Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper shows that 3D flip-chip integration using indium-bump interconnects can host a high-impedance superconducting resonator coupled to a silicon MOS hole spin qubit, achieving strong spin-photon coupling and fast dispersive charge re

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

2026-08-02 15:18 UTC pith:6D6FPMPU

load-bearing objection Credible 3D-integrated spin-cQED device; strong-coupling claim rests on an unmeasured spin decoherence rate. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2604.25871 v2 pith:6D6FPMPU submitted 2026-04-28 cond-mat.mes-hall

3D integration of a hybrid quantum dot circuit-QED device for fast gate dispersive charge readout and coherent spin-photon coupling

Sebastien Granel , Frederic Gustavo , Jean-Luc Thomassin , Heimanu Niebojewski , Benoit Bertrand , Frederic Berger , Alain Gueugnot , Chafik Mhamdi
show 3 more authors
Etienne Dumur Romain Maurand Simon Zihlmann
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords 3D integrationindium bump interconnectscircuit QEDspin-photon couplingdispersive readoutsilicon MOS spin qubitsniobium nitride resonatorshole spin qubits
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.

Hybrid spin circuit-QED devices usually lose microwave quality when superconducting cavities and quantum dots share one chip, because the semiconductor stack adds loss. This paper argues that 3D integration—putting the NbN resonator on a sapphire chip and the silicon MOS double quantum dot on a separate chip, joined by dense indium-bump interconnects—removes that trade-off. On test resonators the interconnects preserve internal quality factors above 10^5 at single-photon powers; in a full device the cavity retains Q_i ≈ 10^4 and delivers gate-based dispersive charge readout with a signal-to-noise ratio of 100 in 300 ns. At finite magnetic field the device shows a spin-photon avoided crossing with coupling g_s/2π = 75 MHz, which the authors identify as strong spin-photon coupling. If it holds, this makes 3D integration a practical route to high-fidelity spin readout and photon-mediated entanglement between distant spin qubits.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a flip-chip assembly of two independently optimized chips—a sapphire chip carrying a 1.8 kΩ niobium-nitride resonator and a silicon chip carrying a foundry-compatible MOS hole double quantum dot—can reproduce the performance of monolithic spin cQED devices while avoiding the microwave losses their semiconductor stacks normally cause. Small 5 µm × 5 µm indium bumps, bonded at a 10 µm pitch, keep the added parasitic capacitance to about 2.5 fF, so the resonator retains a high characteristic impedance and large zero-point voltage fluctuations. In the assembled device the authors report a cavity internal quality factor of about 10^4, a charge-photon coupling g_c

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the high-impedance NbN resonator (≈1.8 kΩ): high characteristic impedance means large zero-point voltage fluctuations at the quantum dot gate, which is what makes both charge-photon and spin-photon couplings large. The indium bump interconnect is the enabler: placing it at a voltage anti-node adds negligible loss (Q_i ≈ 10^5 in test resonators), and keeping the bump small (5×5 µm², ~2.5 fF parasitic) preserves the resonator's impedance. The spin-photon coupling itself comes from the strong spin-orbit interaction in the silicon valence band, which gives hole spins an electric dipole so they can couple to the cavity field.

Load-bearing premise

The strong-coupling classification hinges on an estimated spin decoherence rate of a few megahertz that is not measured on this device; if the true rate were tens of megahertz or larger, the system would not be in the strong-coupling regime despite the observed avoided crossing.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the hole spin decoherence rate (e.g., Ramsey or echo on the flopping-mode spin, or the cavity linewidth at the spin-photon resonance) that gives γ_s ≥ g_s/2π = 75 MHz would invalidate the strong-coupling claim; likewise, a separate spin resonance measurement showing the avoided crossing occurs at a field inconsistent with the assumed g-factor would invalidate the spin-photon assignment.

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

If this is right

  • 3D integration becomes a viable platform for spin cQED: qubit chip and microwave chip can be optimized independently, removing the material-stack loss that limits monolithic devices.
  • Gate-based dispersive readout at SNR ≈ 100 in 300 ns makes single-shot and parity-based spin readout practical at speeds an order of magnitude faster than earlier gate-based readout.
  • Strong spin-photon coupling (g_s ≫ κ, γ_s) opens the route to coherent microwave-photon-mediated coupling between remote spin qubits.
  • Reducing bump size further should lower the parasitic capacitance and raise the achievable impedance, strengthening light-matter couplings.
  • The interconnect process is not limited to silicon MOS devices; the authors argue it can be applied to Ge/SiGe, Si/SiGe, III-V dots, and other hybrid cQED systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the estimated spin decoherence rate is confirmed by time-domain measurements, the g_s/κ,γ_s ratios imply that cavity-mediated two-qubit gates and photon-mediated entanglement between distant MOS qubits could be attempted without changing the device geometry.
  • The extrapolated t_min ≈ 0.54 ns suggests the readout bottleneck is no longer sensitivity but the cavity filling time (1/κ ≈ 33 ns); faster readout would therefore require increasing κ without losing Q_i, for example by engineering the coupling port.
  • A direct measurement of the spin g-factor in this device would independently confirm that the avoided crossing is the spin-photon resonance, since the resonance field was set using an assumed g-factor rather than a separate spin resonance measurement.
  • The observed Q_i reduction from ~10^5 in test resonators to ~10^4 in the full device suggests the residual loss is in the MOS chip or DC control lines; identifying it could push Q_i back up and further strengthen the coupling hierarchy.

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. This paper reports a 3D flip-chip integration process using indium bump interconnects between a sapphire chip carrying high-impedance NbN resonators and a silicon MOS chip hosting a hole double quantum dot. The authors characterize the interconnect yield and RF losses in test resonators, then fabricate a hybrid device with a 1.8 kΩ resonator coupled to a DQD. They report a cavity internal quality factor of about 10^4, a charge-photon coupling g_c/2π = 350 MHz, a dispersive charge readout SNR of about 100 in 300 ns, and a spin-photon vacuum Rabi splitting of 2g_s/2π = 150 MHz at B ≈ 250 mT, which they interpret as strong spin-photon coupling with g_s/2π = 75 MHz. The central claims are that 3D integration preserves high resonator Q and enables both fast gate-based readout and coherent spin-photon coupling.

Significance. If substantiated, this work is significant for hybrid spin circuit QED: it demonstrates that a semi-industrial MOS process can be combined with a high-impedance superconducting circuit on a separate substrate while preserving Q_i ≈ 10^4, and it reports a gate-based readout sensitivity that is genuinely fast. The avoided-crossing observation with g_s/2π = 75 MHz, if correctly attributed to a hole spin, would be an important step toward cavity-mediated remote spin entanglement. The paper is also transparent about unresolved technical issues, such as the remaining loss channels and the non-saturating low-photon Q_i of some test resonators, and the charge-photon coupling is cross-checked against an independent calculation. However, the strong-coupling classification currently rests on an unmeasured spin decoherence rate and an assumed g-factor; until those are addressed, the magnitude of the spin-photon advance remains uncertain.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, last paragraph] The central claim of strong spin-photon coupling (g_s/2π = 75 MHz) is justified by 'g_s ≫ κ, γ_s', but γ_s is only stated as 'estimated at γ_s ≈ few MHz' with no measurement, citation, or derivation. The observed vacuum Rabi splitting in Fig. 4(g) is a necessary signature, but not sufficient to establish strong coupling: a γ_s comparable to g_s would still produce a split response while placing the system outside the strong-coupling regime. Please provide an independent value of γ_s at the operating point (ε = 0, B ≈ 250 mT), or, if unavailable, explicitly qualify the 'strong coupling' claim and give a documented basis for the estimate.
  2. [Section V, spin-photon resonance paragraph] The resonance condition gμ_B B = f_r is set using an assumed g-factor; the paper does not report an independent measurement of the spin resonance frequency or the g-factor at this operating point. If the assumed g-factor or branch assignment is incorrect, the 75 MHz splitting could be misattributed to a different transition. Please state the g-factor used and, ideally, show a control measurement of the spin transition dispersion or cite a measurement on this specific MOS hole device at a similar detuning.
  3. [Section V, Figs. 4(a) and 4(g)] The comparison g_s ≫ κ uses the cavity linewidth κ_i/2π = 540 kHz and κ_c/2π = 3.33 MHz extracted at B = 0 (Fig. 4(a)). The paper does not report the cavity linewidth at B ≈ 250 mT, where field-dependent losses, including the spin-impurity dip seen in test resonators near 220 mT (Fig. 3(d)), could alter κ. Although g_s is large, the strong-coupling comparison should, at minimum, mention or justify the linewidth at the operating field rather than relying implicitly on the zero-field value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V, dispersive readout] The values g_c/2π = 350 MHz and t_c/h = 14.5 GHz are quoted without uncertainties. The lever-arm extraction is deferred to the supplementary information; adding error bars on the fitted parameters would strengthen the quantitative claims.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 4(d)] The SNR definition is clear in principle, but the noise bandwidth should be specified. Please clarify whether the Gaussian fit is applied to averaged or single-shot traces and whether the noise B is evaluated over the same integration window as the signal A.
  3. [Section IV] The paper acknowledges that the internal quality factor of type (iii) resonators does not saturate at very low photon number and that this 'needs further investigation.' This is an honest caveat, but a sentence on the possible origin (e.g., two-level systems or non-equilibrium quasiparticles) would help the reader assess the interconnect technology.
  4. [Abstract/Introduction] The 'record sensitivity' claim is compared only to Refs. [32,33]. A broader comparison with other gate-based spin readout results (e.g., Refs. [38,39]) would make the claim more robust.
  5. [Various] Minor typos: 'filed' for 'field', 'Futur work' for 'Future work', and 'completley' in the Fig. 4 caption. The reference formatting of [30] also appears nonstandard.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No constructional circularity: key couplings and readout metrics are measured directly; one unmeasured spin-decoherence estimate is a support gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central results are direct measurements rather than derived-from-input quantities. The charge-photon coupling g_c/2π = 350 MHz is extracted from a fit of the dispersive shift versus detuning (Fig. 4e) and then compared to an independent expectation α_G3 eV_zpf/(2h); the 5% discrepancy is attributed to a geometrically estimated 2.5 fF stray capacitance rather than absorbed into the fit. The spin-photon coupling g_s/2π = 75 MHz is read directly from the vacuum-Rabi splitting in the avoided crossing of Fig. 4(g). The charge-readout SNR is a time-domain measurement with a linear extrapolation for t_min; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., [26] for NbN resonators, [12] for 2D spin-photon coupling, [34] for spin-photon interaction theory) provide materials and context, but the decisive numbers in this manuscript are measured on this device and benchmarked against external results (Q_i, κ, g_c, g_s, SNR versus Refs. [32,33]). The one load-bearing quantity that lacks independent support is the spin decoherence rate γ_s ≈ few MHz in the last paragraph of §V; the strong-coupling conclusion g_s ≫ κ, γ_s depends on this unmeasured estimate, and the resonance condition gμ_B B = f_r assumes a g-factor rather than an independent spin-resonance measurement. These are correctness/support gaps, not circular reductions: the paper does not define γ_s or the g-factor from the same data used to claim strong coupling. Therefore no specific circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims are experimental demonstrations, so the 'axioms' are mostly the standard physical models used to interpret the data plus a few ad hoc assumptions introduced to connect measurement to theory. The fit parameters g_c and t_c are needed to describe the dispersive shift, and the estimated γ_s and 2.5 fF stray capacitance are hand-assigned values that support the strong-coupling and 5%-discrepancy statements.

free parameters (4)
  • Spin decoherence rate γ_s = few MHz (estimated)
    Used to assert g_s ≫ γ_s for the strong-coupling claim; no measurement or citation is provided in the text.
  • In-bump stray capacitance = 2.5 fF (estimated)
    Introduced ad hoc to explain the 5% deviation of measured g_c from theoretical expectation; not independently measured.
  • Interdot tunnel coupling t_c = t_c/h = 14.5 GHz (from dispersive shift fit)
    Extracted from fitting the dispersive shift versus detuning in Fig. 4(e); standard model parameter, but fit details are in supplementary.
  • Charge-photon coupling g_c = g_c/2π = 350 MHz (from dispersive shift fit)
    Extracted from the same dispersive-shift fit; compared to a separately computed expectation. It is the measured result, not an ad hoc input, but it is a fitted value.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Jaynes-Cummings model and dispersive approximation
    Used throughout §V to extract g_c and t_c from the cavity frequency shift and to interpret the avoided crossing; standard quantum optics, assumed without proof.
  • domain assumption Hole spin-orbit interaction gives an electric-dipole coupling to the cavity field
    Invoked in §V to justify spin-photon coupling; based on cited work [34,35] rather than a measurement in this paper.
  • domain assumption Spin resonance condition gμ_B B = f_r with g-factor ≈ 2
    Used to set the magnetic field for the avoided crossing in Fig. 4(g); the hole g-factor in this device is not explicitly measured.
  • domain assumption Resonator is an ideal 1.8 kΩ CPW mode with calculated V_zpf
    Used to compute the theoretical charge-photon coupling; assumes the MOS chip adds only the estimated bump capacitance.
  • domain assumption The additional loss in the full device is dominated by MOS chip and DC lines
    Stated in §V to explain Q_i ≈ 10^4 versus 2×10^5 for test resonators, without quantitative verification.
  • standard math SNR analysis assumes linear cavity response and steady-state for long integration times
    Used in §V to fit SNR(t_int) and extract t_min; the data support the linear regime.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13520 in / 17744 out tokens · 169290 ms · 2026-08-02T15:18:02.783810+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Hybrid circuit quantum electrodynamics (cQED) aims at coupling various quantum degrees of freedom, among which are spin and charge degrees of freedom in gate defined quantum dots, phonons or magnons... with quantized electromagnetic fields in superconducting microwave cavities to investigate fundamental physics questions or for quantum computation and simulation. However, low microwave losses, key for many hybrid cQED experiments, are challenging to achieve given the often exotic and/or complex material stacks (e.g. semiconducting material, ferromagnets, or piezoelectric materials) required to host the various quantum degrees of freedom. In this work, we present a 3D-integration process to overcome this challenge for semi-industrial silicon MOS spin qubits. The process is based on dense indium bump interconnects at a pitch of 10 $\mathrm{\mu}$m and superconducting thin films of Niobium Nitride (NbN). First, we report on DC and RF interconnect properties that demonstrate a high galvanic interconnection yield and internal quality factors above $10^{5}$ in the single photon regime for NbN resonators interrupted by a single indium bump interconnect. Eventually, we fabricated a 3D-integrated hybrid circuit quantum electrodynamics (cQED) device based on a semi-industrial MOS hole double quantum dot and a high impedance NbN resonator. For this device, we report a cavity internal quality factor above 10000 and demonstrate record sensitivity for gate-based dispersive readout of the charge degree of freedom with an SNR of 100 in 300 ns. Finally, we demonstrate strong spin-photon coupling of $g_{s}/2\pi$ = 75 MHz, which highlights the viability of 3D-integration for quantum dot based hybrid spin circuit quantum electrodynamics and opens to high-fidelity spin readout and microwave photon-based remote spin qubit entanglement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25871 by Alain Gueugnot, Benoit Bertrand, Chafik Mhamdi, Etienne Dumur, Frederic Berger, Frederic Gustavo, Heimanu Niebojewski, Jean-Luc Thomassin, Romain Maurand, Sebastien Granel, Simon Zihlmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Spin-cQED with bulk germanium spin qubits

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Bulk unstrained Ge hole double quantum dots are predicted to reach gs/2π ≳ 100 MHz spin-photon coupling with broader B-field tolerance than strained Ge heterostructures.

  2. Dispersive Readout of a SiMOS Quantum Dot Using a Flip-Chip Integrated Microwave Resonator

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Flip-chip indium-bump bonding connects a SiMOS double quantum dot to a superconducting aluminium resonator and enables dispersive charge readout, with SNR=1 estimated at around 0.3 ms integration time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    T. Frey, P. J. Leek, M. Beck, A. Blais, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraff, Dipole coupling of a double quantum dot to a microwave resonator, Physical Review Letters108, 046807 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    K. D. Petersson, L. W. McFaul, M. D. Schroer, M. Jung, J. M. Taylor, A. A. Houck, and J. R. Petta, Circuit quan- tum electrodynamics with a spin qubit, Nature490, 380 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    J. J. Viennot, M. C. Dartiailh, A. Cottet, and T. Kontos, Coherent coupling of a single spin to microwave cavity photons, Science349, 408 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Stockklauser, P

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

    2017

  6. [6]

    X. Mi, J. V. Cady, D. M. Zajac, P. W. Deelman, and J. R. Petta, Strong coupling of a single electron in silicon to a microwave photon, Science355, 156 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    De Palma, F

    F. De Palma, F. Oppliger, W. Jang, S. Bosco, M. Jan ´ ık, S. Calcaterra, G. Katsaros, G. Isella, D. Loss, and P. Scarlino, Strong hole-photon coupling in planar ge for probing charge degree and strongly correlated states, Nature Communications15, 10.1038/s41467-024-54520- 7 (2024)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54520- 2024

  8. [8]

    Jan ´ ık, K

    M. Jan ´ ık, K. Roux, C. Borja-Espinosa, O. Sagi, A. Baghdadi, T. Adletzberger, S. Calcaterra, M. Bo- tifoll, A. Garz´ on Manj´ on, J. Arbiol, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, I. M. Pop, and G. Katsaros, Strong charge-photon coupling in planar germanium enabled by granular aluminium superinductors, Nature Com- munications16, 10.1038/s41467-025-57252-4 (2025), htt...

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    X. Mi, M. Benito, S. Putz, D. M. Zajac, J. M. Taylor, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, A coherent spin-photon interface in silicon, Nature555, 599 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Samkharadze, G

    N. Samkharadze, G. Zheng, N. Kalhor, D. Brousse, A. Sammak, U. C. Mendes, A. Blais, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Strong spin-photon coupling in silicon, Science359, 1123 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    A. J. Landig, J. V. Koski, P. Scarlino, U. C. Mendes, A. Blais, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, A. Wallraff, K. En- 8 sslin, and T. Ihn, Coherent spin–photon coupling using a resonant exchange qubit, Nature560, 179 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    C. X. Yu, S. Zihlmann, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, V. P. Michal, N. Rambal, H. Niebojewski, T. Bedecarrats, M. Vinet, . Dumur, M. Filippone, B. Bertrand, S. De Franceschi, Y.-M. Niquet, and R. Maurand, Strong coupling between a photon and a hole spin in silicon, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy18, 741 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Borjans, X

    F. Borjans, X. G. Croot, X. Mi, M. J. Gullans, and J. R. Petta, Resonant microwave-mediated interactions between distant electron spins, Nature577, 195 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    Harvey-Collard, J

    P. Harvey-Collard, J. Dijkema, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, Coherent spin- spin coupling mediated by virtual microwave photons, Physical Review X12, 021026 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    Dijkema, X

    J. Dijkema, X. Xue, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Rimbach- Russ, S. L. de Snoo, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Cavity-mediated iswap os- cillations between distant spins, Nature Physics21, 168 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    F. D. Palma, E. Acinapura, W. Jang, F. Oppliger, R. Krishnan, A. Nigro, I. Zardo, and P. Scarlino, Low- loss frequency-tunable josephson junction array cavities on ge/sige heterostructures with a tapered etching ap- proach, , http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17812v1 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Foxen, J

    B. Foxen, J. Y. Mutus, E. Lucero, R. Graff, A. Megrant, Y. Chen, C. Quintana, B. Burkett, J. Kelly, E. Jeffrey, Y. Yang, A. Yu, K. Arya, R. Barends, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, T. Huang, P. Klimov, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, and J. M. Martinis, Qubit compatible...

    2017

  18. [18]

    Rosenberg, D

    D. Rosenberg, D. Kim, R. Das, D. Yost, S. Gustavs- son, D. Hover, P. Krantz, A. Melville, L. Racz, G. O. Samach, S. J. Weber, F. Yan, J. L. Yoder, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Oliver, 3D integrated supercon- ducting qubits, npj Quantum Information3, 1 (2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04116 arXiv:1706.04116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    C. R. Conner, A. Bienfait, H.-S. Chang, M.-H. Chou, . Dumur, J. Grebel, G. A. Peairs, R. G. Povey, H. Yan, Y. P. Zhong, and A. N. Cleland, Superconducting qubits in a flip-chip architecture, Applied Physics Letters118, 10.1063/5.0050173 (2021)

    doi:10.1063/5.0050173 2021

  20. [20]

    Kosen, H.-X

    S. Kosen, H.-X. Li, M. Rommel, D. Shiri, C. War- ren, L. Gr¨ onberg, J. Salonen, T. Abad, J. Bizn´ arov´ a, M. Caputo, L. Chen, K. Grigoras, G. Johansson, A. F. Kockum, C. Kriˇ zan, D. P. Lozano, G. J. Norris, A. Os- man, J. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, A. Ronzani, A. F. Roud- sari, S. Simbierowicz, G. Tancredi, A. Wallraff, C. Eich- ler, J. Govenius, and J. Byl...

    2022

  21. [21]

    Kosen, H.-X

    S. Kosen, H.-X. Li, M. Rommel, R. Rehammar, M. Ca- puto, L. Gr¨ onberg, J. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, A. F. Kockum, J. Bizn´ arov´ a, L. Chen, C. Kriˇ zan, A. Nylander, A. Os- man, A. F. Roudsari, D. Shiri, G. Tancredi, J. Govenius, and J. Bylander, Signal crosstalk in a flip-chip quantum processor, PRX Quantum5, 030350 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Holman, D

    N. Holman, D. Rosenberg, D. Yost, J. L. Yoder, R. Das, W. D. Oliver, R. McDermott, and M. A. Eriksson, 3D integration and measurement of a semiconductor double quantum dot with a high-impedance TiN resonator, npj Quantum Information7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Maurand, X

    R. Maurand, X. Jehl, D. Kotekar-Patil, A. Corna, H. Bo- huslavskyi, R. Lavi´ eville, L. Hutin, S. Barraud, M. Vinet, M. Sanquer, and Others, A CMOS silicon spin qubit, Na- ture communications7, 1 (2016)

    2016

  24. [24]

    N. Piot, B. Brun, V. Schmitt, S. Zihlmann, V. P. Michal, A. Apra, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, X. Jehl, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojewski, L. Hutin, M. Vinet, M. Urdampilleta, T. Meunier, Y. M. Niquet, R. Maurand, and S. D. Franceschi, A single hole spin with enhanced coherence in natural silicon, Nature Nanotechnology17, 1072 (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08637 ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Bassi, E

    M. Bassi, E. A. Rodriguez-Mena, B. Brun, S. Zihlmann, T. Nguyen, V. Champain, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojewski, R. Maurand, and Others, Optimal operation of hole spin qubits, Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    C. X. Yu, S. Zihlmann, G. Troncoso Fern´ andez-Bada, J.-L. Thomassin, F. Gustavo, ´E. Dumur, and R. Mau- rand, Magnetic field resilient high kinetic inductance superconducting niobium nitride coplanar waveguide resonators, Applied Physics Letters118, 054001 (2021), https://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0039945 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0039945

    doi:10.1063/5.0039945 2021

  27. [27]

    Megrant, C

    A. Megrant, C. Neill, R. Barends, B. Chiaro, Y. Chen, L. Feigl, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, P. J. J. O’Malley, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, Y. Yin, J. Zhao, C. J. Palmstrøm, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Planar superconducting resonators with internal quality factors above one million, Applied Physics Letters100, 113510 (2012)

    2012

  28. [28]

    A. Bahr, M. Boselli, B. Huard, and A. Bienfait, Improv- ing magnetic-field resilience of nbtin planar resonators using a hard-mask fabrication technique, Applied Physics Letters124, 10.1063/5.0191393 (2024)

    doi:10.1063/5.0191393 2024

  29. [29]

    C. G. L. Bøttcher, E. ¨Onder, T. Connolly, J. Zhao, C. Kvande, D. Q. Wang, P. D. Kurilovich, S. Vaitiek˙ enas, L. I. Glazman, H. X. Tang, and M. H. Devoret, A trans- mon qubit realized by exploiting the superconductor- insulator transition 10.48550/ARXIV.2510.19983 (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.19983 arXiv:2510.19983 [quant-ph]

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19983 2025

  30. [30]

    C. Roy, S. Frasca, and P. Scarlino, Magnetic-field- resilient high-impedance high-kinetic-inductance super- conducting resonators, Physical Review Applied25, 10.1103/76rr-lx9l (2026)

    doi:10.1103/76rr-lx9l 2026

  31. [31]

    Samkharadze, A

    N. Samkharadze, A. Bruno, P. Scarlino, G. Zheng, D. P. DiVincenzo, L. DiCarlo, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, High-Kinetic-Inductance Superconducting Nanowire Resonators for Circuit QED in a Magnetic Field, Phys. Rev. Applied5, 044004 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    Zheng, N

    G. Zheng, N. Samkharadze, M. L. Noordam, N. Kalhor, D. Brousse, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Rapid gate-based spin read-out in silicon using an on-chip resonator, Nature Nanotechnology14, 742 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    D. J. Ibberson, T. Lundberg, J. A. Haigh, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, S. Barraud, C.-M. Lee, N. A. Stel- mashenko, G. A. Oakes, L. Cochrane, J. W. Robin- son, M. Vinet, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, and L. A. Ibber- son, Large Dispersive Interaction between a CMOS Dou- ble Quantum Dot and Microwave Photons, PRX Quan- tum2, 020315 (2021), https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.003...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    V. P. Michal, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, S. Zihlmann, R. Mau- rand, Y.-M. Niquet, and M. Filippone, Tunable hole spin- photon interaction based on g-matrix modulation, Phys- ical Review B107, l041303 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Y. Fang, P. Philippopoulos, D. Culcer, W. A. Coish, and S. Chesi, Recent advances in hole-spin qubits OPEN AC- CESS, Materials for Quantum Technology3(2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Bonsen, P

    T. Bonsen, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Russ, J. Dijkema, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Probing the jaynes-cummings ladder with spin circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 137001 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    Renaud, C

    P. Renaud, C. Dubarry, N. Bresson, E. Deschaseaux, F. Fournel, C. Morales, K. Abadie, C. Thomas, and J. Charbonnier, Fine pitch nb-nb direct bonding for quantum applications, in2024 IEEE 74th Electronic Components and Technology Conference (ECTC)(IEEE, 2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    A. West, B. Hensen, A. Jouan, T. Tanttu, C.-H. Yang, A. Rossi, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, F. Hudson, A. Morello, D. J. Reilly, and A. S. Dzurak, Gate-based single-shot readout of spins in silicon, Nature Nanotechnology14, 437 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Urdampilleta, D

    M. Urdampilleta, D. J. Niegemann, E. Chanrion, B. Jadot, C. Spence, P.-A. Mortemousque, C. B¨ auerle, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, S. Barraud, R. Maurand, M. San- quer, X. Jehl, S. De Franceschi, M. Vinet, and T. Me- unier, Gate-based high fidelity spin readout in a cmos device, Nature Nanotechnology14, 737 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Chessari, E

    A. Chessari, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, V. Champain, S. Zihlmann, R. Maurand, Y.-M. Niquet, and M. Filippone, Unifying floquet theory of longitudi- nal and dispersive readout, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 037003 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Corrigan, B

    J. Corrigan, B. Harpt, N. Holman, R. Ruskov, P. Marciniec, D. Rosenberg, D. Yost, R. Das, W. D. Oliver, R. McDermott, C. Tahan, M. Friesen, and M. Eriksson, Longitudinal coupling between a si/si1−xgex double quantum dot and an off-chip TiN res- onator, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 064005 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Champain, S

    V. Champain, S. Zihlmann, A. Chessari, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojewski, E. Dumur, X. Jehl, V. Schmitt, B. Brun, C. Winkelmann, Y. Niquet, M. Filippone, S. De Franceschi, and R. Maurand, Parametric longitu- dinal coupling of a semiconductor charge qubit and an rf resonator, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 034067 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Harpt, J

    B. Harpt, J. Corrigan, N. Holman, P. Marciniec, D. Rosenberg, D. Yost, R. Das, R. Ruskov, C. Tahan, W. D. Oliver, R. McDermott, M. Friesen, and M. A. Eriksson, Ultra-dispersive resonator readout of a quantum-dot qubit using longitudinal coupling, npj Quantum Information11, 10.1038/s41534-025-00962-w (2025)

    doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00962-w 2025

  44. [44]

    Jarjat, B

    L. Jarjat, B. Hue, T. Philippe-Kagan, B. Neukel- mance, J. Craquelin, A. Th´ ery, C. Fruy, G. Abulizi, J. Becdelievre, M. M. Desjardins, T. Kontos, and M. R. Delbecq, Parametric drive of a double quantum dot in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 153603 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    MAILLIART, S

    O. MAILLIART, S. RENET, F. BERGER, A. GUEUG- NOT, S. BISOTTO, S. GOUT, L. MATHIEU, Y. GOIRAN, and T. CHAIRA, Assembly of very fine pitches infrared focal plane array with indium micro balls, in2019 22nd European Microelectronics and Pack- aging Conference & Exhibition (EMPC)(IEEE, 2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    Feautrier, E

    C. Feautrier, E. Deschaseaux, A. Gueugnot, J. Charbon- nier, A. Plihon, L. Dupr´ e, F. Henry, F. Berger, A. Pagot, S. Renet, O. Mailliart, and C. Thomas, Characterizations of indium interconnects for 3d quantum assemblies, in 2023 IEEE 73rd Electronic Components and Technology Conference (ECTC)(IEEE, 2023)

    2023