Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

The paper projects that a superconducting qubit chip operated in the SNOLAB cryostat CUTE will see a radiogenic background near 0.7 mHz — about one ionizing event every 24 minutes — and that a 133Ba calibration source can raise that rate ro

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 21:10 UTC pith:CCHI5LLI

load-bearing objection Useful engineering study with a transparent but load-bearing choice: the <1 mHz/Si-chip background excludes the direct 210Pb assays, which would give ~5.6 mHz. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16151 v1 pith:CCHI5LLI submitted 2026-07-17 physics.ins-det quant-ph

Radiopurity material assays and radiation exposure projections for superconducting qubit measurements at SNOLAB

Y. Ahmed , B. Binoy , R. Bunker , D. Chauhan , P. Delsing , R. Germond , J. Hall , Z. Hong
show 16 more authors
A. Iqbal V. Iyer A. Klepikova A. Kubik S. P. Mantry A. C. Masuskapoe C. C. Monk G. Peng P. Qin W. Rau T. Reynolds M. Stukel C. M. Wilson B. Zatschler S. Zatschler A. Zuniga
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det quant-ph
keywords superconducting qubitsradiopurity material assaysradiation background projectionSNOLAB CUTE facility210Pb contaminationcorrelated qubit errorsphonon transport simulationunderground quantum device testing
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.

This is a preparation study for the first deep-underground operation of superconducting qubits, inside the CUTE cryostat at SNOLAB, 2 km below the surface. By measuring the radioactivity of every component that will sit near the qubit chip and feeding those assays into particle-transport simulations, the paper projects a radiogenic background of about 0.7 mHz per 7×7 mm silicon chip — roughly one energy-depositing event every 24 minutes — with the chip's own substrate and the components in direct contact with it dominating, while the rock, muons, and external shielding contribute almost nothing. It further shows that a 133Ba gamma source already available in the facility can raise the hit rate about fiftyfold, turning CUTE into a controllable radiation laboratory for coherence studies. A third result, from crystal-dynamics simulations, is that energy deposits of order 10 eV already have a high probability of disturbing several qubits on the same chip, and deposits above about 100 eV affect the entire substrate, implying that correlated error bursts can only be mitigated by phonon engineering rather than by material purity alone. The load-bearing input — acknowledged in the paper — is the replacement of imprecise direct 210Pb assays with a secular-equilibrium assumption plus a modeled surface 210Pb contribution; taking the direct assays at face value raises the projected rate tenfold.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: a screened superconducting-qubit payload, operated 2 km underground in the shielded CUTE cryostat, is projected to see about 0.7 mHz of radiogenic background per 7×7 mm silicon chip — under one energy-depositing event every 24 minutes — dominated by contaminants in the chip itself and in the circuit board and holder touching it. The projection deliberately uses secular-equilibrium values for bulk 210Pb instead of the imprecise direct 210Pb assays, plus a modeled surface 210Pb component from radon exposure. The same simulations show that a 133Ba source raises the rate about fiftyfold, enabling controlled exposure studies. Crystal-dynamics simulations add that deposit

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a material-assay pipeline feeding two simulation layers. First, high-purity germanium detectors measure the 238U (split at 226Ra), 235U, 232Th, 210Pb, 40K, and cosmogenic content of every component; then a Monte Carlo particle-transport code (Geant4) models radioactive decay and tracks emitted particles through a full geometry of the CUTE cryostat and payload, recording energy deposits in the silicon chip with events coalesced in a 15 μs window. The decisive step is the 210Pb treatment: the paper sets aside the directly measured bulk 210Pb values as too insensitive and instead assumes bulk 210Pb is in secular equilibrium with the bottom of the 238U chain, adding

Load-bearing premise

The sub-millihertz projection rests on treating the directly measured bulk 210Pb activities as too imprecise to use and instead assuming bulk 210Pb sits in secular equilibrium with the uranium decay chain while adding a modeled surface 210Pb term from a specific radon-exposure scenario (2 years on the surface, 14 days underground); if the direct 210Pb measurements are used at face value, the projected per-chip rate rises from 0.55 mHz to 5.57 mHz.

What would settle it

Measure bulk 210Pb directly in the same silicon wafers and neighbouring components — by 46.5 keV gamma counting on a detector with good 210Pb sensitivity, or by alpha-counting 210Po after ingrowth — and compare with the secular-equilibrium value the paper substitutes. Or simply take the first CUTE run's measured hit rate: a rate near 5.6 mHz rather than ~0.7 mHz would indicate the discarded bulk 210Pb assays were the correct input, with the 133Ba source providing an in-situ rate calibration for the comparison.

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

If this is right

  • A direct radiation test becomes possible: identical devices measured at CUTE and in a surface lab should differ in coherence only through the radiation environment, since the projected underground background is reduced to about one hit every 24 minutes per chip.
  • The background budget is local: external sources (cavern rock, muons, interstitial air) contribute below the percent level, so further rate reduction means cleaning the payload's own materials — the silicon substrate, the PCB, and the holder dominate the budget.
  • The 133Ba source is a built-in dose lever: at its best rotation it delivers ~39 mHz in a chip, roughly fifty times the projected background, letting the collaboration measure coherence versus radiation exposure without hardware changes; the source's 15% activity uncertainty dominates the systematic error.
  • Correlated errors are a substrate-wide phenomenon: above ~100 eV any single deposit affects the whole 7×7 mm chip, so layout changes cannot prevent them; the paper argues for phonon mitigation — absorbers, backside coatings, mechanical isolation of qubit islands.
  • Fault-tolerant-scale extrapolation: scaling the rate linearly to a 20×20×0.5 mm processor chip gives ~10 mHz of background, limiting uninterrupted algorithm execution to ~100 s in a CUTE-like environment, versus a few seconds in an unshielded surface laboratory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own comparison suggests an arbiter for its central assumption: the first run's measured hit rate will fall near 0.7 mHz if the secular-equilibrium substitution is right, or near 5.6 mHz if the discarded bulk 210Pb assays were the better input; the two projections differ almost entirely in that one isotope.
  • Because the phonon response is nearly independent of particle type above ~100 eV, the 133Ba gamma source may serve as a faithful surrogate for rare alpha and neutron events when testing correlated-error mitigation — a substitution the paper establishes in simulation but does not yet claim experimentally.
  • The reported collection times (mean ~1.2 μs, maximum ~15 μs, across all particle types) imply that any multi-qubit error-mitigation logic must operate on tens-of-microsecond coincidence windows; the observed phonon caustics pattern also suggests qubit hit patterns might be used to reconstruct where on the chip an ionizing event struck.
  • The 15 μs versus 1 ms comparison in the appendix hints that timing structure alone can separate decay chains in the data: longer coincidence windows suppress the 238U-chain contribution by ~10% while leaving 232Th nearly unchanged, offering a data-driven way to de-mix spectral components after the first run.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a material assay campaign for superconducting qubit components and uses Geant4 to project radiogenic background rates in the CUTE facility at SNOLAB. The central claim is a total projected background rate below 1 mHz per Si chip (Table 7), about fifty times lower than the rate expected when a 133Ba calibration source is inserted (Table 8). The paper further uses G4CMP simulations to estimate phonon collection times (~15 μs) and qubit hit multiplicities, concluding that energy deposits of O(10 eV) have a high probability of causing correlated multi-qubit errors and that the whole 7×7 mm substrate is affected above ~100 eV. The headline rate is obtained by excluding direct 210Pb HPGe bulk assays and instead assuming secular equilibrium with the bottom 238U chain, supplemented by a radon plate-out surface model.

Significance. If the central projection were robust, the work would be a valuable contribution to the design of low-background quantum experiments and to the understanding of radiation-induced correlated errors. The paper has clear strengths: the assay data are publicly released on radiopurity.org; the simulation campaign is detailed (482 component-isotope combinations, 3.63×10^12 primary decays); the use of G4CMP to ground the event-splitting parameter Δt=15 μs in a phonon-collection-time calculation is a good practice; and the 133Ba excess and multiplicity predictions are falsifiable. However, the principal '<1 mHz' claim is conditional on a data-selection choice that is not quantitatively justified, and the paper's own data contain a factor-of-ten higher rate if the direct 210Pb assays are included. The significance of the headline as stated is therefore limited.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 3; Secs. 3.3, 6; Table 7 note] The headline '<1 mHz per Si chip' is built on the 'without 210Pb' column of Table 3 (0.551 mHz bulk), carried into Table 7 (0.698 mHz total). The 'with 210Pb' column gives 5.57 mHz bulk — a factor of ten higher. The exclusion of the direct 210Pb assays (Sec. 2.3) is justified only qualitatively (poor HPGe sensitivity, 46.5-keV attenuation). No control measurement, re-analysis of the 46.5-keV region, or surface-vs-bulk separation is presented to demonstrate that the assay is biased. The Si-wafer assay (Table 10: 29,123±22,150 mBq/kg) is a measurement, not an upper limit; even its 90% C.L. upper limit (~65 Bq/kg) is ~5,000× above the secular-equilibrium bound (<12.6 mBq/kg). This is a load-bearing data-selection choice, and the central claim as stated is not supported by the paper's own data.
  2. [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (3.1); Table 5] The radon plate-out model does not independently rescue the exclusion of the direct assays. Eq. (3.1) with the medium scenario (Table 5) predicts a total surface 210Pb emission rate of ~256 mBq summed over all components; for the Si wafer this corresponds to ~0.012 mBq/cm² (the manuscript does not quote the per-area value). In contrast, if the direct wafer assay (29,123 mBq/kg on 57 mg) is interpreted as surface contamination, it implies ~1.9 mBq/cm² on the two 7×7 mm faces. The two interpretations differ by more than two orders of magnitude, yet the manuscript does not quantitatively compare the model prediction to the wafer assay or explain why the model should be preferred for this specific component.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Table 8] The second central quantitative claim — that a 133Ba source provides a fifty-fold excess over background — is equally affected by the 210Pb data-selection choice. Table 8 gives 38.8 mHz for the best 133Ba deployment, and Table 7 gives 0.698 mHz total background, yielding 38.8/0.698 ≈ 56. If the direct 210Pb assays are included (5.57 mHz bulk; total >5.6 mHz), the excess ratio falls to ~7. The paper should present both scenarios in the abstract/conclusions or provide the missing quantitative justification for excluding the direct assays before claiming either the <1 mHz background or the fifty-fold controlled-exposure capability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5 (paragraph 2)] The text reads 'GCPMP version V09-09-02'; this is presumably a typo for 'G4CMP'.
  2. [Table 2 and Table 10] The 210Pb entry for the Si chip is formatted as '(29±22)·10 3' in the source; this is ambiguous. Use standard notation, e.g., (29±22)×10³ mBq/kg, or better, 29,000±22,000 mBq/kg.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 5.1] The split time is quoted as Δt=15 μs with no uncertainty. Since it is informed by the G4CMP τmax value of 14.7±1.1 μs, report the rounded value with a clear statement that it is a rounded quantity and discuss the sensitivity (appendix C does this for 1 ms but not for the ±1 μs variation).
  4. [Abstract] The abstract states a 'fifty times higher rate' from the 133Ba source without qualification. Given that this factor holds only for the no-210Pb projection, the abstract should flag the conditional nature of the statement or the revised factor for the alternative projection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the rate projections are direct Monte Carlo propagation of assay/model inputs, and the 210Pb data-exclusion is a stated modeling assumption rather than a fitted-input or definitional circularity.

full rationale

The central rates (Table 7) are obtained by mapping measured or assumed isotopic activities into Geant4 volumes and normalizing simulated hit rates by the input emission rates; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The 133Ba excess in Table 8 is derived from the nominal source activity and simulated geometry, not from the background rate. The split time Δt=15 μs is set from the G4CMP-computed phonon collection time (Sec. 3.2, Sec. 5.1), and Appendix C shows that changing Δt to 1 ms changes the Si-chip total rate by only 0.2%, so Δt is not tuned to force the <1 mHz claim. The paper explicitly discloses the load-bearing 210Pb choice: 'Note that we omit the simulated bulk 210Pb rates corresponding to the 210Pb-specific HPGe assay results... Instead, we infer the bulk 210Pb contribution from the HPGe assays of the bottom part of the 238U decay chain assuming secular equilibrium.' Table 3 also openly compares the rates with and without the direct 210Pb assays (5.57 mHz vs. 0.551 mHz in the Si chip). This is a substantive data-selection/modeling risk that could invalidate the headline, but it is not circular: no equation reduces the projected rate to an input chosen to reproduce that rate. Citations such as [42], [61], and [68] include overlapping authors, but they point to measured plate-out data, an external plate-out model, and a packaged/validated simulation tool rather than to an unverified uniqueness claim or ansatz adopted solely by the present authors. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or imported-uniqueness step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The quantitative outputs rest on hand-chosen exposure scenarios, a 200-eV downsampling threshold, and standard condensed-matter/radiation-transport models whose parameters come from literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Radon exposure scenario (medium) = 2 yr surface / 14 d underground
    Table 5 offers short/medium/long; medium is adopted for the central surface-210Pb background; exposure history is not measured for actual components, so this is a hand-chosen input.
  • G4CMP energy downsampling threshold = 200 eV
    Appendix D: all high-energy β/α energy deposits are downsampled to 200 eV equivalent to cut runtime; the claimed energy-independence of multiplicity fractions is inferred from these downsampled runs.
  • Event split time Δt = 15 μs
    Section 3.2/5.1: chosen from G4CMP phonon collection times; affects spectral summation features and small rate changes (0.2–0.6%).
  • 252Cf hit age cutoff = 6 yr
    Section 3.2: hits >6 yr after primary 252Cf decay rejected to mimic source aging; authors state it does not significantly affect rates.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Assay results are representative of the actual deployed components
    Section 2.2: several components were provided by same vendors but not same batches (e.g., Al, Cu samples); material variability is not propagated.
  • domain assumption Bulk contaminants are homogeneously distributed in each volume
    Section 3.3: uniform volume contamination is assigned; surface accumulation treated separately for 210Pb.
  • ad hoc to paper Bulk 210Pb is in secular equilibrium with the bottom 238U chain for the central projection
    Section 4: direct 210Pb HPGe assays are omitted as unreliable; instead bottom-chain secular equilibrium plus modeled surface 210Pb is used.
  • domain assumption Jacobi model correctly gives adsorbed vs implanted 210Pb ratio
    Section 3.5/appendix C: 55.8% implanted ratio derived from model with 218Po/214Po fraction assumption.
  • domain assumption G4CMP/Geant4 physics lists adequately model phonon transport and radiation interactions
    Sections 3 and 5: Shielding/EMZ and G4CMP default parameters; no experimental validation on a qubit chip in this paper.
  • domain assumption Lindhard ionization yield and Y=0.1 for low-energy NRs
    Section 5.1: yield model from refs [70,71] and measurement [72]; affects NR phonon/charge partitioning.
  • domain assumption Neglect of dust, cosmogenic activation beyond assays, components above internal lead shield
    Section 3: argued via SNOLAB cleanroom and lead shielding; could add unmodeled sources.
  • ad hoc to paper A phonon hit on a transmon island with E≥2ΔAl causes qubit decoherence
    Section 5.2: first-order assumption converting phonon hits into qubit errors.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 37187 in / 11824 out tokens · 96592 ms · 2026-08-01T21:10:49.987452+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Interactions of cosmic rays and other forms of ionizing radiation pose a significant challenge to the reliable operation of state-of-the-art quantum devices and error correction in quantum computing based on superconducting circuits which are typically fabricated on semiconductor substrates. Shielded by 2 km of rock overburden, the Cryogenic Underground TEst facility (CUTE) at SNOLAB provides a unique ultra-low radiation environment to probe the performance of quantum technologies with a particular interest in quantum coherence studies. In this article, we present the findings of an extensive material assaying program in preparation for the first underground operation of superconducting qubits at SNOLAB. The radioactivity levels identified by the material assays enter a thorough Monte Carlo study based on the Geant4 particle physics tracking code. From these simulations, we estimate the rates of energy deposits from radiogenic sources expected for a quantum-device assembly operated in the CUTE facility. We further characterize the spectral components of the projected background and identify the dominant particle interaction types. Finally, we outline how crystal dynamics simulations using the G4CMP solid-state physics extension for Geant4 can inform the community-wide efforts to identify effective strategies to mitigate the effects of high-energy particle impacts.

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

70 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Kjaergaard, M.E

    M. Kjaergaard, M.E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, P. Krantz, J.I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson et al., Superconducting Qubits: Current State of Play,Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11(2020) 369

    2020

  2. [2]

    Majidy, C

    S. Majidy, C. Wilson and R. Laflamme,Building Quantum Computers: A Practical Introduction, Cambridge University Press (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Blais, J

    A. Blais, J. Gambetta, A. Wallraff, D.I. Schuster, S.M. Girvin, M.H. Devoret et al., Quantum-information processing with circuit quantum electrodynamics,Phys. Rev. A75(2007) 032329

    2007

  4. [4]

    X. Gu, A.F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y. xi Liu and F. Nori,Microwave photonics with superconducting quantum circuits,Phys. Rep.718-719(2017) 1

    2017

  5. [5]

    Blais, A.L

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

    2021

  6. [6]

    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(2004) 062320

    2004

  7. [7]

    Koch, T.M

    J. Koch, T.M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A.A. Houck, D.I. Schuster, J. Majer et al.,Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box,Phys. Rev. A76(2007) 042319. – 33 –

    2007

  8. [8]

    T.E. Roth, R. Ma and W.C. Chew,The transmon qubit for electromagnetics engineers: An introduction,IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag.65(2023) 8

    2023

  9. [9]

    Oliver and P.B

    W.D. Oliver and P.B. Welander,Materials in superconducting quantum bits,MRS Bull.38(2013) 816–825

    2013

  10. [10]

    Vepsäläinen, A.H

    A.P. Vepsäläinen, A.H. Karamlou, J.L. Orrell, A.S. Dogra, B. Loer, F. Vasconcelos et al.,Impact of ionizing radiation on superconducting qubit coherence,Nature584(2020) 551 [2001.09190]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Wilen, S

    C.D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N.A. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. D’Imperio et al.,Correlated charge noise and relaxation errors in superconducting qubits,Nature594(2021) 369 [2012.06029]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    McEwen, L

    M. McEwen, L. Faoro, K. Arya, A. Dunsworth, T. Huang, S. Kim et al.,Resolving catastrophic error bursts from cosmic rays in large arrays of superconducting qubits,Nat. Phys.18(2022) 107 [2104.05219]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Cardani, I

    L. Cardani, I. Colantoni, A. Cruciani, F. De Dominicis, G. D’Imperio, M. Laubenstein et al., Disentangling the sources of ionizing radiation in superconducting qubits,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) [2211.13597]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Commun.12(2021) [2005.02286]

    L.Cardani,F.Valenti,N.Casali,G.Catelani,T.Charpentier,M.Clemenzaetal.,Reducingtheimpact of radioactivity on quantum circuits in a deep-underground facility,Nat. Commun.12(2021) [2005.02286]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Casagranda, E

    G. Casagranda, E. Auden, C. Cazzaniga, M. Kastriotou, C. Frost, M. Vallero et al.,SQUID G.A.M.E.: Gamma, Atmospheric, and Mono-Energetic Neutron Effects on Quantum Devices,arXiv pre-print (2025) [2508.06362]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Commun.16(2025)

    G.Bratrud,S.Lewis,K.Anyang,A.C.Cesaní,T.Dyson,H.Magoonetal.,Measurementofcorrelated charge noise in superconducting qubits at an underground facility,Nat. Commun.16(2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Casagranda, M

    G. Casagranda, M. Vallero, F. Vella and P. Rech,Understanding the Contributions of Terrestrial Radiation Sources to Error Rates in Quantum Devices,IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.72(2025) 1324

    2025

  18. [18]

    Serniak, M

    K. Serniak, M. Hays, G. de Lange, S. Diamond, S. Shankar, L.D. Burkhart et al.,Hot Nonequilibrium Quasiparticles in Transmon Qubits,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 157701

    2018

  19. [19]

    Larson, E

    C.P. Larson, E. Yelton, K. Dodge, K. Okubo, J. Batarekh, V. Iaia et al.,Quasiparticle poisoning of superconducting qubits with active gamma irradiation,PRX Quantum(2025) [2503.07354]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    E. Celi, R. Linehan, P.M. Harrington, M. Li, H.D. Pinckney, K. Serniak et al.,Measuring quasiparticle dynamics for particle impact reconstruction in a superconducting qubit chip,arXiv pre-print(2026) [2604.13176]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Harrington, M

    P.M. Harrington, M. Li, M. Hays, W. Van De Pontseele, D. Mayer, H.D. Pinckney et al.,Synchronous detection of cosmic rays and correlated errors in superconducting qubit arrays,Nat. Commun.16 (2025) [2402.03208]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    X. Li, J. Wang, Y.-Y. Jiang, G.-M. Xue, X. Cai, J. Zhou et al.,Cosmic-ray-induced correlated errors in superconducting qubit array,Nat. Commun.16(2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Fowler, M

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

    2012

  24. [24]

    Shor,Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,Phys

    P.W. Shor,Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,Phys. Rev. A52(1995) R2493

    1995

  25. [25]

    Steane,Error Correcting Codes in Quantum Theory,Phys

    A.M. Steane,Error Correcting Codes in Quantum Theory,Phys. Rev. Lett.77(1996) 793. – 34 –

    1996

  26. [26]

    Klesse and S

    R. Klesse and S. Frank,Quantum Error Correction in Spatially Correlated Quantum Noise,Phys. Rev. Lett.95(2005) 230503

    2005

  27. [27]

    Siddiqi,Engineering high-coherence superconducting qubits,Nat

    I. Siddiqi,Engineering high-coherence superconducting qubits,Nat. Rev. Mater.6(2021) 875

    2021

  28. [28]

    Martinis,Saving superconducting quantum processors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays,Npj Quantum Inf.7(2021) 90 [2012.06137]

    J.M. Martinis,Saving superconducting quantum processors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays,Npj Quantum Inf.7(2021) 90 [2012.06137]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Loer, P.M

    B. Loer, P.M. Harrington, B. Archambault, E. Fuller, B. Pierson, I.J. Arnquist et al.,Abatement of ionizing radiation for superconducting quantum devices,J. Instrum.19(2024) [2403.01032]

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Duncan, A

    F. Duncan, A. Noble and D. Sinclair,The Construction and Anticipated Science of SNOLAB,Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60(2010) 163

    2010

  31. [31]

    Smith,The SNOLAB deep underground facility,Eur

    N.J.T. Smith,The SNOLAB deep underground facility,Eur. Phys. J. Plus127(2012) 108

    2012

  32. [32]

    Pěč, V.A

    V. Pěč, V.A. Kudryavtsev, H.M. Araújo and T.J. Sumner,Muon-induced background in a next-generation dark matter experiment based on liquid xenon,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Camus, J

    P. Camus, J. Corbett, S. Crawford, K. Dering, E. Fascione, G. Gerbier et al.,CUTE: A Cryogenic Underground TEst facility at SNOLAB,Front. Phys.11(2023) [2310.07930]. [34]SuperCDMScollaboration,Projected sensitivity of the SuperCDMS SNOLAB experiment,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 082002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [35]

    Albakry, I

    M.F. Albakry, I. Alkhatib, D. Alonso-González, J. Anczarski, T. Aralis, T. Aramaki et al.,Calibration and Performance of Germanium High Voltage Detectors for SuperCDMS SNOLAB,arXiv pre-print (2026) [2606.26391]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [36]

    Kennard, A

    K. Kennard, A. Pradeep, M. Buchanan, H. Fu, A. Simchony, Q. Wang et al.,Performance of a SuperCDMS HVeV detector with Sub-eV energy resolution and single charge-sensitivity,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A1091(2026) 171753

    2026

  36. [37]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce et al.,Geant4 – a simulation toolkit,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A506(2003) 250

    2003

  37. [38]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce Dubois, M. Asai et al.,Geant4 developments and applications,IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.53(2006) 270

    2006

  38. [39]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, P. Arce, M. Asai, T. Aso et al.,Recent developments in Geant4, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A835(2016) 186

    2016

  39. [40]

    Kelsey, R

    M. Kelsey, R. Agnese, Y. Alam, I.A. Langroudy, E. Azadbakht, D. Brandt et al.,G4CMP: Condensed matter physics simulation using the Geant4 toolkit,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A1055(2023) 168473

    2023

  40. [41]

    di Vacri, I

    M. di Vacri, I. Arnquist, S. Scorza, E. Hoppe and J. Hall,Direct method for the quantitative analysis of surface contamination on ultra-low background materials from exposure to dust,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A994(2021) 165051

    2021

  41. [42]

    Bunker, T

    R. Bunker, T. Aramaki, I. Arnquist, R. Calkins, J. Cooley, E. Hoppe et al.,Evaluation and mitigation of trace 210Pb contamination on copper surfaces,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A967(2020) 163870

    2020

  42. [43]

    Laubenstein and G

    M. Laubenstein and G. Heusser,Cosmogenic radionuclides in metals as indicator for sea level exposure history,Appl. Radiat. Isot.67(2009) 750

    2009

  43. [44]

    Lawson,Low Background Measurement Capabilities at SNOLAB,J

    I. Lawson,Low Background Measurement Capabilities at SNOLAB,J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.1342(2020) 012086. – 35 –

    2020

  44. [45]

    I. Lawson,Low Background Measurement Program at SNOLAB, inProceedings of XVIII International Conference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics — PoS(TAUP2023), Sissa Medialab, dec, 2023, DOI

    2023

  45. [46]

    SNOLAB Low Background Counting Facility

    SNOLAB, “SNOLAB Low Background Counting Facility.” https://www.snolab.ca/users/services/gamma-assay/index.html, 2026

    2026

  46. [47]

    Loach, J

    J. Loach, J. Cooley, G. Cox, Z. Li, K. Nguyen and A. Poon,A database for storing the results of material radiopurity measurements,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A839(2016) 6

    2016

  47. [48]

    Radiopurity.org

    SNOLAB, “Radiopurity.org.”https://www.radiopurity.org, 2026

    2026

  48. [49]

    OQTO sample holder

    202Q-lab Chalmers University, “OQTO sample holder.”https://github.com/202Q-lab/OQTO, 2026. [50]DAMICcollaboration,Measurement of the bulk radioactive contamination of detector-grade silicon with DAMIC at SNOLAB,J. Instrum.16(2021) P06019

    2026

  49. [51]

    Persky,Review of black surfaces for space-borne infrared systems,Rev

    M.J. Persky,Review of black surfaces for space-borne infrared systems,Rev. Sci. Instrum.70(1999) 2193

    1999

  50. [52]

    Orrell, I.J

    J.L. Orrell, I.J. Arnquist, M. Bliss, R. Bunker and Z.S. Finch,Naturally occurring 32Si and low-background silicon dark matter detectors,Astropart. Phys.99(2018) 9

    2018

  51. [53]

    Caldwell, B

    D.O. Caldwell, B. Magnusson, M.S. Witherell, A. Da Silva, B. Sadoulet, C. Cork et al.,Searching for the cosmion by scattering in Si detectors,Phys. Rev. Lett.65(1990) 1305

    1990

  52. [54]

    Aguilar-Arevalo, D

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo, D. Amidei, X. Bertou, D. Bole, M. Butner, G. Cancelo et al.,Measurement of radioactive contamination in the high-resistivity silicon CCDs of the DAMIC experiment,J. Instrum. 10(2015) P08014

    2015

  53. [55]

    S. Hauf, M. Kuster, M. Batic, Z.W. Bell, D.H.H. Hoffmann, P.M. Lang et al.,Radioactive Decays in Geant4,IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.60(2013) 2966

    2013

  54. [56]

    S. Hauf, M. Kuster, M. Batic, Z.W. Bell, D.H.H. Hoffmann, P.M. Lang et al.,Validation of Geant4-Based Radioactive Decay Simulation,IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.60(2013) 2984

    2013

  55. [57]

    Brun and F

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers,ROOT: An object oriented data analysis framework,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A389(1997) 81

    1997

  56. [58]

    Feldman and R.D

    G.J. Feldman and R.D. Cousins,Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals, Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 3873

    1998

  57. [59]

    SNOLAB,Snolab technical reference manual, 2016

    2016

  58. [60]

    Nero,Indoor radon and its decay products: Concentrations, causes, and control strategies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory(2008)

    A. Nero,Indoor radon and its decay products: Concentrations, causes, and control strategies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory(2008)

    2008

  59. [61]

    Stein, D

    M. Stein, D. Bauer, R. Bunker, R. Calkins, J. Cooley, B. Loer et al.,Radon daughter plate-out measurements at SNOLAB for polyethylene and copper,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A880 (2018) 92

    2018

  60. [62]

    Jacobi,Activity and potential alpha-energy of 222 radon-and 220 radon-daughters in different air atmospheres,Health Phys.22 5(1972) 441

    W. Jacobi,Activity and potential alpha-energy of 222 radon-and 220 radon-daughters in different air atmospheres,Health Phys.22 5(1972) 441

    1972

  61. [63]

    Mendenhall and R.A

    M.H. Mendenhall and R.A. Weller,An algorithm for computing screened Coulomb scattering in Geant4,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B227(2005) 420

    2005

  62. [64]

    Redl,Accurate Simulations of Pb Recoils in SuperCDMS,J

    P. Redl,Accurate Simulations of Pb Recoils in SuperCDMS,J. Low Temp. Phys.176(2014) 937–942. – 36 –

    2014

  63. [65]

    Ziegler, M

    J.F. Ziegler, M. Ziegler and J. Biersack,Srim – the stopping and range of ions in matter (2010),Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B268(2010) 1818. [66]SNOcollaboration,Measurement of the cosmic ray and neutrino-induced muon flux at the Sudbury neutrino observatory,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 012001

    2010

  64. [67]

    Robinson,Dark matter limits from a 2L C3F8 filled bubble chamber, Ph.D

    A.E. Robinson,Dark matter limits from a 2L C3F8 filled bubble chamber, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 2015

    2015

  65. [68]

    Yelton, C.P

    E. Yelton, C.P. Larson, V. Iaia, K. Dodge, G. La Magna, P.G. Baity et al.,Modeling phonon-mediated quasiparticle poisoning in superconducting qubit arrays,Phys. Rev. B110(2024) [2402.15471]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [69]

    Court, A.J

    N.A. Court, A.J. Ferguson and R.G. Clark,Energy gap measurement of nanostructured aluminium thin films for single Cooper-pair devices,Supercond. Sci. Technol.21(2007) 015013

    2007

  67. [70]

    Lindhard, V

    J. Lindhard, V. Nielsen, M. Scharff and P.V. Thomsen,Integral equations governing radiation effects, Kgl. Danske Videnskab., Selskab. Mat. Fys. Medd.Vol: 33: No. 10(1963)

    1963

  68. [71]

    Sarkis, A

    Y. Sarkis, A. Aguilar-Arevalo and J.C. D’Olivo,Study of the ionization efficiency for nuclear recoils in pure crystals,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 102001. [72]SuperCDMScollaboration,First Measurement of the Nuclear-Recoil Ionization Yield in Silicon at 100 eV,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 091801

    2020

  69. [73]

    Acharya, D.A

    R. Acharya, D.A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T.I. Andersen, M. Ansmann et al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,Nature638(2024) 920–926

    2024

  70. [74]

    9.564 t: 267.1±305.78.0±4.7<21.5 90958±75010<10.4<5.9 85.4±111.4b:<4.4 Si wafer 2

    M.V. Moghaddam, C.W.S. Chang, I. Nsanzineza, A.M. Vadiraj and C.M. Wilson,Carbon nanotube-based lossy transmission line filter for superconducting qubit measurements,Appl. Phys. Lett.115(2019) 213504. A Detailed assay results Thissectionprovidesthefullradioactivityscreeningresultsofallassayedcomponentsandmaterials. Table 10 includes the excerpt presented ...

    arXiv 2019