Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

A simple three-step fast-load and fast-clear pulse minimizes measurement-induced state transitions in charge-sensitive transmon readout without complex waveforms or real-time feedback.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 16:00 UTC pith:TJ3YRITI

load-bearing objection Solid experimental map of ng-dependent MIST under calibrated multi-step pulses; the three-step recipe helps, but the abstract’s “consistently minimizes” claim is overstated relative to the paper’s own Q2 |1⟩ data. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23681 v1 pith:TJ3YRITI submitted 2026-07-26 quant-ph

Mitigation of Measurement-Induced State Transitions via a Fast-Load and Fast-Clear Readout

Wei-En Lin , Li-Chieh Hsiao , Chen-Hsun Ma , Erh-Hsiang Yeh , Wei-Lun Peng , Hsi-Sheng Goan , Cen-Shawn Wu , Yueh-Nan Chen
show 3 more authors
Yung-Fu Chen Chung-Ting Ke Chii-Dong Chen
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords measurement-induced state transitionstransmon readoutdispersive readoutFloquet analysisfast-load pulsequantum non-demolitionoffset chargeLandau-Zener
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.

Fast, high-fidelity readout of superconducting qubits is limited by measurement-induced state transitions (MIST), in which a strong resonator drive knocks the qubit out of its computational states. For transmons those transitions depend sharply on the uncontrolled offset charge. This paper shows that a state-independent three-step pulse—fast load, hold, then fast clear—keeps the resonator photon number from overshooting and forces a rapid, nearly symmetric passage through the dangerous avoided crossings, cutting the charge-averaged transition probability. The authors map the transitions against offset charge and photon number with active gate control and obtain close agreement with Floquet simulations. The same plain pulse also lowers total error after the measurement ends, improving the trade-off between signal strength and quantum-non-demolition character for processors that need many mid-circuit measurements.

Core claim

A straightforward state-independent three-step (fast-load and fast-clear) readout pulse consistently minimizes the offset-charge-averaged total error probabilities for both the readout window and the post-readout state, relative to square and two-step pulses, by suppressing resonator photon overshoots and enforcing diabatic, symmetric photon trajectories across ng-dependent avoided crossings.

What carries the argument

Fast-load and fast-clear multi-step pulses whose ring-up and ring-down amplitudes are chosen so the resonator field lands on the target steady state (or zero) without overshoot; their effect is diagnosed by Floquet branch analysis of Landau–Zener passage through avoided crossings in the driven-transmon quasienergy spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The semiclassical Floquet model that labels branches by maximum overlap with bare states, plus the assumption that the weak post-readout probe itself adds no further transitions, is enough to predict the measured transition maps.

What would settle it

On a charge-sensitive transmon, measure ng-averaged total readout and post-readout error versus steady-state photon number for square, two-step, and three-step pulses; if the three-step pulse does not give the lowest combined error across the usable photon range, or if the Floquet band structures fail to match the measured transition bands, the claim is false.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Mid-circuit measurements for error correction can use higher photon numbers without a proportional rise in leakage.
  • Active reset and fast feedback become more reliable because the post-measurement state is better preserved.
  • The improvement requires no extra hardware and no real-time state-dependent waveform feedback.
  • The same pulse-shaping principle applies to other driven multi-level systems, such as fluxonium, that suffer analogous ionization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Larger resonator linewidths should make the three-step advantage clearer, because ring-up and ring-down can be made more diabatic before decoherence accumulates.
  • The larger residual error for the excited state suggests that jointly tuning Landau–Zener speed and Stückelberg phase could further suppress post-readout transitions.
  • Even high-EJ/EC charge-insensitive transmons may still gain from overshoot suppression, even though their ng dependence is weaker.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of measurement-induced state transitions (MIST) in two charge-sensitive floating transmons (EJ/EC ≈ 34–40), with the offset charge ng actively stabilized via gate-voltage control and Ramsey recalibration. Using a three-pulse protocol (pre-selection M1, pulse-under-test M2, weak probe M3), the authors map the transition probability Pm versus ng and steady-state photon number nss for square, two-step (fast-load), and three-step (fast-load/fast-clear) readout pulses, and benchmark the maps against Floquet branch analysis of a semiclassical driven-transmon Hamiltonian. The mechanism invoked is Landau–Zener diabaticity at ng-dependent avoided crossings plus trajectory-symmetry control of Landau–Zener–Stückelberg interference during ring-down. The headline claim is that the state-independent three-step pulse "consistently minimizes" the ng-averaged total error (transition probability plus overlap error) for both the readout and post-readout stages. The experiment is carefully executed, the M1–M2–M3 protocol is well designed, and the measured band structures agree well with simulation in the strongly hybridized regions. However, the manuscript's own supplementary data contain a state-dependent counterexample to the "consistently minimizes" claim, and the |1⟩ post-readout advantage rests on simulation under an unvalidated adiabatic-M3 assumption.

Significance. If the claims are appropriately scoped, this is a useful and timely contribution. MIST is a recognized bottleneck for fast QND readout, and the ng-resolved mapping with Floquet branch identification (Figs. 3, 5, S1, S3) is among the more systematic experimental characterizations to date, on two independent devices. The demonstration that a simple, state-independent three-step pulse — no per-state feedback, no complex waveform — simultaneously improves ring-up SNR and suppresses post-readout backaction is practically relevant for mid-circuit measurement and active reset. The work also makes a falsifiable, quantitatively testable prediction via Eq. (4): the three-step advantage should reverse when avoided-crossing gaps exceed what the achievable clearing speed can traverse diabatically — a prediction the supplement's own Q2 |1> data in fact confirm. The main deficits are in the accuracy of the headline claim and in one unvalidated modeling assumption (M3 adiabaticity), both of which are addressable within the existing data and scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. V; Supplement Figs. S3–S4] Abstract and Sec. V: the claim that the three-step pulse 'consistently minimizes' total readout errors is contradicted by the manuscript's own data. Supplement Sec. II (Figs. S3–S4) reports that for Q2 prepared in |1⟩, the square pulse — not the three-step — yields the lowest post-readout MIST, because the B1-branch gap is too large for the 100 ns fast-clear to traverse diabatically (consistent with Eq. (4): P_LZ is gap-dependent at fixed speed). The main text never mentions this state-dependent reversal, and the abstract asserts the unqualified claim. This is load-bearing: it defines the regime of validity of the advertised mechanism. The authors should (i) qualify the abstract and conclusion to state the regime in which the three-step advantage holds (small-gap crossings relative to the achievable ring-up/ring-down rate, |0⟩-like branches), and (ii) bring the Q2 |1⟩ reversal into the m
  2. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 6(b); Supplement Fig. S4(b)] For the |1⟩ initial state, the post-readout advantage of the three-step pulse is established only in simulation. Fig. 6(b) (Q1) and Fig. S4(b) (Q2) both fail to distinguish the three profiles experimentally, and the authors attribute the discrepancy to M3-induced MIST and a ~3.4% relaxation error over the 20 µs sequence — both of which are excluded from the model by assumption (Sec. IV B: 'the M3 pulse is assumed to be strictly adiabatic'). Since the branch-population equality Pm(M3) = branch populations after M2 ring-down is the load-bearing assumption of the entire post-readout analysis, the authors should quantify the correction: e.g., estimate M3's own ng-dependent MIST from the M2 maps at n_ss = 92 (Q1) / 157 (Q2) in Figs. 3 and S1, and report whether the |1⟩ ordering survives that correction. At minimum, the abstract's 'verifying' language should be softened for the |1⟩ case.
  3. [Eq. (13); Supplement Sec. II] Eq. (13) and the interpretation of Fig. S4: for Q2 |1⟩, the supplement states the square pulse has the lowest MIST but the highest eP_err in the weakly hybridized regime 'as its εo outweighs the MIST reduction.' That is, where the three-step pulse wins the |1⟩ total-error comparison, it wins on the SNR/overlap term, not on the MIST-suppression mechanism that is the paper's thesis. Conversely, where it wins on MIST (|0⟩), that is the advertised mechanism. The main text should state this decomposition explicitly when presenting eP_err results, so readers can see which term drives the ordering in each regime; as written, Sec. IV B's framing ('this multi-step engineering approach successfully suppresses post-readout backaction') conflates the two contributions.
  4. [Sec. II B] Sec. II B: branch indices are assigned by maximizing the overlap |⟨ϕ[ε_t]|ϕ_i[0]⟩| rather than by the adiabatic recursive tracking of Refs. [19, 23], with the justification that 'our simulation within this framework yields a much better match with the measured data.' Since all band-structure identifications in Figs. 3 and 5 (and the n_i,cri diagnostics) rest on this labeling, a better empirical fit is a necessary but not sufficient justification: at large gaps the two labelings can assign different physical characters to the same mode, which is precisely the regime (B1 crossings, Q2 |1⟩) where the pulse-ordering reverses. Please demonstrate robustness — e.g., show for one representative crossing that the two labeling schemes give the same P_i^m structures, or bound where they diverge.
minor comments (6)
  1. The relaxation-error estimates use the symbol τ for two different durations (τ = 4 µs giving ~0.68% in Sec. IV A; τ = 20 µs giving ~3.4% in Sec. IV B). Since τ is also used generically for pulse-segment durations, a distinct symbol would avoid confusion.
  2. P_i^m is defined via a 3σ threshold on the M2 (or M3) Gaussian distributions (Eq. (11)). This conflates genuine transitions with the tail of the assignment distribution; please comment on the systematic error this introduces in the quoted P̄_i^m values, particularly in the low-SNR regime near the n_ss = 70 cutoff.
  3. Fig. 2(c): the timing diagram would benefit from explicit durations for M1, M2, M3, and the idle windows (currently scattered across Secs. III B and IV A).
  4. Data availability is 'upon reasonable request.' Given that the central results are image-based maps (Figs. 3, 5) compared point-by-point with simulations, depositing the raw P_i^m maps and the simulation code/parameters (beyond QuantumToolbox.jl) would substantially strengthen reproducibility.
  5. The phrase 'hardware-free approach' (Abstract) is slightly odd given that fast-load/fast-clear shaping requires an AWG capable of 100 ns piecewise-constant segments with calibrated amplitudes; 'without additional hardware' or 'without real-time feedback' is more accurate.
  6. Appendix C notes the ring-down segment 'cannot perfectly deplete the photons to zero.' Please quantify the residual photon number after the fast-clear segment for the parameters used, since residual photons during the idle time contribute adiabatic re-crossings relevant to the M3 analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Floquet MIST maps and pulse-shape error comparisons are independent model/experiment tests, not quantities forced by fitted inputs.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: (i) semiclassical driven-transmon Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with device parameters from standard spectroscopy (Table I); (ii) independent Floquet quasienergy/branch computation and TDSE evolution yielding Pm via Eqs. (5)–(6); (iii) resonator n(t) from input–output theory (Eqs. 7–10, App. B–C) used only to design state-independent fast-load/clear amplitudes that suppress overshoot; (iv) experimental Pm(ng, nss) maps and ng-averaged Perr / ePerr compared across square, two-step, and three-step pulses. Photon-number calibration via ac-Stark shift (App. D) is ordinary metrology matching nss to Pin; it does not define or force the MIST band locations or the pulse-ranking claim. Branch labeling by maximum bare-state overlap is a methodological choice justified for the diabatic regime, not a free parameter fitted to manufacture agreement. Self-citations (e.g., authors’ prior readout/IR work) are peripheral and not uniqueness theorems underwriting the central result. Correctness caveats about the word “consistently” (supplement Q2 |1⟩ reversal) are overclaim/regime issues, not circular derivation. The paper is self-contained against external Floquet theory and direct experiment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard circuit-QED and Floquet machinery plus a few modeling choices that are domain-conventional but not theorem-level. No new particles or forces are postulated. Free parameters are ordinary device and pulse-calibration constants.

free parameters (3)
  • ac-Stark calibration constant ξ (nss = ξ εs²) = device-specific, not numerically quoted
    Converts measured qubit frequency shift into absolute photon number; fixed by matching input-output theory to spectroscopy (Appendix D).
  • ring-up/ring-down durations τ↑ = τ↓ = 100 ns = 100 ns
    Chosen by hand to be short compared with 1/κ yet long enough for AWG fidelity; directly sets the Landau-Zener speed.
  • M2 integration window 4 µs and weak M1/M3 photon numbers (~92 / ~157) = 4 µs; nss≈92 (Q1), 157 (Q2)
    Experimental choices that define the SNR–MIST operating point and the post-selection threshold (3σ).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Semiclassical driven-transmon Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with classical resonator amplitude α(t) and full cosine potential is adequate to capture MIST onset.
    Invoked throughout Sec. II; quantum fluctuations of the resonator field are neglected.
  • domain assumption κ ≪ ωd permits an instantaneous Floquet spectrum at fixed drive amplitude (locally periodic approximation).
    Stated in Sec. II B; standard for Floquet treatments of driven circuit QED.
  • ad hoc to paper Branch index is assigned by maximizing overlap |⟨ϕ[εt]|ϕi[0]⟩| rather than adiabatic tracking.
    Explicit methodological choice in Sec. II B, justified because the pulses are diabatic; changes quantitative Pm relative to prior adiabatic-labeling papers.
  • standard math Landau-Zener formula (Eq. 4) and its time-dependent generalization via Schrödinger evolution govern passage through avoided crossings.
    Used to motivate diabaticity; standard LZ/LZS theory.
  • domain assumption State-independent amplitudes (Eqs. 10, C3–C4) with Δr = 0 sufficiently suppress photon overshoot without real-time phase feedback.
    Core practical claim of Sec. II C and Appendix C.
  • domain assumption Rapid parity switching equalizes even/odd charge-parity populations, producing reflection symmetry of Pm about ng = 0.25.
    Used to mirror data from [0,0.25] onto [0.25,0.5] (Sec. IV A).

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 29006 in / 3565 out tokens · 82080 ms · 2026-07-30T16:00:59.210174+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mitigation of Measurement-Induced State Transitions via a Fast-Load and Fast-Clear Readout." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TJ3YRITI

@misc{pith2026260723681,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mitigation of Measurement-Induced State Transitions via a Fast-Load and Fast-Clear Readout},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TJ3YRITI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23681}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

High-fidelity and rapid qubit readout is essential for superconducting quantum processors, typically realized through the quantum non-demolition (QND) dispersive interaction within a qubit-resonator architecture. However, the achievable readout speed and fidelity are fundamentally limited by measurement-induced state transitions (MIST). For a transmon qubit, MIST is highly sensitive to the offset charge $n_g$ due to the charge dispersion of its higher-lying energy levels. In this work, we systematically investigate $n_g$-dependent MIST dynamics governed by the diabaticity and symmetry of pulse shaping within a charge-sensitive transmon architecture. We engineer fast-load and fast-clear pulses that effectively suppress resonator photon overshoots, thereby demonstrating a highly practical strategy to mitigate MIST without requiring complex waveforms or real-time feedback. Utilizing active gate-voltage control and rapid feedback, the measurement-induced transition probability is precisely mapped against $n_g$ and the steady-state resonator photon number, exhibiting strong agreement with numerical Floquet branch analysis. Ultimately, we evaluate the $n_g$-averaged total error probabilities for both readout and post-readout stages, verifying that a straightforward three-step pulse scheme consistently minimizes overall readout errors. Within the framework of large-scale superconducting quantum processors, this practical, hardware-free approach inherently offers a better trade-off between the readout signal-to-noise ratio and QND preservation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23681 by Cen-Shawn Wu, Chen-Hsun Ma, Chii-Dong Chen, Chung-Ting Ke, Erh-Hsiang Yeh, Hsi-Sheng Goan, Li-Chieh Hsiao, Wei-En Lin, Wei-Lun Peng, Yueh-Nan Chen, Yung-Fu Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Floquet analysis of various pulse shapes. (a) Pulse amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. MIST structures associated with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Readout error probabilities for initial qubit states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: compares the M3 responses under square (panels (a) to (d)), two-step (panels (e) to (h)), and three-step (panels (i) to (l)) M2 pulse profiles. Here, the total integration window for all configurations is set to 4 µs. The multi-step configurations utilize state￾independent treatments with τ↑ = τ↓ = 100 ns and τ↑ + τss = 4 µs, as detailed in Appendix C. Unlike the M2 results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Post-readout error probabilities for initial qubit states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Schematic of the experimental wiring and measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Single-shot qubit readout distributions with 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Characterization of resonator photon dynamics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.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

45 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Blais, R.-S

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

    2004

  2. [2]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Strong coupling of a single photon to a super- conducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature431, 162 (2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    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, Charge-insensitive qubit design de- rived from the Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush,et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting pro- cessor, Nature574, 505 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. D. Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Her- rmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. Mueller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature605, 669 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 15 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    Gambetta, A

    J. Gambetta, A. Blais, M. Boissonneault, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, and S. M. Girvin, Quantum trajectory approach to circuit QED: Quantum jumps and the Zeno effect, Phys. Rev. A77, 012112 (2008)

    2008

  10. [10]

    Jeffrey, D

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

    2014

  11. [11]

    Walter, P

    T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Mag- nard, A. Potoˇ cnik, Y. Salath´ e, M. Pechal, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Rapid high- fidelity single-shot dispersive readout of superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.7, 054020 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

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

    2016

  13. [13]

    Bista, M

    A. Bista, M. Thibodeau, K. Nie, K. Chow, B. K. Clark, and A. Kou, Readout-induced leakage of the fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 034058 (2026)

    2026

  14. [14]

    M. F. S. Zwanenburg, J. Hu, E. Y. Huang, F. Yilmaz, S. Singh, and C. K. Andersen, Experimental charac- terization and modeling of measurement-induced state- transitions in a fluxonium superconducting qubit (2026), arXiv:2606.17866 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    A. A. Chapple, B. M. Varbanov, A. McDonald, and A. Blais, Measurement-induced state transitions across the fluxonium qubit landscape (2026), arXiv:2604.08515 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Khezri, A

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

    2023

  17. [17]

    Lescanne, L

    R. Lescanne, L. Verney, Q. Ficheux, M. H. Devoret, B. Huard, M. Mirrahimi, and Z. Leghtas, Escape of a driven quantum Josephson oscillator into unconfined states, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 014030 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    Verney, R

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

    2019

  19. [19]

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

    2024

  20. [20]

    Shillito, A

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

    2022

  21. [21]

    P. D. Kurilovich, T. Connolly, C. G. L. Bøttcher, D. K. Weiss, S. Hazra, V. R. Joshi, A. Z. Ding, H. Nho, S. Di- amond, V. D. Kurilovich, W. Dai, V. Fatemi, L. Frun- zio, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, High-frequency readout free from transmon multi-excitation resonances (2025), arXiv:2501.09161 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Cohen, A

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

    2023

  23. [23]

    F´ echant, M

    M. F´ echant, M. F. Dumas, D. B´ enˆ atre, N. Gosling, P. Lenhard, M. Spiecker, S. Geisert, S. Ihssen, W. Werns- dorfer, B. D’Anjou, A. Blais, and I. M. Pop, Offset charge dependence of measurement-induced transitions in trans- mons, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 180603 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Z. Wang, B. D’Anjou, P. Gigon, A. Blais, and M. S. Blok, Probing excited-state dynamics of transmon ionization, Phys. Rev. X16, 021033 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Connolly, P

    T. Connolly, P. D. Kurilovich, V. D. Kurilovich, C. G. L. Bøttcher, S. Hazra, W. Dai, A. Z. Ding, V. R. Joshi, H. Nho, S. Diamond, D. K. Weiss, V. Fatemi, L. Frunzio, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Full characterization of measurement-induced transitions of a superconducting qubit (2025), arXiv:2506.05306 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Hirasaki, S

    Y. Hirasaki, S. Daimon, N. Kanazawa, T. Itoko, M. Toku- nari, and E. Saitoh, Dynamics of measurement-induced state transitions in superconducting qubits, J. Appl. Phys.136, 124401 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Zobrist, J

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

    arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    D. T. McClure, H. Paik, L. S. Bishop, M. Steffen, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Rapid driven reset of a qubit readout resonator, Phys. Rev. Appl.5, 011001 (2016)

    2016

  29. [29]

    O. V. Ivakhnenko, S. N. Shevchenko, and F. Nori, Nona- diabatic Landau–Zener–St¨ uckelberg–Majorana transi- tions, dynamics, and interference, Phys. Rep.995, 1 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Grifoni and P

    M. Grifoni and P. H¨ anggi, Driven quantum tunneling, Phys. Rep.304, 229 (1998)

    1998

  31. [31]

    Mercurio, Y.-T

    A. Mercurio, Y.-T. Huang, L.-X. Cai, Y.-N. Chen, V. Savona, and F. Nori, QuantumToolbox.jl: An efficient julia framework for simulating open quantum systems, Quantum9, 1866 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Breuer and M

    H. Breuer and M. Holthaus, Quantum phases and Landau-Zener transitions in oscillating fields, Phys. Lett. A140, 507 (1989)

    1989

  33. [33]

    Drese and M

    K. Drese and M. Holthaus, Floquet theory for short laser pulses, Eur. Phys. J. D5, 119 (1999)

    1999

  34. [34]

    T. N. Ikeda, S. Tanaka, and Y. Kayanuma, Floquet- Landau-Zener interferometry: Usefulness of the floquet theory in pulse-laser-driven systems, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033075 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    S. N. Shevchenko, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Landau- Zener-St¨ uckelberg interferometry, Physics Reports492, 1 (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    Lin and Y.-F

    W.-E. Lin and Y.-F. Chen, Readout fidelity enhance- ment via transient response exclusion in superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. A113, 032621 (2026)

    2026

  37. [37]

    Rist` e, C

    D. Rist` e, C. C. Bultink, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, K. W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, Millisecond charge-parity fluctuations and induced decoherence in a superconduct- ing transmon qubit, Nature Communications4, 1913 (2013). 16

    1913

  38. [38]

    Serniak, M

    K. Serniak, M. Hays, G. de Lange, S. Diamond, S. Shankar, L. D. Burkhart, L. Frunzio, M. Houzet, and M. H. Devoret, Hot non-equilibrium quasiparticles in transmon qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 157701 (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    B. G. Christensen, C. D. Wilen, A. Opremcak, J. Nel- son, F. Schlenker, C. H. Zimonick, A. D. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, Y. J. Rosen, J. L. DuBois, B. L. T. Plourde, and R. McDermott, Anomalous charge noise in superconduct- ing qubits, Phys. Rev. B100, 140503(R) (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Lin, C.-H

    W.-E. Lin, C.-H. Ma, E.-H. Yeh, W.-L. Peng, Y.-S. Wei, H.-S. Goan, C.-S. Wu, C.-T. Ke, Y.-F. Chen, and C.- D. Chen, Suppression of quasiparticle poisoning to 10 −11 levels in superconducting qubits via infrared shielding (2026), arXiv:2606.07339 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Input and output in damped quantum optical systems: Quantum stochas- tic differential equations and the master equation, Phys. Rev. A31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  42. [42]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  43. [43]

    Gambetta, W

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

    2007

  44. [44]

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

    2024

  45. [45]

    Mitigation of Measurement-Induced State Transitions via a Fast-Load and Fast-Clear Readout

    D. T. Sank,Fast, Accurate State Measurement in Super- conducting Qubits, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara (2014). Supplementary Material for “Mitigation of Measurement-Induced State Transitions via a Fast-Load and Fast-Clear Readout” Wei-En Lin,1, 2,∗ Li-Chieh Hsiao,1, 3,∗ Chen-Hsun Ma,1, 4Erh-Hsiang Yeh,2 Wei-Lun Peng,5 Hsi-Sheng Goa...

    2014