Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Improved fluxonium readout through dynamic flux pulsing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dynamic flux pulsing shrinks fluxonium readout to 280 ns while reaching 94.3% assignment fidelity, the fastest reported for this qubit type.

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of fast fluxonium readout; the direct 94.3% fidelity at 280 ns holds up, but the 99.9% SNR-limited figure is a model-dependent estimate without error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13437 v1 pith:G4CNBU6N submitted 2024-11-20 quant-ph

Taryn V. Stefanski , Figen Yilmaz , Eugene Y. Huang , Martijn F.S. Zwanenburg , Siddharth Singh , Siyu Wang , Lukas J. Splitthoff , Christian Kraglund Andersen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords fluxoniumqubitdispersivereadoutfluxpulsedynamiccontrolassignmentfidelityquantummeasurementparametricamplifiersuperconductingqubits
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 reports an experimental demonstration that reading out a fluxonium qubit can be made dramatically faster by pulsing its magnetic flux during the measurement. By temporarily shifting the qubit from its sweet spot to a flux bias where the dispersive shift between qubit and readout resonator is about 20% larger, the authors achieve an assignment fidelity of 94.3% with a 280 ns integration time, without using a parametric amplifier. The same data imply a signal-to-noise-limited fidelity of 99.9% at 360 ns, which the paper identifies as the fastest fluxonium readout reported so far. This matters because fast, high-fidelity readout is a prerequisite for mid-circuit measurement and feedback in quantum error correction, and fluxonium qubits have lagged behind transmons in this respect.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a fast flux pulse applied during the readout window that moves the fluxonium from its sweet spot at $\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}/\Phi_0=0.5$ to a bias point $\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}/\Phi_0 \approx 0.6567$, where the higher-energy transition $|2\rangle \to |0\rangle$ is closer to the readout resonator, increasing the dispersive shift magnitude by roughly 20%. The readout signal is modeled by a differential equation for the intracavity coherent amplitude, $\dot{\alpha} = -i\Delta_{\pm}\langle\sigma_z\rangle\alpha - \frac{1}{2}\kappa\alpha - \sqrt{\kappa}\alpha_{\mathrm{in}}$, where $\Delta_{\pm}$ captures the time-dependent detuning of the readout tone from the state-dependent resonator frequencies; the model converts the cavity output into an SNR and hence an SNR-limited error. The calibration that converts room-temperature pulse amplitude to in-cavity photon number, using a measurement-efficiency protocol giving $\eta=6.04\%$, is also part of the machinery, as the quoted 99.9% depends on it.

What would settle it

Perform an independent measurement of the in-cavity photon number during the flux-pulse-assisted readout, for example a calibrated AC-Stark shift at the same drive amplitude. If the resulting photon number disagrees with the η≈6% calibration, then the 99.9% SNR-limited fidelity is not supported; if it agrees, the central claim is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that flux-pulse-assisted readout makes fluxonium qubits readable as fast as or faster than transmon-based readout, even with an inefficient (≈6%) measurement chain. The experiment shifts the qubit from $\Phi_{\mathrm{ext}}/\Phi_0 = 0.5$ to $0.6567$ during the readout window, raising the magnitude of the dispersive shift from $0.92$ MHz to $1.09$ MHz. This yields an assignment fidelity of 94.3% at 280 ns; if only the separation of the measured signal distributions is considered, the fidelity is 99.9% at 360 ns. The paper also shows that a simple semi-classical model of the cavity field reproduces the observed integration-time dependence, provided the model uses an average photon number $\bar{n}=75$ and a 40 ns timing offset, and it attributes the gap to uncertainties in the measurement-efficiency calibration.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted 99.9% SNR-limited fidelity rests on the calibration that maps readout pulse amplitude to in-cavity photon number (a measurement-efficiency value of η≈6%); the numerical model needs 75 photons while the calibration yields about 52, so if that calibration is off, the fidelity numbers move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fluxonium readout no longer requires a quantum-limited parametric amplifier to reach sub-300 ns measurements; a flux pulse suffices to get 94.3% assignment fidelity at 280 ns.
  • Sub-microsecond, mid-circuit-capable fluxonium readout is within reach, since 280 ns is short compared to typical fluxonium coherence times near 1 ms.
  • Adding a parametric amplifier to the same readout chain should allow fewer photons per measurement, reducing measurement-induced transitions and enabling even higher fidelity or larger dispersive shifts.
  • The semi-classical model validated in the paper can be used to select the optimal flux-pulse bias and readout frequency for other fluxonium devices without full quantum simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The technique should transfer directly to other flux-tunable qubit platforms whose dispersive shift changes sharply near an avoided crossing, not just fluxonium; the transmon demonstration cited as Ref. [25] already hints at this.
  • Because the assignment error plateaus at roughly 6% for integration times above 300 ns, the next bottleneck is initialization and relaxation, not readout; faster reset protocols like sideband driving could push assignment fidelity toward the 99.9% SNR limit.
  • The mismatch between the simulated photon number (75) and the calibrated one (≈52) suggests the measurement-efficiency calibration carries a systematic uncertainty of order 30%, so the 99.9% figure is an estimate until independently verified.
  • If the flux-pulse-assisted readout is combined with a parametric amplifier, the authors' own reasoning implies assignment fidelities above 99% at sub-300 ns integration times are plausible, which would put fluxonium readout on par with transmon readout for error correction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental demonstration of flux-pulse-assisted readout of a fluxonium qubit in a setup without a parametric amplifier. By flux-pulsing the qubit to a bias point with a larger dispersive shift, the authors achieve a directly measured assignment fidelity of 94.3% at 280 ns integration time, and they quote an SNR-limited assignment fidelity of 99.9% at 360 ns obtained from Gaussian fits to single-shot histograms. The results are compared with conventional sweet-spot readout and with prior fluxonium readout experiments, and a semi-classical model based on the authors' earlier proposal is used to reproduce the SNR-limited error curves. Measurement data and analysis code are made publicly available.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a useful advance: it shows that fast fluxonium readout does not require a quantum-limited parametric amplifier, and the 280 ns integration time is shorter than previously reported fluxonium readouts. The paper's strengths are the direct experimental measurement of assignment fidelity, the reproducible data and code repositories, the careful device characterization, and the explicit comparison table of prior work. The directly measured 94.3% assignment fidelity at 280 ns is well supported. However, the headline 99.9% SNR-limited fidelity is a derived quantity that currently lacks statistical uncertainty and depends on a model whose photon number and timing are fitted; this weakens the quantitative weight that can be placed on that specific number, though it does not undermine the core experimental demonstration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (3) and Fig. 3] The 99.9% SNR-limited fidelity at 360 ns is computed by fitting the |0> and |1> single-shot histograms with single Gaussians and applying Eq. (3), but the paper reports no confidence intervals, fit residuals, or goodness-of-fit statistics for these fits. Since the assignment fidelity at the same integration time is only about 94%, the 99.9% figure is an idealized overlap estimate, and the authors themselves note in Section III that high photon numbers and the proximity of the |6>->|0> transition to 3*omega_r can cause measurement-induced state transitions that would produce non-Gaussian tails. As this number appears in the abstract and in the 'fastest reported readout' claim, the authors should provide error bars on the Gaussian-fit parameters, show the histogram fits, and discuss or bound the effect of non-Gaussian tails on the SNR estimate.
  2. [Section III and Appendix C] The semi-classical simulation is said to verify the experimental SNR-limited error, but the agreement is obtained with an average photon number of n_bar = 75 in the simulation, while the calibration in Appendix C yields n_bar = 52.1, and an additional 40 ns timing offset is introduced. Because these are fitted parameters, the model does not independently corroborate the 99.9% SNR-limited fidelity. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of the simulated SNR-limited error to n_bar, the timing offset, and the measured efficiency eta = 6.04%, and state explicitly what range of these parameters is consistent with the data; without such an analysis, the 'verification' claim is overstated.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The conversion from drive amplitude to in-cavity photon number relies on the dephasing model Gamma_d = 8*chi^2*n_bar/kappa and on the assumptions of a square measurement pulse and negligible ring-up time. The resulting n_bar = 52.1 is used both to justify the operating point and to set the simulation photon number, so an uncertainty in eta or in the dephasing model propagates directly into the quoted SNR-limited fidelity. The paper should provide an uncertainty budget for the calibration parameters a and sigma and show how the inferred n_bar changes under plausible variations of the model assumptions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3] Several axis labels in the figures appear garbled in the manuscript text (e.g., the sequence '/uni00000013/uni00000011/...'), which makes the figures difficult to parse; the rendered labels should be fixed.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (5)] The notation in Eq. (5), where '+(-)' corresponds to the |1>(|0>) state, is confusing because the symbol '±' already carries a sign ambiguity; please define the correspondence explicitly and unambiguously.
  3. [Appendix C] In Eq. (C1), the quantity tau_total is defined as the measurement pulse duration plus the idling time, but the text does not explain why the idling time should enter the photon-number conversion; a short justification or a reference to the protocol of Ref. [56] would help.
  4. [Data availability] The code repository link should include a version tag or commit hash so that the analysis can be reproduced exactly as used in the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Experimental claims are self-contained; the semi-classical 'verification' is partially fitted (nbar=75 vs 52.1 and a 40 ns offset) but is not load-bearing for the measured fidelities.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III (Flux-Pulse-Assisted Readout), Eqs. (4)-(6) and Fig. 3; App. C]
    "Numerically solving for the cavity output field as a function of integration time in order to obtain the SNR, and subsequently, the SNR-limited error, we obtain the theoretical curves in Fig. 3 using an average resonator photon number of nbar = 75. This demonstrates excellent qualitative agreement with our data, thus, verifying the ability of the simple theoretical model to predict the experimental data. We attribute the difference in nbar from the experimentally extracted value to uncertainties in our measurement efficiency calibration data."

    The model curves in Fig. 3 are presented as verifying the model's ability to predict the experimental data, but the key input nbar is chosen to be 75, whereas the calibration in App. C gives nbar = 52.1 for the same measurement pulse amplitude, and the simulated curves are additionally shifted by 40 ns. Since the SNR depends directly on nbar through Eq. (6), the agreement is partly enforced by choosing nbar and the time offset rather than by independent prediction. This does not affect the directly measured assignment fidelity (94.3%) or the SNR-limited fidelity (99.9%) obtained from single-shot histograms via Eqs. (1)-(3), so the circularity is confined to the auxiliary verification claim.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims—94.3% assignment fidelity at 280 ns and 99.9% SNR-limited fidelity at 360 ns—are extracted directly from measured single-shot histograms through Eqs. (1)-(3), not from the semi-classical model. The model (Eqs. (4)-(6), based on the authors' own Ref. [24]) is used only as a consistency check, and here the agreement is not fully independent: the theoretical curves in Fig. 3 use nbar = 75 while App. C's calibration yields nbar = 52.1 for the same amplitude, and a 40 ns offset is added. The paper acknowledges this explicitly ('We attribute the difference in nbar ... to uncertainties in our measurement efficiency calibration data'), so this is a stated limitation rather than a hidden assumption. This makes the 'verification' partially self-referential, but it does not feed back into the measured fidelity values. No uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation is invoked: Ref. [24] is the authors' own prior theoretical proposal, but the present paper tests it experimentally rather than relying on it as evidence. The comparison with previous fluxonium readout works in Fig. 4 and Table I uses external published results, and the data and analysis code are released. Overall, the circularity is minor and confined to an auxiliary modeling claim, so the score is 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is a direct measurement, so the ledger is small. The simulation and the SNR-limited fidelity estimate depend on a calibration-derived measurement efficiency and on adjusted photon number and timing offsets; the underlying circuit-QED model is standard (scQubits and input-output theory) and is invoked without proof.

free parameters (3)
  • simulation mean photon number (n̄_sim) = 75
    Used in the numerical model for Fig. 3; differs from the experimentally extracted n̄≈52, attributed to measurement-efficiency calibration uncertainty (App. C).
  • simulation time offset = 40 ns
    Added to simulated SNR curves to align with single-shot readout data, attributed to a timing difference in signal acquisition (App. C).
  • measurement efficiency (η) = 6.04%
    Extracted from variable-strength readout and Ramsey dephasing calibration (a=35.47, σ=6.93e-3); used to convert pulse amplitude to photon number and to set the 99.9% SNR-limited fidelity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dispersive shift model and energy-level structure of the fluxonium-resonator system are computed with scQubits (Refs [32,33]) using fitted device parameters.
    Used to identify the |2>→|0> transition causing the large dispersive shift near Φ_ext/Φ0=0.70 and to model χ(t) during the flux pulse.
  • domain assumption The intra-cavity field evolves as a coherent state following ˙α = -iΔ±<σ_z>α - (1/2)κα - √κ α_in (Eq. 4).
    Semi-classical input-output model assumed to hold with time-dependent dispersive shift; standard in circuit QED.
  • domain assumption The qubit state remains in its eigenstate during the flux pulse and readout, with no measurement-induced transitions.
    The model omits transitions; the paper suspects measurement-induced transitions near the readout point (|6>→|0>≈3ω_r) prevent pulsing closer to the diverging χ, so this assumption is partially acknowledged as violated.
  • domain assumption The flux pulse is quasi-static: the dispersive shift at each time instant equals the static value at the instantaneous flux bias.
    The model uses time-dependent χ(t) from static spectroscopy; pulse distortion is assumed negligible or captured by the 40 ns offset.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved fluxonium readout through dynamic flux pulsing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4CNBU6N

@misc{pith2026241113437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved fluxonium readout through dynamic flux pulsing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4CNBU6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13437}
}
read the original abstract

The ability to perform rapid, high fidelity readout of a qubit state is an important requirement for quantum algorithms and, in particular, for enabling operations such as mid-circuit measurements and measurement-based feedback for error correction schemes on large quantum processors. The growing interest in fluxonium qubits, due to their long coherence times and high anharmonicity, merits further attention to reducing the readout duration and measurement errors. We find that this can be accomplished by exploiting the flux tunability of fluxonium qubits. In this work, we experimentally demonstrate flux-pulse-assisted readout, as proposed in Phys. Rev. Applied 22, 014079 (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.014079), in a setup without a quantum-limited parametric amplifier. Increasing the dispersive shift magnitude by almost 20% through flux pulsing, we achieve an assignment fidelity of 94.3% with an integration time of 280 ns. The readout performance is limited by state initialization, but we find that the limit imposed only by the signal-to-noise ratio corresponds to an assignment fidelity of 99.9% with a 360 ns integration time. We also verify these results through simple semi-classical simulations. These results constitute the fastest reported readout of a fluxonium qubit, with the prospect of further improvement by incorporation of a parametric amplifier in the readout chain to enhance measurement efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13437 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. False-colored optical image of a pair of fluxonium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Qubit spectroscopy as a function of external flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Assignment (circles) and SNR-limited (crosses) read [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Reported assignment error of fluxonium readout from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Resonator frequency when the qubit is prepared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Detailed schematic of the experimental setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Higher Josephson harmonics in a tunable double-junction transmon qubit

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An SIS junction in series with a SQUID gives a superconducting qubit with a flux-tunable second Josephson harmonic of about 10% of the fundamental.

  2. Fast entangling gates on fluxoniums via parametric modulation of plasmon interaction

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Parametrically driving the coupler at the sum frequency of two fluxonium plasmon transitions activates a bSWAP interaction, enabling sub-100ns CZ gates with intrinsic error below 10^-4.

  3. Mitigating state transition errors during readout with a synchronized flux pulse

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A synchronized flux pulse that compensates the readout-induced frequency shift avoids two-level-system resonances and achieves 99% (98.4%) fluxonium readout fidelity in 1 microsecond (0.5 microsecond).

  4. High-fidelity QND readout and measurement back-action in a Tantalum-based high-coherence fluxonium qubit

    quant-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A tantalum-based fluxonium qubit achieves 96.2% (97.8% with a parametric amplifier) single-shot readout fidelity and 99.6% repeatability, limited by measurement-induced state mixing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [24]

    T. V. Stefanski and C. K. Andersen, Flux-pulse-assisted readout of a fluxonium qubit, Physical Review Applied 22, 014079 (2024)

    2024

  2. [25]

    Swiadek, R

    F. Swiadek, R. Shillito, P. Magnard, A. Remm, C. Hellings, N. Lacroix, Q. Ficheux, D. C. Zanuz, G. J. Norris, A. Blais, et al., Enhancing dispersive readout of superconducting qubits through dynamic control of the dispersive shift: Experiment and theory, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07765 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  4. [2]

    Nakamura, Y

    Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, and J. Tsai, Coherent con- trol of macroscopic quantum states in a single-cooper- pair box, nature 398, 786 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [3]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the cooper pair box, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 76, 042319 (2007). 8

    work page 2007

  6. [4]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science 326, 113 (2009)

    2009

  7. [5]

    J. M. Martinis, S. Nam, J. Aumentado, and C. Urbina, Rabi oscillations in a large josephson-junction qubit, Physical review letters 89, 117901 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [6]

    Orlando, J

    T. Orlando, J. Mooij, L. Tian, C. H. Van Der Wal, L. Levitov, S. Lloyd, and J. Mazo, Superconducting persistent-current qubit, Physical Review B 60, 15398 (1999)

    1999

Show all 56 references
  1. [7]

    Brooks, A

    P. Brooks, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Protected gates for superconducting qubits, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 87, 052306 (2013)

    2013

  2. [8]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Her- rmann, et al., Realizing repeated quantum error correc- tion in a distance-three surface code, Nature 605, 669 (2022)

    2022

  3. [9]

    J. F. Marques, B. Varbanov, M. Moreira, H. Ali, N. Muthusubramanian, C. Zachariadis, F. Battistel, M. Beekman, N. Haider, W. Vlothuizen, et al., Logical- qubit operations in an error-detecting surface code, Na- ture Physics 18, 80 (2022)

    2022

  4. [10]

    Acharya, L

    R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Ander- sen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. As- trakhantsev, J. Atalaya, et al., Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13687 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zale- tel, K. Temme, et al., Evidence for the utility of quan- tum computing before fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  6. [12]

    S. Eun, S. H. Park, K. Seo, K. Choi, and S. Hahn, Shape optimization of superconducting transmon qubits for low surface dielectric loss, Journal of Physics D: Ap- plied Physics 56, 505306 (2023)

    2023

  7. [13]

    C. Wang, C. Axline, Y. Y. Gao, T. Brecht, Y. Chu, L. Frunzio, M. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Sur- face participation and dielectric loss in superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Letters 107 (2015)

    2015

  8. [14]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-coherence flux- onium qubit, Physical Review X 9, 041041 (2019)

    2019

  9. [15]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim, et al., High-fidelity, frequency-flexible two- qubit fluxonium gates with a transmon coupler, Physical Review X 13, 031035 (2023)

    2023

  10. [16]

    Somoroff, Q

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

    2023

  11. [17]

    D. A. Rower, L. Ding, H. Zhang, M. Hays, J. An, P. M. Harrington, I. T. Rosen, J. M. Gertler, T. M. Hazard, B. M. Niedzielski, et al., Suppressing counter-rotating errors for fast single-qubit gates with fluxonium, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08295 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [18]

    I. N. Moskalenko, I. A. Simakov, N. N. Abramov, A. A. Grigorev, D. O. Moskalev, A. A. Pishchimova, N. S. Smirnov, E. V. Zikiy, I. A. Rodionov, and I. S. Besedin, High fidelity two-qubit gates on fluxoniums using a tun- able coupler, npj Quantum Information 8, 130 (2022)

    2022

  13. [19]

    Dogan, D

    E. Dogan, D. Rosenstock, L. L. Guevel, H. Xiong, R. A. Mencia, A. Somoroff, K. N. Nesterov, M. G. Vavilov, V. E. Manucharyan, and C. Wang, Demonstration of the two-fluxonium cross-resonance gate, arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11829 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Zhang, S

    H. Zhang, S. Chakram, T. Roy, N. Earnest, Y. Lu, Z. Huang, D. Weiss, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Univer- sal fast-flux control of a coherent, low-frequency qubit, Physical Review X 11, 011010 (2021)

    2021

  15. [21]

    Gusenkova, M

    D. Gusenkova, M. Spiecker, R. Gebauer, M. Willsch, D. Willsch, F. Valenti, N. Karcher, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, I. Tak- makov, P. Winkel, et al., Quantum nondemolition dis- persive readout of a superconducting artificial atom us- ing large photon numbers, Physical Review Applied 15, 06...

    2021

  16. [22]

    Gebauer, N

    R. Gebauer, N. Karcher, D. Gusenkova, M. Spiecker, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, I. Takmakov, P. Winkel, L. Planat, N. Roch, W. Wernsdorfer, et al., State preparation of a fluxonium qubit with feedback from a custom fpga-based platform, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2241 (AIP Publishi...

    2020

  17. [23]

    T. Wang, F. Wu, F. Wang, X. Ma, G. Zhang, J. Chen, H. Deng, R. Gao, R. Hu, L. Ma, et al., Efficient initializa- tion of fluxonium qubits based on auxiliary energy levels, Physical Review Letters 132, 230601 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    White, A

    T. White, A. Opremcak, G. Sterling, A. Korotkov, D. Sank, R. Acharya, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. C. Bardin, et al., Readout of a quantum processor with high dynamic range josephson parametric amplifiers, Ap- plied Physics Letters 122 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Macklin, K

    C. Macklin, K. O’brien, D. Hover, M. Schwartz, V. Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, A near–quantum-limited josephson traveling-wave para- metric amplifier, Science 350, 307 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Frattini, V

    N. Frattini, V. Sivak, A. Lingenfelter, S. Shankar, and M. Devoret, Optimizing the nonlinearity and dissipation of a snail parametric amplifier for dynamic range, Phys- ical Review Applied 10, 054020 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Vijay, D

    R. Vijay, D. Slichter, and I. Siddiqi, Observation of quan- tum jumps in a superconducting artificial atom, Physical review letters 106, 110502 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Yamamoto, K

    T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, M. Watanabe, K. Mat- suba, T. Miyazaki, W. D. Oliver, Y. Nakamura, and J. Tsai, Flux-driven josephson parametric amplifier, Ap- plied Physics Letters 93 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    D. M. Abrams, N. Didier, S. A. Caldwell, B. R. Johnson, and C. A. Ryan, Methods for measuring magnetic flux crosstalk between tunable transmons, Physical Review Applied 12, 064022 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    S. P. Chitta, T. Zhao, Z. Huang, I. Mondragon-Shem, and J. Koch, Computer-aided quantization and numeri- cal analysis of superconducting circuits, New Journal of Physics 24, 103020 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Groszkowski and J

    P. Groszkowski and J. Koch, Scqubits: a python package for superconducting qubits, Quantum 5, 583 (2021). 9

    2021

  26. [34]

    G. Zhu, D. G. Ferguson, V. E. Manucharyan, and J. Koch, Circuit qed with fluxonium qubits: Theory of the dispersive regime, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 87, 024510 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    M. Rol, F. Battistel, F. Malinowski, C. Bultink, B. Tarasinski, R. Vollmer, N. Haider, N. Muthusubra- manian, A. Bruno, B. Terhal, et al., Fast, high-fidelity conditional-phase gate exploiting leakage interference in weakly anharmonic superconducting qubits, Physical re- view ...

    2019

  28. [36]

    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, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Gambetta, A

    J. Gambetta, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Qubit-photon interactions in a cav- ity: Measurement-induced dephasing and number split- ting, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Opti- cal Physic...

    2006

  31. [39]

    Khezri, A

    M. Khezri, A. Opremcak, Z. Chen, K. C. Miao, M. McEwen, A. Bengtsson, T. White, O. Naaman, D. Sank, A. N. Korotkov, et al., Measurement-induced state transitions in a superconducting qubit: Within the rotating-wave approximation, Physical Review Applied 20, 054008 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    D. Sank, Z. Chen, M. Khezri, J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, et al., Measurement-induced state transi- tions in a superconducting qubit: Beyond the rotating wave approximation, Physical review letters 117, 190503 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    K. N. Nesterov and I. V. Pechenezhskiy, Measurement- induced state transitions in dispersive qubit readout schemes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07360 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Didier, J

    N. Didier, J. Bourassa, and A. Blais, Fast quantum non- demolition readout by parametric modulation of longitu- dinal qubit-oscillator interaction, Physical review letters 115, 203601 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Didier, A

    N. Didier, A. Kamal, W. D. Oliver, A. Blais, and A. A. Clerk, Heisenberg-limited qubit read-out with two- mode squeezed light, Physical review letters 115, 093604 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochastic meth- ods with applications to quantum optics(Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    F. Bao, H. Deng, D. Ding, R. Gao, X. Gao, C. Huang, X. Jiang, H.-S. Ku, Z. Li, X. Ma, et al., Fluxonium: an alternative qubit platform for high-fidelity operations, Physical review letters 129, 010502 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    A. Kou, W. Smith, U. Vool, I. Pop, K. Sliwa, M. Ha- tridge, L. Frunzio, and M. Devoret, Simultaneous moni- toring of fluxonium qubits in a waveguide, Physical Re- view Applied 9, 064022 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Najera-Santos, R

    B.-L. Najera-Santos, R. Rousseau, K. Gerashchenko, H. Patange, A. Riva, M. Villiers, T. Briant, P.-F. Co- hadon, A. Heidmann, J. Palomo, et al., High-sensitivity ac-charge detection with a mhz-frequency fluxonium qubit, Physical Review X 14, 011007 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    H. Sun, F. Wu, H.-S. Ku, X. Ma, J. Qin, Z. Song, T. Wang, G. Zhang, J. Zhou, Y. Shi, et al., Characteri- zation of loss mechanisms in a fluxonium qubit, Physical Review Applied 20, 034016 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Eichler and A

    C. Eichler and A. Wallraff, Controlling the dynamic range of a josephson parametric amplifier, EPJ Quantum Technology 1, 1 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Esposito, A

    M. Esposito, A. Ranadive, L. Planat, and N. Roch, Per- spective on traveling wave microwave parametric ampli- fiers, Applied Physics Letters 119 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    M. A. Rol, L. Ciorciaro, F. K. Malinowski, B. M. Tarasin- ski, R. E. Sagastizabal, C. C. Bultink, Y. Salathe, N. Haandbæk, J. Sedivy, and L. DiCarlo, Time-domain characterization and correction of on-chip distortion of control pulses in a quantum processor, Applied Physics Let...

    2020

  44. [52]

    4121/1092cb12-9198-4d43-8500-401c78a5dc15

    Experimental data repository: https://doi.org/10. 4121/1092cb12-9198-4d43-8500-401c78a5dc15

  45. [53]

    Analysis code repository: https://github.com/ AndersenQubitLab/FPA-RO-experimental

  46. [54]

    QuTech, S4g - 4 channel i source: Documenta- tion for the spi rack, https://qtwork.tudelft.nl/ ~mtiggelman/modules/i-source/s4g.html (2020), ac- cessed: 2024-09-20

    2020

  47. [55]

    html (2020), accessed: 2024-09-20

    QuTech, Spi rack: Documentation for the spi rack, https://qtwork.tudelft.nl/~mtiggelman/spi-rack. html (2020), accessed: 2024-09-20

    2020

  48. [56]

    C. C. Bultink, B. Tarasinski, N. Haandbæk, S. Poletto, N. Haider, D. Michalak, A. Bruno, and L. DiCarlo, Gen- eral method for extracting the quantum efficiency of dis- persive qubit readout in circuit qed, Applied Physics Let- ters 112 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.