Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

The paper identifies a previously unrecognized decoherence mechanism in superconducting circuits: microwave-driven Coulomb blockade in metallic grains, which is as common and as damaging as two-level-system defects.

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 ↗

Metallic grains in thin-film superconducting circuits cause microwave-driven Coulomb-blockade dissipation, a newly identified decoherence mechanism as common as two-level-system defects.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Strong experimental evidence for a new, natural decoherence mechanism in superconducting circuits, with one overconfident fit that violates the model's stated regime; worth refereeing carefully. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15252 v2 pith:OYDVHODV submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Coulomb blockade in microscopic material defects as a source of decoherence and noise in solid-state quantum circuits

R. Banerjee , L. P. Lindoy , M. Hegedus , A. Hutcheson , T. Hawkins , E. Daghigh-Ahmadi , S. Samaddar , T. Barker
show 4 more authors
J. P. Goff A. Ya. Tzalenchuk I. Rungger S. E. de Graaf
This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Coulomb blockadeSisyphus dissipationdecoherencesuperconducting circuitsscanning gate microscopymetallic grainstwo-level systemscharge noise
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.

The reading

The paper argues that tiny metallic grains, ubiquitous in thin-film superconducting devices, act as 'Sisyphus defects': microwave fields from the device drive single-electron charge state transitions in a grain, dissipating energy and causing noise. Using scanning gate microscopy on live resonators, the authors observe periodic voltage-dependent loss and frequency shifts, and show these match a Coulomb-blockade model. They claim such defects are as common and as harmful as the widely studied two-level-system defects, but originate from a different mechanism that is power-independent and persists at low temperature. If true, this would mean that a substantial part of the decoherence currently blamed on TLSs is actually due to metallic grains, and that removing grains during fabrication is a concrete route to better qubits.

Core claim

In a superconducting resonator, a small metallic island (grain) tunnel-coupled to a reservoir and capacitively coupled to the resonator's microwave field forms a defect. Near a charge degeneracy point, the microwave voltage alternately favors charge states n and n+1; each cycle an electron tunnels on and off, dissipating energy (Sisyphus dissipation) and stochastically shifting the offset charge, producing both loss and noise. The authors show the observed concentric-ring patterns in scanning gate images, equally spaced voltage peaks, power independence, and simultaneous loss/frequency data are all captured by an Anderson–Holstein-type impurity with Orthodox single-electron tunneling rates.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'Sisyphus defect': a metallic island with discrete charge states, tunnel-coupled to an electronic reservoir and capacitively coupled to a resonator's microwave voltage. The key identity is the linear-response prediction that a drive-induced charge fluctuation produces a resonator frequency shift δω = -AΓ²/(2(Γ²+ω0²)) and dissipation δκ = Aω0Γ/(Γ²+ω0²), so that at the degeneracy point δω/δκ = -Γ/2ω0 with Γ proportional to the tunnelling rate. This identity connects the measured loss and dispersive shift to the defect's tunnel resistance and charging energy, allowing fits that identify the defects as metallic grains.

Load-bearing premise

The model's quantitative fits and identification of the defects as metallic grains rely on the Orthodox-theory/linear-response treatment remaining valid for a fitted tunnel resistance of 15 kΩ, which is below the quantum resistance ≈25.8 kΩ where the weak-coupling condition (Rt >> h/e²) fails.

What would settle it

Measure the loss and frequency-shift peaks of a defect whose tunnel resistance is tuned across RK (e.g., by changing oxide thickness or gate voltage) and check whether the peak width, temperature dependence, and the ratio δω/δκ follow the analytic expressions; if they deviate below RK as predicted by strong-coupling renormalization, the quantitative identification breaks down. Alternatively, a device fabricated on an epitaxial film with no grain boundaries should show no Sisyphus rings.

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

If this is right

  • Loss from these defects is power-independent, so standard saturation-based TLS characterization will misattribute it to other power-independent processes.
  • The mechanism persists as temperature approaches zero, so simply cooling a device does not suppress it.
  • Because the defects are as common as TLS defects, they can by themselves limit coherence to millisecond timescales with only a handful of defects.
  • Removing metallic grains during fabrication, for example by epitaxial film growth, is a direct mitigation strategy.
  • Since the loss scales with the zero-point microwave field amplitude near resonator edges, devices with stronger edge fields will be more affected.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If Sisyphus defects are as prevalent as suggested, published TLS densities may be systematically overestimated, since Sisyphus loss is power-independent and could be counted as TLS in saturation measurements; reanalyzing existing power-series data could separate the two.
  • The δω/δκ ratio offers a quick diagnostic: a device-level measurement of the ratio at a charge degeneracy directly gives the defect tunnel resistance, so one could screen fabrication processes without a scanning gate microscope.
  • The model predicts a specific scaling of peak loss with device frequency (Rt ∝ 1/fres for maximal dissipation); testing this across a family of resonator frequencies would provide a falsifiable check.
  • The reported abundance implies that single-grain statistical models (grain size distribution, oxide-barrier transparency) could predict coherence yields for a given thin-film process.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports scanning gate microscopy (SGM) measurements on live superconducting resonators and attributes a set of loss features to a previously unrecognised decoherence mechanism: microwave-driven single-electron tunnelling in unintentional metallic grains ('Sisyphus defects'). The experimental signatures are compelling and mutually consistent: concentric rings in S21(x,y) that shrink with tip voltage; more than twenty equidistant periodic peaks in Vtip; stochastic offset-charge jumps; a response independent of microwave power, in contrast to the saturable TLS signature visible in the same dataset; and β≈1 scaling of the voltage periodicity with tip–defect distance. The authors fit the measured loss κ(Vtip) and frequency shift δf(Vtip) with a linear-response model derived from an Anderson–Holstein Hamiltonian and Orthodox-theory tunnelling rates (SI §IV), extracting Rt = 600 kΩ, Cj = 0.1 fF (Fig. 2d) and Rt = 15 kΩ, Cj = 0.35 fF (Fig. 2f). Ex-situ XRR, GIXRD, SEM and AFM data indicate 10–30 nm grains in the Nb films, and a COMSOL model of the tip–island capacitance independently suggests a ~12 nm grain. Fourier-spectrogram analysis identifies four spatially distinct defects in one scan frame, and similar defects are found on all three resonators studied.

Significance. If the identification holds, the paper makes an important contribution: it links a class of power-independent microwave loss in superconducting circuits to a concrete microscopic object (a Coulomb-blockaded metallic grain) with a clear fabrication-mitigation route, and it shows that a subset of loss normally attributed to TLS would be systematically misattributed. The strengths are real: the qualitative signatures are largely parameter-free and mutually corroborating; the linear-response derivation in SI §IV is transparent; the ratio δω/δκ = −Γ/2ω0 at degeneracy provides a parameter-free consistency check on Rt; the Fourier decomposition (SI §VIII) is a careful and convincing way to disentangle overlapping defects; and the ex-situ characterisation corroborates the grain hypothesis. The main risk is quantitative, not qualitative: the paper's most consequential numbers — the ~5 kHz loss, the Fig. 3 parameter-space placement, and the 'as debilitating as TLS' claim — rest on fits performed at parameters where the manuscript itself states the Orthodox model is no longer strictly valid.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text Discussion; SI §IV; Figs. 2f, 3] The stress-test concern lands and is grounded in the manuscript's own text. SI §IV defines the Orthodox regime by the weak-coupling condition Rt >> RK, and the fits use the linear-response expressions (S32–S37) derived under that assumption via rate equation (S14). The Discussion concedes that for Rt ≲ h/e2 'the Orthodox treatment is no longer strictly valid', yet Fig. 2f is fitted with these expressions to Rt = 15 kΩ < RK ≈ 25.8 kΩ, and that fit anchors the Fig. 3 parameter placement and the ~5 kHz loss estimate. Moreover, Fig. 3's dissipation maximum at f = 6.7 GHz, T ≈ 200 mK occurs at Rt ≈ 16 kΩ (Γ = ω0), i.e. the highest-impact regime is precisely the regime where the model is admittedly invalid. Please quantify cotunneling/phase-fluctuation corrections at G ≈ GQ (e.g. P(E) or diagrammatic treatment), or restrict quantitative parameter extraction to the weak-coupling defect and pres
  2. [Main text, Abundance and Discussion] The headline claim that Sisyphus defects are 'as common and as debilitating to device performance as TLS defects' is extrapolated from three resonators on two samples, small scan regions, and a detection method the authors themselves describe as Nyquist-limited and coupling-threshold-limited. No estimate is given of detection bias, defect density (linear or areal), or the fraction of defects missed; the 10% duty-cycle argument supports impact per defect but not abundance. A lower-bound density estimate per unit edge length/area, stated together with the detection threshold, would quantify the claim; otherwise the comparison to TLS incidence should be tempered.
  3. [SI §V.A; Fig. 2d; Fig. S8] For the weak-coupling defect (Rt = 600 kΩ, Cj = 0.1 fF, T ≈ 100 mK), the model's thermal FWHM (δng,FWHM ≈ 0.04) is reported as ~3× narrower than the observed peak, and no T-dependence of the width is seen up to 1.1 K (Fig. S8). The Fig. 2d fit therefore achieves its line shape only through an uncharacterised broadening source (environmental charge noise) that is not in the stated parameter set. Since the same fit constrains Cj/Ec and feeds the quantitative loss estimate, please report the effective broadening used in the fit and its sensitivity, or state the implied uncertainty on Cj.
minor comments (5)
  1. [SI §V.A] Numerical check: with Cj = 0.1 fF (CΣ ≈ 0.1 fF) and T = 100 mK, Eq. (S41) gives δng,FWHM ≈ 0.02, not the quoted 0.04; the quoted value corresponds to T ≈ 200 mK. The same factor-of-two discrepancy appears in the Cj = 0.35 fF example (quoted 0.25 vs ~0.13 at 200 mK). Please verify, as it affects the comparison with the observed widths.
  2. [Main text Discussion (1e vs 2e)] The use of 1e periodicity in a superconducting system is asserted with a brief justification via Nb-specific behaviour and the lack of temperature dependence (ref. 53). A sentence quantifying the expected size of 2e/Cooper-pair corrections to the rates would strengthen this assumption.
  3. [Fig. 1d caption] The statement that 'the only parameter varied between the simulation frames is the tip voltage' should be clarified: the underlying simulation parameters were fitted to the same defect (Fig. 2d), so the ring-pattern reproduction is a consistency check rather than a parameter-free prediction.
  4. [SI §III.B vs §V] The power-independence range is quoted as 'up to ⟨N⟩ ~ 10^4' in SI §III.B but 'up to ~10^6' in SI §V. Please state the experimental range consistently in both places.
  5. [SI §III.A vs main text] The main text reports 'over 20 equidistant peaks on either side of Vtip = 0', while SI §III.A reports 'more than 20 peaks' in total. Please make the count consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the model fits are transparent and independently cross-checked.

full rationale

The paper is a fitting-and-characterisation study rather than a parameter-free prediction exercise, and it does not disguise its fits as predictions. The Anderson–Holstein/Orthodox model (Eqs. S1–S37) is presented as an external theoretical framework (Averin–Likharev, Persson et al.), not as a self-citation or an ansatz imported solely from the authors' prior work. The load-bearing identification of the defects as Coulomb-blockaded metallic grains rests on observed signatures that are not fed into the fit: equidistant voltage peaks, stochastic offset-charge jumps, power independence of the response, the parameter-free ratio δω/δκ = −Γ/2ω0 = −(RK/Rt)(kBT/ℏω0) at charge degeneracy, and ex-situ XRR/GIXRD/SEM grain-size estimates (~21 nm) that independently cross-check the electrostatic COMSOL estimate (rg ≈ 12 nm) and the fitted Cj ≈ 0.1 fF. The Fourier/spectrogram defect identification assumes a β = 1 distance scaling and then verifies β ≈ 1, which is an honest consistency test rather than a circular reduction. The self-citations (Hegedüs et al. for the SGM setup, de Graaf et al. for related SGM studies) concern instrumentation and analysis methods and are not used to justify the central physical mechanism. The acknowledged breakdown of the Orthodox treatment for Rt ≲ h/e² — relevant to the Fig. 2f defect with fitted Rt = 15 kΩ — is a model-validity and uncertainty concern, not a circularity: the model inputs are not defined in terms of the conclusions, and the quantitative identification is cross-checked by independent material characterisation. No step reduces, by construction, to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a model with many fitted parameters—Rt, Cj, Ctip, Cr, and the offset charge are extracted from the same data to which the fits are compared. The physical conclusions are therefore not parameter-free predictions. However, several qualitative signatures (power independence, peak periodicity, offset jumps) and the independent comparison of inferred grain size with X-ray data provide non-circular support. The list above captures the free parameters and domain assumptions on which the quantitative analysis depends.

free parameters (10)
  • Rt (defect in Fig. 2d) = 600 kΩ
    Tunnel resistance of the grain-reservoir junction, fitted to match the measured loss peak.
  • Cj (defect in Fig. 2d) = 0.1 fF
    Junction capacitance of the grain to ground, fitted to the voltage-peak spacing.
  • Cr (defect in Fig. 2d) = 5e-6 fF
    Capacitance between grain and resonator, fitted to the coupling strength.
  • Ctip (defect in Fig. 2d) = 3.25e-5 fF
    Capacitance between SGM tip and grain, fitted to the tip-voltage dependence.
  • Rt (defect in Fig. 2f) = 15 kΩ
    Tunnel resistance, fitted to loss peak; lies below RK, violating the model's weak-coupling assumption.
  • Cj (defect in Fig. 2f) = 0.35 fF
    Junction capacitance, fitted to data.
  • Cr (defect in Fig. 2f) = 5e-6 fF
    Coupling capacitance, fitted to data.
  • Ctip (defect in Fig. 2f) = 5.75e-5 fF
    Tip-grain capacitance, fitted to data.
  • Grain radius rg (COMSOL) = 12 nm
    Grain radius in the electrostatic simulation, adjusted to match the measured Ctip(x) curves; only an estimate.
  • Offset charge n0g (per defect) = not specified
    Equilibrium offset charge, effectively fitted to the absolute peak positions in Vtip.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Orthodox theory of single-electron tunnelling is valid for the grain-reservoir junction (Rt >> RK, incoherent sequential tunnelling, flat density of states, Markovian environment).
    Used throughout SI Section IV to derive tunnelling rates. Violated for the fitted Rt=15 kΩ defect, weakening quantitative fits.
  • domain assumption The charge dynamics can be restricted to the two lowest-energy charge states near degeneracy.
    Used in SI Section IV.B to derive the analytic linear-response expressions (Eqs. S36-S37).
  • domain assumption Mean-field factorization of resonator and island correlations, ⟨n p⟩ ≈ ⟨n⟩⟨p⟩.
    Needed for the Ehrenfest simulations (SI Eq. S11).
  • domain assumption The resonator-island coupling is weak (δng << 1), justifying linear response.
    Basis of the analytic δω and δκ expressions; consistent with the observed power independence.
  • domain assumption The island behaves as a normal-metal electron box with 1e charge periodicity; superconducting pairing in the grain is assumed not to change the physics.
    Main text Discussion: 'we have used 1e periodicity ... The 1e parity is consistent with our observed (lack of) temperature dependence and with other single-electron experiments in Nb devices.'
invented entities (1)
  • Sisyphus defect (metallic grain acting as a Coulomb-blockaded electron box in a microwave field) independent evidence
    purpose: Explain the observed resonator loss and frequency shifts as resulting from microwave-driven sequential tunnelling onto and off the grain.
    The paper provides multiple falsifiable signatures: equidistant periodic peaks vs. gate voltage, power-independent response, stochastic offset charge jumps, and spatial maps via SGM; ex-situ grain size measurements are consistent with the inferred 10-30 nm islands. This is not an ad hoc entity from a hat but a label for a known physical system observed here.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coulomb blockade in microscopic material defects as a source of decoherence and noise in solid-state quantum circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OYDVHODV

@misc{pith2026260715252,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coulomb blockade in microscopic material defects as a source of decoherence and noise in solid-state quantum circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OYDVHODV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15252}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A critical limitation of solid-state quantum devices arises from the materials from which they are fabricated: uncontrolled surfaces, interfaces, and structural imperfections introduce numerous sources of loss and decoherence. Despite extensive efforts, linking these decoherence mechanisms to their microscopic material origins -- essential for developing effective mitigation strategies -- remains an outstanding challenge that has slowed coherence improvements. Here, using scanning gate microscopy on live superconducting circuits we identify a previously unrecognised decoherence mechanism originating from Coulomb blockade and microwave-driven charge tunnelling in metallic grains. Such grains are ubiquitous in thin-film devices fabricated by standard lithography processes. By characterising multiple defects across different devices, we find such defects to be as common and as debilitating to device performance as two-level system (TLS) defects, while originating from a fundamentally different physical mechanism. Importantly, conventional characterisation techniques would misattribute this loss to other, microwave power-independent processes. Our observations thus reveal a widespread source of decoherence in superconducting circuits, challenging the prevailing paradigm that coherence lifetimes are primarily limited by TLS defects. Eliminating metallic grains during fabrication provides a clear and practical route to suppress this mechanism, offering a pathway towards improved coherence and reduced noise in microwave-based solid-state quantum devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15252 by A. Hutcheson, A. Ya. Tzalenchuk, E. Daghigh-Ahmadi, I. Rungger, J. P. Goff, L. P. Lindoy, M. Hegedus, R. Banerjee, S. E. de Graaf, S. Samaddar, T. Barker, T. Hawkins.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    and δκ = Aω0Γ/(Γ2 + ω2

  2. [2]

    Here ∆ E0 is the energy level difference, Z the resonator impedance and ω0 = 2πfres

    with coupling prefac- tor A = (ZE 2 c C 2 r ω2 0/kBT e2) sech2 (∆E0/2kBT) and tun- nelling rate Γ = ∆E0RK hRt coth(∆E0/2kBT) . Here ∆ E0 is the energy level difference, Z the resonator impedance and ω0 = 2πfres. This yields a ratio δω/δκ = −Γ/2ω0 = − RK Rt kBT hω0 at the charge degeneracy ∆E 0 = 0. 100 101 102 103 104 Rt (k ) 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 Cj (fF) 100 1...

  3. [3]

    Siddiqi, Nature Reviews Materials6, 875–891 (2021)

    I. Siddiqi, Nature Reviews Materials6, 875–891 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Aumentado, M

    J. Aumentado, M. W. Keller, J. M. Martinis, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 066802 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    Houzet, K

    M. Houzet, K. Serniak, G. Catelani, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 107704 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Veps¨ al¨ ainen, A

    A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, A. H. Karamlou, J. L. Orrell, A. S. Dogra, B. Loer, F. Vasconcelos, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, J. L. Yoder, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Formaggio, B. A. VanDevender, and W. D. Oliver, Nature584, 551–556 (2020), arXiv: 2001.09190

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    McEwen, L

    M. McEwen, L. Faoro, K. Arya, A. Dunsworth, T. Huang, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Fowler, F. Arute, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, B. B. Buckley, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, R. Collins, S. Demura, A. R. Derk, C. Erick- son, M. Giustina, S. D. Harrington, S. Hong, E. Jef- frey, J. Kelly, P. V. Klimov, F. Kostritsa, P. Laptev, A. Locharla, X. Mi, K. C. Miao, S...

    2022

  8. [8]

    Cardani, I

    L. Cardani, I. Colantoni, A. Cruciani, F. De Dominicis, G. D’Imperio, M. Laubenstein, A. Mariani, L. Pagnanini, S. Pirro, C. Tomei, N. Casali, F. Ferroni, D. Frolov, L. Gironi, A. Grassellino, M. Junker, C. Kopas, E. Lach- man, C. R. H. McRae, J. Mutus, M. Nastasi, D. P. Pap- pas, R. Pilipenko, M. Sisti, V. Pettinacci, A. Romanenko, D. Van Zanten, M. Vign...

    2023

  9. [9]

    M¨ uller, J

    C. M¨ uller, J. H. Cole, and J. Lisenfeld, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 124501 (2019), arXiv: 1705.01108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    S. E. de Graaf, A. A. Adamyan, T. Lindstr¨ om, D. Erts, 7 S. E. Kubatkin, A. Y. Tzalenchuk, and A. V. Danilov, Physical Review Letters118, 057703 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Heged¨ us, R

    M. Heged¨ us, R. Banerjee, A. Hutcheson, T. Barker, S. Ma- hashabde, A. V. Danilov, S. E. Kubatkin, V. Antonov, and S. E. de Graaf, Science Advances11, eadt8586 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Bilmes, S

    A. Bilmes, S. Volosheniuk, A. V. Ustinov, and J. Lisenfeld, npj Quantum Information8, 24 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Lucas, A

    M. Lucas, A. V. Danilov, L. V. Levitin, A. Jayaraman, A. J. Casey, L. Faoro, A. Y. Tzalenchuk, S. E. Kubatkin, J. Saunders, and S. E. de Graaf, Nature Communications 14, 3522 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    G¨ unzler, J

    S. G¨ unzler, J. Beck, D. Rieger, N. Gosling, N. Zap- ata, M. Field, S. Geisert, A. Bacher, J. K. Hohmann, M. Spiecker, W. Wernsdorfer, and I. M. Pop, Nature Communications16, 9564 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    S. E. de Graaf, L. Faoro, J. Burnett, A. A. Adamyan, A. Y. Tzalenchuk, S. E. Kubatkin, T. Lindstr¨ om, and A. V. Danilov, Nature Communications9, 1143 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Kumar, S

    P. Kumar, S. Sendelbach, M. A. Beck, J. W. Freeland, Z. Wang, H. Wang, C. C. Yu, R. Q. Wu, D. P. Pappas, and R. McDermott, Phys. Rev. Appl.6, 041001 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    S. E. de Graaf, S. Un, A. G. Shard, and T. Lindstr¨ om, Materials for Quantum Technology2, 032001 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    A. A. Murthy, M. Bal, M. J. Bedzyk, H. Cansizoglu, R. K. Chan, V. Chandrasekhar, F. Crisa, A. Datta, Y. Deng, C. D. Matute Diaz, V. P. Dravid, D. A. Garcia-Wetten, S. Garattoni, S. Ghimire, D. P. Goronzy, S. E. De Graaf, S. Haeuser, M. C. Hersam, P. F. Hopkins, D. Isheim, K. Joshi, R. Kim, S. Kolachina, C. J. Kopas, M. J. Kramer, E. O. Lachman, J. Lee, P....

    2026

  19. [19]

    M. V. P. Alto´ e, A. Banerjee, C. Berk, A. Hajr, A. Schwartzberg, C. Song, M. Alghadeer, S. Aloni, M. J. Elowson, J. M. Kreikebaum, E. K. Wong, S. M. Griffin, S. Rao, A. Weber-Bargioni, A. M. Minor, D. I. Santiago, S. Cabrini, I. Siddiqi, and D. F. Ogletree, PRX Quantum 3, 020312 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Bizn´ arov´ a, A

    J. Bizn´ arov´ a, A. Osman, E. Rehnman, L. Chayanun, C. Kriˇ zan, P. Malmberg, M. Rommel, C. Warren, P. Dels- ing, A. Yurgens, J. Bylander, and A. Fadavi Roudsari, npj Quantum Information10, 78 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Premkumar, C

    A. Premkumar, C. Weiland, S. Hwang, B. J¨ ack, A. P. M. Place, I. Waluyo, A. Hunt, V. Bisogni, J. Pelliciari, A. Bar- bour, M. S. Miller, P. Russo, F. Camino, K. Kisslinger, X. Tong, M. S. Hybertsen, A. A. Houck, and I. Jarrige, Communications Materials2, 72 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    A. A. Murthy, P. Masih Das, S. M. Ribet, C. Kopas, J. Lee, M. J. Reagor, L. Zhou, M. J. Kramer, M. C. Hersam, M. Checchin, A. Grassellino, R. d. Reis, V. P. Dravid, and A. Romanenko, ACS Nano16, 17257–17262 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    Thorbeck, A

    T. Thorbeck, A. Eddins, I. Lauer, D. T. McClure, and M. Carroll, PRX Quantum4, 020356 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Hirotsuru, H

    R. Hirotsuru, H. Kurokawa, K. Takaki, H. Terai, and H. Kosaka, Physical Review Letters136, 086901 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    S. E. de Graaf, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, S. Mahashabde, J. J. Burnett, T. Lindstr¨ om, S. E. Kubatkin, A. V. Danilov, and A. Y. Tzalenchuk, Science Advances6, eabc5055 (2020), arXiv: 2004.02485

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Spiecker, P

    M. Spiecker, P. Paluch, N. Gosling, N. Drucker, S. Matityahu, D. Gusenkova, S. G¨ unzler, D. Rieger, I. Tak- makov, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, R. Gebauer, O. Sander, G. Catelani, A. Shnirman, A. V. Ustinov, W. Wernsdorfer, Y. Cohen, and I. M. Pop, Nature Physics19, 1320–1325 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Paladino, Y

    E. Paladino, Y. M. Galperin, G. Falci, and B. L. Altshuler, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 361–418 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    D. V. Averin and K. K. Likharev, J. Low Temp. Phys. 62, 345 (1986)

    1986

  29. [29]

    Shoelkopf, P

    R. Shoelkopf, P. Wahlgren, A. A. Kozhevnikov, P. Delsing, and D. E. Prober, Science280, 1238 (1998)

    1998

  30. [30]

    Nakamura, Y

    Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai, Nature398, 786–788 (1999)

    1999

  31. [31]

    Kafanov, H

    S. Kafanov, H. Brenning, T. Duty, and P. Delsing, Phys- ical Review B78, 125411 (2008)

    2008

  32. [32]

    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, Physical Review A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  33. [33]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Science326, 113–116 (2009)

    2009

  34. [34]

    F. Yan, S. Gustavsson, A. Kamal, J. Birenbaum, A. P. Sears, D. Hover, T. J. Gudmundsen, D. Rosenberg, G. Samach, S. Weber, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, J. Clarke, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Oliver, Nature Communications7, 12964 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    Persson, C

    F. Persson, C. M. Wilson, M. Sandberg, G. Johansson, and P. Delsing, Nano Letters10, 953–957 (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, S. Barraud, A. J. Ferguson, and A. C. Betz, Nature Communications6, 6084 (2015)

    2015

  37. [37]

    Gr¨ unhaupt, M

    L. Gr¨ unhaupt, M. Spiecker, D. Gusenkova, N. Maleeva, S. T. Skacel, I. Takmakov, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, H. Rotzinger, W. Wernsdorfer, A. V. Ustinov, and I. M. Pop, Nature Materials18, 816–819 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    Kamenov, W.-S

    P. Kamenov, W.-S. Lu, K. Kalashnikov, T. DiNapoli, M. T. Bell, and M. E. Gershenson, Physical Review Applied13, 054051 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Charpentier, A

    T. Charpentier, A. Khvalyuk, L. Ioffe, M. Feigel’man, N. Roch, and B. Sac´ ep´ e, (2026), 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08953, arXiv:2507.08953 [cond-mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.08953 2026

  40. [40]

    Drimmer, S

    M. Drimmer, S. Telkamp, F. L. Fischer, I. C. Rodrigues, C. Todt, F. Krizek, D. Kriegner, C. M¨ uller, W. Wegschei- der, and Y. Chu, Materials for Quantum Technology5, 041001 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Do, P.-T

    T.-H. Do, P.-T. Wu, Y.-Y. Gao, C.-H. Chen, C.-C. Wu, P.-C. Liao, S.-C. Chiu, C.-W. Lu, C. Panagopoulos, A. Fu- jimori, J.-S. Wu, C.-T. Liang, S.-D. Lin, and S.-T. Lo, Smalln/a, e12268

  42. [42]

    J. S. Kline, M. R. Vissers, F. C. S. da Silva, D. S. Wisbey, M. Weides, T. J. Weir, B. Turek, D. A. Braje, W. D. Oliver, Y. Shalibo, N. Katz, B. R. Johnson, T. A. Ohki, and D. P. Pappas, Superconductor Science and Technology 25, 025005 (2011)

    2011

  43. [43]

    M. P. Weides, J. S. Kline, M. R. Vissers, M. O. Sandberg, D. S. Wisbey, B. R. Johnson, T. A. Ohki, and D. P. Pappas, Applied Physics Letters99, 262502 (2011)

    2011

  44. [44]

    M. Bal, A. A. Murthy, S. Zhu, F. Crisa, X. You, Z. Huang, T. Roy, J. Lee, D. v. Zanten, R. Pilipenko, I. Nekrashe- vich, A. Lunin, D. Bafia, Y. Krasnikova, C. J. Kopas, E. O. Lachman, D. Miller, J. Y. Mutus, M. J. Reagor, H. Cansizoglu, J. Marshall, D. P. Pappas, K. Vu, K. Ya- davalli, J.-S. Oh, L. Zhou, M. J. Kramer, F. Lecocq, D. P. Goronzy, C. G. Torre...

    2024

  45. [45]

    Walkup, F

    D. Walkup, F. Ghahari, S. R. Blankenship, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, N. B. Zhitenev, and J. A. Stroscio, Physical Review B108, 235407 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    Miyahara, A

    Y. Miyahara, A. Roy-Gobeil, and P. Grutter, Nanotech- nology28, 064001 (2017)

    2017

  47. [47]

    Roy-Gobeil, Y

    A. Roy-Gobeil, Y. Miyahara, and P. Grutter, Nano Let- ters15, 2324–2328 (2015)

    2015

  48. [48]

    C. R. H. McRae, H. Wang, J. Gao, M. R. Vissers, T. Brecht, A. Dunsworth, D. P. Pappas, and J. Mu- tus, Rev. Sci. Instrum.91, 091101 (2020)

    2020

  49. [49]

    D. V. Averin and K. K. Likharev, inMesoscopic Phenom- ena in Solids, edited by B. L. Altshuler, P. A. Lee, and R. A. Webb (North-Holland, Elsevier Science Publish- ers B. V., Amsterdam, Oxford, New York, Tokyo, 1991) Chap. 6, pp. 173–271

    1991

  50. [50]

    Likharev, Proceedings of the IEEE87, 606 (1999)

    K. Likharev, Proceedings of the IEEE87, 606 (1999)

    1999

  51. [51]

    Chouvaev, L

    D. Chouvaev, L. S. Kuzmin, D. S. Golubev, and A. D. Zaikin, Physical Review B59, 10599–10602 (1999)

    1999

  52. [52]

    S. Bose, R. Banerjee, A. Genc, P. Raychaudhuri, H. L. Fraser, and P. Ayyub, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter18, 4553 (2006)

    2006

  53. [53]

    J.-S. Oh, X. Fang, T.-H. Kim, M. Lynn, M. Kramer, M. Zarea, J. A. Sauls, A. Romanenko, S. Posen, A. Gras- sellino, C. J. Kopas, M. Field, J. Marshall, H. Cansizoglu, K. Yadavalli, J. Y. Mutus, M. Reagor, and L. Zhou, Applied Surface Science627, 157297 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    Z. Sung, D. Bafia, A. Cano, A. Murthy, J. Lee, M. J. Reagor, J. Rubio-Zuazo, A. Grassellino, and A. Romanenko, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2508.10889, arXiv:2508.10889 [cond-mat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.10889 2025

  55. [55]

    A. M. Savin, M. Meschke, J. P. Pekola, Y. A. Pashkin, T. F. Li, H. Im, and J. S. Tsai, Applied Physics Letters 91, 063512 (2007)

    2007

  56. [56]

    Prabhudesai, M

    G. Prabhudesai, M. Muruganathan, L. T. Anh, H. Mizuta, M. Hori, Y. Ono, M. Tabe, and D. Moraru, Applied Physics Letters114, 243502 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    V. F. Gantmakher and V. T. Dolgopolov, Physics Uspekhi 53, 1 (2010), arXiv: 1004.3761

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  58. [58]

    Alexander, C

    A. Alexander, C. G. Weddle, and C. J. K. Richardson, APL Quantum2, 036102 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Blais, A

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

    2021

  60. [60]

    E. V. Sukhorukov, G. Burkard, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B63, 125315 (2001)

    2001

  61. [61]

    Micchi, R

    G. Micchi, R. Avriller, and F. Pistolesi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 206802 (2015)

    2015

  62. [62]

    Vigneau, J

    F. Vigneau, J. Monsel, J. Tabanera, K. Aggarwal, L. Bresque, F. Fedele, F. Cerisola, G. A. D. Briggs, J. An- ders, J. M. R. Parrondo, A. Auff` eves, and N. Ares, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043168 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    Kubo, Reports on Progress in Physics29, 255 (1966)

    R. Kubo, Reports on Progress in Physics29, 255 (1966)

    1966

  64. [64]

    P. S. Riseborough, P. Hanggi, and U. Weiss, Phys. Rev. A31, 471 (1985)

    1985

  65. [65]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Physical Review B44, 1646–1656 (1991)

    1991

  66. [66]

    H. Im, Y. A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, O. Astafiev, Y. Naka- mura, and J.-S. Tsai, Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing, Measurement, and Phenomena25, 448–454 (2007)

    2007

  67. [67]

    H. Im, Y. A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, O. Astafiev, Y. Naka- mura, and J. S. Tsai, Applied Physics Letters88, 112113 (2006). 9 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION CONTENTS Introduction 1 References 6 I. Experimental setup and methods 9 II. Imaged devices 10 A. Sample 1 – NbN on Sapphire (Resonator A) 10 B. Sample 2 – Nb on Si (Resonators B & C) 11 III. Defect propertie...

    2006

  68. [68]

    For taking grid data, the likes of which are presented in Figs. 1d and 2e of the main text, we use a fast hetero- dyne technique where we only measure the transmitted microwave signal at a single frequency freadout, chosen to be on the shoulder of the resonance lineshape for maximal contrast (see Figure S3a for an example). Any change in fres or Q will th...

  69. [69]

    For each Vtip, full resonance lineshapes (S21(f )) are measured by sweeping the heterodyne fre- quency

    To detect the loss and frequency shifts of the res- onator, we use a different technique where the tip is parked at a spot above and near the resonator, and its voltage Vtip is swept. For each Vtip, full resonance lineshapes (S21(f )) are measured by sweeping the heterodyne fre- quency. By fitting these lineshapes, the resonator quality factor Q and centr...

  70. [70]

    an Ehrenfest-type mean-field approach, which enables time-domain simulations of the coupled resonator–island dynamics and can account for res- onator amplitude-dependent effects as well as con- tributions from multiple charge states,

  71. [71]

    1c of the main text) and the resonator amplitude is small

    a linear-response treatment, which provides analytic expressions for the induced frequency shift and dis- sipation in the small resonator amplitude regime and reproduces the Ehrenfest results when the dot is restricted to the two most significant levels for the charge tunnelling processes (see Fig. 1c of the main text) and the resonator amplitude is small...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.