Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

This paper claims that capacitive loading in 2D fluxonium processors is an engineering challenge, not a fundamental limit, and derives a compact formula showing exactly which capacitance ratios set the achievable qubit–coupler coupling stre

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 05:40 UTC pith:2LCOZ3GW

load-bearing objection A clean analytical decomposition of capacitive loading in fluxonium circuits, backed by a credible design fix; the headline numbers rest on assumed process values, but the core conclusion survives. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22138 v1 pith:2LCOZ3GW submitted 2026-07-24 quant-ph

Capacitive Loading in Two-dimensional Fluxonium Quantum Processors

Quan Guan , Guo Xuan Chan , Xu Dou , Chunqing Deng , Lijing Jin This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords capacitive loadingfluxoniumtwo-qubit gatescapacitance budgetparticipation ratioJosephson junction parasitic capacitanceMAP gate2D quantum processor
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.

Capacitive loading has looked like a wall to moving fluxonium qubits from 1D chains into 2D grids. The paper argues the wall is not fundamental: it derives a compact formula for the qubit–coupler coupling strength that shows exactly where the finite capacitance budget goes. Two capacitance participation ratios matter — the fraction lost between the qubit's own pads and the fraction lost through the pad-to-ground path — and only the first is tightly bound by Josephson-junction and array parasitics. The second can be suppressed below 0.1 with enclosing coupler geometry, and numerical electromagnetic design reaches ~900 MHz coupling in a 2D grid versus ~470 MHz for a conventional shape, with correspondingly faster two-qubit gates. The paper's claim is that capacitive loading is an engineering trade-off, not a scaling limit.

Core claim

Equation (1): J_qc = (4e^2/(X C_cg)) η_qc η_cc (1 − C_ab/C_eff_q)(1 − C_bg/C_eff_bg). The two brackets are capacitance participation ratios: the fraction of the qubit's limited capacitance budget spent between its own pads, and the fraction of its effective ground capacitance that leaks directly to ground. The insight: achievable coupling is set by how the budget is distributed, not its absolute size. The inter-pad ratio is process-limited by junction/array parasitics; the pad-to-ground ratio can be pushed below 0.1 by enclosing coupler geometry. EM simulation validates the formula: the optimized layout reaches J_qc/h ≈ 900 MHz versus ≈ 470 MHz at equal E_C.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (1), specifically its two capacitance participation ratios. C_ab/C_eff_q is the fraction of the qubit's electrostatic budget drained by mutual capacitance between its two pads, including Josephson-junction and array parasitics; C_bg/C_eff_bg is the fraction of the effective pad-to-ground capacitance lost through the direct pad-to-ground path. The prefactor 4e^2/(X C_cg) sets the theoretical upper bound, η_qc and η_cc quantify parasitic qubit–coupler and coupler–coupler cross-capacitances, and the two bracket factors show how much of the budget survives. The formula's work is to split loading into a geometry-controlled channel (C_bg/C_eff_bg, suppressible below

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the assumed parasitic-capacitance process parameters (hC_JJ/E_J ≈ 0.6 fF/GHz, C_JJA = 1 fF) and on a 2D planar layout with a 2 µm minimum gap being representative; if the real junction/array parasitics are larger or packaging adds ground capacitance, the ~900 MHz coupling and the gate-time gains shrink.

What would settle it

Measure hC_JJ/E_J and the actual C_bg/C_eff_bg for a fabricated device using the reported layout. If hC_JJ/E_J comes out near 0.8 fF/GHz (as in the paper's conventional-design comparison) rather than 0.6, the predicted J_qc/h should drop from ~900 MHz toward ~470 MHz; observing that would contradict the central claim that capacitive loading is no longer a limiting factor. A direct check is to compare the predicted J_qc from Eq. (1) against a spectroscopy measurement of the qubit–coupler splitting.

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

If this is right

  • If the formula is right, fluxonium scaling to 2D grids does not demand a new qubit or coupler; the same capacitance budget can yield stronger coupling by redistributing it.
  • Design rule: load both pads of a floating qubit symmetrically to halve the per-pad connectivity X, and wrap coupler electrodes around the qubit pad to push C_bg/C_eff_bg below 0.1.
  • Lowering the junction-specific capacitance hC_JJ/E_J toward ~0.6 fF/GHz (e.g., thinner oxide, higher critical current density) directly shrinks the inter-pad ratio and raises achievable J_qc.
  • In the numerically demonstrated 2D grid, enhanced coupling shortens the 95th-percentile MAP-gate time from 89 ns to 27 ns and reduces the impact of 5% fabrication parameter variation.
  • The same principles extend to hexagonal connectivity with six couplers per qubit, keeping J_qc/h above about 535 MHz and enabling a 99.9%-fidelity gate in about 49 ns.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test follows from Eq. (1): extract C_ab/C_eff_q and C_bg/C_eff_bg from a fabricated device and compare predicted versus measured J_qc; deviations would isolate whether residual loading is geometric or process-dominated.
  • If junction parasitic capacitance per GHz continues to fall, the prefactor 4e^2/(X C_cg) becomes the binding constraint, suggesting further gains come from shrinking coupler-to-ground capacitance (e.g., reducing coupler E_J and pad area) — a direction the paper mentions but does not optimize.
  • The paper's 2D-planar assumption is the main caveat: flip-chip or multilayer assembly would add extra ground-plane capacitance and raise C_bg, so the ~900 MHz figure should be treated as planar-layout specific until measured.
  • Because the formula is purely electrostatic and geometry-dependent, a similar participation-ratio analysis may transfer to other superconducting qubits with tight capacitance budgets, though the paper demonstrates it only for fluxonium.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytical theory of capacitive loading in two-dimensional fluxonium processors. Starting from a lumped-capacitance circuit model, it derives Eq. (1), expressing the qubit–coupler coupling strength J_qc in terms of the coupler grounding capacitance and two capacitance participation ratios: the inter-pad ratio C_ab/C_eff_q and the pad-to-ground ratio C_bg/C_eff_bg. It identifies Josephson-junction and junction-array parasitic capacitances as the dominant irreducible contribution to the inter-pad ratio and shows, via electromagnetic simulations, that pad-geometry optimization can suppress the pad-to-ground ratio. The design principles are applied to a 5-qubit, 4-coupler unit cell with double-transmon couplers, yielding a simulated J_qc/h of 899 MHz versus 472 MHz for a conventional square layout. MAP-gate simulations under 5% fabrication-induced parameter variations show that stronger coupling shortens the 95th-percentile gate time from 89 ns at 300 MHz to 27 ns at 900 MHz. The paper concludes that capacitive loading is an engineering challenge rather than a fundamental physical limit.

Significance. If the analytical result and design principles hold, this is a useful contribution: it provides a closed-form decomposition that directly connects layout geometry to achievable coupling, and it identifies junction-process capacitance as the key control parameter. The derivation of Eq. (1) is algebraically clean and is internally validated against a full numerical circuit-QED extraction from EM capacitance matrices. However, the significance for practical processors is conditional: the headline 900 MHz coupling and the resulting gate times rely on assumed junction process parameters and on a leakage-only, noise-free fidelity model. The manuscript does not provide experimental validation or measured process data. As it stands, the work demonstrates a plausible and well-motivated design strategy, but the stronger claim that capacitive loading is 'not a fundamental limit' for real 2D processors requires quantitative support that is not yet present.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table S4 and Eq. (1)] The quantitative demonstration of ~900 MHz coupling rests on assumed process parameters in Table S4: hC_JJ/E_J = 0.6 fF/GHz and C_JJA = 1 fF. These enter through C_ab = C_geo_ab + C_JJ_ab + C_JJA_ab in Eq. (1). Using the paper's own 'conventional' values (0.8 fF/GHz and 2.5 fF) raises C_ab/C_eff_q from 0.226 to approximately 0.364 and lowers J_qc/h from 899 MHz to roughly 700 MHz, which would shift the Fig. 3(c) gate-time distributions to longer times. Since no measured process data are provided, the headline 'ultrafast' coupling is a design target rather than a demonstrated device property. Footnote [24] further concedes that flip-chip or multilayer architectures add unquantified loading; this sensitivity should be quantified or the claims scaled back.
  2. [Table S4 and Fig. 3(b)] The optimized-versus-conventional comparison changes both geometry and junction process: the optimized design uses hC_JJ/E_J = 0.6 fF/GHz and C_JJA = 1 fF, while the conventional design uses 0.8 fF/GHz and 2.5 fF. Consequently, the factor-of-two improvement in J_qc is not attributable purely to the proposed geometric design principles. To support the sentence 'The optimized design nearly doubles the achievable coupling while maintaining identical qubit and coupler charging energies,' the comparison should be repeated at fixed process parameters, or the geometric contribution should be isolated explicitly.
  3. [Supplement Sec. III, Eq. (S32)] The gate-fidelity results are based on a leakage-only, noise-free model. Eq. (S32) estimates the infidelity from a single leakage probability η as 1-F ≃ η/4 + 3η²/80; no T1/T2 decoherence, drive-amplitude errors, residual ZZ interactions, or measurement errors are included. The main text acknowledges 'noise-free model,' but the abstract and summary present 'ultrafast, high-fidelity two-qubit gates' without this caveat. A leakage-only bound cannot support the claim that 99.9% fidelity is achievable in a real processor. An error budget that includes decoherence, or an explicit statement that the result is a leakage-limited upper bound, is needed before claiming high fidelity.
  4. [Supplement Sec. II B and footnote [24]] The validation of Eq. (1) in Supp. Sec. II B is an internal consistency check: both the analytical expression and the numerical circuit-QED extraction use the same EM-simulated Maxwell capacitance matrix. It confirms the algebraic reduction but does not test whether the simulated capacitance matrix describes a fabricated device. In addition, the EM unit cell omits readout resonators and control wiring; the main text concedes these add loading but calls the reduction 'modest' without quantification. Given that the central claim concerns scalable processors, the sensitivity of J_qc to these omitted elements should be quantified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1) and Fig. 3] Eq. (1) gives J_qc as an energy (4e²/C), while Fig. 3(c) and Table S4 quote J_qc/h in frequency units. Define the conversion explicitly at first use.
  2. [Supplement Sec. I A] The derivation in Sec. I A says 'the four couplers are identical' but uses a general X; clarify that the explicit calculation corresponds to X=2, with the general-X result stated separately.
  3. [Fig. 2(b)] The labels 1p1c, 1p2c, 1p3c are not expanded in the caption; define 'one-pad-one-coupler' etc. at first appearance.
  4. [Main text, several places] There are stray non-printing characters in the PDF text (e.g., in 'Mitigating Strategy‌and' and 'benefits‌,'), likely encoding artifacts; these should be cleaned in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Eq. (1) is derived from an explicit capacitance matrix and the 899 MHz result is a parameter-conditional design calculation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central analytical relation Eq. (1) is obtained from an explicit circuit-QED capacitance-matrix inversion (main text Model and Theory; SI Sec. I, Eq. S8), not from fitting to the demonstrated J_qc. The SI validation (Sec. II B) compares the analytical reduction with numerical circuit quantization using the same Maxwell capacitance matrix; this is an algebraic consistency check, not a fitted prediction, and could in principle have failed. The optimized J_qc/h = 899 MHz is an output computed from stated process parameters (Table S4: hC_JJ/E_J = 0.6 fF/GHz, C_JJA = 1 fF) and a designed layout, not a parameter fitted to reach 900 MHz; the paper explicitly contrasts it with the conventional process assumption (0.8 fF/GHz, 2.5 fF), so the sensitivity is disclosed rather than hidden. Footnote [24] concedes flip-chip/multilayer architectures may introduce additional loading; this is a limitation on generality, not a circular step. Self-citations (Refs. [5,6]) are used for prior experimental context and for the DTC/parameter workflow, but the capacitive-loading derivation and design principles do not reduce to those citations, and the DTC is also supported by independent references [25-27]. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The paper's main caveat is dependence on assumed junction parasitic capacitance and 2D layout representativeness, which is a correctness/robustness issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation is self-contained from a stated capacitance matrix; the axioms above are the background facts and modeling choices the conclusion imports. None of these are independently verified in the paper, and the process-value assumptions are load-bearing for the headline 'not fundamental' claim.

free parameters (5)
  • Junction parasitic capacitance coefficient hC_JJ/E_J (optimized) = 0.6 fF/GHz
    Assumed fabrication-process parameter in the EM/circuit model for the optimized layout; controls C_JJ_ab and is central to the 900 MHz claim. Conventional design uses 0.8 fF/GHz.
  • JJA parasitic capacitance C_JJA (optimized) = 1 fF
    Assumed constant background contribution to C_ab and C_cg; conventional design uses 2.5 fF. No measured value is provided.
  • Microwave crosstalk coefficient γ_j,c = 1.29
    Representative value extracted from the practical layout (Supp Sec. III B); no uncertainty or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Fabrication variation σ = 5% truncated Gaussian
    Assumed spread for robustness sampling; the gate-time results in Fig. 3(c) depend on this chosen severity and truncation.
  • Leakage-induced gate infidelity threshold = 10^-3
    Chosen threshold for defining the optimized gate time t_gate; different thresholds would shift the reported gate times.
axioms (7)
  • standard math The common-mode (free) mode of a floating qubit can be eliminated without changing the qubit–coupler coupling.
    Used in Supp Sec. I A via free-mode removal (Ref [3]); standard circuit-QED procedure but nontrivial.
  • domain assumption All couplers attached to a given qubit pad are identical, with uniform C_cg, C_qc, C_Xqc, and C_cc.
    Stated immediately after Eq. (1) in the main text; the universal formula and 1/X scaling rely on this symmetry.
  • domain assumption JJA parasitic capacitance can be treated as an approximately constant background.
    Main text after the definition of C_ab; footnote [16] cites low-shunt-capacitance work, not a direct measurement of JJA parasitic capacitance.
  • ad hoc to paper Josephson junction parasitic capacitance scales as hC_JJ/E_J = 0.6 (optimized) or 0.8 (conventional) fF/GHz.
    Supp Table S4 and main text; chosen as representative of current fabrication, but no measured data or uncertainty is provided.
  • domain assumption A 2D planar EM model with PEC metal and sapphire substrate represents a real processor; flip-chip/multilayer loads are ignored.
    Footnote [24] acknowledges that flip-chip or multilayer architectures may add capacitive loading but does not quantify it.
  • domain assumption MAP gate error is dominated by a single leakage path; decoherence, readout, and drive crosstalk beyond γ_j,c=1.29 are neglected.
    Supp Sec. III B-C and Eq. (S32); the quoted 'high fidelity' numbers are leakage-only and noise-free.
  • domain assumption Only nearest-neighbor interactions are included; stray couplings between non-adjacent elements are omitted.
    Supp Sec. III A, used in the system Hamiltonian for the gate simulations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20583 in / 16544 out tokens · 165358 ms · 2026-08-01T05:40:03.347190+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Capacitive loading has emerged as a major obstacle to scaling fluxonium qubits from one-dimensional to highly connected two-dimensional (2D) architectures, yet its physical origin remains poorly understood. We derive an analytical relation between the qubit capacitance budget and the achievable capacitive coupling to external circuit elements, identifying the parasitic capacitances of Josephson junctions and Josephson junction arrays as the dominant source of capacitive loading while showing that the qubit-pad geometry can instead be engineered to mitigate it. Building on these insights, we formulate practical design principles and numerically demonstrate ultrafast, high-fidelity two-qubit gates in 2D fluxonium architectures. Our results reveal that capacitive loading does not constitute a fundamental limit for 2D fluxonium quantum processors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22138 by Chunqing Deng, Guo Xuan Chan, Lijing Jin, Quan Guan, Xu Dou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Qubit–coupler coupling configurations, circuit model, and capacitive loading decomposition. Representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Scaling behavior of the two critical capacitance participation ratios governing capacitive loading. (a) Inter-pad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Demonstration of the proposed design principles in a scalable fluxonium processor. (a) Unit cell of a two-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.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

42 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science326, 113 (2009)

    2009

  2. [2]

    Somoroff, Q

    A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, H. Xiong, R. Kuzmin, and V. E. Manucharyan, Millisecond coher- ence in a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 267001 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    F. Wang, K. Lu, H. Zhan, L. Ma, F. Wu, H. Sun, H. Deng, Y. Bai, F. Bao, X. Chang, R. Gao, X. Gao, G. Gong, L. Hu, R. Hu, H. Ji, X. Ma, L. Mao, 6 Z. Song, C. Tang, H. Wang, T. Wang, Z. Wang, T. Xia, H. Xu, Z. Zhan, G. Zhang, T. Zhou, M. Zhu, Q. Zhu, S. Zhu, X. Zhu, Y. Shi, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, High- coherence fluxonium qubits manufactured with a wafer-...

    2025

  4. [4]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Melville, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, High- fidelity, frequency-flexible two-qubit fluxonium gates with a transmon coupler, Phys. Rev. X13, 031035 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Z. Zhan, Z. Li, F. Wang, W. Lan, X. Pan, L. Xiang, X. Dou, R. Gao, G. Gong, Y. Guo, Q. Guan, L. Hu, R. Hu, H. Ji, L. Jin, Y. Jin, C. Li, K. Lu, L. Ma, X. Ma, H. Wang, J. Wang, H. Zhan, T. Zhou, X. Zhu, C. Deng, and T. Wang, Scalable fluxonium quantum processors via tunable-coupler architecture, arXiv:2604.13363 [quant- ph] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [7]

    E. L. Rosenfeld, C. T. Hann, D. I. Schuster, M. H. Ma- theny, and A. A. Clerk, High-fidelity two-qubit gates be- tween fluxonium qubits with a resonator coupler, PRX Quantum5, 040317 (2024)

    2024

  7. [8]

    Heunisch, L

    L. Heunisch, L. Huang, S. Tasler, J. Schirk, F. Wall- ner, V. Feulner, B. Sarma, K. Liegener, C. M. F. Schnei- der, S. Filipp, and M. J. Hartmann, Scalable fluxonium- transmon architecture for error corrected quantum pro- cessors, arXiv:2508.09267 [quant-ph] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [9]

    P. Zhao, P. Xu, and Z.-Y. Xue, Scalable native multiqubit gates via engineered noncomputational-state interactions in superconducting fluxonium qubits, Phys. Rev. A113, 022604 (2026)

    2026

  9. [10]

    Najera-Santos, R

    B.-L. Najera-Santos, R. Rousseau, K. Gerashchenko, H. Patange, A. Riva, M. Villiers, T. Briant, P.-F. Cohadon, A. Heidmann, J. Palomo, M. Rosticher, H. le Sueur, A. Sarlette, W. C. Smith, Z. Leghtas, E. Flurin, T. Jacqmin, and S. Del´ eglise, High-sensitivity ac-charge detection with a mhz-frequency fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. X14, 011007 (2024)

    2024

  10. [11]

    K. Hida, K. Matsuura, S. Watanabe, and Y. Nakamura, Flux-trapping fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 064069 (2025)

    2025

  11. [12]

    For clarity, the JJs and JJAs are omitted from the schematics. Grounded qubits/couplers are connected to ground through JJs, whereas floating qubits/couplers are connected by JJs between the two pads; for fluxonium qubits, a JJA is connected in parallel with the JJ

  12. [13]

    M. H. Devoretet al., Quantum fluctuations in electrical circuits, Les Houches, Session LXIII7, 133 (1995)

    1995

  13. [15]

    P. Zhao, P. Xu, and Z.-Y. Xue, Extensible fluxonium ar- chitecture using tunable couplers with low shunt capaci- tance, arXiv:2606.01647 [quant-ph] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [16]

    For transmon qubits, the array contribution naturally vanishes (C JJA ab = 0), whereas it is a loading channel for fluxonium qubits

  15. [17]

    J. B. Hertzberg, E. J. Zhang, S. Rosenblatt, E. Mage- san, J. A. Smolin, J.-B. Yau, V. P. Adiga, M. Sandberg, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. S. Orcutt, Laser-annealing Josephson junctions for yielding scaled-up superconduct- ing quantum processors, npj Quantum Information7, 129 (2021)

    2021

  16. [18]

    Watanabe and D

    M. Watanabe and D. B. Haviland, Quantum effects in small-capacitance single josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B67, 094505 (2003)

    2003

  17. [19]

    Shapovalov, P

    A. Shapovalov, P. Febvre, U. Yilmaz, V. Shnyrkov, M. Belogolovskii, and O. Kordyuk, Low-capacitance josephson junctions, Progress in physics of metals21, 3 (2020)

    2020

  18. [20]

    Chen, Google Quantum AI,et al., Exponential sup- pression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction, Nature595, 383 (2021)

    Z. Chen, Google Quantum AI,et al., Exponential sup- pression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction, Nature595, 383 (2021)

    2021

  19. [21]

    Acharya, Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, et al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    R. Acharya, Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, et al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  20. [22]

    Wanget al., Demonstration of low-overhead quantum error correction codes, Nature Physics22, 308 (2026)

    K. Wanget al., Demonstration of low-overhead quantum error correction codes, Nature Physics22, 308 (2026)

    2026

  21. [23]

    There- fore,C eff bg serves as an equivalent metric for quantifying the capacitance budget as well in this special case

    For symmetric floating-qubit with symmetric coupler loading,C eff ag =C eff bg , yieldingC eff q =C ab +C eff bg /2. There- fore,C eff bg serves as an equivalent metric for quantifying the capacitance budget as well in this special case

  22. [24]

    In practical implemen- tations, flip-chip or multilayer architectures may intro- duce additional capacitive loading

    The electromagnetic simulations are performed with 2D planar layouts through this work. In practical implemen- tations, flip-chip or multilayer architectures may intro- duce additional capacitive loading

  23. [25]

    Goto, Double-transmon coupler: Fast two-qubit gate with no residual coupling for highly detuned supercon- ducting qubits, Phys

    H. Goto, Double-transmon coupler: Fast two-qubit gate with no residual coupling for highly detuned supercon- ducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034038 (2022)

    2022

  24. [26]

    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, Phys. Rev. X14, 041050 (2024)

    2024

  25. [27]

    Tiwari, S

    T. Tiwari, S. K. Sahu, G. Ribeill, M. Senatore, M. D. La- Haye, R. W. Simmonds, D. L. Campbell, A. Kamal, and L. Ranzani, High-fidelity iswap gate with double trans- mon coupler, arXiv:2604.27080 [quant-ph] (2026). [28]c m (m=a, b) stands for transmonaandbin the DTC, Ecab J stands for the Josephson Energy of the junction connectingc a andc b. Details are ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [28]

    following the parameter design workflow introduced in Ref. [6]. To assess the robustness of MAP gates against fabrication-induced parameter variations [17, 29, 30], which become increasingly relevant in large-scale pro- cessors, we evaluate their performance under variations ofE C,E J , andE L sampled around their nominal de- sign values [31]. Specificall...

  27. [29]

    A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, D. A. Ezenkova, E. A. Krivko, E. V. Zikiy, D. O. Moskalev, A. I. Ivanov, N. D. Korshakov, and I. A. Rodionov, Improving Joseph- son junction reproducibility for superconducting quan- tum circuits: junction area fluctuation, Scientific Reports 13, 6772 (2023)

    2023

  28. [30]

    O. W. Kennedy, K. G. Crawford, K. Shahbazi, and C. D. Shelly, Analysis of josephson junction barrier variation: A combined electron microscopy, breakdown, and monte carlo approach, Phys. Rev. Mater.9, 084803 (2025)

    2025

  29. [31]

    The same fabrication variations also alter the parasitic junction capacitance, resulting in deviations ofE C

    Variations in the nanoscale junction area and tunnel- barrier thickness lead to fluctuations in the critical cur- rent, thereby modifyingE J andE L. The same fabrication variations also alter the parasitic junction capacitance, resulting in deviations ofE C

  30. [32]

    Capacitive Loading in Two-dimensional Fluxonium Quantum Processors

    Z.-T. Zhuang, D. Rosenstock, B.-J. Liu, A. Somoroff, V. E. Manucharyan, and C. Wang, Non-Markovian re- laxation spectroscopy of fluxonium qubits, Nature Com- munications17, 3209 (2026). Supplemental Material for “Capacitive Loading in Two-dimensional Fluxonium Quantum Processors” Quan Guan, Guo Xuan Chan, Xu Dou, Chunqing Deng, ∗ and Lijing Jin † Quantum ...

    arXiv 2026

  31. [33]

    Distribute capacitive loading uniformly ↓X (i) Distribute couplers symmetrically on floating qubit pads (ii) Design equal coupler-to-ground capacitances

  32. [34]

    Suppress parasitic pairwise coupling ↓C Xqc ,↓C cc (i) Increase pad spacing (ii) Spread couplers with equally distributed angles (iii) Improve geometric screening by coupled qubit pad

  33. [35]

    Minimize coupler grounding capacitance ↓C cg (i) Design lowerE c J (ii) Decrease junction area and oxidation (iii) Increase ground padding

  34. [36]

    Minimize direct inter-island capacitance ↓C ab/C eff q (i) Design lowerE q J (ii) Decrease junction area and oxidation (iii) Increase pad spacing

  35. [37]

    NUMERICAL SIMULA TION OF MAP GA TE FIDELITY The derivation presented in this section closely follows Ref

    Suppress qubit parasitic grounding paths and enhance targeted pairwise coupling ↓C bg/C eff bg (i) Increase geometric confinement from coupler pad (ii) Increase coupling section area (iii) Decrease pads coupling sections spacing (iv) Increase pads parallel length 10 III. NUMERICAL SIMULA TION OF MAP GA TE FIDELITY The derivation presented in this section ...

  36. [38]

    M. H. Devoret et al., Quantum fluctuations in electrical circuits, Les Houches, Session LXIII7, 133 (1995)

    1995

  37. [39]

    Blais, A

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

    2021

  38. [40]

    Ding, H.-S

    D. Ding, H.-S. Ku, Y. Shi, and H.-H. Zhao, Free-mode removal and mode decoupling for simulating general superconducting quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B103, 174501 (2021)

    2021

  39. [41]

    G. X. Chan, W. Lan, T. Wang, X. Ma, C. Deng, and L. Jin, System-level design of scalable fluxonium quantum processors with double-transmon couplers, arXiv:2604.26373 [quant-ph] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [42]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Melville, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, High-fidelity, frequency-flexible two-qubit fluxonium gates with a transmon coupler, Phys. Rev. X13, 031035 (2023)

    2023

  41. [43]

    Chamberland, A

    C. Chamberland, A. Kubica, T. J. Yoder, and G. Zhu, Triangular color codes on trivalent graphs with flag qubits, New Journal of Physics22, 023019 (2020)

    2020

  42. [44]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Quantum low-density parity-check codes, PRX Quantum2, 040101 (2021)

    2021