Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Two qubits sharing a cavity encode their correlated noise in the emitted light, and the paper shows how to reconstruct the full noise-correlation spectrum S12(ω) from that emission even when the noise type is unknown.

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

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

Two cavity-coupled qubits under correlated longitudinal noise reveal their noise-correlation spectrum in the cavity output, with quasi-static noise visible at third order in the coupling and white noise only at fifth order.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid extension of the authors' single-qubit noise-fingerprint work to two-qubit cross-correlations, with useful closed forms for quasi-static and OU noise; the model-independent S12 extraction in Sec. VIII is not yet established because the neglected oscillatory terms are uncontrolled. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15909 v1 pith:RII4MKXN submitted 2026-07-17 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Reconstruction of the noise correlation spectral density from the cavity emission in a two-qubit system

Nadine Lenke , Guido Burkard This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords noise correlation spectral densitytwo-qubit systemcavity quantum electrodynamicsinput-output theoryGaussian noiseconvolution theoremquasi-static noiseOrnstein-Uhlenbeck noise
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes that the light emitted from a cavity shared by two uncoupled qubits carries a measurable signature of correlated noise acting on the qubits' energy splittings. For quasi-static correlated noise, the cross-correlation term in the averaged cavity output is linear in the noise-correlation spectral density S12(ω) and scales as the third power of the qubit–cavity coupling; for white noise it is suppressed to fifth order and effectively invisible. The paper's central result is a recipe that works for any Gaussian noise model: take the second derivative of the averaged cavity emission with respect to the two qubits' noise sensitivities, and that quantity becomes a convolution of S12 with a known kernel, invertible by the convolution theorem. This would allow experimentalists to identify the dominant correlated noise source in a multi-qubit device, which matters because correlated errors undermine quantum error correction.

Core claim

The paper derives the averaged cavity output field ⟨⟨Bout(t)⟩⟩ for two longitudinally noisy, directly uncoupled qubits coupled to a common cavity, using quantum Langevin equations and perturbation theory in the qubit–cavity coupling g. It finds that the noise correlation spectral density S12(ω) enters the output field through specific cross-correlation terms. For quasi-static noise, the cross-correlation contribution is approximately linear in S12 and of order g^3 (Eq. 33); for white noise, all cross-correlation terms cancel up to third order, leaving only strongly suppressed fifth-order effects. For general Gaussian noise, the paper shows that the double derivative d²⟨⟨Bout⟩⟩/dλ1dλ2 evaluat

What carries the argument

The central object is the averaged cavity output field ⟨⟨Bout(t)⟩⟩ obtained from input–output theory: Bout(t)=−√κ2⟨a⟩. The calculation is carried out as a perturbation expansion in the qubit–cavity coupling g, with the cavity initially empty and each qubit initialized with a nonvanishing coherence. Noise enters through stochastic phases χk(t); Gaussian averaging over many realizations is performed with the second-cumulant identity ⟨⟨e±iλχ⟩⟩=e^(−λ²⟨⟨χ²⟩⟩/2). The load-bearing identity is the convolution relation between the second derivative with respect to the noise sensitivities λ1, λ2 and the noise-correlation spectral density, with kernel K(Δ1)=1/(Δ1−Δc+i(κ−γd1)/2). Because the Fourier tra

Load-bearing premise

The extraction recipe for unknown noise neglects the time-dependent oscillatory part of the frequency integral so that Eq. (40) becomes a pure convolution; the paper gives no controlled estimate of the residual error, and if that residual is non-negligible the recovered spectral density is not directly related to S12(ω).

What would settle it

Prepare two qubits in a cavity with a known, engineered correlated noise source (e.g., an OU process with a known decay rate), measure d²⟨⟨Bout⟩⟩/dλ1dλ2 as a function of detuning, apply the convolution inversion, and compare the recovered S12(ω) to the independently known spectrum. If the reconstruction deviates beyond the expected averaging error—especially in the frequency dependence—the convolution recipe is falsified. A simpler check: with white-noise correlations, the recipe should return a result consistent with zero at order g^3; any sizable signal would contradict the claimed suppressi

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

If this is right

  • Correlated-noise spectroscopy can be done from cavity emission alone, with no direct qubit manipulation beyond initial state preparation and tunable noise sensitivities.
  • For quasi-static (low-frequency) correlated noise, the g^3 scaling makes the signal measurable at moderate coupling; white-noise correlations are effectively invisible at third order, so the method is most sensitive to low-frequency noise.
  • The noise-model-independent recipe lets one identify the dominant noise source (white, quasi-static, or OU) from the shape of the reconstructed S12(ω).
  • In the OU case, Eq. (38) can be fit to obtain the correlation decay rate Γ12, bridging the white-noise and quasi-static regimes.
  • The required averaging over many noise realizations and over at least one oscillation period defines concrete experimental resource requirements for implementing the method.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same double-derivative strategy could generalize to N-qubit arrays: higher-order derivatives with respect to multiple sensitivities would yield higher-order correlation spectra, though the kernel inversion would become more involved.
  • The uncontrolled residual error from the neglected oscillatory integral (flagged in the paper) means the reconstruction should ideally be cross-checked against an independent noise-probe technique before being trusted quantitatively.
  • A practical experiment on silicon spin qubits with engineered charge noise could test the scaling prediction g^3 vs g^5 directly by comparing the cross-correlation signal at two different coupling strengths.
  • Because the method reconstructs S12 only up to the ω→0 residue ambiguity (handled by a delta-function term), narrow features near zero frequency may be hard to resolve; time-domain averaging choices will set the effective resolution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies two qubits coupled to a common cavity, with no direct qubit-qubit coupling, and subject to classical longitudinal Gaussian noise. Working from a Lindblad master equation and quantum Langevin equations, the authors perturbatively compute the cavity output field Bout(t) after averaging over many noise realizations. For white, quasi-static, and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise they derive closed-form (or semi-analytic) expressions for the noise-cross-correlation contribution to the emission, showing that white-noise correlations are suppressed to fifth order in the qubit-cavity coupling, while quasi-static and OU correlations enter at third order and scale approximately linearly with the noise-correlation spectral density S12(ω). The paper also proposes a model-independent extraction of S12(ω) from the second mixed derivative of the averaged output with respect to the noise sensitivities λ1, λ2, using a convolution theorem. The central advertised results are the three noise-model analyses and the general reconstruction recipe in Sec. VIII.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a practical cQED-based route to characterize correlated noise in multi-qubit systems, which is directly relevant for error-correction performance. The model-based parts are clearly derived from standard input-output theory, with explicit expressions in Appendices C and D, and the ordering in g of the correlation effects (g^3 for quasi-static/OU, g^5 for white noise) is a useful, falsifiable physical prediction. The general extraction scheme is appealing because it is not tied to a specific noise model, but it is also the least developed part of the manuscript and requires substantial additional justification before the main claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VIII, Eq. (40)] The general extraction procedure rests on Eq. (40), which is obtained by neglecting the time-dependent part of the frequency integral. The text's proposed remedy — averaging over at least one oscillation period — is not a controlled estimate. For a broadband S12(ω) the oscillatory contributions have continuously varying frequencies, so no single time average removes all of them, and time-averaging the measured signal also modifies the desired convolution term through the e^{-ct} envelope and the e^{-st} factors. No error bound or convergence criterion is given. Since Eqs. (42) and (47)–(52) all inherit this approximation, the paper's most general claim — model-independent reconstruction of S12(ω) — is not established as written.
  2. [Sec. VIII, Eq. (40)] The initial state in Eq. (39) gives ⟨σ_{-,1,0}⟩ = 1/2, but no such factor appears on the right-hand side of Eq. (40). If the factor is bundled into s1, s2 or into the g coefficients, this should be stated; otherwise the numerical coefficient of the extracted S12(ω) is incorrect by a factor of two (or by the corresponding derivative prefactor). The displayed formula therefore needs independent verification.
  3. [Sec. VIII, Eqs. (45)–(52)] The reconstruction formula Eq. (47) combines two integrals using kernels evaluated under different assumptions (γd1 > κ on τ < 0 and γd1 < κ on τ > 0). But a single experimental measurement has one fixed γd1. The statement that the two contributions are equal because M12(ω) is independent of the sign of γd1 − κ is not by itself sufficient: the measured C̃(τ) is the Fourier transform of C(Δ1) obtained with a single kernel, and using the other kernel in the complementary half-plane is not justified by the definitions in Eqs. (43)–(45). The recipe appears internally inconsistent as written and should be reformulated, or the intended two-experiment procedure should be made explicit.
  4. [Secs. VI–VII, Eqs. (33), (38)] The quasi-static and OU cross-correlation formulas are final expressions obtained after expanding to second order in λ and after using limits such as |s| ≫ γ and |s| ≫ Γ12. The authors do state these restrictions, and Eq. (30) gives a validity bound for the quasi-static case. However, the extraction claims in Secs. VI–VII are presented as if S12 can be read off from a single measurement, whereas the stated validity window (e.g., t ≲ 10/κ in Fig. 3) is quite short and the conditions on γ, Γ12 are restrictive. This should be emphasized more prominently so that the practical limitations of the model-specific extractions are not overlooked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VIII] The phrase 'angular momentum integral' should read 'frequency integral'.
  2. [Eq. (23)] The notation s'_k in the last time integral is unexplained; it presumably means s_{k'} (the variable associated with the other qubit). Please define it in the text.
  3. [Refs. [24] and [49]] References [24] and [49] appear to be the same paper (Cavity-mediated iSWAP oscillations between distant spins, Nature Physics 21, 168 (2025)) and should be merged or distinguished.
  4. [Sec. VI, Eq. (30)] The inequality t ≪ √2 / [λ√(S1+S2+2S12)] involves quantities whose dimensions should be checked; S and λ have different apparent dimensions. A short comment on units and on the typical magnitude of the right-hand side would help experimental readers.
  5. [Sec. VII, Eq. (36)] The sentence 'the approximation is highly accurate for the entire time evolution' for λ/Γ12 ≪ 1 should be qualified: the expansion parameter is λ/Γ12, and the statement is plausible only if the dimensionless combination is small; a precise error estimate would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the S12 extraction is an inversion of a derived forward model; self-citations are auxiliary, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: a Hamiltonian with longitudinal Gaussian noise leads through the quantum Langevin equations and a perturbative solution to explicit expressions for the noise-averaged cavity emission. The noise-correlation spectral density S12 enters through the defining relation Eq. (8) between the stochastic-phase correlator and S12, and the output expressions (Eqs. 33, 38, 40-52) are derived consequences of this model, not assumed inputs. The general extraction in Sec. VIII is a well-posed inverse problem: taking the second derivative of the output with respect to the noise sensitivities λ1 and λ2 isolates the term linear in S12, and Eqs. (40)-(52) are a deconvolution of that expression. Recovering S12 from M12 via Eq. (41) is algebraic inversion of the forward formula, not a case of a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The self-citations ([34], [35]) are used only to import the single-qubit autocorrelation characterization and standard Gaussian-phase statistics; the cross-correlation contribution is independently derived here. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the result. The only notable caveat is the acknowledged neglect of time-dependent oscillatory terms in Eq. (40), whose removal is justified by an order-of-magnitude argument rather than a controlled error bound; this is a correctness/control concern, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a symbolic theoretical derivation; no numbers are fitted to data. The model relies on standard input-output theory plus several stated physical assumptions. The most fragile entry is the uncontrolled neglect of oscillatory terms in Sec. VIII, which directly underpins the claimed general extraction method.

axioms (7)
  • standard math Multivariate Gaussian, zero-mean, classical noise; stochastic phases Gaussian via central limit theorem; cumulant expansion Eq. (19) is exact for Gaussian variables.
    Section III uses ⟨⟨e^{±iλχ}⟩⟩ = e^{-λ²⟨⟨χ²⟩⟩/2}, valid for Gaussian zero-mean noise.
  • domain assumption Longitudinal noise only on qubit energy separations; no direct qubit-qubit coupling; qubits are far apart and interact only through the shared cavity.
    System setup in Sec. II and Fig. 1; this is the physical scenario under study.
  • domain assumption Input-output theory with Markovian, frequency-independent cavity coupling; low-temperature limit n_k=0; zero input field; separable initial state.
    Appendix B derives the final QLE (15) under these assumptions.
  • domain assumption Perturbation theory in g_k up to third order is valid: g_k ≪ |Δ_k|, |Δ_c| and γ_dk ≪ |Δ_k|.
    Sec. IV states this condition before Eq. (17).
  • domain assumption S12(ω) is real and even, S12(-ω)=S12(ω), as expected for classical noise.
    Sec. VIII, before Eq. (40), assumes symmetric real spectrum.
  • domain assumption The noise sensitivities λ_k are experimentally adjustable and can be varied continuously so that d²⟨⟨Bout⟩⟩/dλ1dλ2 at λ=0 can be measured.
    Sec. VIII states 'we consider the case where the sensitivity to the noise of the qubits is adjustable'; no concrete tuning mechanism is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The time-dependent part of the frequency integral in Sec. VIII is negligible or can be averaged out over one oscillation period.
    Sec. VIII: 'For simplification, we neglect the time-dependent contribution...' and at the end: 'the oscillation terms cannot be neglected for longer measurement times... necessary to average them out by calculating averages over at least one oscillation period.' No quantitative error bound is provided.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstruction of the noise correlation spectral density from the cavity emission in a two-qubit system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RII4MKXN

@misc{pith2026260715909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstruction of the noise correlation spectral density from the cavity emission in a two-qubit system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RII4MKXN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15909}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A significant challenge in the field of large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computation is the influence of noise. In addition to the influence of noise on individual qubits, the smaller additional effect of noise correlations is also of high significance because correlated errors pose a challenge for quantum error correction. We describe the dynamics of two cavity-coupled qubits that are subject to correlated noise, assuming that the qubits are affected by longitudinal noise and not coupled directly. We find that the cavity emission enables the characterization of the noise correlations and describe the cases of white noise, quasi-static noise, and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise. For a known frequency spectrum, the reconstruction of the noise correlation spectral density from the cavity emission is possible by averaging over many different noise realizations. We demonstrate that, in the case of white noise, the noise correlation effects scale with the fifth order of the cavity-qubit coupling constant and are thus strongly suppressed compared with the case of quasi-static noise, where they scale with the third order. Furthermore, we present a method for extracting the noise correlation spectral density from the cavity emission in the case where the underlying noise type remains unidentified. This can be achieved by applying the convolution theorem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15909 by Guido Burkard, Nadine Lenke.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The system under consideration consists of a cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Example illustrating consecutive third-order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The effect of noise cross-correlations on the time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependence of the correlation decay rate on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

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

72 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. J. Burnett, A. Bengtsson, M. Scigliuzzo, D. Niepce, M. Kudra, P. Delsing, and J. Bylander, Decoherence benchmarking of superconducting qubits, npj Quantum Information5, 54 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Therefore, we distinguish two cases for the Fourier transformation of the kernel

    With the new variable M12(ω) = S12(ω) ω(−is2 −ω) ,(41) we are finally able to write our desired quantity as a convolution with the kernelK(∆1)according to d2⟨⟨Bout⟩⟩ dλ1dλ2 λ1=λ2=0 = g2 2g1π√κ2e−ct s1s2 C(∆1),(42) where C(∆1) = (M12 ⋆ K)(∆1) = 1 2π Z ∞ −∞ dωM12(ω)K(∆ 1 −ω) (43) is the convolution ofM12(ω)with the kernel K(∆ 1) = 1 ∆1 −∆ c + i 2 (κ−γ d1) ....

  3. [3]

    R. Li, K. Kubo, Y. Ho, Z. Yan, Y. Nakamura, and H. Goto, Realization of high-fidelity CZ gate based on a double-transmon coupler, Physical Review X14, 041050 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Z. Li, P. Liu, P. Zhao, Z. Mi, H. Xu, X. Liang, T. Su, W. Sun, G. Xue, J.-N. Zhang,et al., Error per single- qubit gate below10 −4 in a superconducting qubit, npj Quantum Information9, 111 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, G. J. Norris, M. Gabureac, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Repeated quantum error detection in a sur- face code, Nature Physics16, 875 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Chen, H.-X

    L. Chen, H.-X. Li, Y. Lu, C. W. Warren, C. J. Križan, S. Kosen, M. Rommel, S. Ahmed, A. Osman, J. Biznárová,et al., Transmon qubit readout fidelity at the threshold for quantum error correction without a quantum-limited amplifier, npj Quantum Information9, 26 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Löschnauer, J

    C. Löschnauer, J. Mosca Toba, A. Hughes, S. King, M. Weber, R. Srinivas, R. Matt, R. Nourshargh, D. All- cock, C. Ballance,et al., Scalable, high-fidelity all- electronic control of trapped-ion qubits, PRX Quantum 6, 040313 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Wang, C.-Y

    P. Wang, C.-Y. Luan, M. Qiao, M. Um, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Yuan, M. Gu, J. Zhang, and K. Kim, Single ion qubit with estimated coherence time exceeding one hour, Nature communications12, 233 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Veldhorst, J

    M. Veldhorst, J. C. Hwang, C.-H. Yang, A. W. Leenstra, B. de Ronde, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, F. E. Hud- son, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello,et al., An addressable quan- tum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity, Nature nanotechnology9, 981 (2014)

    2014

  10. [10]

    Hughes, R

    A. Hughes, R. Srinivas, C. Löschnauer, H. Knaack, R. Matt, C. Ballance, M. Malinowski, T. Harty, and R. Sutherland, Trapped-ion two-qubit gates with >99.99% fidelity without ground-state cooling, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17286 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Scappucci, and S

    A.Noiri, K.Takeda, T.Nakajima, T.Kobayashi, A.Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and S. Tarucha, Fast universal quan- tum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon, Nature601, 338 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    J. T. Muhonen, A. Laucht, S. Simmons, J. P. Dehollain, R. Kalra, F. E. Hudson, S. Freer, K. M. Itoh, D. N. Jamieson, J. C. McCallum, A. S.Dzurak, and A.Morello, Quantifying the quantum gate fidelity of single-atom spin qubits in silicon by randomized benchmarking, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter27, 154205 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    Takeda, A

    K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, and S. Tarucha, Quantum error correction with silicon spin qubits, Nature608, 682 (2022). 17

    2022

  14. [14]

    J. J. Pla, K. Y. Tan, J. P. Dehollain, W. H. Lim, J. J. L. Morton, F. A. Zwanenburg, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzu- rak, and A. Morello, High-fidelity readout and control of a nuclear spin qubit in silicon, Nature496, 334–338 (2013)

    2013

  15. [15]

    Burkard, M

    G. Burkard, M. J. Gullans, X. Mi, and J. R. Petta, Superconductor–semiconductor hybrid-circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature Reviews Physics2, 129 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    P. I. Villar and F. C. Lombardo, Decoherence of a solid- state qubit by different noise correlation spectra, Physics Letters A379, 246 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Noise spectroscopy through dy- namical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit, Nature Physics7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  19. [19]

    K. D. Petersson, L. W. McFaul, M. D. Schroer, M. Jung, J. M. Taylor, A. A. Houck, and J. R. Petta, Circuit quan- tum electrodynamics with a spin qubit, Nature490, 380 (2012)

    2012

  20. [20]

    J. Zou, S. Bosco, and D. Loss, Spatially correlated clas- sical and quantum noise in driven qubits, npj Quantum Information10, 46 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Beaulieu, F

    G. Beaulieu, F. Minganti, S. Frasca, M. Scigliuzzo, S. Felicetti, R. Di Candia, and P. Scarlino, Criticality- enhanced quantum sensing with a parametric supercon- ducting resonator, PRX Quantum6, 020301 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    ac”) and into terms, containing cross- correlations (“cc

    and experimentally demonstrated [24, 25]. However, the performance of such cavity-mediated architectures is ultimately limited by noise, which becomes particularly relevant in the context of scalable spin-qubit implemen- tations. Currently, we are in the era of NISQ (noisy intermediate-scale quantum) systems, where noise li- mits the performance and contr...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Oppliger, W

    F. Oppliger, W. Jang, A. Tarascio, F. D. Palma, C. Re- ichl, W. Wegscheider, V. F. Maisi, D. Zumbühl, and P. Scarlino, Tunable high-efficiency microwave photon detector based on a double quantum dot coupled to a su- perconducting high-impedance cavity, Science Advances 12, eaeb9784 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Benito, J

    M. Benito, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Optimized cavity-mediated dispersive two-qubit gates between spin qubits, Physical Review B100, 081412 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Dijkema, X

    J. Dijkema, X. Xue, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Rimbach- Russ, S. L. de Snoo, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, Cavity-mediated iswap oscillationsbetweendistantspins,NaturePhysics21,168 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Borjans, X

    F. Borjans, X. Croot, X. Mi, M. Gullans, and J. Petta, Resonant microwave-mediated interactions between dis- tant electron spins, Nature577, 195 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Gärttner, Readout error mitigated quantum state tomography tested on superconducting qubits, Commu- nications Physics7, 301 (2024)

    A.S.Aasen, A.DiGiovanni, H.Rotzinger, A.V.Ustinov, and M. Gärttner, Readout error mitigated quantum state tomography tested on superconducting qubits, Commu- nications Physics7, 301 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Paladino, A

    E. Paladino, A. D’arrigo, A. Mastellone, and G. Falci, Decoherence times of universal two-qubit gates in the presence of broad-band noise, New Journal of Physics 13, 093037 (2011)

    2011

  30. [30]

    A. V. Kuhlmann, J. Houel, A. Ludwig, L. Greuter, D. Reuter, A. D. Wieck, M. Poggio,and R. J. Warburton, Charge noise and spin noise in a semiconductor quantum device, Nature Physics9, 570 (2013)

    2013

  31. [31]

    J. S. Rojas-Arias, L. C. Camenzind, Y.-H. Wu, P. Stano, A. Noiri, K. Takeda, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, G.Scappucci, D. Loss,et al.,Scalingofsiliconspin qubits under correlated noise, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03051 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    A. U. Rahman, N. Zidan, S. M. Zangi, M. Javed, and H. Ali, Quantum memory-assisted entropic uncertainty and entanglement dynamics: two qubits coupled with local fields and ornstein uhlenbeck noise: Au rahman et al., Quantum Information Processing21, 354 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    R. J. de Keijzer, L. Visser, O. Tse, and S. Kokkelmans, Qubit fidelity distribution under stochastic Schrödinger equations driven by classical noise, Physical Review Re- search7, 023063 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Santos, X

    S. Santos, X. Song, and V. Savona, Low-rank variational quantum algorithm for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Quantum9, 1620 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Y. M. Galperin, B. Altshuler, J. Bergli, and D. Shantsev, Non-gaussian low-frequency noise as a source of qubit decoherence, Physical Review Letters96, 097009 (2006)

    2006

  36. [36]

    P. M. Mutter and G. Burkard, Fingerprints of qubit noise in transient cavity transmission, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 236801 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    P. M. Mutter and G. Burkard, Theory of qubit noise characterization using the long-time cavity transmission, Physical Review A107, 022601 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    R.Acharya, I.Aleiner, R.Allen, T.I.Andersena, M.Ans- mann,et al., Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    S. J. Devitt, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Quantum error correction for beginners, Reports on Progress in Physics76, 076001 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics60, 226 (2019)

    J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics60, 226 (2019)

    2019

  41. [41]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and L. Viola, Theory of quan- tum error correction for general noise, Physical Review Letters84, 2525 (2000)

    2000

  42. [42]

    Barenco, T

    A. Barenco, T. A. Brun, R. Schack, and T. P. Spiller, Effects of noise on quantum error correction algorithms, Physical Review A56, 1177 (1997)

    1997

  43. [43]

    Aharonov, A

    D. Aharonov, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with long-range correlated noise, Physical Review Letters96, 050504 (2006)

    2006

  44. [44]

    H. Wang, P. Liu, Y. Liu, J. Gu, J. Baker, F. T. Chong, and S. Han, Dgr: Tackling drifted and correlated noise in quantum error correction via decoding graph re- weighting, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16214 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 307 (2015)

    2015

  46. [46]

    X. Li, J. Wang, Y.-Y. Jiang, G.-M. Xue, X. Cai, J. Zhou, M. Gong, Z.-F. Liu, S.-Y. Zheng, D.-K. Ma,et al., Cosmic-ray-induced correlated errors in superconducting qubit array, Nature Communications16, 4677 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Novais, E

    E. Novais, E. R. Mucciolo, and H. U. Baranger, Hamil- tonian formulation of quantum error correction and cor- related noise: effects of syndrome extraction in the long- time limit, Physical Review A78, 012314 (2008)

    2008

  48. [48]

    Ben-Aroya and A

    A. Ben-Aroya and A. Ta-Shma, Approximate quantum error correction for correlated noise, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory57, 3982 (2011)

    2011

  49. [49]

    J. M. Boter, X. Xue, T. Krähenmann, T. F. Watson, V. N. Premakumar, D. R. Ward, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith,et al., Spatial noise correlations in a Si/SiGe two-qubit device from Bell state coherences, Physical Review B101, 235133 (2020)

    2020

  50. [50]

    Yoneda, J

    J. Yoneda, J. Rojas-Arias, P. Stano, K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, D. Loss, and S. Tarucha, Noise-correlation spectrum for a pair of spin qubits in silicon, Nature Physics19, 1793 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Dijkema, X

    J. Dijkema, X. Xue, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Rimbach- Russ, S. L. de Snoo, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scap- 18 pucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, Cavity-mediated iSWAP oscillationsbetweendistantspins,NaturePhysics21,168 (2025)

    2025

  52. [52]

    Matsuoka, T

    R. Matsuoka, T. Matsuda, R. Tsuchiya, T. Mine, D. Hisamoto, H. Mizuno, R. Mizokuchi, T. Kodera, and J. Yoneda, Measurement of cross-correlated charge noise spectrum from transport currents through series- coupled silicon quantum dots, Applied Physics Letters 128(2026)

    2026

  53. [53]

    J. S. Rojas-Arias, P. Stano, Y.-H. Wu, L. C. Ca- menzind, S. Tarucha, and D. Loss, Noise cross- correlations from single-shot measurements, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.22073 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differen- tial equations and the master equation, Physical Review A31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  55. [55]

    Ithier, E

    G. Ithier, E. Collin, P. Joyez, P. Meeson, D. Vion, D. Es- teve, F. Chiarello, A. Shnirman, Y. Makhlin, J. Schriefl, et al., Decoherence in a superconducting quantum bit circuit, Physical Review B72, 134519 (2005)

    2005

  56. [56]

    Javed, S

    M. Javed, S. Khan, and S. A. Ullah, Characterization of classical static noise via qubit as probe, Quantum Infor- mation Processing17, 53 (2018)

    2018

  57. [57]

    Klenke,Probability theory: a comprehensive course (Springer, 2008) pp

    A. Klenke,Probability theory: a comprehensive course (Springer, 2008) pp. 320–327

    2008

  58. [58]

    Bergli, Y

    J. Bergli, Y. M. Galperin, and B. L. Altshuler, Decoher- ence in qubits due to low-frequency noise, New Journal of Physics11, 025002 (2009)

    2009

  59. [59]

    Chirolli and G

    L. Chirolli and G. Burkard, Decoherence in solid-state qubits, Advances in Physics57, 225 (2008)

    2008

  60. [60]

    Khintchine, Korrelationstheorie der stationären stochastischen Prozesse [Correlation theory of stationary stochastic processes], Mathematische Annalen109, 604 (1934)

    A. Khintchine, Korrelationstheorie der stationären stochastischen Prozesse [Correlation theory of stationary stochastic processes], Mathematische Annalen109, 604 (1934)

    1934

  61. [61]

    Wiener, Generalized harmonic analysis, Acta mathe- matica55, 117 (1930)

    N. Wiener, Generalized harmonic analysis, Acta mathe- matica55, 117 (1930)

    1930

  62. [62]

    J. B. Johnson, Thermal agitation of electricity in conduc- tors, Physical Review32, 97 (1928)

    1928

  63. [63]

    Nyquist, Thermal agitation of electric charge in con- ductors, Physical review32, 110 (1928)

    H. Nyquist, Thermal agitation of electric charge in con- ductors, Physical review32, 110 (1928)

    1928

  64. [64]

    L. S. Langsjoen, A. Poudel, M. G. Vavilov, and R. Joynt, Qubit relaxation from evanescent-wave johnson noise, Physical Review A86, 010301 (2012)

    2012

  65. [65]

    S. B. Tenberg, S. Asaad, M. T. Mądzik, M. A. Johnson, B. Joecker, A. Laucht, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. M. Jakob, B. C. Johnson,et al., Electron spin relaxation of single phosphorus donors in metal-oxide-semiconductor nanoscale devices, Physical Review B99, 205306 (2019)

    2019

  66. [66]

    Dechant, A

    A. Dechant, A. Baule, and S.-i. Sasa, Gaussian white noise as a resource for work extraction, Phys. Rev. E95, 032132 (2017)

    2017

  67. [67]

    P. M. Riechers and J. P. Crutchfield, Fraudulent white noise: Flat power spectra belie arbitrarily complex pro- cesses, Physical Review Research3, 013170 (2021)

    2021

  68. [68]

    Sakuldee and Ł

    F. Sakuldee and Ł. Cywiński, Characterization of a qua- sistatic environment with a qubit, Physical Review A99, 062113 (2019)

    2019

  69. [69]

    J. M. Taylor and M. Lukin, Dephasing of quantum bits by a quasi-static mesoscopic environment, Quantum In- formation Processing5, 503 (2006)

    2006

  70. [70]

    G. E. Uhlenbeck and L. S. Ornstein, On the theory of the brownian motion, Physical Review36, 823 (1930)

    1930

  71. [71]

    Machlup, Noise in semiconductors: spectrum of a two- parameter random signal, Journal of Applied Physics25, 341 (1954)

    S. Machlup, Noise in semiconductors: spectrum of a two- parameter random signal, Journal of Applied Physics25, 341 (1954)

    1954

  72. [72]

    Bibbona, G

    E. Bibbona, G. Panfilo, and P. Tavella, The ornstein– uhlenbeck process as a model of a low pass filtered white noise, Metrologia45, S117 (2008)

    2008

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.