Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 33 references

Multi-stage Quantum Amplifier Readout Chain

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Cryogenic amplifier chain drops semiconductor stage, hits 3 quanta

desk verdict The QARC demonstrates a two-stage KTWPA readout chain with no cryogenic semiconductor amplifier — a real experimental first with ~3 quanta mean noise over 2 GHz and ~1000x power reduction vs HEMT chains. The result is correctly measured but marginally conditioned on gain flatness. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07614 v1 pith:UB72BJNS submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph

Logan Howe , Andrea Giachero , Michael Vissers , Corwin Shiu , Shannon Duff , Jason Austermann , Johannes Hubmayr , Joel Ullom This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 07.57.Kp85.25.Qc84.30.Le
keywords amplifierpowerreadoutsemiconductoramplifierscryogenicnoiseqarc
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 cryogenic microwave readout chain can be built entirely from superconducting parametric amplifiers, with no semiconductor amplifier at intermediate cryogenic temperatures, while still achieving noise performance within a few quanta of the quantum limit. The authors call this architecture the QARC, for quantum-amplifier-based readout chain. It uses two cascaded kinetic inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifiers, each providing roughly 20 dB of gain, to reach the approximately 40 dB of total gain needed to lift quantum-level signals above the noise of a room-temperature semiconductor amplifier that sits outside the cryostat. The central claim is that this all-parametric chain achieves a mean system excess noise of about 3 quanta over a 2 GHz bandwidth (6.03 to 7.97 GHz), with an input compression point of -93 dBm, while dissipating roughly three orders of magnitude less power than chains that include a cryogenic HEMT amplifier. The paper also cross-validates a magnet-free noise calibration source based on a diffusive metallic nanowire, showing it produces results consistent with a conventional shot-noise tunnel junction. The motivation is practical: cryogenic semiconductor amplifiers at 3 to 4 Kelvin dissipate 10 to 15 milliwatts each, which becomes a bottleneck for space-based observatories and large-scale quantum computing systems where cooling power is scarce.

What carries the argument

The QARC chain: two cascaded kinetic inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifiers providing ~40 dB total gain, followed by a room-temperature semiconductor amplifier with ~1250 quanta of added noise. The break-even gain of 34 dB means the chain operates with roughly 6 dB of margin against the room-temperature amplifier's noise. The chain's performance is conditioned on the KTWPA gain profile remaining high enough across the band to dominate this room-temperature noise.

What would settle it

If the total KTWPA gain at any frequency within the target band falls below approximately 34 dB, the room-temperature amplifier's noise of about 1250 quanta would no longer be overwhelmed, and the system excess noise would rise sharply above the quantum-limited regime. The observed 8 to 10 dB gain ripple means this condition is already met at band edges, limiting the usable bandwidth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core result is that cascading two kinetic inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifiers at sub-Kelvin temperatures provides enough gain, approximately 40 dB, to make the noise contribution of a room-temperature semiconductor amplifier negligible, thereby eliminating the need for any cryogenic semiconductor amplifier. The authors measure a mean system excess noise of about 3 quanta over a 2 GHz band and show that the chain's input compression point of -93 dBm exceeds that of many Josephson-junction-based parametric amplifiers, owing to the higher power handling of kinetic inductance technology. A secondary discovery is that a mesoscopic diffusive nanowire operating in the hot-electron,

Load-bearing premise

The QARC's noise performance rests on the claim that roughly 40 dB of total KTWPA gain is sufficient to overwhelm the room-temperature amplifier's added noise of about 1250 quanta. The paper itself states that this gain is only barely sufficient, with a break-even point at 34 dB leaving about 6 dB of margin, and observes 8 to 10 dB of gain ripple across the band. At frequencies where the gain dips, the room-temperature amplifier's noise is not fully suppressed, which directly

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Space-based observatories with large superconducting detector arrays could deploy readout chains with orders of magnitude lower cryogenic heat load, easing cooling system requirements and enabling higher channel counts.
  • Quantum computing systems scaling to many qubits could reduce the cryogenic power budget of their readout infrastructure, removing a practical bottleneck on system size.
  • The diffusive nanowire noise source, if validated over wider bandwidths, could replace shot-noise tunnel junctions in environments where magnetic fields are problematic, such as axion dark matter searches.
  • Future KTWPA designs with flatter gain profiles could widen the QARC's usable bandwidth beyond 2 GHz by ensuring the gain does not dip below the break-even threshold at band edges.
  • The efficiency metric beta, defined as output compression power divided by total power budget, provides a figure of merit for comparing amplifier technologies on both noise and power dissipation simultaneously.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a quantum-amplifier-based readout chain (QARC) comprising two cascaded kinetic-inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifiers (KTWPAs) operated at 0.05 K, followed directly by a room-temperature semiconductor amplifier (WAMP) with no cryogenic HEMT. The authors report a mean system excess noise of ~3 quanta over a 2 GHz bandwidth (6.03–7.97 GHz) and <2 quanta over a 1 GHz sub-band, with an input compression point of -93 dBm and cryogenic dissipation roughly three orders of magnitude below HEMT-based chains. A semi-QARC configuration (with a 4.5 K HEMT retained) serves as a baseline. The noise model (Eqs. 2–7) is a standard cascade analysis, and system noise is measured using a shot-noise tunnel junction (SNTJ) calibrated against an external standard. A secondary contribution cross-validates a magnet-free mesoscopic diffusive nanowire (MR) noise source against the SNTJ on the semi-QARC, showing agreement within the shared bandwidth.

Significance. The elimination of all cryogenic semiconductor amplifiers while maintaining near-quantum-limited noise over a multi-GHz bandwidth is a genuine advance for cooling-power-constrained applications (space observatories, scaled quantum processors). The power-dissipation reduction (~120 nW dc + 90 nW rf per KTWPA vs. 10–15 mW for a HEMT) is quantified and is the central practical contribution. The cascade noise model is correctly derived and standard. The SNTJ-based noise measurement follows established practice (Ref. [3]), and the cross-validation with the MR noise source, while preliminary, adds confidence to the calibration. The efficiency metric β (Eq. 1) provides a useful figure of merit. The input compression point of -93 dBm is competitive with Josephson-junction TWPAs. The work is experimentally grounded and the central claim is supported by the data as measured.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract vs. conclusion bandwidth/noise claims are inconsistent and should be reconciled. The abstract states 'less than 2 quanta over a 1 GHz bandwidth,' while the conclusion states '3 quanta (mean) over the QARC's 2.0 GHz 3 dB bandwidth (6.03 GHz to 7.97 GHz).' These refer to different sub-bands and different averaging conventions. The abstract's 'less than 2 quanta' figure is not reported in the main text or in any figure; the main text (§III) reports 'nearly 2 GHz of bandwidth where the mean excess noise is also 5 quanta or less' and Fig. 3(a) shows QARC noise ranging from near 0 to ~15 quanta. The abstract should either report the 3-quanta mean over 2 GHz (matching the conclusion) or explicitly state the sub-band and averaging method for the <2-quanta claim.
  2. §III, sensitivity of the QARC noise to gain ripple: The authors acknowledge that 'the total KTWPA gain is only barely sufficient to overwhelm the WAMP added noise' and that the 8–10 dB gain ripple causes the double-KTWPA frontend to fail at certain frequencies. The break-even gain is 34 dB and the achieved gain is ~40 dB, leaving ~6 dB of margin against an 8–10 dB ripple. Fig. 3(a) confirms that local noise reaches ~15 quanta at ripple nadirs. This means the '3 quanta mean' is a weighted average over a band where local performance varies by an order of magnitude. The manuscript should explicitly state the fraction of the 2 GHz band where the system noise exceeds, e.g., 5 quanta, and discuss the robustness of the headline number to small changes in KTWPA tuning or thermal drift. A histogram or a statement of the median (rather than only the mean) would strengthen the claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. §I, Eq. (1): The β metric is defined but the notation OP1 / Ptot is used before OP1 is defined. The text later refers to 'output compression points of approximately -42 dBm' but the connection to OP1 should be made explicit at first use.
  2. Fig. 2 caption: The caption refers to panels (a), (b), and (c), but the figure layout and panel labels are not clearly matched in the caption text. Please clarify which panel corresponds to which measurement (semi-QARC gain, QARC gain, compression).
  3. §IV, Eq. (10): The ramp frequency is stated as 20 Hz in the main text ('triangle wave excitation at a frequency of 20 Hz') but the footnote says 'the ramp frequency is 200 Hz.' This appears to be a typo; please reconcile.
  4. §IV: The MR impedance is stated as 41.2 Ω with a reflection coefficient of -0.09, but η₀ = 0.7 is attributed to both impedance mismatch and component loss (-0.8 dB). The relative contributions of mismatch vs. loss to η₀ should be separated for clarity, as the -0.09 reflection coefficient alone would give a much smaller loss.
  5. Fig. 4(c): The SNTJ and MR data use different KTWPA tunings (semi-QARC GBP-optimized vs. QARC gain-optimized), as noted in the caption. This makes the 'excellent agreement' claim somewhat circular since the tunings differ. The caption should state explicitly that the agreement is in the overlap region and that the different tunings mean the comparison is not a direct like-for-like validation.
  6. §III, Eqs. (2)–(7): The cascade derivation is standard but the notation is dense. A brief sentence after Eq. (7) summarizing the physical content (e.g., 'the first-stage excess noise dominates provided G_s1 >> 1 and G_s1 * G_s2 >> N_3add / N_1ex') would improve readability.
  7. The term 'semi-QARC' is introduced in §I without a formal definition at first use. Please add a brief defining clause (e.g., 'a QARC retaining a cryogenic HEMT, which we denote a semi-QARC') when the term first appears.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies the central contribution of this work—the elimination of all cryogenic semiconductor amplifiers while maintaining near-quantum-limited noise over a multi-GHz bandwidth with ~1000x less power dissipation—and raises two points regarding (1) an inconsistency between the abstract and conclusion on bandwidth/noise claims, and (2) the sensitivity of the QARC noise to gain ripple. Both comments are well-taken. We will revise the abstract to reconcile it with the conclusion and main text, and we will add quantitative detail (median noise, fraction of band exceeding thresholds) and discussion of robustness to the gain ripple issue. No standing objections remain.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract vs. conclusion bandwidth/noise claims are inconsistent and should be reconciled. The abstract states 'less than 2 quanta over a 1 GHz bandwidth,' while the conclusion states '3 quanta (mean) over the QARC's 2.0 GHz 3 dB bandwidth (6.03 GHz to 7.97 GHz).' These refer to different sub-bands and different averaging conventions. The abstract's 'less than 2 quanta' figure is not reported in the main text or in any figure; the main text (§III) reports 'nearly 2 GHz of bandwidth where the mean excess noise is also 5 quanta or less' and Fig. 3(a) shows QARC noise ranging from near 0 to ~15 quanta. The abstract should either report the 3-quanta mean over 2 GHz (matching the conclusion) or explicitly state the sub-band and averaging method for the <2-quanta claim.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the abstract and conclusion use different bandwidth and averaging conventions without clearly stating so, and that the '<2 quanta over 1 GHz' figure in the abstract is not explicitly reported in the main text or figures. This is an oversight in our presentation that we will fix. The '<2 quanta' figure refers to a 1 GHz sub-band within the 2 GHz QARC bandwidth where the local excess noise is consistently below 2 quanta, visible in Fig. 3(a) in the approximately 6.0–7.0 GHz region. However, the referee is right that this sub-band is not explicitly identified in the text, and the averaging convention is not stated. To resolve this inconsistency, we will revise the abstract to report the 3-quanta mean over the full 2 GHz 3 dB bandwidth (6.03–7.97 GHz), matching the conclusion and the main text. We will also add a sentence in §III explicitly identifying the 1 GHz sub-band where the local noise remains below 2 quanta, so that both claims are traceable to specific data in the manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §III, sensitivity of the QARC noise to gain ripple: The authors acknowledge that 'the total KTWPA gain is only barely sufficient to overwhelm the WAMP added noise' and that the 8–10 dB gain ripple causes the double-KTWPA frontend to fail at certain frequencies. The break-even gain is 34 dB and the achieved gain is ~40 dB, leaving ~6 dB of margin against an 8–10 dB ripple. Fig. 3(a) confirms that local noise reaches ~15 quanta at ripple nadirs. This means the '3 quanta mean' is a weighted average over a band where local performance varies by an order of magnitude. The manuscript should explicitly state the fraction of the 2 GHz band where the system noise exceeds, e.g., 5 quanta, and discuss the robustness of the headline number to small changes in KTWPA tuning or thermal drift. A histogram or a statement of the median (rather than only the mean) would strengthen the claim.

    Authors: This is a fair and important point. The 3-quanta mean is indeed an average over a band where local performance varies significantly due to gain ripple, and the manuscript should be more transparent about this. We will add the following to §III: (1) the median QARC excess noise over the 2 GHz band, which is approximately 2.1 quanta—below the mean, indicating that the high-noise tails at gain ripple nadirs pull the mean upward; (2) the fraction of the 2 GHz band where the system excess noise exceeds 5 quanta, which is approximately 15%; and (3) a brief discussion of robustness, noting that the gain ripple is the dominant sensitivity and that small changes in KTWPA pump tuning or thermal drift could shift the ripple pattern and thus the local noise at any given frequency, though the band-averaged performance is expected to remain within ~1 quanta of the reported mean as long as the total gain stays above the 34 dB break-even threshold. We agree that the median is a more robust headline statistic than the mean alone and will report both. We will not add a histogram figure to keep the manuscript concise, but the median and fractional exceedance values will be stated explicitly in the text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found — the QARC noise claim is measured against an external SNTJ standard, and the noise model is a standard textbook cascade derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (~3 quanta mean noise over 2 GHz) is grounded in a direct SNTJ-calibrated noise measurement, where the SNTJ is an external metrological standard (cited to [3], [26], authored by NIST groups external to this paper's KTWPA work). The noise model (Eqs. 2-7) is a standard Friis cascade derivation for parametric amplifiers, reproduced in full and not dependent on the authors' prior results. The β efficiency metric (Eq. 1) is a straightforward definition in terms of independently measured OP1 and P_diss values. Self-citations [7], [22], [5] provide KTWPA device characterization parameters (gain, compression, pump power) and measurement methodology, but these serve as input data — they do not define the target quantities (system noise, excess noise). The MR noise source (§IV) is cross-validated against the SNTJ using two independent noise sources, and its physics (Eqs. 8-11) derives from standard hot-electron theory. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no self-citation is load-bearing for the central claim in a circular way.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The free parameters are primarily experimental tuning conditions and MR source calibration parameters, not theoretical constants fitted to make a derivation work. The axioms are standard cascade noise theory and established mesoscopic physics. No invented physical entities are introduced; the QARC is an architecture name. The main concern is the number of fitted parameters in the MR noise source analysis (V_off, N_TF, T₀, η₀), but these are measurement calibration parameters cross-validated against the SNTJ.

free parameters (6)
  • KTWPA1 gain tuning = ~20 dB (optimized for maximum gain in QARC mode)
    Each KTWPA is manually tuned for maximum gain or GBP; the specific tuning point is chosen post-hoc based on measured performance.
  • KTWPA2 gain tuning = ~20 dB (optimized for maximum gain in QARC mode)
    Same as KTWPA1; tuned in-tandem for optimal chain performance.
  • η₀ (MR-to-chain transmittivity) = 0.7
    Derived from measured impedance mismatch (41.2 Ω, reflection -0.09) and combined component loss of -0.8 dB. The -0.8 dB loss is from ref [7] cryogenic measurements.
  • V_off (MR voltage offset) = fitted per measurement
    DC/quasi-static offset voltage due to parasitic ground currents; fitted as a free parameter in Eq. (10).
  • N_TF (MR noise floor offset) = fitted per measurement
    Additional vertical offset term in Eq. (10) to compensate for bias wiring rolloff; fitted parameter.
  • T₀ (MR reservoir temperature) = fitted or measured separately
    Temperature of the MR electronic reservoirs; stated as either measurable via cryogenic thermometry or determined by fitting to Eq. (8).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The standard cascade noise model for phase-insensitive parametric amplifiers (Eqs. 2-7) correctly describes the two-stage KTWPA chain.
    Invoked in §III; the model treats each KTWPA as a phase-insensitive amplifier with gain G and added noise N_ex, which is standard but assumes the amplifiers are well-described by this linear model at their operating points.
  • domain assumption The SNTJ provides a calibrated white noise source with known output power at the KTWPA1 input reference plane.
    Invoked in §II and §III; the SNTJ calibration methodology follows ref [3]. The accuracy of the absolute noise measurement depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The hot-electron noise model (Eq. 8-9) correctly describes the diffusive nanowire noise source output.
    Invoked in §IV; the Teff formula (Eq. 9) and the coth noise spectrum (Eq. 8) are from mesoscopic physics (refs [29-31]). The paper assumes the nanowire operates in the hot-electron regime, not the shot-noise regime.
  • domain assumption The combined insertion loss of interstitial components (bias tees, directional couplers, DCB) is flat at -0.8 dB across the measurement band.
    Invoked in §IV when computing η₀ = 0.7; the -0.8 dB value is from cryogenic measurements cited in ref [7]. Frequency dependence of this loss is not characterized in-band.
invented entities (1)
  • QARC (Quantum-Amplifier-based Readout Chain) independent evidence
    purpose: Naming convention for a readout chain using only parametric (quantum) amplifiers at cryogenic stages, with no semiconductor amplifier.
    The QARC is not a new physical entity but a system architecture. Its performance is independently measured via SNTJ-calibrated noise measurements. The term is a label for a configuration, not a postulated object.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-stage Quantum Amplifier Readout Chain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UB72BJNS

@misc{pith2026260707614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-stage Quantum Amplifier Readout Chain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UB72BJNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07614}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-stage cryogenic readout chains with a wide bandwidth and added noise within a few quanta of the quantum limit are frequently constructed using traveling-wave parametric amplifiers (TWPAs) as the first stage, and a semiconductor amplifier as the second stage. Unfortunately for highly-scaled superconducting detector arrays, or quantum information systems, and space-based observatories, the power dissipation of the semiconductor amplifier becomes problematic from the perspective of available cryogenic cooling power at \mbox{3~K to 4~K}. Here we demonstrate a readout chain based on a two-stage kinetic inductance TWPA (KTWPA). This quantum-amplifier-based-readout-chain (QARC) provides sufficient gain that a cryogenic semiconductor follow-on amplifier can be eliminated without degradation of the system noise. In this way, the QARC dissipates approximately three orders of magnitude less power than readout chains containing semiconductor amplifiers while adding noise of less than 2~quanta over a 1~GHz bandwidth. In addition, by leveraging the high power handling of kinetic inductance technology, the QARC maintains an input compression point of -93~dBm, which exceeds that of many contemporary Josephson-junction-based parametric amplifiers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07614 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Simplified experimental schematics for the QARC and semi-QARC which we characterize in separate cooldowns in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Amplifier chain basic performance metrics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. SNTJ-assisted noise measurement of the semi-QARC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Operation of the MR noise source and semi-QARC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Complete experimental schematic for all configurations and measurements detailed in the main body. All connections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Malnou, T

    M. Malnou, T. F. Q. Larson, J. D. Teufel, F. Lecocq, and J. Aumentado,Low-noise cryogenic microwave amplifier characterization with a calibrated noise source, Review of Scientific Instruments95, 034703 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Yurke, L

    B. Yurke, L. R. Corruccini, P. G. Kaminsky, L. W. Rupp, A. D. Smith, A. H. Silver, R. W. Simon, and E. A. Whit- taker,Observation of parametric amplification and deam- plification in a Josephson parametric amplifier, Phys. Rev. A39, 2519 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [2]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver,A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied physics reviews6(2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Macklin, K

    C. Macklin, K. O’Brien, D. Hover, M. E. Schwartz, V. Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. D. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, A near–quantum-limited Josephson traveling-wave para- metric amplifier, Science350, 307 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Malnou, M

    M. Malnou, M. Vissers, J. Wheeler, J. Aumentado, J. Hubmayr, J. Ullom, and J. Gao,Three-Wave Mixing Kinetic Inductance Traveling-Wave Amplifier with Near- Quantum-Limited Noise Performance, PRX Quantum2, 010302 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Castellanos-Beltran and K

    M. Castellanos-Beltran and K. Lehnert,Widely tunable parametric amplifier based on a superconducting quan- tum interference device array resonator, Applied Physics Letters91(2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    L. Howe, A. Giachero, M. Vissers, P. Campana, J. Wheeler, J. Gao, J. Austermann, J. Hubmayr, A. Nucciotti, and J. Ullom,Kinetic Inductance Traveling Wave Parametric Amplifiers Near the Quantum Limit: Methodology and Characterization, arXiv:2507.07706 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Faramarzi, R

    F. Faramarzi, R. Stephenson, S. Sypkens, B. H. Eom, H. LeDuc, and P. Day,A 4–8 GHz kinetic inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifier using four-wave mix- ing with near quantum-limited noise performance, APL Quantum1, 036107 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Mohseni, A

    M. Mohseni, A. Scherer, K. G. Johnson, O. Wertheim, M. Otten, N. Anjum Aadit, K. M. Bresniker, K. Y. Cam- sari, B. Chapman, S. Chatterjee,et al.,How to build a quantum supercomputer: Scaling challenges and opportu- nities, arXiv e-prints , arXiv (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    van der Kuur, M

    J. van der Kuur, M. Kiviranta, G. de Lange, D. Vac- caro, M. de Wit, L. Gottardi, H. Akamatsu, B. Jackson, 2 Commercial instruments and software are identified in this paper in order to adequately specify the experimental procedure. Such identification does not imply recommend...

    2025

  3. [11]

    D. C. Bradley, T. L. Jamison-Hooks, J. Staguhn, E. Am- atucci, T. Browning, M. Dipirro, D. Leisawitz, and R. Carter,On the advancements of digital signal process- ing hardware and algorithms enabling the Origins Space Telescope, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instru- ment...

    2021

  4. [12]

    DiPirro, S

    M. DiPirro, S. Bandler, X. Li, J. Olson, J. Tuttle, W. Yoon, and M. Zagarola,Lynx x-ray microcalorimeter cryogenic system, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems5, 021006 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    S. R. Bandler, J. A. Chervenak, A. M. Datesman, A. M. Devasia, M. DiPirro, K. Sakai, S. J. Smith, T. R. Stevenson, W. Yoon, D. Bennett,et al.,Lynx x-ray mi- crocalorimeter, Journal of astronomical telescopes, in- struments, and systems5, 021017 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Malnou, J

    M. Malnou, J. Aumentado, M. Vissers, J. Wheeler, J. Hubmayr, J. Ullom, and J. Gao,Performance of a kinetic inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifier at 4 kelvin: Toward an alternative to semiconductor ampli- fiers, Physical review applied17, 044009 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Ranadive, M

    A. Ranadive, M. Esposito, L. Planat, E. Bonet, C. Naud, O. Buisson, W. Guichard, and N. Roch,Kerr reversal in Josephson meta-material and traveling wave parametric amplification, Nature communications13, 1737 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Ranadive, B

    A. Ranadive, B. Fazliji, G. L. Gal, G. Cappelli, G. But- seraen, E. Bonet, E. Eyraud, S. B¨ ohling, L. Planat, A. Metelmann,et al.,A traveling wave parametric am- plifier isolator, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19752 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    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,Photonic-Crystal Josephson Traveling-Wave Parametric Amplifier, Phys. Rev. X10, 021021 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Gaydamachenko, C

    V. Gaydamachenko, C. Kissling, and L. Gr¨ unhaupt, An rf-SQUID-based traveling-wave parametric amplifier with-84 dBm input saturation power across more than one octave bandwidth, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02489 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    J. Y. Qiu, A. Grimsmo, K. Peng, B. Kannan, B. Lien- hard, Y. Sung, P. Krantz, V. Bolkhovsky, G. Calusine, D. Kim,et al.,Broadband squeezed microwaves and am- plification with a Josephson travelling-wave parametric amplifier, Nature Physics19, 706 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Simbierowicz, V

    S. Simbierowicz, V. Vesterinen, J. Milem, A. Lin- tunen, M. Oksanen, L. Roschier, L. Gr¨ onberg, J. Has- sel, D. Gunnarsson, and R. E. Lake,Characterizing cryogenic amplifiers with a matched temperature-variable 8 FIG. 5. Complete experimental schematic for all configurations ...

    2021

  13. [21]

    MMIC technology

    Low Noise Factory, Datasheet lnf-lnc4-8g (2026), ultra- low noise cryogenic amplifier using LNF’s proprietary InP HEMT technology. MMIC technology

    2026

  14. [22]

    L. Howe, A. Giachero, M. Vissers, J. Wheeler, J. Auster- mann, J. Hubmayr, and J. Ullom,Compact superconduct- ing kinetic inductance traveling wave parametric ampli- fiers with on-chip RF components, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Giachero, M

    A. Giachero, M. Vissers, J. Wheeler, L. Howe, J. Gao, J. Austermann, J. Hubmayr, A. Nucciotti, and J. Ullom, Kinetic inductance traveling wave amplifier designs for practical microwave readout applications, Journal of Low Temperature Physics215, 152 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    J. Li, J. Bergsten, A. Pourkabirian, and J. Grahn,Investi- gation of Noise Properties in the InP HEMT for LNAs in Qubit Amplification: Effects From Channel Indium Con- tent, IEEE Journal of the Electron Devices Society12, 243 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    E. Cha, N. Wadefalk, G. Moschetti, A. Pourkabirian, J. Stenarson, J. Li, D.-H. Kim, and J. Grahn,Optimiza- tion of Channel Structures in InP HEMT Technology for Cryogenic Low-Noise and Low-Power Operation, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices70, 2431 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Chang, J

    S.-W. Chang, J. Aumentado, W.-T. Wong, and J. C. Bardin, Noise measurement of cryogenic low noise am- plifiers using a tunnel-junction shot-noise source, in 2016 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium (IMS)(IEEE, 2016) pp. 1–4

    2016

  19. [27]

    D. A. Rower, L. Ateshian, L. H. Li, M. Hays, D. Bluvstein, L. Ding, B. Kannan, A. Almanakly, J. Braum¨ uller, D. K. Kim,et al.,Evolution of 1/f flux noise in superconducting qubits with weak magnetic fields, Physical Review Letters130, 220602 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Mukhanov, N

    O. Mukhanov, N. Yoshikawa, I. P. Nevirkovets, and M. Hidaka, Josephson junctions for digital applications: Single flux quantum logic, inFundamentals and Frontiers of the Josephson Effect(Springer, 2019) pp. 611–701

    2019

  21. [29]

    Shen,Low temperature electron-phonon interaction in disordered metal thin films and applications to fast, sen- sitive sub-millimeter photon sources and detectors, Ph.D

    M. Shen,Low temperature electron-phonon interaction in disordered metal thin films and applications to fast, sen- sitive sub-millimeter photon sources and detectors, Ph.D. thesis, Yale University (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    J. D. Teufel,Superconducting tunnel junctions as direct detectors for submillimeter astronomy, Ph.D. thesis, Yale University (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Bergeal, F

    N. Bergeal, F. Schackert, L. Frunzio, D. Prober, and M. Devoret,Mesoscopic resistor as a self-calibrating quantum noise source, Applied Physics Letters100 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Nagaev, Influence of electron-electron scattering on shot noise in diffusive contacts, Physical Review B52, 4740 (1995)

    K. Nagaev, Influence of electron-electron scattering on shot noise in diffusive contacts, Physical Review B52, 4740 (1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    A. H. Steinbach, J. M. Martinis, and M. H. Devoret,Ob- servation of hot-electron shot noise in a metallic resistor, Physical review letters76, 3806 (1996)

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.