Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

SQUID Readout of a High-$Q$ Superconducting $LC$ Resonator

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SQUID readout preserves Q ≈ 2×10^6 in a 250 kHz superconducting resonator.

desk verdict A solid, honest experimental milestone—250 kHz LC resonator with Q≈2×10^6 read out through a SQUID+SA chain—with a model-dependent impedance inference that needs qualification, not a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20831 v1 pith:V2KQHTIX submitted 2026-07-23 physics.ins-det astro-ph.IMgr-qchep-ex

Roman Kolevatov , Saptarshi Chaudhuri , Lyman Page This is my paper
classification physics.ins-detastro-ph.IMgr-qchep-ex
keywords SQUIDLCresonatorqualityfactorflux-biasdependenceeffectiveinputimpedanceback-actionnoiselow-massaxiondetectioncryogenicreadout
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 that a superconducting LC resonator with a quality factor of about 2×10^6 at roughly 250 kHz can be read out through a dc SQUID plus series-array amplifier chain without destroying the high Q. The paper finds that Q and the resonance frequency f_r both vary periodically with the SQUID's flux-bias point, with Q staying between 1.5×10^6 and 2.0×10^6 across a full flux period. Treating the SQUID as a flux-dependent resistance R_SQ and inductance L_SQ in the readout loop, the authors infer R_SQ ranging from −6 to +8 mΩ and L_SQ with a peak-to-peak swing of about 44 nH. They also see that the effective temperature read from the resonance noise peak depends on the flux-bias point, suggesting a back-action noise contribution. A sympathetic reader would care because high-Q resonator readout at these frequencies is a required building block for low-mass axion searches, and this work shows the SQUID integration is feasible.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is an equivalent-circuit reduction in which the SQUID plus its input loop is modeled as a passive, flux-dependent series resistance R_SQ and self-inductance L_SQ coupled inductively to the resonator. In the limit R_SQ ≪ ω(L_r + L_SQ), this gives explicit perturbation formulas δQ/Q0 ≈ −(M_r^2/L_r^2)(R0/R_SQ) and δf_r/f_r,0 ≈ −(M_r^2/(2L_r^2 L0)) L_SQ, which let the measured ringdown Q and frequency shifts be inverted to infer the SQUID impedance components.

What would settle it

Measure the SQUID's effective input impedance directly (e.g., with a separate coupled test coil or by comparing the resonator ringdown against a calibrated tunable impedance) at the same flux-bias points; if the directly measured R_SQ disagrees with the values inferred from δQ, or if the noise-temperature dependence is not reproduced by the inferred impedance, the equivalent-circuit model is incomplete. Alternatively, replacing the SQUID with a passive inductor of comparable L_SQ would be expected to reproduce the frequency shifts but not the Q changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The integration of a SQUID–SA readout chain with a high-Q superconducting lumped-element resonator operating at Q≈2×10^6 and ~250 kHz is demonstrated, and the resonator retains Q in the range (1.5–2.0)×10^6 over the full SQUID modulation period. The paper further claims that the flux-bias dependence of Q and f_r can be quantitatively explained by a flux-dependent effective SQUID impedance (resistance between about −6 and +8 mΩ, self-inductance swinging by ~44 nH peak-to-peak), and that the effective temperature derived from the resonance noise peak is flux-bias dependent, indicating SQUID back-action noise.

Load-bearing premise

The whole inference of R_SQ and L_SQ rests on the assumption that the SQUID in the readout loop behaves as a passive, flux-dependent series resistance and inductance, with R_SQ much smaller than the loop reactance; if back-action involves a more complex mechanism, the resistance inferred from Q changes may not be the same impedance that determines the noise temperature. Also, L_SQ is only known up to an additive constant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same readout chain can be used in a high-Q resonator without a dedicated impedance-matching stage, preserving Q ≥1.5×10^6.
  • The inferred R_SQ is positive at steep-slope bias and negative at shallow-slope bias, meaning the SQUID can either add to or cancel net dissipation, consistent with earlier SQUID damping observations.
  • Since Q remains high over the entire modulation period, operating-point selection can be driven by other concerns (gain, noise) rather than by Q preservation.
  • The flux-dependent effective temperature suggests that back-action noise can be studied and possibly minimized by choosing the flux-bias point.
  • Inferring SQUID impedance from Q and f_r shifts provides a non-invasive characterization method for SQUID-resonator systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the negative R_SQ is a genuine active-like effect, in principle a SQUID biased near the shallow-slope point could partially cancel intrinsic resonator losses, lowering the noise floor; the paper observes but does not exploit this.
  • The same extraction method could be applied at higher frequencies or with different SQUID types to map back-action noise; a direct measurement of the noise temperature as a function of the inferred R_SQ would test whether the lumped impedance fully captures back-action.
  • Because the L_SQ average is only bounded via a sign-change argument from earlier work, a calibration measurement (e.g., switching in a known inductance) would pin the absolute value and tighten the model.
  • For axion-search applications, the demonstrated Q with SQUID readout means sensitivity projections based on Q≈2×10^6 are not limited by the readout, provided the excess ~5-7 K effective temperature is understood and reduced.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental characterization of a superconducting lumped-element LC resonator (f_r≈248.6 kHz, Q≈2×10^6 at 307 mK) read out through a dc SQUID and a SQUID series-array amplifier. Ringdown Q and resonance frequency are measured as functions of SQUID flux bias and show periodic, Φ0-periodic variations: Q stays within (1.5–2.0)×10^6, with lower Q near the steep-slope point and higher Q near the shallow-slope point of the SQUID modulation curve. Using an equivalent-circuit model (Appendix A), the authors convert δQ and δf_r into a flux-dependent SQUID effective resistance (−6 to +8 mΩ) and self-inductance (peak-to-peak ≈44 nH, absolute offset unknown). Noise spectra at the two response-maximum bias points give Q values consistent with ringdown and effective temperatures of ~7 K and ~5 K, well above the physical 307 mK; the authors list several possible explanations, including SQUID back-action, EMI, microphonics, and incomplete thermalization. The central claim is that integrating a SQUID–SA readout does not destroy the high resonator Q needed for future DMRadio-style axion searches.

Significance. If the integration result is robust, this is a useful technical milestone: it demonstrates that a Q≈2×10^6 resonator at ~250 kHz can be read out with a SQUID-chain without catastrophic loading, and that Q remains in the (1.5–2.0)×10^6 range over the full flux period. The ringdown measurement is straightforward, the noise-peak Q agrees with ringdown, and the paper is transparent about the main model assumptions and the additive L_SQ offset. The quantitative claims about the SQUID input impedance and the back-action noise contribution are less certain, because they rest on an unverified equivalent-circuit mapping and on an unresolved excess-noise budget. These limitations do not affect the headline integration result, but they do affect the abstract's statement that the SQUID effective input impedance is inferred.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A / Appendix A, Eqs. (A1)–(A5)] The inference of R_SQ from δQ assumes that the only flux-dependent change in damping is a series resistance R_SQ in the pickup loop and that the baseline Q0 measured with the SQUID unbiased through a separate direct readout loop corresponds to the R_SQ=0 limit of the same model. Neither assumption is explicitly verified. More importantly, the inferred R_SQ crosses zero and becomes negative (≈−6 mΩ) near the shallow-slope point; a negative series resistance is an active or parametric response, not a passive series impedance. The equivalent-circuit algebra is internally consistent, but the physical interpretation as 'the SQUID effective input impedance' is strained. Please provide an independent check (e.g., a direct input-impedance measurement or a quantitative comparison with back-action-noise predictions), or explicitly reframe R_SQ and L_SQ as phenomenological two-parameter description
  2. [Section III.A / Appendix A, Eq. (A7)] The L_SQ result is determined only up to an additive constant, and the period average ⟨L_SQ⟩ used for Fig. 4(b) is estimated from a sign-change argument in Ref. [15], not from a measurement presented here. Thus the absolute scale of L_SQ and the bounds in Eq. (A7) are literature-based assumptions, not data products of this experiment. The peak-to-peak modulation is robust, but the main text should state that the vertical offset in Fig. 4(b) is an external estimate, and the abstract should not present L_SQ as fully measured.
  3. [Section III.B / Eq. (4) and Fig. 5] The effective-temperature analysis is not yet conclusive. T_eff is a factor of ~16–23 above the physical 307 mK, and the four proposed explanations (SQUID back-action, EMI, microphonics, thermalization) are not quantitatively separated. The cold current-filter test changed Q and removed the flux dependence of T_eff, so it primarily demonstrates an EMI contribution rather than isolating SQUID back-action. To support the abstract's statement that T_eff depends on flux bias through a possible SQUID back-action contribution, the authors should add a quantitative model of the expected back-action noise based on the inferred R_SQ (with a careful treatment of the negative-resistance regime) or explicitly label the back-action interpretation as a hypothesis not tested by the current data.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 5] The fitted values Q_fit, f_r, T_eff are quoted without uncertainties. Please report final confidence intervals or the variance across the retained traces.
  2. [Reference [34]] The author name appears as 'J. Clarket'; this is presumably a typo for J. Clarke.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The equation is typeset in a way that is hard to parse. Please define R explicitly (it is introduced only after the formula) and clarify the coupling factor involving M_in, M_r, and L_r.
  4. [Section III.A] The Savitzky–Golay-smoothed trends are not reproducible without smoothing parameters; please state the window length and polynomial order.
  5. [Fig. 2(b)] Please explain how the flux-noise (left axis) and voltage-noise (right axis) scales are related, including the role of the normalized |dV/dΦ|.
  6. [Table I] Uncertainties are given for M_in, M_fb, and M_SA,in are not given; please include them or state that they are negligible for the reported analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Q measurement is a direct ringdown result, and R_SQ/L_SQ are explicitly model-based inferences from measured shifts with acknowledged caveats, not predictions derived from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental characterization rather than a derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. The headline result—Q≈2×10^6 at ~250 kHz and Q remaining in (1.5–2.0)×10^6 over a SQUID modulation period—comes directly from ringdown measurements with the SQUID unbiased and biased, independent of the equivalent-circuit model. The flux-bias-dependent R_SQ and L_SQ are not claimed as predictions; they are explicitly described as inferences from the measured δQ and δf_r using the Appendix A model, with the small-perturbation formulas (A4)–(A5) and the approximation R_SQ ≪ ω(L_r+L_SQ) verified a posteriori. The paper transparently flags that L_SQ is determined only up to an additive constant and that the period average ⟨L_SQ⟩ is estimated, not measured, using a sign-change result from external Ref. [15] (Hilbert and Clarke). The effective-temperature fit from the resonance noise peak is also an independent fit with Q, f_r, and T_eff as parameters; the extracted Q agrees with ringdown, and T_eff is not forced by the ringdown data. No load-bearing step equates a fitted parameter with a predicted output. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [27] for the resonator and ringdown analysis, Ref. [22] for SQUID back-action context) are apparatus/method or background citations and are not used as the basis for the central results. Thus there is no significant circularity; the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or exotic entities are introduced. The free parameters are the fitted noise-peak parameters (T_eff, noise floor). The modeling assumptions are the equivalent-circuit SQUID representation and the Johnson-Nyquist noise model. The L_SQ offset ambiguity is explicitly acknowledged.

free parameters (2)
  • Effective temperature T_eff = 4.8 K (steep-slope), 7.2 K (shallow-slope)
    Fitted from the resonance noise peak amplitude using Eq. (4), along with Q and f_r, to infer the effective temperature of the resonator.
  • Noise floor S_Φ,floor = 0.39 μΦ₀/√Hz (shallow-slope), 0.69 μΦ₀/√Hz (steep-slope)
    Estimated from the median white-noise level of the spectrum outside ±500 Hz window; added in quadrature in Eq. (4).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The SQUID can be modeled as a flux-dependent series resistance R_SQ and self-inductance L_SQ in the readout loop (Appendix A).
    This is the equivalent-circuit ansatz that allows inference of R_SQ and L_SQ from δQ and δf_r; it is the standard linearized small-perturbation treatment, supported by the a posteriori check R_SQ ≪ ω(L_r + L_SQ).
  • domain assumption The resonator loss can be represented by a frequency-independent series resistance R_0 and the Johnson-Nyquist form for the noise spectrum (Eq. 4).
    The noise model assumes thermal Johnson noise of the resonator resistance sets the resonance peak; this is standard but the fit yields T_eff ≫ T_phys, which the paper attributes to EMI, back-action, microphonics, or incomplete thermalization.
  • standard math R_SQ ≪ ω(L_r + L_SQ).
    Used in Appendix A to separate real and imaginary parts of the coupled impedance; the authors verify a posteriori that the largest inferred R_SQ ≈ 8 mΩ is ~8×10⁻³ of ω(L_r + L_SQ).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SQUID Readout of a High-$Q$ Superconducting $LC$ Resonator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V2KQHTIX

@misc{pith2026260720831,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SQUID Readout of a High-$Q$ Superconducting $LC$ Resonator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V2KQHTIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20831}
}
abstract

We demonstrate the readout of a superconducting $LC$ resonator, with $Q \approx 2 \times 10^{6}$ at approximately 250 kHz, using a dc SQUID followed by a SQUID series-array amplifier readout chain. We find that $Q$ depends on the SQUID flux-bias point, increasing near the shallow-slope point of the SQUID modulation curve and decreasing near the steep-slope point, consistent with the previously observed SQUID damping effects. From this variation, we infer the SQUID effective input impedance. We further infer the effective temperature of the resonator circuit from the resonance peak in the noise spectrum and show that it also depends on the SQUID flux-bias point, suggesting a possible contribution from SQUID back-action noise. This system provides a working prototype for future experiments based on lumped-element resonators with SQUID readout, in particular low-mass axion searches within the DMRadio program.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20831 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Circuit diagram of the resonator–SQUID system. The resonator consists of the inductor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Smoothed SQUID modulation curve, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Throughout this work, we refer to these points as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. SQUID resistance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Flux-noise amplitude spectrum of the SQUID-noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Equivalent-circuit representation of the SQUID [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [15]

    Hilbert and J

    C. Hilbert and J. Clarke, J. Low Temp. Phys.61, 237 (1985)

    1985

  2. [1]

    Clarke and A

    J. Clarke and A. I. Braginski, eds.,The SQUID handbook: Fundamentals and technology of SQUIDs and SQUID systems, Vol. 1 (Wiley-VCH, 2004). 9

    2004

  3. [2]

    V. B. Braginsky, V. P. Mitrofanov, and V. I. Panov, Systems with Small Dissipation(University of Chicago Press, 1986) translated by Erast Gliner; originally pub- lished in Russian in 1981

    1986

  4. [3]

    Falferi, M

    P. Falferi, M. Bonaldi, M. Cerdonio, R. Mezzena, G. A. Prodi, A. Vinante, and S. Vitale, Appl. Phys. Lett.93, 172506 (2008)

    2008

  5. [4]

    Sleator, E

    T. Sleator, E. L. Hahn, C. Hilbert, and J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. B36, 1969 (1987)

    1969

  6. [5]

    C. D. Tesche and J. Clarke, J. Low Temp. Phys.29, 301 (1977)

    1977

  7. [6]

    Clarke, C

    J. Clarke, C. D. Tesche, and R. P. Giffard, J. Low Temp. Phys.37, 405 (1979)

    1979

  8. [7]

    Clarke, M

    J. Clarke, M. Hatridge, and M. M¨ oßle, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng.9, 389 (2007)

    2007

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Crisosto, P

    N. Crisosto, P. Sikivie, N. S. Sullivan, D. B. Tanner, J. Yang, and G. Rybka, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 241101 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    J. A. Devlin, M. J. Borchert, S. Erlewein, M. Fleck, J. A. Harrington, B. Latacz, J. Warncke, E. Wursten, M. A. Bohman, A. H. Mooser, C. Smorra, M. Wiesinger, C. Will, K. Blaum, Y. Matsuda, C. Ospelkaus, W. Quint, J. Walz, Y. Yamazaki, and S. Ulmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 041301 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    C. P. Salemi, J. W. Foster, J. L. Ouellet, A. Gavin, K. M. W. Pappas, S. Cheng, K. A. Richardson, R. Hen- ning, Y. Kahn, R. Nguyen, N. L. Rodd, B. R. Safdi, and L. Winslow, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 081801 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    A. V. Gramolin, D. Aybas, D. Johnson, J. Adam, and A. O. Sushkov, Nat. Phys.17, 79 (2021), arXiv:2003.03348 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Zhang, D

    Z. Zhang, D. Horns, and O. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D106, 023003 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    Silva-Feaver, S

    M. Silva-Feaver, S. Chaudhuri, H.-M. Cho, C. Dawson, P. Graham, K. Irwin, S. Kuenstner, D. Li, J. Mardon, H. Moseley, R. Mule, A. Phipps, S. Rajendran, Z. Stef- fen, and B. Young, Design overview of the DM Radio pathfinder experiment (2016), arXiv:1610.09344 [astro- ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Brouwer, S

    L. Brouwer, S. Chaudhuri, H.-M. Cho, J. Corbin, C. S. Dawson, A. Droster, J. W. Foster, J. T. Fry, P. W. Gra- ham, R. Henning, K. D. Irwin, F. Kadribasic, Y. Kahn, A. Keller, R. Kolevatov, S. Kuenstner, A. F. Leder, D. Li, J. L. Ouellet, K. M. W. Pappas, A. Phipps, N. M. Rapid...

    2022

  8. [16]

    J. M. Martinis and J. Clarke, J. Low Temp. Phys.65, 459 (1986)

    1986

  9. [17]

    Falferi, R

    P. Falferi, R. Mezzena, S. Vitale, and M. Cerdonio, Appl. Phys. Lett.71, 956 (1997)

    1997

  10. [18]

    Falferi, M

    P. Falferi, M. Bonaldi, M. Cerdonio, A. Vinante, and S. Vitale, Appl. Phys. Lett.73, 3589 (1998)

    1998

  11. [19]

    Falferi, M

    P. Falferi, M. Bonaldi, M. Cerdonio, A. Vinante, R. Mezzena, G. A. Prodi, and S. Vitale, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 062505 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Falferi, R

    P. Falferi, R. Mezzena, and A. Vinante, Supercond. Sci. Technol.22, 075020 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Vinante, M

    A. Vinante, M. Bonaldi, R. Mezzena, and P. Falferi, Eu- rophys. Lett.92, 34005 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Ankel, C

    V. Ankel, C. Bartram, J. Begin, C. Bell, L. Brouwer, S. Chaudhuri, J. Clarke, H.-M. Cho, J. Corbin, W. Crad- dock, S. Cuadra, A. Droster, M. Durkin, J. Echevers, J. T. Fry, G. Hilton, K. D. Irwin, A. Keller, R. Koleva- tov, A. Kunder, D. Li, N. Otto, K. M. W. Pappas, N. M. Rap...

    2025

  15. [23]

    E. C. van Assendelft, H.-M. Cho, J. Corbin, S. Kuentsner, D. Li, A. Phipps, N. M. Rapidis, J. Singh, K. Wells, and K. D. Irwin, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 33, 1 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Vinante, M

    A. Vinante, M. Bonaldi, P. Falferi, M. Cerdonio, R. Mezzena, G. A. Prodi, and S. Vitale, Physica C368, 176 (2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    Falferi, M

    P. Falferi, M. Cerdonio, L. Franceschini, R. Macchietto, S. Vitale, and J. P. Zendri, Rev. Sci. Instrum.65, 2916 (1994)

    1994

  18. [26]

    Phipps, S

    A. Phipps, S. E. Kuenstner, S. Chaudhuri, C. S. Dawson, B. A. Young, C. T. FitzGerald, H. Froland, K. Wells, D. Li, H. M. Cho, S. Rajendran, P. W. Graham, and K. D. Irwin, inMicrowave Cavities and Detectors for Axion Research, edited by G. Carosi and G. Rybka (Springer Interna...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Kolevatov, S

    R. Kolevatov, S. Chaudhuri, and L. Page, Rev. Sci. In- strum.97, 024503 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    W. B. Doriese, K. M. Morgan, D. A. Bennett, E. V. Denison, C. P. Fitzgerald, J. W. Fowler, J. D. Gard, J. P. Hays-Wehle, G. C. Hilton, K. D. Irwin, Y. I. Joe, J. A. B. Mates, G. C. O’Neil, C. D. Reintsema, N. O. Robbins, D. R. Schmidt, D. S. Swetz, H. Tatsuno, L. R. Vale, and ...

    2016

  21. [29]

    S. W. Henderson, J. R. Stevens, M. Amiri, J. Auster- mann, J. A. Beall, S. Chaudhuri, H.-M. Cho, S. K. Choi, N. F. Cothard, K. T. Crowley, S. M. Duff, C. P. Fitzgerald, P. A. Gallardo, M. Halpern, M. Hasselfield, G. Hilton, S.-P. P. Ho, J. Hubmayr, K. D. Irwin, B. J. Koopman, ...

    2016

  22. [30]

    M. J. Devlin, S. R. Dicker, J. Klein, and M. P. Supanich, Cryogenics44, 611 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    J. Lau, M. Benna, M. Devlin, S. Dicker, and L. Page, Cryogenics46, 809 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Kolevatov,From models of the early universe to de- veloping experiments for axionic dark matter detection, Ph.D

    R. Kolevatov,From models of the early universe to de- veloping experiments for axionic dark matter detection, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (2024), princeton University DataSpace

    2024

  25. [33]

    Mini-Circuits,ZAD-6+ frequency mixer, Mini-Circuits (2026), datasheet, accessed April 10, 2026

    2026

  26. [34]

    C. D. Tesche and J. Clarket, Journal of Low Temperature Physics37, 397 (1979)

    1979

  27. [35]

    Bardeen, G

    J. Bardeen, G. Rickayzen, and L. Tewordt, Phys. Rev. 113, 982 (1959)

    1959

  28. [36]

    Flachbart, A

    K. Flachbart, A. Feher, ˇS. J´ anoˇ s, Z. M´ alek, and A. Ryska, Phys. Status Solidi B85, 545 (1978)

    1978

  29. [37]

    N. M. Rapidis, Status of dmradio-50l and dmradio-m 3 (2022), arXiv:2210.07215 [hep-ex]. 10

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    DMRadio Collaboration, manuscript in preparation

  31. [39]

    Ankel, C

    V. Ankel, C. Bartram, J. Begin, C. Bell, S. Chaud- huri, H.-M. Cho, J. Corbin, W. Craddock, S. Cuadra, A. Droster, J. Echevers, E. Engelhardt, J. T. Fry, K. D. Irwin, A. Keller, R. Kolevatov, A. Kunder, N. Kurita, N. Otto, E. Pariset, S. Puranam, P. Quassolo, N. M. Ra- pidis, ...

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. E. Kuenstner, E. C. van Assendelft, S. Chaudhuri, H.-M. Cho, J. Corbin, S. W. Henderson, F. Kadriba- sic, D. Li, A. Phipps, N. M. Rapidis, M. Simanovskaia, J. Singh, C. Yu, and K. D. Irwin, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013281 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.