Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 54 references

Precise 2D electric field density simulations for superconducting quantum devices

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fast boundary integral solver computes participation ratios for thin device interfaces roughly 170x faster and to 1e-7 relative error in ten minutes, revealing where linear dielectric-loss scaling holds.

desk verdict Useful solver paper with a genuine methodological trick, but the advertised 1e-7 accuracy is for capacitance, not participation ratios, and the trenched-geometry Table V contradicts the 'within 1%' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26242 v1 pith:QED3R5V2 submitted 2026-07-28 quant-ph

Zydrunas Gimbutas , Wei-Ren Syong , Nhi Nguyen , Ariana Taylor , Joel N. Ullom , Bradley K. Alpert , Douglas A. Bennett , Corey Rae H. McRae This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords participationratiosuperconductingqubitsdielectriclosstwo-levelsystemsboundaryintegralequationcoplanarwaveguideelectricfieldsimulationtrenching
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

The paper aims to make precise simulation of electric-field energy in the nanometer-thick, micrometer-wide interfaces of superconducting devices practical. It presents a boundary integral equation solver for 2D electrostatic cross-sections that computes participation ratios — the fraction of field energy stored in each lossy region — using Green's first identity, turning a singular area integral into a better-behaved boundary integral. The central claim is that this approach is roughly two orders of magnitude faster than conventional finite-element solvers, with relative errors around 10^-7 for a ten-minute run, which the paper supports with convergence tests and comparisons against commercial solvers. Using that speed, the paper re-examines the common assumption that each interface's participation ratio scales linearly (or inversely linearly) with its dielectric constant, and finds the assumption holds for some interfaces but fails for the metal-air sidewall and the metal-air-substrate triple junction. Trenching studies then identify the sidewall and triple junction as the regions most strongly affected by etch profile.

What carries the argument

The solver represents the scalar potential as a single-layer potential from an unknown charge density distributed on conductor and dielectric interfaces, reducing the electrostatic boundary value problem to a second-kind integral equation. Boundaries are split into chunks with Legendre polynomial expansions, quadratures are specialized for logarithmic and corner singularities, and a fast multipole method accelerates matrix-vector products. The participation ratios are then extracted from a single unperturbed solution using Green's first identity, which replaces the area integral of the singular ε|E|² with the boundary integral of ε/2 φ ∂φ/∂n. The same quantities are checked independently by

What would settle it

Take the trenched geometry on which the solver and a conventional finite-element solver disagree by 8% for the triple-junction participation and compute that participation at a sequence of increasingly fine corner discretizations, comparing the boundary-integral result against a direct volume integration of ε|E|² over a small excluded corner patch. If the boundary-integral value drifts or does not converge to the volume-integrated value, the Green's-first-identity corner quadrature is losing energy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a boundary integral equation capacitance solver can compute participation ratios for coplanar waveguide cross-sections with accuracy and speed that make systematic parameter studies possible. Rather than integrating ε|E|² over each thin region — which is hard because the field diverges at conductor corners — the solver uses Green's first identity to write each participation ratio as a boundary integral of ε/2 φ ∂φ/∂n. Since φ stays bounded while ∂φ/∂n is only integrably singular, the numerical quadrature handles corners far better than squaring the field would. The paper reports relative errors around 10^-7 for a ten-minute solution, a speed-up of about 170

Load-bearing premise

The solver's corner accuracy rests on the physical edge condition that ε|E|² is integrable near conductor corners and triple junctions, plus the numerical quadrature's ability to capture that integrable but singular boundary contribution; if the corner quadrature misses part of it, the emphasized metal-air sidewall and triple-junction participation ratios are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The common practice of re-scaling a simulated participation ratio by thickness and dielectric-constant ratios is safe for the metal-air top, metal-air corner, metal-substrate, and substrate-air interfaces, but unsafe for the metal-air sidewall and triple junction; experimental analyses that use this scaling for those regions need a different procedure.
  • In untrenched coplanar waveguides, the metal-air sidewall holds about an order of magnitude more field energy than the metal-air top; this asymmetry matters for capping studies, since coating only the top leaves the dominant sidewall loss source untouched.
  • Trenching the substrate by about 100 nm sharply reduces the sidewall and triple-junction participation, after which the sidewall participation is comparable to the top and further trenching has little additional effect.
  • Other components placed within roughly 20–40 µm of a coplanar waveguide can shift its participation ratios by more than 1%, so device-level proximity must be included when interpreting loss measurements.
  • Because a ten-minute run replaces solver runs of hundreds of minutes, the method opens the way to sweeping dielectric constants, etch profiles, and layer thicknesses over many cases, and to subdividing interfaces into many more loss regions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: measure loss in a set of resonators with varying trench depth and compare the measured loss tangent to the solver's prediction; the predicted order-of-magnitude drop in sidewall participation between 0 and 100 nm trench depth gives a sharp experimental signature.
  • Since the perturbative route p_i = (ε_i/W) ∂W/∂ε_i is validated here, one could invert the relationship: from measured capacitance shifts as thin layers are modified, one might extract interface participation ratios without knowing layer thickness or permittivity in advance.
  • The failure of linearity in the sidewall and triple-junction regions implies that 'effective' interface loss tangents extracted from experiment are geometry-dependent; comparisons across devices with different etch profiles should not be made with a single effective value.
  • The 2D boundary-integral approach could be combined with a 3D eigenmode solver by slicing the qubit into cross-sections whose mode potentials are matched, but that requires validating the quasi-TEM slice approximation for each 3D mode — a natural next check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a boundary integral equation solver for 2D electrostatic capacitance and participation-ratio calculations in superconducting coplanar-waveguide (CPW) cross-sections. The solver uses a single-layer potential representation, Legendre-chunk discretization, FMM acceleration, and GMRES iteration. Participation ratios are computed from Green's first identity, avoiding explicit squaring of the singular electric field. The paper validates the solver on two circular wires and a square coaxial line, compares it against Ansys Maxwell and COMSOL, and then applies it to test dielectric-constant linearity assumptions for the MA sidewall and triple junction, and to study isotropic versus anisotropic trenching. The advertised central claims are relative errors around 1e-7 for a ten-minute runtime and a speedup of about two orders of magnitude over conventional solvers.

Significance. If the stated accuracy carries over to participation ratios, this would be a valuable tool for superconducting-device surface-loss engineering, enabling fine geometric subdivisions and parameter sweeps that are impractical with FEM. The Green's-identity formulation is an elegant treatment of corner singularities, and the exact capacitance validations are excellent. The reproduction of Wenner et al.'s COMSOL values and the described complex-step perturbative check are also strengths in principle. However, the paper does not demonstrate that the headline accuracy extends to the participation ratios in the regions most relevant to its physics conclusions, and one external comparison shows an 8% discrepancy in the triple-junction participation for the trenched geometry. These gaps are load-bearing and must be addressed before the main claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (5)] The load-bearing claim is that Eq. (5) gives participation ratios with errors well below 1 ppm, but no convergence study of p_TJ or p_MA,side is shown. The 1e-7 and 1e-10 accuracies in Appendix C are capacitance values for geometries without thin dielectric layers or triple junctions; they do not validate the boundary integral of phi * dphi/dn near corners and multi-material junctions. The physical edge condition only guarantees integrability, not that the dyadic/adaptive quadrature resolves the singular integrand at ppm level. Please provide a refinement study for p_TJ, p_MA,side, and p_MA,corner in the untrenched and trenched CPW geometries, and report the sum_i p_i deviation.
  2. [Appendix A, perturbation method] The text states that the complex-step perturbative formula p_i = (epsilon_i/W) dW/depsilon_i is used as an independent validation of the Green's-identity results, but no numerical comparison is reported. This is precisely the cross-check that would detect a systematic quadrature bias in Eq. (5). Please include a table of p_i from both methods for at least the untrenched and isotropically trenched geometries of Table V, including the complex-step step size h and convergence behavior.
  3. [Sec. III and Table V] The main text says all participation ratios agree within 1% except p_MA,corner, but Table V's isotropically trenched row shows p_TJ = 6.1 ppm (Maxwell) versus 5.6 ppm (this work), an 8% difference, plus 1% differences in p_MA,side and p_MS. This contradiction concerns the same TJ region highlighted in the paper. The discrepancy must be resolved: either the statement is inaccurate, the Maxwell value is unreliable, or Eq. (5) has a systematic bias. Without this resolution, the trenching conclusions in Fig. 4 are not fully supported.
  4. [Abstract; Sec. III] The advertised 'relative errors around 10^-7 for a ten-minute solution runtime' is not connected to participation ratios. The 13-digit two-wire and 2.4e-10 square-coaxial results are capacitance only; the square-coaxial test used 1.3M points, and no runtime is reported there. The CPW/Maxwell comparison reports about 170x speedup and below-1% participation agreement, not 1e-7. Please qualify the accuracy claim so that it is not read as applying to the participation ratios themselves.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Table IV] Table IV appears malformed: after the capacitance row there is an unexplained row 'log10(energy density [J/m^3]) Potential (V)' with no values. Please remove it or complete the table.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The formulas for p_i,parallel and p_i,perp are typeset ambiguously. Parenthesize the thickness and permittivity ratios so that the linear and inverse-linear scalings are unambiguous.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3] The text mentions that results for MS, SA, MA top, and MA corner appear in the supplemental, but these are described only briefly in Appendix E and Fig. 8. Please make the main-text/supplement distinction consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the participation-ratio formulas are mathematical identities and the central claims are supported by external exact-solution and COMSOL benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The participation ratio is defined by Eq. (2) as a ratio of field-energy integrals, and Eq. (5) replaces the area integral with an equivalent boundary integral via Green's first identity; this is an exact mathematical transformation, not a fitting or a renamed input. The perturbative check p_i = (ε_i/W) ∂W/∂ε_i is likewise an identity derived from the same energy functional, so using it as a cross-check is consistency testing, not circularity—though the paper does not report numerical results for that check. The headline accuracy claim is backed by external exact solutions: two-wire capacitance to 13 digits and square coaxial capacitance to 2.4×10^-10 relative error, with convergence tables. The comparison to Ansys Maxwell and the reproduction of Wenner et al. COMSOL results to fractions of a percent provide external, non-circular benchmarks. The only same-author citation is FMMLIB2D [35], used as numerical infrastructure (fast multipole acceleration); it is code-reproduced and does not carry the physics or the participation-ratio claims, so it is not load-bearing circularity. The apparent inconsistency between the main-text statement that all participation ratios agree within 1% except p_MA,corner and the Table V p_TJ = 8% difference for the isotropically trenched case is a correctness/accuracy concern, not a circularity: it does not show that any prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. No parameter is fitted to the data it later 'predicts'; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work; no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical result rests on standard BIE theory (single-layer potential, jump conditions), spectral discretization with FMM acceleration, and the integrability of corner singularities. The physics applications rely on the quasi-TEM 2D approximation and idealized geometry descriptions. No free parameters are fitted to experimental data; the listed parameters are numerical method choices.

free parameters (4)
  • Legendre polynomial order p = 10
    Spectral discretization order used in convergence tables (Appendices B, C); accuracy and runtime depend on it.
  • FMM near-field separation ratio = 2.4
    Ratio below which interactions are computed directly rather than via FMM (Appendix B.4); affects speed and memory.
  • Complex step size h = 1e-12
    Used in complex-step perturbation for validating participation ratios (Appendix A.3).
  • Maxwell y-domain truncation = 150 µm
    Chosen for FEM comparison after convergence to 100 µm (Appendix D.3); not part of the BIE solver itself.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 2D quasi-TEM electrostatic model adequately represents CPW cross-sections at low frequency
    Standard in the field; stated in Introduction and Appendix A.1.
  • domain assumption The physical edge condition requires ε|E|^2 to remain integrable near conductor corners (refs. 17-19)
    Underpins the Green's first identity boundary integral in Section III / Eq. (5).
  • standard math Single-layer potential representation with the chosen jump conditions yields a well-posed integral equation
    Standard BIE theory; cited in refs. 30-33.
  • domain assumption Participation ratio scaling p_∥ ∝ ε, p_⊥ ∝ 1/ε (Eq. 8) is derived correctly and is the assay being tested
    Used in Section IV to define the linearity baselines.
  • domain assumption Reference FEM solvers (Ansys Maxwell, COMSOL/Wenner) produce accurate ground-truth values
    The cross-solver comparisons in Appendices D and E treat these as benchmarks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precise 2D electric field density simulations for superconducting quantum devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QED3R5V2

@misc{pith2026260726242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precise 2D electric field density simulations for superconducting quantum devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QED3R5V2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26242}
}
abstract

Dielectric loss due to two-level systems is a limiting factor for superconducting qubit relaxation times. These losses arise mostly from nanometer-scale interfacial defect regions in superconducting devices with planar dimensions of microns to millimeters, thus making it resource intensive to accurately simulate the electric field density in these regions with traditional electromagnetic solvers. In this work, we demonstrate a fast boundary integral equation solver that allows precise simulation of electric field density in these thin regions, showing a speedup of around two orders of magnitude over traditional solvers, with relative errors around $10^{-7}$ for a ten-minute solution runtime. By computing participation ratios through Green's first identity without squaring the electric field, our approach is less susceptible to the field singularities near conductor corners. We apply this solver to a basic untrenched coplanar waveguide cross-section, showing that the common assumption of participation ratio linearity with dielectric constant holds well for some interfaces and not others; in particular, while the metal-air (MA) top and corner follow this linear relationship strongly, the MA sidewall does not. We then compare isotropic and anisotropic etching, showing that the MA sidewall and the metal-air-substrate triple junction are the most strongly affected. We are currently leveraging this solver to explore geometries that will uniquely isolate the participation ratios of the different dielectrics. Finally, we are working to combine this solver framework with a full 3D microwave solver to accurately calculate participation ratios for the thin dielectrics that are known sources of loss in superconducting qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Cross-sectional diagram of coplanar waveguide (CPW). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Electric field density (colormap) and electric field direction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dielectric constant linearity analysis of interface regions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effects of isotropic and anisotropic trenching. (top-left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. CPW convergence analysis and comparison to Ansys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Capacitance versus y-direction truncation for the Ansys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Top: Relative error versus runtime for the simulation con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Dielectric constant linearity analysis of interface regions for an untrenched (left) and trenched (right) CPW. In each pannel, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The transmission line problem We consider a transmission line consisting ofNideal conductors embedded in a lossless dielectric medium with piecewise-constant permittivityε(x). Transmission lines in- volving at least two dielectric media cannot support a pure TEM mode, but in the low-frequency regime the fields are nearly transversal (quasi-TEM mode), and ...

  2. [2]

    Capacitance matrices For a system ofNconductors, the generalized capacitance matrixCgives the relationship between the conductor poten- tials and the net free conductor charges:   C11 · · ·C1N ... ... ... CN1 · · ·CNN     V1 ... VN   =   Q1 ... QN   .(A7) To obtain columnjofC, we solve (A2) using unit voltage excitations [16] V (j) i =δ ...

  3. [3]

    We compute the participation ratios using two methods

    Participation ratios Recall that the participation ratio for the domainΩ i is de- fined as pi = Wi W , whereW i is the energy per unit length in domainΩ i: Wi = Z Ωi εi 2 |E|2 dS, andWis the total electric field energy per unit length: W= ∑ i Wi, dSis the area element,ε i is the permittivity of domainΩ i. We compute the participation ratios using two meth...

  4. [4]

    The geometry dis- cretization provides boundary points, normal vectors, and arc length quadrature weightsw i for discretizing the boundary in- tegral operators

    Geometry discretization The solver divides conductor and dielectric interface boundaries into segments (referred to as chunks), where both geometryr(t) = (x(t),y(t))and surface densitiesσ(t)are rep- resented using orderpLegendre polynomial expansions on each chunk’s parameter domaint∈[0,1]. The geometry dis- cretization provides boundary points, normal ve...

  5. [5]

    Boundary integral operators The single-layer potential operatorS0 and its normal deriva- tiveS ′ 0 form the basis of the integral equation formulation. For a potential densityσon boundaryΓ, S0[σ](x) = Z Γ G(x,x ′)σ(x ′)dΓ,(B1) S′ 0[σ](x) = ∂ ∂n Z Γ G(x,x ′)σ(x ′)dΓ.(B2) For conductors, assuming that the normalnpoints outward from the conductor, the discre...

  6. [6]

    On each chunk, the poten- tial densityσis represented as a Legendre polynomial expan- sion of orderp, sampled at Gauss-Legendre nodes

    Matrix discretization The boundary integral equations are discretized using a Galerkin-type scheme that is converted to Nyström form for efficient preconditioning [31–33]. On each chunk, the poten- tial densityσis represented as a Legendre polynomial expan- sion of orderp, sampled at Gauss-Legendre nodes. For each pair of boundary segments, the kernelKofA...

  7. [7]

    Square-root-weight preconditioning is applied by default to improve convergence, particularly for highly refined meshes

    Iterative solver and fast multipole acceleration The linear system (B5) is solved using the generalized min- imal residual (GMRES) iterative method. Square-root-weight preconditioning is applied by default to improve convergence, particularly for highly refined meshes. The system is trans- formed as W1/2A W−1/2y=W 1/2b,W=diag(w),(B8) wherey=W 1/2ξandware ...

  8. [8]

    The participation ratios are then computed using Green’s first iden- tity

    Capacitance and participation ratio computation The generalized capacitance matrixCis assembled fromN linear solves (one per unit-voltage excitation, Appendix A 2), and the physical capacitance matrixCfollows from (A9). The participation ratios are then computed using Green’s first iden- tity. For regionΩ i with boundary∂Ω i, pi =W −1 Z ∂Ω i εi 2 φ ∂ φ ∂n...

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    MATLAB/Octave handles high-level logic, geometry generation, iterative linear solvers (GMRES), pre- and post- processing, and visualization

    Software implementation The solver is implemented as a hybrid MATLAB/Octave and Fortran codebase, leveraging the strengths of each lan- guage. MATLAB/Octave handles high-level logic, geometry generation, iterative linear solvers (GMRES), pre- and post- processing, and visualiz...

  2. [10]

    The exact capacitance isC exact =19.403122346044 pF/m (using CODATA(2014) vacuum permittivity value)

    Two circular wires For two parallel circular wires with radiir1 andr 2 separated by center-to-center distanceD, the exact capacitance per unit length is given by [37] C= 2πε0εr cosh−1 D2−r2 1−r2 2 2r1r2 .(C1) We investigate convergence for the configuration with wire radiir 1 ...

    2014

  3. [11]

    The solution is expressed in terms of the complete elliptic integral of the first kindK(k), TABLE I

    Square coaxial line For concentric square conductors with inner square half- widtha(side length 2a) and outer square half-widthb(side length 2b), the exact capacitance per unit length is obtained using the Anderson method [38]. The solution is expressed in terms of the complet...

    2014

  4. [12]

    All dielectric constants are set to 10 for simplicity

    Comparison to Ansys Maxwell For the Ansys Maxwell comparison, we use a geometry withw= 6µm,g= 3µm,h= 100 nm, and trench depthd = 0 nm, and we vary ground plane widthf. All dielectric constants are set to 10 for simplicity. The boundary conditions for our solver are most simila...

  5. [13]

    Neumann boundary conditions in Ansys Maxwell To evaluate the influence of boundary conditions in Ansys Maxwell, we simulate the untrenched CPW geometry using Neumann boundary conditions on all outer boundaries of the computational domain. Although Neumann boundaries are often ...

  6. [14]

    Ansys Maxwell y-axis truncation convergence To ensure a consistent comparison between our boundary- integral formulation solver and Ansys Maxwell, we per- formed a convergence study on the y-direction truncation size used in the Maxwell simulations. Because Maxwell requires a ...

  7. [15]

    Capacitance relative error plots To quantify the convergence behavior, we compute the rel- ative error in the extracted capacitance as a function of run- time. Fig. 7(a) shows the relative error when all methods are referenced to the final most converged value obtained from ou...

  8. [16]

    [3] using the same untrenched CPW geometry as in that work

    Comparison to COMSOL We compare our results to the COMSOL simulations in Wenner et al. [3] using the same untrenched CPW geometry as in that work. For their example c3[a], with parametersw = 5µm,g= 2µm,h= 0.1µm,d= 0µm,dt= 3 nm, our solver (using the ground plane widthf= 300µm)...

  9. [17]

    J. M. Martinis, K. B. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, K. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. P. Pappas, R. W. Simmonds,et al., Decoherence in josephson qubits from dielec- tric loss, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210503 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Müller, J

    C. Müller, J. H. Cole, and J. Lisenfeld, Towards understanding two-level-systems in amorphous solids: insights from quantum circuits, Rep. Prog. Phys.82, 124501 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Wenner, R

    J. Wenner, R. Barends, R. C. Bialczak, Y . Chen, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, a. Megrant, P. J. J. O’Malley, D. Sank, a. Vainsencher, H. Wang, T. C. White, Y . Yin, J. Zhao, a. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Surface loss simulations of superconducting coplanar waveguid...

    2011

  12. [20]

    C. Wang, C. Axline, Y . Y . Gao, T. Brecht, Y . Chu, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Surface participation and dielectric loss in superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Let- ters107, 162601 (2015), arXiv:1509.01854

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Calusine, A

    G. Calusine, A. Melville, W. Woods, R. Das, C. Stull, V . Bolkhovsky, D. Braje, D. Hover, D. K. Kim, X. Miloshi, D. Rosenberg, A. Sevi, J. L. Yoder, E. Dauler, and W. D. Oliver, Analysis and mitigation of interface losses in trenched super- conducting coplanar waveguide resona...

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Woods, G

    W. Woods, G. Calusine, A. Melville, A. Sevi, E. Golden, D. K. Kim, D. Rosenberg, J. L. Yoder, and W. D. Oliver, Deter- mining interface dielectric losses in superconducting coplanar- waveguide resonators, Phys. Rev. Applied12, 014012 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    C. R. H. McRae, H. Wang, J. Gao, M. R. Vissers, T. Brecht, A. Dunsworth, D. P. Pappas, and J. Mutus, Materials loss measurements using superconducting microwave resonators, Review of Scientific Instruments91, 10.1063/5.0017378 (2020), 091101, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/artic...

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Simons,Coplanar Waveguide Circuits, Components, and Systems(Wiley, 2001)

    R. Simons,Coplanar Waveguide Circuits, Components, and Systems(Wiley, 2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    C. E. Murray, J. M. Gambetta, D. T. McClure, and M. Stef- fen, Analytical determination of participation in superconduct- ing coplanar architectures, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques66, 3724–3733 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    O. Dial, D. T. McClure, S. Poletto, G. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, J. M. Gambetta, D. W. Abraham, J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen, Bulk and surface loss in superconducting transmon qubits, Su- percond. Sci. Technol.29, 044001 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    J. M. Gambetta, C. E. Murray, Y .-K.-K. Fung, D. T. McClure, O. Dial, W. Shanks, J. W. Sleight, and M. Steffen, Investigating surface loss effects in superconducting transmon qubits, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity27, 1–5 (2017). 14

    2017

  20. [28]

    Niepce, J

    D. Niepce, J. J. Burnett, M. G. Latorre, and J. Bylander, Geo- metric scaling of two-level-system loss in superconducting res- onators, Supercond. Sci. Technol.33, 025013 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Melville, G

    A. Melville, G. Calusine, W. Woods, K. Serniak, E. Golden, B. M. Niedzielski, D. K. Kim, A. Sevi, J. L. Yoder, E. A. Dauler, and W. D. Oliver, Comparison of dielec- tric loss in titanium nitride and aluminum superconducting resonators, Applied Physics Letters117, 10.1063/5.002...

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lahtinen and M

    V . Lahtinen and M. Möttönen, Effects of device geometry and material properties on dielectric losses in superconduct- ing coplanar-waveguide resonators, Journal of Physics Con- densed Matter32, 10.1088/1361-648X/ab98c8 (2020), arXiv: 2002.12801

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    K. D. Crowley, R. A. McLellan, A. Dutta, N. Shumiya, A. P. M. Place, X. Hoang Le, Y . Gang, T. Madhavan, N. Khedkar, Y . Cady Feng, E. A. Umbarkar, X. Gui, L. V . H. Rodgers, Y . Jia, M. M. Feldman, S. A. Lyon, M. Liu, R. J. Cava, A. A. Houck, and N. P. de Leon, Disentangling ...

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    C. R. Paul and A. E. Feather, Computation of the transmission line inductance and capacitance matrices from the generalized capacitance matrix, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.EMC- 18, 175 (1976)

    1976

  25. [33]

    C. J. Bouwkamp, A note on singularities occurring at sharp edges in electromagnetic diffraction theory, Physica12, 467 (1946)

    1946

  26. [34]

    Meixner, Die Kantenbedingung in der Theorie der Beugung elektromagnetischer Wellen an vollkommen leitenden ebenen Schirmen, Ann

    J. Meixner, Die Kantenbedingung in der Theorie der Beugung elektromagnetischer Wellen an vollkommen leitenden ebenen Schirmen, Ann. Phys.441, 1 (1949)

    1949

  27. [35]

    Meixner, The behavior of electromagnetic fields at edges, IEEE Trans

    J. Meixner, The behavior of electromagnetic fields at edges, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.20, 442 (1972)

    1972

  28. [36]

    Strauss,Partial Differential Equations: An Introduction, Partial Differential Equations: An Introduction (Wiley, 2008)

    W. Strauss,Partial Differential Equations: An Introduction, Partial Differential Equations: An Introduction (Wiley, 2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    M. V . Schneider, Microstrip lines for microwave integrated cir- cuits, Bell System Technical Journal48, 1421 (1969)

    1969

  30. [38]

    B. E. Spielman, Dissipation loss effects in isolated and cou- pled transmission lines, IEEE Transactions on Microwave The- ory and Techniques25, 648 (1977)

    1977

  31. [39]

    M. R. Vissers, J. S. Kline, J. Gao, D. S. Wisbey, and D. P. Pappas, Reduced microwave loss in trenched superconducting coplanar waveguides, Appl. Phys. Lett.100, 082602 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    M. Bal, A. A. Murthy, S. Zhu, F. Crisa, X. You, Z. Huang, T. Roy, J. Lee, D. v. Zanten, R. Pilipenko, I. Nekrashevich, A. Lunin, D. Bafia, Y . Krasnikova, C. J. Kopas, E. O. Lachman, D. Miller, J. Y . Mutus, M. J. Reagor, H. Cansizoglu, J. Marshall, D. P. Pappas, K. Vu, K. Yad...

    2024

  33. [41]

    R. D. Chang, N. Shumiya, R. A. McLellan, Y . Zhang, M. P. Bland, F. Bahrami, J. Mun, C. Zhou, K. Kisslinger, G. Cheng, B. M. Smitham, A. C. Pakpour-Tabrizi, N. Yao, Y . Zhu, M. Liu, R. J. Cava, S. Gopalakrishnan, A. A. Houck, and N. P. de Leon, Eliminating surface oxides of su...

    2025

  34. [42]

    A. A. Murthy, M. Bal, M. J. Bedzyk, H. Cansizoglu, R. K. Chan, V . Chandrasekhar, F. Crisa, A. Datta, Y . Deng, C. D. Matute Diaz,et al., Identifying materials-level sources of per- formance variation in superconducting transmon qubits, Ap- plied Physics Reviews13(2026)

    2026

  35. [43]

    K. S. Nabors and J. White, Multipole-accelerated capaci- tance extraction algorithms for 3-d structures with multiple di- electrics, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems - I: Fun- damental Theory and Applications39, 946 (1992)

    1992

  36. [44]

    C. R. Paul,Analysis of Multiconductor Transmission Lines, 2nd ed., Wiley Series in Microwave and Optical Engineering (Wiley-IEEE Press, 2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    J. R. R. A. Martins, P. Sturdza, and J. J. Alonso, The complex- step derivative approximation, ACM Transactions on Mathe- matical Software29, 245 (2003)

    2003

  38. [46]

    Rachh and L

    M. Rachh and L. Greengard, Integral equation methods for elas- tance and mobility problems in two dimensions, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis54, 2889 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Greengard, M

    L. Greengard, M. O’Neil, M. Rachh, and F. Vico, Fast multi- pole methods for the evaluation of layer potentials with locally- corrected quadratures, Journal of Computational Physics: X10, 100092 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Askham, M

    T. Askham, M. Rachh, M. O’Neil, J. Hoskins, D. Fortunato, S. Jiang, F. Fryklund, T. Goodwill, H. Y . Wang, and H. Zhu, chunkIE: a MATLAB integral equation toolbox (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Bremer, On the Nyström discretization of integral equations on planar curves with corners, Applied and Computational Har- monic Analysis32, 45 (2012)

    J. Bremer, On the Nyström discretization of integral equations on planar curves with corners, Applied and Computational Har- monic Analysis32, 45 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Greengard and V

    L. Greengard and V . Rokhlin, A fast algorithm for particle sim- ulations, Journal of Computational Physics73, 325 (1987)

    1987

  43. [51]

    Gimbutas and L

    Z. Gimbutas and L. Greengard, Computational software: Simple FMM libraries for electrostatics, slow viscous flow, and frequency-domain wave propagation, Communications in Computational Physics18, 516 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Bindel, MWrap: A MEX interface generator (2011), currently maintained athttps://github.com/zgimbutas/ mwrap

    D. Bindel, MWrap: A MEX interface generator (2011), currently maintained athttps://github.com/zgimbutas/ mwrap

    2011

  45. [53]

    W. R. Smythe,Static and Dynamic Electricity, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, 1968)

    1968

  46. [54]

    G. M. Anderson, The calculation of the capacitance of coax- ial cylinders of rectangular cross-section, Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers69, 728 (1950)

    1950

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.