Design of Advanced Readout and System-on-Chip Analog Circuits for Quantum Chip

Ahmad Salmanogli; Ertan Zencir; Hesam Zandi; Mahdi Esmaeili Turan Poshti; M. Hossein Eskandari; Mohsen Akbari

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Design of Advanced Readout and System-on-Chip Analog Circuits for Quantum Chip

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that one engineered Josephson parametric amplifier, with a comb-shaped gain profile, can simultaneously provide quantum-limited amplification of readout signals and suppress qubit energy leakage, eliminating the Purcell…

desk verdict The JPA gain-trough-as-Purcell-filter claim is physically unsupported—0 dB gain is not isolation—though the SoC design work is substantial. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16361 v1 pith:MNERPG2M submitted 2025-06-19 quant-ph

Ahmad Salmanogli , Hesam Zandi , Mahdi Esmaeili Turan Poshti , M. Hossein Eskandari , Ertan Zencir , Mohsen Akbari This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumchipJosephsonparametricamplifierPurcellfiltersuperconductingqubitsreadoutsystem-on-chip45nmCMOSentanglement

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 proposes a readout architecture in which a single Josephson parametric amplifier does the work of two components: it amplifies the weak readout signals from superconducting qubits and, at the same time, blocks qubit energy from leaking into the readout line. The amplifier is engineered to have a comb-like gain spectrum across the 4–8 GHz band, with roughly 24 dB peaks and 0 dB valleys; the four qubits are placed at the valleys and their readout resonators at the peaks. A four-qubit chip and a 45 nm CMOS receiver chip (72 dB gain, below 1 dB noise figure, about 70 mW) are designed around this frequency plan. If the gain profile is real and stable, the design removes the need for separate Purcell filters and points toward readout electronics that scale to many qubits with sub-milliwatt power per qubit.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the engineered gain profile of the modified Blochnium Josephson parametric amplifier. Each cell is a Quarton—a nonlinear Josephson-junction block with a primary SQUID for tuning and secondary junctions for fine control—and two such cells coupled through a resonator create a spectrum with multiple separated resonances. The paper takes the simulated 24 dB peaks and 0 dB valleys as a fixed frequency map, then assigns qubit transition frequencies to the valleys and readout-resonator frequencies to the peaks. That frequency allocation is what turns a single nonlinear amplifier into a combined amplifier-plus-Purcell-filter, because the same device that boosts the resonator signal also suppresses qubit emission into the readout line.

What would settle it

Fabricate the modified BJPA, bias it at the simulated flux and pump settings, and measure its gain while it is connected to the four-qubit chip and feedline; if the gain at any qubit frequency is not within a few dB of 0 dB, or if the 24 dB peaks shift by more than a resonator linewidth, the Purcell-filter function disappears. A second direct check is to measure qubit relaxation through the readout channel with the JPA on: if it is not suppressed relative to the no-filter case, the claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the gain profile of a modified Blochnium Josephson parametric amplifier can be shaped into a frequency comb, and that this comb can be used as the organizing principle for the whole readout chain. The amplifier consists of two Quarton cells—Josephson-junction blocks with primary and secondary SQUIDs—coupled through a resonator, giving extra degrees of freedom compared with a standard BJPA. Its simulated gain has sharp peaks of about 24 dB at the resonator frequencies and deep minima near 0 dB at the qubit frequencies. The paper argues that this is enough to make the JPA act as its own Purcell filter: qubits sitting in the minima cannot efficiently emit into the readout channel, while resonator photons at the peaks are amplified near the quantum limit. In addition, the coupled-qubit analysis shows a new spectral component appearing under stronger coupling, which the paper reads as a signature of entanglement and uses to set the readout resonator frequency. On top of this sits a 45 nm CMOS system-on-chip that amplifies the resulting signal by 72 dB with noise below 1 dB and down-converts it to a 200 MHz intermediate frequency, with post-layout simulations showing the full chain working from a roughly 100 nV input.

Load-bearing premise

The whole design rests on the assumption that the simulated comb-like gain profile of the modified amplifier—24 dB peaks at resonator frequencies and 0 dB valleys at qubit frequencies—is a real, stable property of the fabricated device and remains unchanged when the amplifier is connected to the four-qubit chip and the rest of the readout chain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A quantum chip can be read out without a Purcell filter, removing extra components, their insertion loss, and their design constraints from the cryogenic chain.
Qubit relaxation through the readout line is suppressed by placing qubit frequencies at the JPA gain minima, protecting coherence without extra filtering circuitry.
Readout resonator signals receive up to about 24 dB of quantum-limited amplification before leaving the cryostat, improving signal-to-noise and readout fidelity.
The 45 nm CMOS SoC's sub-1 dB noise figure and 72 dB gain could make a separate HEMT amplifier unnecessary, while its bandwidth math supports up to 160 qubits at roughly 0.44 mW per qubit in a conventional frequency plan.
The coupled-qubit analysis predicts a distinct spectral component fc under stronger coupling; tuning the readout resonator to fc would let the same chain sense entangled states rather than only single-qubit populations.

Reading between the lines

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

A generalization the paper does not pursue: any parametric amplifier whose gain spectrum has deep minima could be used the same way, so Purcell protection could become a standard frequency-planning step rather than a separate component.
Because the comb is created by the primary SQUID flux bias, one could actively track the peaks and valleys after fabrication; that would turn the Purcell-filter function into a reconfigurable feature and relax the fabrication-precision requirement.
The entanglement readout argument yields a calibration recipe beyond the paper's scope: monitor the amplitude of the fc component while tuning the coupling strength and use it as a live indicator for entangling-gate activation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The paper has a genuinely interesting idea: use the natural frequency selectivity of a modified JPA to place readout resonators at gain peaks and qubits at gain troughs, thereby eliminating a separate Purcell filter. The SoC design in 45nm CMOS is substantial, with post-layout simulations showing 72 dB gain, NF<1 dB, 70 mW, and a compact footprint. That part looks like real engineering, though it is all simulation.

The problem is the headline claim. The JPA sits downstream of the feedline, after the readout resonators. Purcell decay is set by the qubit-resonator coupling and the resonator's external coupling to the feedline; the JPA's gain at the qubit frequency does not change that. A 0 dB trough means the amplifier doesn't amplify at that frequency, not that it presents high impedance isolation from the feedline. The paper never computes a Purcell rate with and without the JPA. So the central mechanism is unsupported, and not just due to missing measurements. The loading/instability concern you flagged is real, but secondary; even an ideal, stable gain profile wouldn't do what the authors claim.

The entanglement result is also weak: an extra FFT peak in the current probabilities is not an entanglement witness. The Hamiltonian in Eq. 3 looks hand-assembled, with a four-body coupling term g added without derivation. The derivation of the gain profile is deferred to the authors' previous paper, and the circularity of choosing frequencies from the simulated profile is present.

What credit is due: the paper is honest about what is simulated and what is analytic, the Qiskit Metal cross-Kerr table gives concrete numbers, and the frequency-allocation co-design is a reasonable system-level exercise. The SoC block is a separate, potentially useful contribution, but it is not enough to carry the paper's quantum claims.

My recommendation: this should go to peer review because the architecture idea is worth a serious expert look and the SoC work is detailed, but a reviewer should insist on a Purcell calculation and, ideally, a measurement of the gain profile under chip loading. As is, it is a clear reject.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a co-designed quantum readout architecture in which a modified Blochnium Josephson parametric amplifier (JPA) with a simulated comb-like gain profile (peaks ~24 dB, troughs ~0 dB) is used both to amplify readout resonator signals and to suppress qubit Purcell decay by placing qubit frequencies at gain minima, thereby eliminating the need for Purcell filters. A four-transmon chip is modeled in Qiskit Metal; a quantum master-equation analysis of two coupled qubits is used to claim entanglement signatures in current probabilities; and a 45 nm CMOS SoC receiver (LNA, VCO, mixers, IF chain) is designed with post-layout simulations showing ~72 dB gain, <1 dB noise figure, ~70 mW power, and 4.1-8.2 GHz bandwidth. The paper concludes that the architecture is scalable to 20-160 qubits.

Significance. If the central Purcell-suppression claim were correct, combining amplification and filtering in a single device would be a useful simplification of superconducting readout chains. The paper also contains concrete engineering content: a detailed JPA topology, an EPR table from Qiskit Metal, and post-layout SoC simulation results with explicit performance numbers. However, the key physical claim is unsupported and appears inconsistent with standard Purcell physics, the entanglement analysis lacks a quantitative witness, and the JPA gain profile is simulation-only with no loading or sensitivity analysis. These issues affect the abstract's central claims rather than merely the presentation.

major comments (5)

[JPA design and Engineering / Fig. 2b] The central claim that placing qubit frequencies at gain troughs suppresses Purcell decay is not established and, as stated, is physically inconsistent. A gain minimum of 0 dB means unity transmission through the JPA, not attenuation or isolation at the qubit frequency. The Purcell rate is set by the qubit-resonator coupling g, the detuning Delta, and the resonator's external coupling to the feedline (Gamma_P ~ kappa_ext (g/Delta)^2); the JPA is downstream of that feedline and cannot reduce this rate unless it presents a high-reflection or absorbing termination at the qubit frequency. The manuscript defines kappa_eff = omega_eff/Q_eff but never computes kappa_eff or Q_eff for the qubit modes, nor reports Gamma_P with and without the JPA. This is the load-bearing claim of the abstract and must be supported by an explicit Purcell-rate calculation or by S-parameter/impedance data showing isolation at f_Q.
[JPA design and Engineering / Fig. 2] The tailored gain profile in Fig. 2b is a simulation result only, and the entire frequency plan is derived from it; no measured S-parameters, no fabrication details, and no loading study are presented. The text states that qubit and resonator frequencies are selected based on the JPA gain spectrum and aligned with gain minima, but if the actual device gain profile shifts under the loading of the four-qubit chip, the feedline, and the following amplifier chain, the Purcell-protection property disappears. At minimum, the authors must provide a sensitivity analysis or a measured gain profile under representative operating conditions before the architecture's central benefit can be claimed.
[Equation (5) and Fig. 4] The entanglement prediction is not demonstrated. Equation (5) is a linear system of equations whose coefficients contain n1, n2, and nb, which are state-dependent expectation values; no self-consistent solution is given, and the coupling g in Eq. (3) is introduced as a free parameter without a circuit-level derivation. The claim that a new frequency component fc in the FFT of Fig. 4d indicates the onset of entangled states is not backed by any entanglement witness, concurrence, or density-matrix measure, and a new frequency component can also arise from nonlinear mixing in a coupled oscillator system. Using Qiskit Metal's confirmation of a mode fc to validate the Hamiltonian term that produces fc is circular; a quantitative entanglement measure or a two-qubit state tomography calculation is needed.
[Theoretical background / Eqs. (1)-(2)] The JPA analysis is not self-contained: the Lagrangian in Eq. (1) and the C and L matrices in Eq. (2) are given, but the total Hamiltonian, the quantum Langevin equations, and the derivation of the gain profile are not presented; the text refers the reader to the authors' prior work [22] for the detailed treatment. Because the central design depends on the simulated gain profile of Fig. 2b, the absence of a reproducible derivation makes it impossible to assess whether the new C and L matrices actually produce the claimed comb-like gain. At least the eigenvalue problem, the resulting mode frequencies, and the simulation parameter values should be reported.
[Quantum Analog chip / scalability paragraph] The scalability numbers are contradictory: the text first states that with a conservative 10 MHz per resonator and 15 MHz spacing the receiver supports 160 qubits at 0.44 mW per qubit, then states that according to the present design, where each coupled pair requires approximately 400 MHz, the SoC supports only 20 qubits at 3.5 mW per qubit. The conclusion reports only the 20-qubit figure. Since the abstract and conclusion advertise scalability, the authors should state which bandwidth allocation is relevant to the proposed four-qubit chip and justify it with the actual resonator and qubit frequency separations.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 2a caption] The caption and the main text disagree about which curve is S11 and which is S21; please correct this inconsistency.
[Abstract and throughout] There are numerous typos and inconsistent notations, including 'Abstarct' in the abstract, 'Quaron' versus 'Quarton', and 'imagnary' in Eq. (5); a careful proofread is needed.
[Eqs. (3) and (5)] Equations (3) and (5) are rendered with garbled symbols; the definitions of n1, n2, and nb as expectation values, and the meaning of the 'current probabilities' I2 and I4, should be stated precisely.
[References] The reference list contains incomplete entries, for example refs [1]-[3] are arXiv preprints with version suffixes and no journal data, and the capitalization of 'Blochnium' is inconsistent.
[Fig. 5 caption] The caption of Fig. 5 says 'Qiskit Metal simulation' but no simulation parameters or mode profile are shown; please clarify what exactly is plotted and how it confirms the g coupling.
[Post-layout simulation description] The post-layout simulations are described as confirming robustness, but no corner analysis, temperature variation, or parasitic extraction details are reported; a brief description of the simulation setup would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Purcell-filter replacement claim equates JPA gain minima with leakage suppression by construction, and the fc-based readout target is read back from the same simulation chain used to set the model parameters.

self definitional [JPA design and Engineering, paragraph after Fig. 2b]
"qubit frequencies (fQ1, fQ2, fQ3, fQ4) are aligned with the valleys (gain minima) to minimize qubit energy leakage into the readout circuit; this is the main role of Purcell filter that automatically done using proposed JPA."

The paper never computes a Purcell decay rate or a qubit-mode coupling-to-environment rate. The text defines κ_eff = ω_eff/Q_eff, but no κ_eff or Q_eff is evaluated for qubit modes, and no Gamma_P with and without the JPA is reported. The claimed suppression is therefore not derived from the circuit equations: it is introduced by placing qubit frequencies at gain minima and then naming that placement 'minimize qubit energy leakage.' A 0 dB gain trough is treated as equivalent to a Purcell filter by construction, so the central claim that the JPA eliminates the need for Purcell filters reduces to the design choice it was meant to justify.
fitted input called prediction [Quantum chip design, discussion of Fig. 4/5 after Eq. 6]
"As an interesting conclusion, to sense the entangled signals generated through the quantum chip, the readout resonator frequency should be tuned with fc. In line with, Qiskit Metal simulations confirm the presence of a mode—denoted as fc—which facilitates coupling between Q2, Q4 (or Q1, Q3), and the intermediate resonators."

The fc component is obtained from the FFT of current probabilities computed with Eq. (3)/(5), whose frequencies and couplings are taken from the Qiskit Metal simulation (Table 1). Qiskit Metal is then invoked to 'confirm' the same fc, and the design instruction is to tune the readout resonator to that fc. Thus the 'prediction' of the entanglement readout frequency is not an independent result: it is read back from the same simulation chain that supplied the model parameters, so the confirmation is circular rather than an external benchmark.

full rationale

The circularity is partial. The SoC portion is largely self-contained: post-layout simulations of gain, noise, power, and down-conversion are presented as design results and do not reduce to the paper's inputs by construction. The central quantum-readout claim, however, is circular in two places. First, the Purcell-filter replacement is justified by aligning qubit frequencies with simulated JPA gain minima and then calling that alignment 'minimize qubit energy leakage'; no independent Purcell-rate calculation connects the gain profile to qubit relaxation. Second, the entanglement readout frequency fc is generated by a theoretical model seeded by Qiskit Metal parameters, and Qiskit Metal is then cited as confirming fc and as the basis for tuning the readout resonator to fc. The delegation of the JPA gain derivation to the authors' prior reference [22] is also load-bearing, but the more direct circular reductions are the gain-minimum/suppression identification and the self-simulation confirmation of fc. The score of 6 reflects that these 'predictions' reduce by construction while the SoC design retains independent content.

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

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 'entanglement mode fc' is an interpretation of a spectral peak in the authors' own simulation, not an independently evidenced new entity. The main inputs are the JPA gain profile, a set of hand-chosen qubit and resonator frequencies, and an inserted coupling term g.

free parameters (3)

Qubit and resonator frequencies = Q1 5.46, Q2 4.94, Q3 5.60, Q4 5.11, Res1,3 5.56, Res2 4.91, Res4 4.97 GHz
Chosen by hand to sit in JPA gain minima and maxima from Fig. 2b; they are design targets, not independently predicted.
JPA operating point = Fpump 7.12 GHz, Ipump 3.68 uA
Set to produce the desired gain profile; no derivation from the circuit equations is provided.
Coupling parameters g1, g2, g3, g = 0.8, 3.7, 2.3 MHz; g scanned from 0.2*g3 to 1.8*g3
Assigned in the Fig. 4 caption to produce the sinusoidal and mixed current waveforms; g is the parameter tuned to make the fc feature appear.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper The modified BJPA can be treated with the same circuit-quantization and Langevin formalism as the BJPA in [22], even though the C and L matrices differ.
Equation 2 introduces a different topology, but the derivation is not re-done; the paper sends the reader to [22] for the detailed treatment.
domain assumption The JPA gain profile is independent of the qubit chip loading and remains as simulated when connected.
The chip frequency layout is based on Fig. 2b; no co-simulation of the chip with the amplifier or impedance loading is shown.
ad hoc to paper The three-body coupling term g in Equation 3 is physical and controllable.
No circuit derivation for this term is given; it is inserted into the Hamiltonian and later used to claim an entanglement mode fc.
domain assumption The bandwidth allocation per qubit determines scalability.
The 160 and 20 qubit estimates follow directly from the chosen ratios, 10 MHz per resonator and 15 MHz spacing or 400 MHz per pair, not from measured system behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design of Advanced Readout and System-on-Chip Analog Circuits for Quantum Chip." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MNERPG2M

@misc{pith2026250616361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design of Advanced Readout and System-on-Chip Analog Circuits for Quantum Chip},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MNERPG2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16361}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we design an advanced quantum readout architecture that integrates a four qubit superconducting chip with a novel parametric amplifier ended with analog front-end circuit. Unlike conventional approaches, this design eliminates the need for components such as Purcell filters. Instead, a Josephson Parametric Amplifier is engineered to simultaneously perform quantum-limited signal amplification and suppress qubit energy leakage. The design features a tailored gain profile across C-band, with sharp peaks (24 dB) and troughs (0 dB), enabling qubit frequencies to align with gain minima and resonator frequencies with gain maxima.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Technical Review on RF-Amplifiers for Quantum Computer Circuits: New Architectures of Josephson Parametric Amplifier
quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

A review and simulation study arguing that Blochnium-based Josephson parametric amplifiers improve linearity and tunability over conventional arrays, with a headline simulated P1dB of -92 dBm.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[22]

Salmanogli, H

A. Salmanogli, H. Zandi, M. Akbari, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2025, 31, 6300108

work page 2025
[1]

Building Blocks of a Flip-Chip Integrated Superconducting Quantum Processor

S. Kosen, H.-X. Li, arXiv 2022, 2112.02717v2

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[2]

Quantum chip design optimization and automation in superconducting coupler architecture

F.-Y. Li, L.-J. Jin, arXiv 2024, 2212.13751v2

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[3]

W. Hu, Y. Yang, W. Xia, J. Pi, E. Huang, X.-D. Zhang, H. Xu, arXiv 2021, 2105.06062v3

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[4]

Y. Li, T. Wang, J. Hu, D. Li, S. An, arXiv 2023, 2312.06405v1

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[5]

A. J. Berkley, M. W. Johnson, P. Bunyk, R. Harris, J. Johansson, T. Lanting, E. Ladizinsky, E. Tolkacheva, M. H. S. Amin, G. Rose, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 2010, 23, 105014

work page 2010
[6]

T. V. Stefanski, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Ganjam, Y

S. Ganjam, Y. Wang, Y. Lu, et al., Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 3687

work page 2024

Show all 37 references

[8]

Kjaergaard, et al., Annu

M. Kjaergaard, et al., Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 2020, 11, 369

2020
[9]

Krantz, et al., Appl

P. Krantz, et al., Appl. Phys. Rev. 2019, 6, 021318

2019
[10]

Blais, R

A. Blais, R. S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 2004, 69, 062320

2004
[11]

E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, R. V. Pound, Phys. Rev. 1946, 69, 37

1946
[12]

E. A. Sete, J. M. Gambetta, A. N. Korotkov, Phys. Rev. B 2014, 89, 104516

2014
[13]

A. A. Houck, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 101, 080502

2008
[14]

Salmanogli, H

A. Salmanogli, H. Zandi, S. Hajihosseini, M. Esmaeili, M. H. Eskandari, M. Akbari, arXiv 2024, 2411.07153

2024 arXiv
[15]

A. Roy, M. H. Devoret, C. R. Phys. 2016, 17, 740

2016
[16]

Ranzani, G

L. Ranzani, G. Ribeill, B. Hassick, arXiv 2022, 2208.02331v3

2022 arXiv
[17]

Winkel, I

P. Winkel, I. Takmakov, D. Rieger, L. Planat, W. Hasch -Guichard, L. Grünhaupt, N. Maleeva, F. Foroughi, F. Henriques, K. Borisov, J. Ferrero, A. V. Ustinov, W. Wernsdorfer, N. Roch, I. M. Pop, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2020, 13, 024015

2020
[18]

Planat, Ph.D

L. Planat, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Grenoble Alpes 2020

2020
[19]

Eichler, A

C. Eichler, A. Wallraff, EPJ Quantum Technol. 2014, 1, 2

2014
[20]

Macklin, K

C. Macklin, K. O'Brien, D. Hover, M. E. Schwartz, V. Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. D. Oliver, I. Siddiqi, Science 2015, 350, 307

2015
[21]

Planat, R

L. Planat, R. Dassonneville, J. Puertas Martínez, F. Foroughi, O. Buisson, W. Hasch -Guichard, C. Naud, R. Vijay, K. Murch, N. Roch, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2019, 11, 034014

2019
[23]

Prabowo, G

B. Prabowo, G. Zheng, M. Mehrpoo, B. Patra, P. Harvey -Collard, J. Dijkema, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, E. Charbon, F. Sebastiano, L. M. K. Vandersypen, M. Babaie, ISSCC Dig. Tech. Pap. 2021, 13.3

2021
[24]

Patra, G

B. Patra, G. Zheng, M. Mehrpoo, J. Dijkema, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, E. Charbon, F. Sebastiano, L. M. K. Vandersypen, M. Babaie, ISSCC Dig. Tech. Pap. 2020, 304

2020
[25]

J. S. Park, M. Watanabe, K. Matsuba, I. Takmakov, J. Ferrero, I. M. Pop, W. D. Oliver, ISSCC Dig. Tech. Pap. 2021, 208

2021
[26]

E. Cha, N. Wadefalk, G. Moschetti, A. Pourkabirian, J. Stenarson, J. Grahn, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 2020, 41, 1005

2020
[27]

E. Cha, N. Wadefalk, P. Nilsson, J. Schleeh, G. Moschetti, A. Pourkabirian, S. Tuzi, J. Grahn, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 2018, 66, 4860

2018
[28]

Salmanogli, A

A. Salmanogli, A. Bermak, arXiv 2024, 2401.04228

2024 arXiv
[29]

Salmanogli, V

A. Salmanogli, V. S. Sirat, Quantum Inf. Process. 2024, 23, 91

2024
[30]

Roy, et al., Appl

T. Roy, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 2015, 107, 262601

2015
[31]

Lecocq, et al., Phys

F. Lecocq, et al., Phys. Rev. Appl. 2017, 7, 024028

2017
[32]

Heinsoo, et al., Phys

J. Heinsoo, et al., Phys. Rev. Appl. 2018, 10, 034040

2018
[33]

Nakamura, Y

Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, J. S. Tsai, Nature 1999, 398, 29

1999
[34]

Y. A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, O. Astafiev, Y. Nakamura, D. V. Averin, J. S. Tsai, Nature 2003, 421, 823

2003
[35]

M. O. Scully, M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics, Cambridge Univ. Press 1997

1997
[36]

Salmanogli, V

A. Salmanogli, V. S. Sirat, J. Comput. Electron. 2025, 24, 77

2025
[37]

Salmanogli, Quantum Sci

A. Salmanogli, Quantum Sci. Technol. 2022, 7, 045026

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Salmanogli, H

A. Salmanogli, H. Zandi, M. Akbari, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2025, 31, 6300108

work page 2025

[2] [1]

Building Blocks of a Flip-Chip Integrated Superconducting Quantum Processor

S. Kosen, H.-X. Li, arXiv 2022, 2112.02717v2

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[3] [2]

Quantum chip design optimization and automation in superconducting coupler architecture

F.-Y. Li, L.-J. Jin, arXiv 2024, 2212.13751v2

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [3]

W. Hu, Y. Yang, W. Xia, J. Pi, E. Huang, X.-D. Zhang, H. Xu, arXiv 2021, 2105.06062v3

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[5] [4]

Y. Li, T. Wang, J. Hu, D. Li, S. An, arXiv 2023, 2312.06405v1

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[6] [5]

A. J. Berkley, M. W. Johnson, P. Bunyk, R. Harris, J. Johansson, T. Lanting, E. Ladizinsky, E. Tolkacheva, M. H. S. Amin, G. Rose, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 2010, 23, 105014

work page 2010

[7] [6]

T. V. Stefanski, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol 2024

work page 2024

[8] [7]

Ganjam, Y

S. Ganjam, Y. Wang, Y. Lu, et al., Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 3687

work page 2024