Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Quasiparticle-induced transitions in a fluxonium qubit are governed by the superconducting gap difference between the junction leads, not by an imbalance in quasiparticle densities.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 07:45 UTC pith:WXCU4ZS7

load-bearing objection Careful, novel fluxonium injection experiment in which gap asymmetry plausibly resolves the apparent QP-density imbalance, though the thermal-QP assumption and one unquantified ratio keep it from being fully airtight. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21329 v1 pith:WXCU4ZS7 submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph

Quasiparticle-induced transitions in a fluxonium qubit

Maksim Litskevich , Kesavan Manivannan , Benjamin Byrd , Pavel D. Kurilovich , Vladislav D. Kurilovich , Gianluigi Catelani , Ivan V. Pechenezhskiy This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords fluxonium qubitquasiparticle-induced decoherencesuperconducting gap asymmetryquasiparticle tunnelingquasiparticle injectionJosephson junction arrayqubit energy relaxationtransmon
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.

Fluxonium qubits are hard to protect from quasiparticles because, unlike transmons, they are insensitive to offset charge, so charge-parity detection is impossible. This paper measures quasiparticle-induced excitation and de-excitation rates under controlled on-chip injection and finds that the de-excitation rate as a function of magnetic flux has two comparable peaks, at the integer and half-integer flux quantum. The standard assumptions—equal superconducting gaps in the two junction leads and a narrow quasiparticle energy distribution—cannot explain this flux dependence. The authors' central claim is that the gap difference δΔ between the leads suppresses quasiparticle tunneling near the half-integer flux point, where the qubit transition energy is small; once δΔ is included, a one-parameter fit with equal quasiparticle densities in the small junction and the array reproduces the full flux dependence and yields x_qp = 3.6×10^-6. If correct, this resolves a long-standing apparent disparity between quasiparticle-density bounds for the small junction versus the junction array and suggests that gap engineering can suppress quasiparticle decoherence in fluxonium.

Core claim

The central finding is that the superconducting gap difference δΔ between the two leads of a Josephson junction, which arises naturally when the aluminum films have different thicknesses, is essential for modeling quasiparticle-induced transitions in fluxonium. When the qubit transition energy ℏω01 is small compared with δΔ—which happens near the half-integer flux quantum—the gap difference strongly suppresses the quasiparticle-induced transition rate, making the half-integer-flux peak comparable to the integer-flux peak rather than several times larger. With δΔ/h = 1.72 GHz independently determined from a resonantly enhanced |0⟩→|2⟩ transition, and an effective quasiparticle temperature k_B

What carries the argument

The central object is the quasiparticle tunneling structure factor S±(ω) for a Josephson junction with unequal superconducting gaps ΔL and ΔH in its two leads. It enters the transition-rate formula together with flux-dependent matrix elements of sin(φ/2), cos(φ/2), and φ/2, which weight the small-junction and array contributions. The key mechanism is the combination of the gap difference δΔ = ΔH − ΔL with the energy width of the quasiparticle distribution: for de-excitation near the half-integer flux quantum, the condition k_BT_qp ≲ δΔ − ℏω01 leaves too few quasiparticle states available, suppressing the rate. The paper separately measures δΔ from a resonant peak in the |0⟩→|2⟩ rate when ℏω0

Load-bearing premise

The central fit assumes the injected quasiparticles follow a thermal Boltzmann energy distribution with a single effective temperature for both junction leads (Eq. 4), and that the quasiparticle density is the same in the small junction and the array; if the distribution is genuinely athermal, the same data can be reproduced by a different model, as the paper's own Appendix K2 demonstrates.

What would settle it

Measure the quasiparticle-induced transition rates with a readout that resolves states |3⟩ and higher: if the excess excitation rate near the half-integer flux quantum persists after separating leakage states, the leakage explanation fails and the thermal-Boltzmann-plus-gap-difference model would need revision; conversely, if the |0⟩→|1⟩ excitation rate drops to the predicted value, the model is confirmed. A more direct test of the δΔ mechanism would be to vary the lead-thickness asymmetry on co-fabricated devices and check that the half-integer-flux peak height tracks δΔ − ℏω01.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Previous bounds on quasiparticle densities in fluxonia that assumed δΔ = 0 overestimated the array's sensitivity near the half-integer flux quantum; accounting for δΔ makes the inferred bound less tight, so the reported x_array ≪ x_small disparity may be an artifact of the model.
  • Gap engineering, already demonstrated in transmons, should also suppress quasiparticle-induced decoherence in fluxonium qubits.
  • A single quasiparticle density shared by the small junction and the junction array, x_qp = 3.6×10^-6, reproduces the full flux dependence of the measured de-excitation rate, and this value is consistent with the independently inferred transmon density of 3.0×10^-6.
  • The measured quasiparticle-induced excitation rate exceeds the model prediction near the half-integer flux quantum; the paper attributes this to leakage into higher qubit states misidentified as |1⟩ during readout, which motivates readout schemes that resolve those states.
  • The fluxonium results underscore that all relevant energy scales—ℏω01, δΔ, and δE_qp—must be retained when analyzing quasiparticle-induced relaxation in low-frequency qubits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own Appendix K2 shows that an athermal quasiparticle distribution with different chemical potentials per lead can also reproduce the same data; a clean test would be to measure the quasiparticle distribution width directly, for example by probing transitions out of higher fluxonium states after injection.
  • The resonant |0⟩→|2⟩ enhancement when ℏω02 = δΔ offers a new spectroscopic probe of junction gap asymmetry that could be applied to other fluxonium devices without destructive fabrication measurements.
  • Because δΔ depends on the thickness of the aluminum films, fabricating junctions with a controlled lead-thickness asymmetry could be used as a deliberate engineering knob to suppress quasiparticle-induced transitions at the half-integer flux point; the paper demonstrates the effect but does not perform such a systematic test.
  • Re-analyzing historical fluxonium T1 data with δΔ ≠ 0 and a finite quasiparticle energy width might change inferred quasiparticle-density bounds for devices where the two junction leads have different thicknesses.

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 measurements of quasiparticle (QP) induced excitation and de-excitation rates in a fluxonium qubit under controlled on-chip QP injection. The authors isolate QP-induced rates by measuring quasi-instantaneous transition rates with and without injection, and map their dependence on external flux. The central claim is that a superconducting gap difference δΔ between the two leads of each Josephson junction, estimated independently from film thickness and from a resonant enhancement of the |0⟩→|2⟩ transition, plays an essential role in QP-induced transitions: near the half-integer flux quantum (HFQ), where the qubit frequency is small compared with δΔ, the gap difference suppresses the de-excitation rate. After including δΔ and assuming equal QP densities in the small junction and the array, a one-parameter fit reproduces the external-flux dependence of the measured de-excitation rate ΔΓ↓, yielding x_qp = 3.6×10^-6, consistent with an independent transmon estimate. The measured excitation rate ΔΓ↑ is only qualitatively reproduced; the discrepancy is attributed to leakage to higher qubit states that are misidentified during readout. An alternative athermal QP distribution model (Appendix K2) is shown to also reproduce the data, but the authors argue it is inconsistent with the transmon-inferred QP temperature and with relaxation-time expectations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work resolves a long-standing puzzle in fluxonium research: the apparent order-of-magnitude disparity between QP density bounds in the small junction and the junction array could be an artifact of neglecting gap asymmetry. It also demonstrates that gap engineering can suppress QP-induced decoherence in fluxonium, extending similar results in transmon qubits. The experimental methodology — controlled injection with quasi-instantaneous rate extraction and background subtraction — is a valuable contribution, and the independent determination of δΔ from the |0⟩→|2⟩ resonance is a particularly clean result. The paper is thorough, with extensive appendices, and the theoretical framework is carefully connected to prior work. However, the uniqueness of the δΔ interpretation is not fully established, because the same ΔΓ↓ data can be fit by a δΔ=0 model with unequal densities, and the alternative athermal model reproduces both ΔΓ↓ and ΔΓ↑. The central claim is therefore plausible and well supported but not uniquely determined by the presented data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV C and Appendix H, Table III, Fig. 9] The rejection of the δΔ=0, x_array≠x_small simplified model is not based on a quantitative statistical comparison of the fits to ΔΓ↓. The simplified model (Appendix H, Fig. 9) and the δΔ≠0 model (Fig. 4c) appear visually similar, and Table III reports different fitted densities but no fit-quality metrics (e.g., chi-square, AIC, or residuals). Since the central claim is that δΔ is 'necessary' to model the flux dependence, the paper should provide a direct comparison of goodness-of-fit for the two models on the ΔΓ↓ data. Without this, the claim that δΔ, rather than unequal densities, is essential is underdetermined by the de-excitation data alone.
  2. [Sec. IV A and Appendix K2] The load-bearing step that rules out δΔ=0 is the argument that δE_qp≪ℏω01 is violated, based on the finite ΔΓ↑ and the transmon detailed-balance estimate k_B T_qp/h = 1.2 GHz. However, Appendix K2 presents an alternative narrow athermal distribution (δE_qp/h = 0.20 GHz, δμ/δΔ = 0.81) that reproduces both ΔΓ↓ and ΔΓ↑ with δΔ fixed and equal densities. The authors reject this alternative using the transmon-inferred width and relaxation-time estimates, but neither directly measures the QP energy distribution in the fluxonium array. To make the 'essential role of δΔ' claim conclusive, the paper should either provide a direct experimental constraint on the fluxonium QP distribution or weaken the wording from 'essential/necessary' to 'consistent with' and acknowledge that the data do not uniquely distinguish the thermal equal-density model with δΔ≠0 from the athermal model with δΔ≠0.
  3. [Sec. IV D and Appendix K1] The quantitative discrepancy in ΔΓ↑ is attributed to leakage to higher qubit states that are misidentified as |1⟩. This explanation is plausible, and the three-level analysis in Appendix J shows that including |2⟩ does not resolve the inversion. However, no quantitative model of the apparent ΔΓ↑ under leakage is presented; the paper states that such a description 'would require additional parameters... beyond the scope of the present work.' Since the finite ΔΓ↑ is part of the evidence against δE_qp≪ℏω01, and since the leakage hypothesis is not directly verified, this is an acknowledged limitation of the excitation-rate analysis. The paper should state more prominently that the leakage scenario is a hypothesis, not a tested correction, and that the central conclusions rest on the ΔΓ↓ data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4(c) caption] The caption says the red dotted curve is the prediction for ΔΓ↑, but the curve is computed without leakage corrections; consider adding 'in the two-level model' or 'neglecting leakage to higher states' for clarity.
  2. [Table III] The third column reports x_qp from the δΔ≠0 model, but for Q1 the main-text one-parameter fit gives 3.6×10^-6 while Table III gives 3.1×10^-6 from a two-parameter fit with T_qp free. The difference should be noted in the table caption or text to avoid confusion.
  3. [Sec. IV A] The transmon injection response that yields k_B T_qp/h = 1.2 GHz is stated in the main text; please specify explicitly that this measurement uses the same injection parameters (V_inj = 5.0 Δ_Al/e, t_inj = 4 μs) as the data in Fig. 4, or note the difference if not.
  4. [Appendix K2, Eq. (K1)] The text equates δE_qp/h with the Boltzmann temperature T_qp of the athermal model, but the distribution also has a chemical potential offset. Clarify how δE_qp is defined for this model, especially because the comparison to the transmon width δE_qp/h ≈ 1.2 GHz assumes a common definition.
  5. [Sec. V] The sentence 'This similarity deserves a comment' is informal; consider rewording to 'This equality is notable' or similar.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No constructional circularity in the central fit; a minor model-selection caveat in the rejection of the athermal alternative keeps the score low.

specific steps
  1. other [Sec. IV A and Sec. IV D (with Appendix K 2, Eqs. (4) and (K1))]
    "Using the detailed-balance relation ∆Γtr↑/∆Γtr↓ = e^{−ℏωtr01/kBTqp}, we estimate the effective QP temperature to be kBTqp/h≈1.2 GHz. ... This interpretation is also inconsistent with the broader width of the QP energy distribution δE_qp/h≈1.2 GHz inferred from the injection response of the transmon qubit."

    The transmon-derived width δE_qp≈1.2 GHz is obtained by interpreting the transmon rate ratio through the thermal detailed-balance relation and the thermal Boltzmann form of Eq. (4). The alternative model being rejected in Appendix K2 is explicitly non-thermal, introducing chemical-potential offsets δμ (Eq. K1) that change the detailed-balance ratio. Using a thermal-model-derived width to rule out a non-thermal model presupposes the very thermal form the alternative challenges; the measured transmon ratio alone does not force δE_qp≈1.2 GHz when δμ≠0. This is an auxiliary model-selection argument, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: the main ΔΓ↓ fit uses δΔ fixed by the independent ΔΓ02 resonance, and the no-adjustable-parameter ΔΓ↑ prediction visibly disagrees with data.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular by construction. The only free parameter in the main Sec. IV C fit is the common QP density x_qp, and it is used to fit the de-excitation rate ΔΓ↓; it is not relabeled as a prediction. The two decisive inputs, δΔ/h=1.72 GHz and k_BT_qp/h=1.2 GHz, are fixed by separate measurements: δΔ comes from the thickness estimate and the position of the ΔΓ02 resonance, and T_qp comes from the co-fabricated transmon detailed-balance ratio. The theoretical ΔΓ↑ curve contains no adjustable parameters and is not forced to match the data; in fact it visibly fails, which is evidence that the model is not being reverse-engineered to its target. The simplified δΔ=0 model can also fit ΔΓ↓, but the paper does not hide this; it explicitly discusses Appendix H and rejects that model using the finite ΔΓ↑ and the transmon temperature. The appendix K2 athermal alternative is likewise acknowledged. The circularity concern is limited to the rejection of that alternative: the transmon width used to reject it is itself inferred under the thermal-Boltzmann assumption, so the argument is somewhat question-begging. However, this step is auxiliary and does not determine the central δΔ conclusion, which has independent support. Accordingly, the paper is scored 2: no significant constructional circularity, with a minor caveat in the model-selection argument.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its load-bearing parameters are the fitted x_qp and the fitted x_array/x_small ratio, plus the assumed Boltzmann/QP-density constraints; the independent measurements of δΔ and T_qp keep the central fit from being a pure parameter sweep.

free parameters (3)
  • x_qp (common reduced quasiparticle density) = 3.6×10^-6 for Q1 one-parameter fit; Table III lists 3.1×10^-6 for the two-parameter fit
    The single free parameter in the main fit to ΔΓ↓(Φ_ext) under the assumed equal densities and fixed δΔ, T_qp.
  • x_array/x_small ratio = 1.2
    Second fit parameter when the equal-density constraint is relaxed; reported without uncertainty, and the text uses it to claim no appreciable imbalance.
  • T_qp (effective QP temperature) for Q2–Q4 = k_B T_qp/h = 1.2–2.1 GHz across Q1–Q4 in Appendix I
    For Q1, T_qp is independently determined from the transmon; for Q2–Q4 it is a free fit parameter together with x_qp.
axioms (4)
  • standard math The quasiparticle-induced transition-rate model of Eqs. (2)–(3), with BCS density of states and coherence factors, is correct for both the small junction and the array.
    This is the established microscopic model imported from Catelani et al. [21] and Glazman–Catelani [30]; the paper derives only the simplified array limit in Appendix B.
  • domain assumption The injected quasiparticle distribution is Boltzmann with a single effective temperature T_qp, Eq. (4), on both the low- and high-gap sides.
    Introduced in Sec. IV A to relax δE_qp ≪ ℏω01; the same data can be fit by an athermal two-chemical-potential distribution (Appendix K 2), so the Boltzmann form is a load-bearing modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Equal quasiparticle densities in the small junction and the array, x_array = x_small, is imposed in the central one-parameter fit.
    Sec. IV C imposes this constraint for the main fit; the paper then tests it with a second parameter and finds x_array/x_small ≈ 1.2, but the central conclusion is reached under the constraint.
  • domain assumption The ΔΓ02 peak at ω02/2π ≈ 1.72 GHz is the quasiparticle resonance ℏω02 = δΔ, and δΔ is also estimated from the film-thickness relation Δ(t) = Δ_bulk + a/t.
    Sec. IV B and Appendix J 2 use this to set δΔ/h = 1.72 GHz; the thickness estimate (1.8 GHz) provides an independent check, but the identification assumes the model's resonant structure.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34198 in / 9258 out tokens · 102600 ms · 2026-08-01T07:45:33.358466+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasiparticle-induced transitions in a fluxonium qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXCU4ZS7

@misc{pith2026260721329,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasiparticle-induced transitions in a fluxonium qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXCU4ZS7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21329}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Quasiparticles are a prominent decoherence source in superconducting qubits, but their effects are notoriously difficult to isolate in fluxonium. Unlike a transmon, fluxonium is insensitive to offset charge, precluding charge-parity detection of quasiparticle tunneling. We address this challenge by measuring the excitation and de-excitation rates in a fluxonium qubit under controlled on-chip quasiparticle injection. We show that to accurately model the external magnetic flux dependence of the quasiparticle-induced transition rates, it is necessary to account for the superconducting gap asymmetry across the Josephson junctions. A comparison between theory and experiment constrains the relative quasiparticle contributions of the junction array and the small junction and helps explain previously reported discrepancies between the bounds on the quasiparticle densities inferred for these two circuit elements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21329 by Benjamin Byrd, Gianluigi Catelani, Ivan V. Pechenezhskiy, Kesavan Manivannan, Maksim Litskevich, Pavel D. Kurilovich, Vladislav D. Kurilovich.

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: shows our measurement protocol and the rep￾resentative population curves that are obtained with it. Each elementary experiment presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (b) for the IFQ and in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: illustrates the key processes in this model. At the HFQ, where the qubit frequency is low, this model predicts a rate inversion because QPs that excite the qubit tunnel from the high-gap lead into a larger num￾ber of available final states, whereas QPs that de-excite the qubit tunnel to fewer final states. This asymmetry arises from the energy dependence of the BCS density of states. In contrast, the near… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.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

72 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    An upper bound onx qp is obtained by attributing all measured relaxation to QPs

  2. [2]

    3D” label denotes configurations with three-dimensional readout cavities, while “2D

    An upper bound onx qp is obtained from a model that includes QP loss together with competing loss channels. 3.x qp is inferred fromT 20 1 at Φ = 0.5 Φ0 by attribut- ing the measured|2⟩ → |0⟩decay to QPs since the symmetry leaves the relevant small-junction matrix element| ⟨0|sin( ˆφ/2)|2⟩|2 nonzero at the HFQ. In an early study, I. M. Popet al.[19] measur...

  3. [3]

    The qubit and resonator parameters are obtained from a fit to the qubit and resonator spectra shown in Fig

    Fluxonia Table II summarizes the parameters of the four flux- onium devices from four different chips studied in this work. The qubit and resonator parameters are obtained from a fit to the qubit and resonator spectra shown in Fig. 6, using the coupled system Hamiltonian [51]: ˆHsystem = ˆHqubit + ˆHres + ˆHint.(E1) Here, ˆHqubit is the qubit Hamiltonian ...

  4. [4]

    For brevity, we refer only to the trans- mon co-fabricated with qubit Q1 on the same chip, which was used to estimate the effective temperature of the QP energy distribution [Sec

    T ransmons All four chips with fluxonium qubits Q1–Q4 include transmons [52]. For brevity, we refer only to the trans- mon co-fabricated with qubit Q1 on the same chip, which was used to estimate the effective temperature of the QP energy distribution [Sec. IV]. The transmon parameters areE J /h= 7.278 GHz andE C/h= 0.293 GHz. Appendix F: Photon-mediated ...

  5. [5]

    Separation between clusters arises from the qubit-state-dependent dispersive shiftsχ i of the bare res- onator frequencyω res [Fig

    Three-level population dynamics Figure 11(a) shows the readout outcome clusters in theI–Qplane corresponding to the qubit states|0⟩,|1⟩, and|2⟩. Separation between clusters arises from the qubit-state-dependent dispersive shiftsχ i of the bare res- onator frequencyω res [Fig. 6]. In the three-level model, the averaged response of the resonatorS 21 is give...

  6. [6]

    4 using the three-level transition rate model

    External flux dependence of the transition rates In this section, we revisit the analysis of the data presented in Fig. 4 using the three-level transition rate model. In this dataset, the qubit was initialized only in|0⟩and|1⟩, which is not sufficient to fully constrain the three-level transition rate matrix. However, assum- ing that these initializations...

    2000

  7. [7]

    Their separation arises from the distinct dispersive shiftsχ 0,χ 1, andχ 2 of the bare resonator frequency, in good agreement with our simulations [Fig

    Leakage to higher excited states At the readout flux bias Φreadout ext = 0.5 Φ0, Figure 11(a) shows that the Q1 readout clearly resolves three clusters corresponding to|0⟩,|1⟩, and|2⟩. Their separation arises from the distinct dispersive shiftsχ 0,χ 1, andχ 2 of the bare resonator frequency, in good agreement with our simulations [Fig. 13]. We also simula...

  8. [8]

    local quasi-equilibrium

    Alternative quasiparticle energy distribution To entertain the alternative possibility that the appar- ent rate inversion arises from a strongly athermal QP energy distribution, characterized by different chemical potentials in the low- and high-gap leads and a narrow energy widthδE qp, we present simulations demonstrat- ing that a genuine rate inversion ...

  9. [9]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, et al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature 638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. A. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. D’Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, C. H. Liu, et al., Correlated charge noise and relax- ation errors in superconducting qubits, Nature594, 369 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    McEwen, L

    M. McEwen, L. Faoro, K. Arya, A. Dunsworth, T. Huang, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Fowler, F. Arute, J. C. Bardin, et al., Resolving catastrophic error bursts from cosmic rays in large arrays of superconducting qubits, Nature Physics18, 107 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    McEwen, K

    M. McEwen, K. C. Miao, J. Atalaya, A. Bilmes, A. Crook, J. Bovaird, J. M. Kreikebaum, N. Zobrist, E. Jeffrey, B. Ying, et al., Resisting high-energy impact events through gap engineering in superconducting qubit arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 240601 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    P. M. Harrington, M. Li, M. Hays, W. Van De Pontseele, D. Mayer, H. D. Pinckney, F. Contipelli, M. Gingras, B. M. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, et al., Synchronous de- tection of cosmic rays and correlated errors in supercon- ducting qubit arrays, Nature Communications16, 6428 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    V. D. Kurilovich, G. Roberts, L. S. Martin, M. McEwen, A. Eickbusch, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, J. Atalaya, A. Bilmes, J. M. Kreikebaum, et al., Correlated phase error bursts in a gap-engineered superconducting qubit array, Phys. Rev. X16, 021025 (2026)

    2026

  15. [15]

    Anthony-Petersen, A

    R. Anthony-Petersen, A. Biekert, R. Bunker, C. L. 23 Chang, Y.-Y. Chang, L. Chaplinsky, E. Fascione, C. W. Fink, M. Garcia-Sciveres, R. Germond, et al., A stress- induced source of phonon bursts and quasiparticle poi- soning, Nature Communications15, 6444 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Yelton, C

    E. Yelton, C. P. Larson, K. Dodge, K. Okubo, and B. L. T. Plourde, Correlated quasiparticle poisoning from phonon-only events in superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 123601 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    J. M. Martinis, Saving superconducting quantum pro- cessors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays, npj Quantum Information7, 90 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    V. Iaia, J. Ku, A. Ballard, C. P. Larson, E. Yelton, C. H. Liu, S. Patel, R. McDermott, and B. L. T. Plourde, Phonon downconversion to suppress correlated errors in superconducting qubits, Nature Communications13, 6425 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Marchegiani, L

    G. Marchegiani, L. Amico, and G. Catelani, Quasipar- ticles in superconducting qubits with asymmetric junc- tions, PRX Quantum3, 040338 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    H. D. Pinckney, T. McJunkin, A. W. Hunt, P. M. Harrington, H. P. Binney, M. Hays, Y. Jones-Alberty, K. Azar, F. Contipelli, R. DePencier Pi˜ nero,et al., Char- acterization of radiation-induced errors in superconduct- ing qubits protected with various gap-engineering strate- gies (2026), arXiv:2603.13460

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-coherence flux- onium qubit, Phys. Rev. X9, 041041 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    L. B. Nguyen, G. Koolstra, Y. Kim, A. Morvan, T. Chis- tolini, S. Singh, K. N. Nesterov, C. J¨ unger, L. Chen, Z. Pedramrazi, B. K. Mitchell, J. M. Kreikebaum, S. Puri, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Blueprint for a high-performance fluxonium quantum processor, PRX Quantum3, 037001 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    Somoroff, Q

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

    2023

  24. [24]

    Ardati, S

    W. Ardati, S. L´ eger, S. Kumar, V. N. Suresh, D. Nico- las, C. Mori, F. D’Esposito, T. Vakhtel, O. Buisson, Q. Ficheux, and N. Roch, Using bifluxon tunneling to protect the fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. X14, 041014 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    F. Wang, K. Lu, H. Zhan, L. Ma, F. Wu, H. Sun, H. Deng, Y. Bai, F. Bao, X. Chang, et al., High- coherence fluxonium qubits manufactured with a wafer- scale-uniformity process, Phys. Rev. Applied23, 044064 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single Cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science326, 113 (2009)

    2009

  27. [27]

    I. M. Pop, K. Geerlings, G. Catelani, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Coherent suppres- sion of electromagnetic dissipation due to superconduct- ing quasiparticles, Nature508, 369 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    U. Vool, I. M. Pop, K. Sliwa, B. Abdo, C. Wang, T. Brecht, Y. Y. Gao, S. Shankar, M. Hatridge, G. Cate- lani, et al., Non-Poissonian quantum jumps of a fluxo- nium qubit due to quasiparticle excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 247001 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Catelani, R

    G. Catelani, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Relaxation and frequency shifts induced by quasiparticles in superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. B 84, 064517 (2011)

    2011

  30. [30]

    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, et al., Granular alu- minium as a superconducting material for high- impedance quantum circuits, Nature Materials18, 816 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    D. G. Atanasova, I. Yang, T. H¨ onigl-Decrinis, D. Gusenkova, I. Pop, and G. Kirchmair, In situ tunable interaction with an invertible sign between a fluxonium and a post cavity, PRX Quantum6, 020318 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Watanabe, K

    S. Watanabe, K. Hida, K. Matsuura, and Y. Nakamura, Nondemolition fluorescence readout and high-fidelity un- conditional reset of a fluxonium qubit via dissipation en- gineering, Phys. Rev. A112, 012624 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Ateshian, M

    L. Ateshian, M. Hays, D. A. Rower, H. Zhang, K. Azar, R. Assouly, L. Ding, M. Gingras, H. Stickler, B. M. Niedzielski, et al., Temperature and magnetic-field de- pendence of energy relaxation in a fluxonium qubit (2025), arXiv:2507.01175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    K. Azar, L. Ateshian, M. T. Randeria, R. De- Pencier Pi˜ nero, J. M. Gertler, J. An, F. Contipelli, L. Ding, M. Gingras, K. Grossklaus, et al., Characteri- zation and comparison of energy relaxation in fluxonium qubits (2026), arXiv:2603.23636

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    T. F. Q. Larson, S. G. Jones, T. Kalm´ ar, P. A. Sanchez, S. P. Chitta, V. Verma, K. L. Genter, S. T. Gill, K. Cicak, S. W. Nam, et al., Localized quasiparticles in a fluxonium with quasi-two-dimensional amorphous kinetic inductors, Nature Communications17, 3022 (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    Zhuang, D

    Z.-T. Zhuang, D. Rosenstock, B.-J. Liu, A. Somoroff, V. E. Manucharyan, and C. Wang, Non-Markovian re- laxation spectroscopy of fluxonium qubits, Nature Com- munications17, 3209 (2026)

    2026

  37. [37]

    Connolly, P

    T. Connolly, P. D. Kurilovich, S. Diamond, H. Nho, C. G. L. Bøttcher, L. I. Glazman, V. Fatemi, and M. H. Devoret, Coexistence of nonequilibrium density and equi- librium energy distribution of quasiparticles in a super- conducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 217001 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    L. I. Glazman and G. Catelani, Bogoliubov quasiparticles in superconducting qubits, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes31 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    G. J. Dolan, Offset masks for lift-off photoprocessing, Appl. Phys. Lett.31, 337 (1977)

    1977

  40. [40]

    Yelton, C

    E. Yelton, C. P. Larson, V. Iaia, K. Dodge, G. La Magna, P. G. Baity, I. V. Pechenezhskiy, R. McDermott, N. A. Kurinsky, G. Catelani, et al., Modeling phonon-mediated quasiparticle poisoning in superconducting qubit arrays, Phys. Rev. B110, 024519 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Gustavsson, F

    S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, G. Catelani, J. Bylander, A. Ka- mal, J. Birenbaum, D. Hover, D. Rosenberg, G. Samach, A. P. Sears, et al., Suppressing relaxation in supercon- ducting qubits by quasiparticle pumping, Science354, 1573 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    Spiecker, P

    M. Spiecker, P. Paluch, N. Gosling, N. Drucker, S. Matityahu, D. Gusenkova, S. G¨ unzler, D. Rieger, I. Takmakov, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, R. Gebauer, O. Sander, G. Catelani, A. Shnirman, A. V. Ustinov, W. Wernsdorfer, Y. Cohen, and I. M. Pop, Two-level sys- tem hyperpolarization using a quantum Szilard engine, Nature Physics19, 1320 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Lisenfeld, A

    J. Lisenfeld, A. Bilmes, S. Matityahu, S. Zanker, M. Marthaler, M. Schechter, G. Sch¨ on, A. Shnirman, G. Weiss, and A. V. Ustinov, Decoherence spectroscopy 24 with individual two-level tunneling defects, Scientific Re- ports6, 23786 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    C. M. Quintana, Y. Chen, D. Sank, A. G. Petukhov, T. C. White, D. Kafri, B. Chiaro, A. Megrant, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, R. Graff, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, J. Y. Mu- tus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, P. Roushan, A. Shabani, V. N. Smelyanskiy, A. Vainsencher, J. Wen- ner, H. Neven, and J. M. Martinis,...

    2017

  45. [45]

    H. Sun, F. Wu, H.-S. Ku, X. Ma, J. Qin, Z. Song, T. Wang, G. Zhang, J. Zhou, Y. Shi, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, Characterization of loss mechanisms in a flux- onium qubit, Phys. Rev. Applied20, 034016 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    Houzet, K

    M. Houzet, K. Serniak, G. Catelani, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Photon-assisted charge-parity jumps in a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 107704 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    Diamond, V

    S. Diamond, V. Fatemi, M. Hays, H. Nho, P. D. Kurilovich, T. Connolly, V. R. Joshi, K. Serniak, L. Frun- zio, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Distinguishing parity-switching mechanisms in a superconducting qubit, PRX Quantum3, 040304 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    J. M. Martinis, M. Ansmann, and J. Aumentado, En- ergy decay in superconducting Josephson-junction qubits from nonequilibrium quasiparticle excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 097002 (2009)

    2009

  49. [49]

    Marchegiani and G

    G. Marchegiani and G. Catelani, Nonequilibrium regimes for quasiparticles in superconducting qubits with gap- asymmetric junctions, Commun. Phys.8, 120 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    H. Nho, T. Connolly, P. D. Kurilovich, S. Diamond, C. G. L. Bøttcher, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Recovery dynamics of a gap-engineered transmon after a quasiparticle burst, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 050601 (2026)

    2026

  51. [51]

    M. T. Randeria, T. M. Hazard, A. Di Paolo, K. Azar, M. Hays, L. Ding, J. An, M. Gingras, B. M. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, J. A. Grover, J. L. Yoder, M. E. Schwartz, W. D. Oliver, and K. Serniak, Dephasing in fluxonium qubits from coherent quantum phase slips, PRX Quan- tum5, 030341 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    D. S. Antonenko, P. D. Kurilovich, F. J. Matute- Ca˜ nadas, and L. I. Glazman, Effect of quasiparticles on the parameters of a gap-engineered transmon, Phys. Rev. B113, 054504 (2026)

    2026

  53. [53]

    K. Azar, M. Hays, R. DePencier Pi˜ nero, J. Gertler, F. Contipelli, M. Gingras, B. Niedzielski, M. Rande- ria, H. Stickler, K. L. Tiwari, J. Grover, M. Schwartz, W. Oliver, and K. Serniak, Imperfect suppression of quasiparticle-induced dissipation in fluxonium qubits, Oral presentation at the APS Global Physics Summit (2026), session MAR-B14, presentation 4

    2026

  54. [54]

    K. Azar, M. Hays, A. J. Kerman, J. A. Grover, W. D. Oliver, and K. Serniak, Numerical modeling of quasiparticle-induced dissipation in fluxonium qubits (2026), unpublished manuscript

    2026

  55. [55]

    Lecocq, I

    F. Lecocq, I. M. Pop, Z. Peng, I. Matei, T. Crozes, T. Fournier, C. Naud, W. Guichard, and O. Buisson, Junction fabrication by shadow evaporation without a suspended bridge, Nanotechnology22, 315302 (2011)

    2011

  56. [56]

    Lin, C.-H

    W.-E. Lin, C.-H. Ma, E.-H. Yeh, W.-L. Peng, Y.-S. Wei, H.-S. Goan, C.-S. Wu, C.-T. Ke, Y.-F. Chen, and C.- D. Chen, Suppression of quasiparticle poisoning to 10 −11 levels in superconducting qubits via infrared shielding (2026), arXiv:2606.07339

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Krause, G

    J. Krause, G. Marchegiani, L. Janssen, G. Cate- lani, Y. Ando, and C. Dickel, Quasiparticle effects in magnetic-field-resilient three-dimensional transmons, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 044063 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    X. Pan, Y. Zhou, H. Yuan, L. Nie, W. Wei, L. Zhang, J. Li, S. Liu, Z. H. Jiang, G. Catelani, L. Hu, F. Yan, and D. Yu, Engineering superconducting qubits to reduce quasiparticles and charge noise, Nature Communications 13, 7196 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    G. Zhu, D. G. Ferguson, V. E. Manucharyan, and J. Koch, Circuit QED with fluxonium qubits: Theory of the dispersive regime, Phys. Rev. B87, 024510 (2013)

    2013

  60. [60]

    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

  61. [61]

    C. H. Liu, D. C. Harrison, S. Patel, C. D. Wilen, O. Raf- ferty, A. Shearrow, A. Ballard, V. Iaia, J. Ku, B. L. T. Plourde, et al., Quasiparticle poisoning of superconduct- ing qubits from resonant absorption of pair-breaking pho- tons, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 017001 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    Guruswamy, D

    T. Guruswamy, D. J. Goldie, and S. Withington, Nonequilibrium superconducting thin films with sub-gap and pair-breaking photon illumination, Superconductor Science and Technology28, 054002 (2015)

    2015

  63. [63]

    P. B. Fischer and G. Catelani, Nonequilibrium quasipar- ticle distribution in superconducting resonators: Effect of pair-breaking photons, SciPost Physics17, 070 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    Holst, D

    T. Holst, D. Esteve, C. Urbina, and M. H. Devoret, Effect of a transmission line resonator on a small capacitance tunnel junction, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 3455 (1994)

    1994

  65. [65]

    M. C. Cassidy, A. Bruno, S. Rubbert, M. Irfan, J. Kammhuber, R. N. Schouten, A. R. Akhmerov, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Demonstration of an ac Josephson junction laser, Science355, 939 (2017)

    2017

  66. [66]

    Rafferty, S

    O. Rafferty, S. Patel, C. H. Liu, S. Abdullah, C. D. Wilen, D. C. Harrison, and R. McDermott, Spurious antenna modes of the transmon qubit (2021), arXiv:2103.06803

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    C. Wang, Y. Y. Gao, I. M. Pop, U. Vool, C. Axline, T. Brecht, R. W. Heeres, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, G. Catelani, L. I. Glazman, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Mea- surement and control of quasiparticle dynamics in a su- perconducting qubit, Nature Communications5, 5836 (2014)

    2014

  68. [68]

    J. Yang, T. J. Carroll, P. Mason, R. Schwartz, K. M. O’Hara, J. Lund, M. Gottschalk, T. Stephenson, L. H. Friedman, F. Yumiceva, et al., High-temporal-resolution measurements of the impacts of ionizing radiation on su- perconducting qubits (2026), arXiv:2602.23544

    arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Bista, M

    A. Bista, M. Thibodeau, K. Nie, K. Chow, B. K. Clark, and A. Kou, Readout-induced leakage of the fluxonium qubit, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 034058 (2026)

    2026

  70. [70]

    Singh, G

    S. Singh, G. Refael, A. Clerk, and E. Rosenfeld, Impact of josephson-junction array modes on fluxonium readout, PRX Quantum6, 040304 (2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    A. A. Chapple, B. M. Varbanov, A. McDonald, and A. Blais, Measurement-induced state transitions across the fluxonium qubit landscape (2026), arXiv:2604.08515

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    M. F. S. Zwanenburg, J. Hu, E. Y. Huang, F. Yilmaz, S. Singh, and C. K. Andersen, Experimental charac- terization and modeling of measurement-induced state- 25 transitions in a fluxonium superconducting qubit (2026), arXiv:2606.17866

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026