Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Near-Unity Charge Readout in a Nonlinear Resonator without Matching

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A nonlinear resonator can read single-electron charge states with near-unity reflection contrast even without impedance matching, by converting the sensor's dissipation into a frequency shift.

desk verdict A clean demonstration that nonlinear operation converts a QD sensor's dissipation into a frequency shift, yielding near-unity contrast without matching—worth a serious referee despite the high-drive κ_s caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17709 v1 pith:RERSQ752 submitted 2025-05-23 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-conphysics.ins-det

Harald Havir , Andrea Cicovic , Pierre Glidic , Subhomoy Haldar , Sebastian Lehmann , Kimberly A. Dick , Ville F. Maisi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-conphysics.ins-det
keywords nonlinearresonatorSQUIDarraychargereadoutquantumdotsensorKerrshiftbifurcationimpedancematchingradio-frequencyreflectometry
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

This paper reports a charge readout scheme that works without the impedance matching normally required for large signals from a resonator-based single-electron sensor. The authors use a superconducting resonator whose inductance is made from a series array of thirteen SQUIDs, so that at moderate drive power the resonator response becomes nonlinear. They show that the conductance of a nearby quantum-dot sensor, which in the linear regime merely broadens the resonance, instead shifts the onset of the nonlinear response when the resonator is driven hard. The result is a reflection-coefficient change of about 0.8 between the two charge states, close to unity and four times larger than the unmatched linear response, and a charge readout that reaches useful fidelity in 80 ns instead of 200 µs. If correct, this removes the matching constraint that has capped the bandwidth of fast charge detectors and points toward nanosecond-scale readout.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the SQUID-array nonlinear resonator: a series array of $N=13$ superconducting quantum interference devices provides a Josephson inductance that becomes amplitude-dependent at high drive, making the resonator a Duffing oscillator with Kerr coefficient $E_K=-E_C/N^2$. The sensor quantum dot is modeled as an ohmic conductance $G$ that adds dissipation $\kappa_s=G/C_\Sigma$ to the resonator. The argument runs through the harmonic-balance equation for the phase amplitude and the Kerr frequency shift $\omega_K/\omega_r=-(4\pi Z_r\kappa_c/R_Q N^2\kappa^2)(P_0/\hbar\omega_r)$, which together show that at the operating point $\omega_K=-\kappa$ the sensor-induced damping shifts the onset of nonlinearity by $\Delta\omega_K\approx 2\kappa_s$. This converts a small dissipative change into a large frequency shift, giving a near-unity reflection change without impedance matching.

What would settle it

Measure the Coulomb-blockade-to-degeneracy frequency shift and reflection contrast while sweeping drive power up to and past 66 fW: the shift should rise to about $2\kappa_s\approx 56$ MHz and $|\Delta r|$ to about 0.8 near the onset $\omega_K=-\kappa$; if the shift saturates or the contrast peaks below 0.8 as the resonator voltage approaches 80 µV, the fixed-resistor model of the sensor is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is that in a SQUID-array nonlinear resonator, the dissipation added by a charge-sensing quantum dot does not just widen the resonance line; it shifts the frequency at which the nonlinear Kerr response turns on. Working at the input power where the Kerr shift equals the linewidth, $\omega_K=-\kappa$, the authors derive $\Delta\omega_K\approx 2\kappa_s$ for the frequency shift caused by the sensor damping $\kappa_s$, and they observe this shift between Coulomb-blockade and Coulomb-degeneracy states. Because the shift moves the steep edge of the bifurcated resonator response, the reflected amplitude changes by $|\Delta r|=0.8$, near unity, even though the device parameters $\kappa_i\approx\kappa_c>\kappa_s$ are far from the matched condition $\kappa_s\gtrsim\kappa_c\gg\kappa_i$ required for a large linear response. Experimentally, the nonlinear readout reaches 0.9 fidelity at 80 ns integration time, an order of magnitude faster than the linear readout after accounting for the larger drive power.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction assumes the sensing dot damps the resonator exactly like a fixed resistor even when the readout signal is strong enough to start disturbing the dot; if the dot's response weakens at high drive, the frequency shift and speed gain shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Resonator-based charge detectors no longer need to satisfy the matching condition $\kappa_s\gtrsim\kappa_c\gg\kappa_i$, so the input coupling $\kappa_c$ can be made much larger without killing the signal.
  • Charge readout speed is no longer set directly by the sensor damping $\kappa_s$; the bottleneck shifts to the resonator linewidth, which can be increased toward the quantum dot's intrinsic $G/C_{QD}$ response rate.
  • The same device protects both charge states from the readout drive: one state blocks conduction through the sensor, and the other shifts the resonator mode away from the drive frequency.
  • With a coupling $\kappa_c/\kappa_s=10$, simulated in the supplement, a near-unity signal is still maintained, supporting the claim that an order-of-magnitude speed increase is achievable and that sub-10 ns readout is realistic after further optimization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the mechanism only requires a dissipative sensor element, a single-electron transistor or quantum point contact should be able to replace the quantum dot and inherit the same unmatched nonlinear readout.
  • The protection of the conducting state by detuning suggests the readout drive may also reduce microwave-induced heating and sensor-induced dephasing; the paper identifies this as future work rather than demonstrating it.
  • A practical design rule follows from the trade-off identified in the paper: raise the Kerr onset power $P_0$ by increasing $N$ and $\kappa_c$ while keeping the resonator voltage below the sensor linewidth, since exceeding that linewidth reduces $\kappa_s$ and erodes the contrast.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports experiments and modeling of a SQUID-array nonlinear resonator coupled to a quantum-dot charge sensor. In the linear regime, the sensor conductance adds damping κ_s to the resonator, but because the device is not impedance-matched (κ_i ≈ κ_c and κ_s < κ_c), the reflection change between Coulomb-blockade and Coulomb-degeneracy states is only |Δr| = 0.2. Driving the resonator into the nonlinear regime turns this dissipative response into a frequency shift of the nonlinear resonance, yielding |Δr| = 0.8 at P0 = 66 fW and enabling charge-state discrimination at an integration time of 80 ns, compared with about 200 μs for the linear case at the same fidelity. The authors derive an approximate frequency shift Δω ≈ 2κ_s, support the mechanism with a harmonic-balance numerical model using parameters extracted from low-power linear fits, and simulate a device with larger input coupling to predict an order-of-magnitude increase in resonator response speed.

Significance. If the mechanism holds, this is a significant conceptual advance for dispersive-style charge readout of dissipative sensors: it shows experimentally that the impedance-matching requirement can be circumvented by operating the resonator in the nonlinear regime, and it demonstrates a large measured speed improvement (from 200 μs to 80 ns for 90% fidelity). The central experimental result is credible and is backed by direct time-domain fidelity measurements, by an analytical Kerr-shift derivation (Eqs. (2)-(3)), and by a numerical model that reproduces the 20-fW line cuts without free parameters in the nonlinear part of the model. The main weakness is that the quantitative prediction Δω ≈ 2κ_s and the simulated speed gain assume an amplitude-independent ohmic sensor conductance κ_s = G/CΣ, while the paper itself notes that κ_s is expected to decrease at the high microwave amplitudes used for the ultrafast readout. This limits the strength of the projected speed claims but does not invalidate the measured near-unity contrast.

major comments (2)
  1. [Supplement A, Eq. (5); main text, paragraph beginning 'With the τ=80 ns readout...'] The theoretical model and the speed projection assume that the quantum-dot sensor can be represented as a frequency- and amplitude-independent ohmic conductance, κ_s = G/CΣ. Supplement A itself notes that finite-frequency conductance usually differs from the low-frequency value, and the main text states that at V = 80 μV the microwave amplitude is comparable to the QD linewidth and that κ_s reduces when the amplitude exceeds the linewidth. The measured 66-fW readout point and the Supplement D simulation (V = 60 μV) are exactly in this regime. The quantitative claims Δω ≈ 2κ_s (Eq. (3)) and the simulated order-of-magnitude bandwidth gain are therefore not supported unless the amplitude dependence of κ_s is measured or bounded. The experimental observation of 0.8 contrast at 66 fW is not in question, but its interpretation as a shift produced by a constant κ_s is.
  2. [Eq. (3) and Fig. 2(e); main text paragraph 'To quantify the sensor response...'] Equation (3) and the Δω ≈ 2κ_s result are derived under the condition ω_K = -κ, i.e., near the bifurcation threshold, with the prefactor caveat given in Supplement C. The data that produce the maximum contrast and the 80-ns readout, however, are taken at P0 = 66 fW, which is well above the P0 = 20 fW used for the numerical comparison and the line cuts. The paper does not show that the threshold-derived frequency shift quantitatively applies to the 66-fW operating condition. Please either justify the extrapolation to this operating point or restrict the quantitative predictions (Δω ≈ 2κ_s and the resulting speed limit) to the threshold regime.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'To model the response theoretically'] The sentence 'this leaves no free variables in the numerical calculations apart from a 20% (0.8 dB) correction to the input power' is misleading, because the single-SQUID resistance R_J is also adjusted by about 20% from the room-temperature value. If both values are independently calibrated, please say so; otherwise report the sensitivity of the calculated response to these two corrections.
  2. [Fig. 3(d)-(e) and following text] The linear reference data are measured at P0 = 0.66 fW, and the comparison is shifted by the expected 10x signal-amplitude factor. This is a reasonable compensation, but because the linear resonator at P0 = 66 fW would itself be nonlinear, the 'more than an order of magnitude' speed advantage is an extrapolation rather than a direct fixed-power comparison. Please state this explicitly in the text.
  3. [Acknowledgements] The acknowledgements contain a typo: 'Wet thank' should be 'We thank'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline frequency-shift prediction is derived from independent linear-regime fits and verified on nonlinear data without refitting the readout signal.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (i) fit κc and κi from the Coulomb-blockade linear response and κs from the Coulomb-degeneracy linear response using Eq. (1); (ii) solve the Josephson/Duffing equation of motion, Eqs. (5)-(6), with these fixed parameters and no additional free variable apart from a 0.8 dB power-calibration correction; (iii) derive the Kerr frequency shift, Eq. (2), and the CB-to-CD shift, Eq. (3), which reduces to Δω≈2κs only after expanding in κs≪κCB at the onset condition ωK=-κ. The observed 0.8 nonlinear contrast and the 80 ns readout are compared with these predictions rather than being used to re-extract κs, so the main claim is not equivalent to its input by construction. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [45], [57], [58]) supply independent earlier measurements or standard photon-number relations and are not invoked as an authority to forbid alternatives. The acknowledged high-drive caveat—V=80 µV is comparable to the sensor linewidth, and κs is expected to drop—limits the extrapolated 10 ns projection, but this is a stated assumption/limitation, not a circular reduction: the model and the extrapolation would fail in the same way if the assumption were wrong, rather than being true by definition. No predicted quantity equals a fitted parameter or a self-citation by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation is mostly parameter-free after the linear fits, but it leans on several modeling assumptions: the Duffing approximation, the linear-photon-number formula inside the nonlinear regime, and the ohmic-sensor model. The adjustable inputs are the linear resonator parameters, a low-temperature resistance adjustment, and a 20 percent power-scale correction.

free parameters (5)
  • kappa_c (input coupling) = 62 MHz
    Fitted from the linear Coulomb-blockade reflection response using Eq. (1); used in all nonlinear predictions.
  • kappa_i (internal loss) = 60 MHz
    Fitted from the linear Coulomb-blockade response; comparable to kappa_c, which is why the device is unmatched.
  • kappa_s (sensor damping at Coulomb degeneracy) = 28 MHz
    Only free parameter in the linear Coulomb-degeneracy fit; carries the charge signal into the nonlinear model.
  • R_J (single SQUID resistance) = 1.5 kOhm
    Room-temperature resistance of 1.25 kOhm adjusted upward by about 20 percent for low temperature; enters the numerical model.
  • Input power calibration correction = 20 percent (0.8 dB)
    Applied to the input power based on the onset of nonlinearities; within nominal 1 dB RF uncertainty but is an empirical adjustment.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Josephson array is described by semiclassical relations I=I0 sin(phi) and V=(hbar N/2e) d(phi)/dt with a sinusoidal drive.
    Supplement A, Eq. (4). Standard for SQUID arrays but neglects quantum fluctuations and higher harmonics.
  • domain assumption sin(phi) is approximated as phi minus phi^3/6 and the harmonic balance keeps only the fundamental mode.
    Supplement A after Eq. (5); validated by agreement with data but limits quantitative accuracy near bifurcation.
  • domain assumption The quantum dot acts as an ohmic conductance G with RF sensor damping kappa_s=G/C_Sigma, independent of drive amplitude up to V=80 microvolts.
    Supplement A Eq. (5) and main text; the authors cite Ref. [45] that finite-frequency conductance can differ and note kappa_s reduces above the sensor linewidth.
  • domain assumption The linear-cavity photon number n=4 kappa_c P0/(hbar omega_r kappa^2) applies at the nonlinear operating point.
    Eq. (12) in Supplement B; standard input-output result used to derive the Kerr shift and the key frequency-shift formula.
  • standard math Bifurcation threshold analysis uses kappa much smaller than omega_r.
    Supplement C, after Eq. (18); valid here because kappa/omega_r is about 2e-2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near-Unity Charge Readout in a Nonlinear Resonator without Matching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RERSQ752

@misc{pith2026250517709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near-Unity Charge Readout in a Nonlinear Resonator without Matching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RERSQ752}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17709}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we present a nonlinear resonator performing the readout of a charge-sensing quantum dot. We show that by driving the resonator in the nonlinear regime, we achieve a near-unity signal. This despite not satisfying the impedance matching requirements necessary for such large signals in the linear regime. Our experiments, supported by numerical calculations, demonstrate that the signal increase stems from the sensor dissipation shifting the onset of the nonlinear resonator response. By lifting the matching requirement, we increase the bandwidth limit of resonator readout-based charge detection by an order of magnitude, opening up the avenue to ultra-fast charge detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17709 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Scanning electron micrographs of the measured device. The input/output port for RF signals at the top of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The reflection coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Charge stability diagram of the DQD, measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

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

  1. Current-based RF charge sensing in a carbon nanotube

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Current-mode RF readout of a suspended carbon-nanotube charge sensor at an RLC resonance yields 0.15 µe/√Hz sensitivity and SNR 17 single-shot DQD charge readout in 3.56 µs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. J. Schoelkopf, P. Wahlgren, A. A. Kozhevnikov, P. Delsing, and D. E. Prober, The radio-frequency single- electron transistor (RF-SET): A fast and ultrasensitive electrometer, Science280, 1238 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    J. P. Pekola, O.-P. Saira, V. F. Maisi, A. Kemppinen, M. M¨ ott¨ onen, Y. A. Pashkin, and D. V. Averin, Single- electron current sources: Toward a refined definition of the ampere, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1421 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    Chatterjee, P

    A. Chatterjee, P. Stevenson, S. De Franceschi, A. Morello, N. P. de Leon, and F. Kuemmeth, Semicon- ductor qubits in practice, Nature Reviews Physics3, 157 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    M. W. Keller, A. L. Eichenberger, J. M. Martinis, and N. M. Zimmerman, A capacitance standard based on counting electrons, Science285, 1706 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Gustavsson, R

    S. Gustavsson, R. Leturcq, M. Studer, I. Shorubalko, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, D. Driscoll, and A. Gossard, Elec- tron counting in quantum dots, Surface Science Reports 64, 191 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Gustavsson, R

    S. Gustavsson, R. Leturcq, B. Simoviˇ c, R. Schleser, T. Ihn, P. Studerus, K. Ensslin, D. C. Driscoll, and A. C. Gossard, Counting statistics of single electron transport in a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 076605 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Albert, C

    M. Albert, C. Flindt, and M. B¨ uttiker, Distributions of waiting times of dynamic single-electron emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 086805 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    K¨ ung, C

    B. K¨ ung, C. R¨ ossler, M. Beck, M. Marthaler, D. S. Gol- ubev, Y. Utsumi, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Irreversibility on the level of single-electron tunneling, Phys. Rev. X2, 6 011001 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    J. V. Koski, V. F. Maisi, J. P. Pekola, and D. V. Averin, Experimental realization of a Szilard engine with a single electron, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA111, 13786 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Wagner, P

    T. Wagner, P. Strasberg, J. C. Bayer, E. P. Rugerami- gabo, T. Brandes, and R. J. Haug, Strong suppression of shot noise in a feedback-controlled single-electron tran- sistor, Nat. Nanotech.12, 218 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Tanttu, B

    T. Tanttu, B. Hensen, K. W. Chan, C. H. Yang, W. W. Huang, M. Fogarty, F. Hudson, K. Itoh, D. Culcer, A. Laucht, A. Morello, and A. Dzurak, Controlling spin- orbit interactions in silicon quantum dots using magnetic field direction, Phys. Rev. X9, 021028 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Ranni, E

    A. Ranni, E. T. Mannila, A. Eriksson, D. S. Golubev, J. P. Pekola, and V. F. Maisi, Local and nonlocal two- electron tunneling processes in a Cooper pair splitter, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 207703 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Barker, M

    D. Barker, M. Scandi, S. Lehmann, C. Thelander, K. A. Dick, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and V. F. Maisi, Experimen- tal verification of the work fluctuation-dissipation rela- tion for information-to-work conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 040602 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Zenelaj, P

    D. Zenelaj, P. P. Potts, and P. Samuelsson, Full counting statistics of the photocurrent through a double quantum dot embedded in a driven microwave resonator, Phys. Rev. B106, 205135 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    T. M. Buehler, D. J. Reilly, R. P. Starrett, N. A. Court, A. R. Hamilton, A. S. Dzurak, and R. G. Clark, Devel- opment and operation of the twin radio frequency single electron transistor for cross-correlated charge detection, J. Appl. Phys.96, 4508 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    Bylander, T

    J. Bylander, T. Duty, and P. Delsing, Current measure- ment by real-time counting of single electrons, Nature 434, 361 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    S. J. Angus, A. J. Ferguson, A. S. Dzurak, and R. G. Clark, A silicon radio-frequency single electron transis- tor, Appl. Phys. Lett92, 112103 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, K. Y. Tan, A. Saraiva, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, Single- shot readout and relaxation of singlet and triplet states in exchange-coupled 31P electron spins in silicon, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 236801 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    W. Lu, Z. Ji, L. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, and A. J. Rimberg, Real-time detection of electron tunnelling in a quantum dot, Nature423, 422 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    J. M. Elzerman, R. Hanson, L. H. Willems van Beveren, B. Witkamp, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Single-shot read-out of an individual electron spin in a quantum dot, Nature430, 431 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    D. J. Reilly, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Fast single-charge sensing with a RF quantum point contact, Appl. Phys. Lett.91, 162101 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Barthel, M

    C. Barthel, M. Kjærgaard, J. Medford, M. Stopa, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Fast sensing of double-dot charge arrangement and spin state with a radio-frequency sensor quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B81, 161308 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Keith, M

    D. Keith, M. G. House, M. B. Donnelly, T. F. Watson, B. Weber, and M. Y. Simmons, Single-shot spin readout in semiconductors near the shot-noise sensitivity limit, Phys. Rev. X9, 041003 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    V. O. Turin and A. N. Korotkov, Analysis of the radio- frequency single-electron transistor with large quality factor, Appl. Phys. Lett83, 2898 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    N. Ares, F. J. Schupp, A. Mavalankar, G. Rogers, J. Grif- fiths, G. A. C. Jones, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, C. G. Smith, A. Cottet, G. A. D. Briggs, and E. A. Laird, Sen- sitive radio-frequency measurements of a quantum dot by tuning to perfect impedance matching, Phys. Rev. Ap...

    2016

  19. [27]

    Vigneau, F

    F. Vigneau, F. Fedele, A. Chatterjee, D. Reilly, F. Kuem- meth, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, E. Laird, and N. Ares, Probing quantum devices with radio-frequency reflectom- etry, Appl. Phys. Rev.10, 021305 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Siddiqi, R

    I. Siddiqi, R. Vijay, F. Pierre, C. M. Wilson, M. Met- calfe, C. Rigetti, L. Frunzio, and M. H. Devoret, RF- driven Josephson bifurcation amplifier for quantum mea- surement, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 207002 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Ma- jer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Approaching unit visibility for control of a superconduct- ing qubit with dispersive readout, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 060501 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    Lupa¸ scu, E

    A. Lupa¸ scu, E. F. C. Driessen, L. Roschier, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, High-contrast dispersive read- out of a superconducting flux qubit using a nonlinear res- onator, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 127003 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    Sunada, K

    Y. Sunada, K. Yuki, Z. Wang, T. Miyamura, J. Ilves, K. Matsuura, P. A. Spring, S. Tamate, S. Kono, and Y. Nakamura, Photon-noise-tolerant dispersive readout of a superconducting qubit using a nonlinear purcell fil- ter, PRX Quantum5, 010307 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Y. Ye, J. B. Kline, S. Chen, A. Yen, and K. P. O’Brien, Ultrafast superconducting qubit readout with the quar- ton coupler, Sci. Adv.10, eado9094 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Morello, J

    A. Morello, J. J. Pla, F. A. Zwanenburg, K. W. Chan, K. Y. Tan, H. Huebl, M. M¨ ott¨ onen, C. D. Nugroho, C. Yang, J. A. van Donkelaar, A. D. C. Alves, D. N. Jamieson, C. C. Escott, L. C. L. Hollenberg, R. G. Clark, and A. S. Dzurak, Single-shot readout of an electron spin in ...

    2010

  26. [34]

    J. Park, H. Jang, H. Sohn, J. Yun, Y. Song, B. Kang, L. E. A. Stehouwer, D. D. Esposti, G. Scappucci, and D. Kim, Passive and active suppression of transduced noise in silicon spin qubits, Nat. Commun.16, 78 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Haldar, M

    S. Haldar, M. Munk, H. Havir, W. Khan, S. Lehmann, C. Thelander, K. A. Dick, P. Samuelsson, P. P. Potts, and V. F. Maisi, Coherence of an electronic two-level system under continuous charge sensing by a quantum dot de- tector, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 023601 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Haldar, D

    S. Haldar, D. Barker, H. Havir, A. Ranni, S. Lehmann, K. A. Dick, and V. F. Maisi, Continuous microwave pho- ton counting by semiconductor-superconductor hybrids, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 217001 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Hermon, E

    Z. Hermon, E. Ben-Jacob, and G. Sch¨ on, Charge solitons in one-dimensional arrays of serially coupled Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B54, 1234 (1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    M. A. Castellanos-Beltran and K. W. Lehnert, Widely tunable parametric amplifier based on a superconducting quantum interference device array resonator, Appl. Phys. Lett91, 083509 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    Hutter, E

    C. Hutter, E. A. Thol´ en, K. Stannigel, J. Lidmar, and D. B. Haviland, Josephson junction transmission lines as tunable artificial crystals, Phys. Rev. B83, 014511 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    M. T. Bell, I. A. Sadovskyy, L. B. Ioffe, A. Y. Kitaev, and M. E. Gershenson, Quantum superinductor with tunable nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 137003 (2012). 7

    2012

  33. [41]

    Altimiras, O

    C. Altimiras, O. Parlavecchio, P. Joyez, D. Vion, P. Roche, D. Esteve, and F. Portier, Tunable microwave impedance matching to a high impedance source using a Josephson metamaterial, Appl. Phys. Lett103, 212601 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Stockklauser, P

    A. Stockklauser, P. Scarlino, J. V. Koski, S. Gasparinetti, C. K. Andersen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraff, Strong coupling cavity QED with gate-defined double quantum dots enabled by a high impedance resonator, Phys. Rev. X7, 011030 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Harabula, T

    M.-C. Harabula, T. Hasler, G. F¨ ul¨ op, M. Jung, V. Ran- jan, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Measuring a quantum dot with an impedance-matching on-chip superconducting LCresonator at gigahertz frequencies, Phys. Rev. Appl. 8, 054006 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    de Jong, C

    D. de Jong, C. G. Prosko, D. M. A. Waardenburg, L. Han, F. K. Malinowski, P. Krogstrup, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. V. Koski, and W. Pfaff, Rapid microwave-only char- acterization and readout of quantum dots using multi- plexed gigahertz-frequency resonators, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 01...

    2021

  37. [45]

    Havir, S

    H. Havir, S. Haldar, W. Khan, S. Lehmann, K. A. Dick, C. Thelander, P. Samuelsson, and V. F. Maisi, Quan- tum dot source-drain transport response at microwave frequencies, Phys. Rev. B108, 205417 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    G¨ oppl, A

    M. G¨ oppl, A. Fragner, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, S. Filipp, J. M. Fink, P. J. Leek, G. Puebla, L. Steffen, and A. Wall- raff, Coplanar waveguide resonators for circuit quantum electrodynamics, J. Appl. Phys.104, 113904 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Probst, F

    S. Probst, F. B. Song, P. A. Bushev, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Weides, Efficient and robust analysis of complex scat- tering data under noise in microwave resonators, Rev. Sci. Instrum.86, 024706 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Ranni, H

    A. Ranni, H. Havir, S. Haldar, and V. F. Maisi, High impedance Josephson junction resonators in the trans- mission line geometry, Appl. Phys. Lett.123, 114002 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Rieger, S

    D. Rieger, S. G¨ unzler, M. Spiecker, A. Nambisan, W. Wernsdorfer, and I. Pop, Fano interference in mi- crowave resonator measurements, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 014059 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Kaplunenko and G

    V. Kaplunenko and G. Fischer, Josephson junction ar- rays as a variable inductor in RF circuits and tunable filters, Supercond. Sci. Technol.17, S145 (2004), 6th Eu- ropean Conference on Applied Superconductivity (EU- CAS 2003), Sorrento, ITALY, SEP 14-18, 2003

    2004

  43. [51]

    E. A. Thol´ en, A. Erg¨ ul, E. M. Doherty, F. M. Weber, F. Gr´ egis, and D. B. Haviland, Nonlinearities and para- metric amplification in superconducting coplanar waveg- uide resonators, Appl. Phys. Lett90, 253509 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    L. S. Bishop, E. Ginossar, and S. M. Girvin, Response of the strongly driven Jaynes-Cummings oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 100505 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    F. R. Ong, M. Boissonneault, F. Mallet, A. Palacios- Laloy, A. Dewes, A. C. Doherty, A. Blais, P. Bertet, D. Vion, and D. Esteve, Circuit QED with a nonlin- ear resonator: AC-Stark shift and dephasing, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 167002 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    Frasca, I

    S. Frasca, I. Arabadzhiev, S. B. de Puechredon, F. Oppliger, V. Jouanny, R. Musio, M. Scigliuzzo, F. Minganti, P. Scarlino, and E. Charbon, NbN films with high kinetic inductance for high-quality compact su- perconducting resonators, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 044021 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Holmqvist, M

    T. Holmqvist, M. Meschke, and J. P. Pekola, Double ox- idation scheme for tunnel junction fabrication, J. Vac. Sci. & Techol. B26, 28 (2008)

    2008

  48. [56]

    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 de- rived from the Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    Haldar, H

    S. Haldar, H. Havir, W. Khan, S. Lehmann, C. The- lander, K. A. Dick, and V. F. Maisi, Energetics of mi- crowaves probed by double quantum dot absorption, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 087003 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Andersson, H

    S. Andersson, H. Havir, A. Ranni, S. Haldar, and V. F. Maisi, High-impedance microwave resonators with two- photon nonlinear effects, Nat. Commun.16, 552 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Schaller, G

    G. Schaller, G. Kießlich, and T. Brandes, Low- dimensional detector model for full counting statistics: Trajectories, back action, and fidelity, Phys. Rev. B82, 041303 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Chen, H.-X

    L. Chen, H.-X. Li, Y. Lu, C. W. Warren, C. J. Kriˇ zan, S. Kosen, M. Rommel, S. Ahmed, A. Osman, J. Bizn´ arov´ a, A. Fadavi Roudsari, B. Lienhard, M. Ca- puto, K. Grigoras, L. Gr¨ onberg, J. Govenius, A. F. Kockum, P. Delsing, J. Bylander, and G. Tancredi, Transmon qubit read...

    2023

  53. [61]

    T. Frey, P. J. Leek, M. Beck, K. Ensslin, A. Wallraff, and T. Ihn, Characterization of a microwave frequency resonator via a nearby quantum dot, Appl. Phys. Lett 98, 262105 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    Cornia, F

    S. Cornia, F. Rossella, V. Demontis, V. Zannier, F. Bel- tram, L. Sorba, M. Affronte, and A. Ghirri, Microwave- assisted tunneling in hard-wall InAs/InP nanowire quan- tum dots, Sci. Rep.9, 19523 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    T. Ihn, S. Gustavsson, U. Gasser, B. K¨ ung, T. M¨ uller, R. Schleser, M. Sigrist, I. Shorubalko, R. Leturcq, and K. Ensslin, Quantum dots investigated with charge de- tection techniques, Solid State Communications149, 1419 (2009), fundamental Phenomena and Applications of Qua...

    2009

  56. [64]

    Mavalankar, T

    A. Mavalankar, T. Pei, E. M. Gauger, J. H. Warner, G. A. D. Briggs, and E. A. Laird, Photon-assisted tunnel- ing and charge dephasing in a carbon nanotube double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B93, 235428 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Kirchmair, B

    G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, E. Ginossar, M. Mirrahimi, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Observation of quantum state collapse and revival due to the single-photon Kerr effect, Nature495, 205 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    I.-C. Hoi, A. F. Kockum, T. Palomaki, T. M. Stace, B. Fan, L. Tornberg, S. R. Sathyamoorthy, G. Johans- son, P. Delsing, and C. M. Wilson, Giant cross–Kerr ef- fect for propagating microwaves induced by an artificial atom, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 053601 (2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    Yamaji, S

    T. Yamaji, S. Kagami, A. Yamaguchi, T. Satoh, K. Koshino, H. Goto, Z. R. Lin, Y. Nakamura, and T. Ya- mamoto, Spectroscopic observation of the crossover from a classical duffing oscillator to a Kerr parametric oscilla- tor, Phys. Rev. A105, 023519 (2022). 8 I. SUPPLEMENT AL MA...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.