L. Ma, L. Mao, Z. Song, H. Sun, C. Tang, F. Wang, H. Wang,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 060602 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Sussman, S

    H.Zhang, C.Ding, D.Weiss, Z.Huang, Y.Ma, C.Guinn, S. Sussman, S. P. Chitta, D. Chen, A. A. Houck,et al., PRX Quantum5, 020326 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    W.-J.Lin, H.Cho, Y.Chen, M.G.Vavilov, C.Wang,and V. E. Manucharyan, PRX Quantum6, 010349 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Camp- bell, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Phys. Rev. Applied10, 054062 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    M. D. Reed, B. R. Johnson, A. A. Houck, L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Appl. Phys. Lett.96, 203110 (2010)

    2010

  28. [28]

    McEwen, D

    M. McEwen, D. Kafri, Z. Chen, J. Atalaya, K. Satzinger, C. Quintana, P. V. Klimov, D. Sank, C. Gidney, A. Fowler,et al., Nat. Commun.12, 1761 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, J. M. Chow, S. T. Merkel, M. P. Da Silva, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, T. A. Ohki,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 080505 (2012)

    2012

  30. [30]

    Barends, J

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell,et al., Nature508, 500 (2014)

    2014

  31. [31]

    J. Chen, D. Ding, C. Huang, and Q. Ye, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L022031 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    DiCarlo, M

    L. DiCarlo, M. D. Reed, L. Sun, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature467, 574 (2010)

    2010

  33. [33]

    C. Song, K. Xu, W. Liu, C.-P. Yang, S.-B. Zheng, H. Deng, Q. Xie, K. Huang, Q. Guo, L. Zhang,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 180511 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    K. X. Wei, I. Lauer, S. Srinivasan, N. Sundaresan, D. T. McClure, D. Toyli, D. C. McKay, J. M. Gambetta, and S. Sheldon, Phys. Rev. A101, 032343 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    P. V. Klimov, A. Bengtsson, C. Quintana, A. Bourassa, S. Hong, A. Dunsworth, K. J. Satzinger, W. P. Liv- ingston, V. Sivak, M. Y. Niu, T. I. Andersen, Y. Zhang, D. Chik, Z. Chen, C. Neill, C. Erickson, A. Grajales Dau, A. Megrant, P. Roushan, A. N. Korotkov,et al., Nat. Commun.15, 2442 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Vall´ es-Sanclemente, T

    S. Vallés-Sanclemente, T. H. F. Vroomans, T. R. van Abswoude, F. Brulleman, T. Stavenga, S. L. M. van der Meer, Y. Xin, A. Lawrence, V. Singh, M. A. Rol, and L. DiCarlo, arXiv:2503.13225 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    G. Chan, W. Lan, T. Wang, X. Ma, C. Deng, and L. Jin, manuscript in preparation

  38. [38]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Nat. Phys.14, 595 (2018). 17

    2018

  39. [39]

    E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V. Pound, Phys. Rev. 69, 37 (1946)

    1946

  40. [40]

    Raimond and S

    J.-M. Raimond and S. Haroche, inQuantum Decoher- ence: Poincaré Seminar 2005(Springer, 2006) pp. 33– 83

    2005

  41. [41]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  42. [42]

    Omran, H

    A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, A. S. Zibrov, H. Pichler, S. Choi,et al., Science365, 570 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    Z. Bao, S. Xu, Z. Song, K. Wang, L. Xiang, Z. Zhu, J. Chen, F. Jin, X. Zhu, Y. Gao,et al., Nat. Commun. 15, 8823 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    Heinsoo, C

    J. Heinsoo, C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Krinner, T. Walter, Y. Salathé, S. Gasparinetti, J.-C. Besse, A. Potočnik, A. Wallraff,et al., Phys. Rev. Applied10, 034040 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    Gärttner, Commun

    A.S.Aasen, A.DiGiovanni, H.Rotzinger, A.V.Ustinov, and M. Gärttner, Commun. Phys.7, 301 (2024)

    2024