Kinetic Inductance Traveling Wave Parametric Amplifiers Near the Quantum Limit: Methodology and Characterization

A. Giachero; A. Nucciotti; J. Austermann; J. Gao; J. Hubmayr; J. Ullom; J. Wheeler; L. Howe; M. Vissers; P. Campana

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Kinetic Inductance Traveling Wave Parametric Amplifiers Near the Quantum Limit: Methodology and Characterization

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 10 nm NbTiN kinetic-inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifier reaches a minimum mean excess noise of 1.1 quanta, delivers over 25 dB true gain across more than 3 GHz, and is the first near-quantum-limited traveling-wave amplifier…

desk verdict The design and gain work are solid, but the 1.1-quanta noise headline does not survive the paper's own transmittivity arithmetic. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07706 v1 pith:LQJHK4IS submitted 2025-07-10 quant-ph

L. Howe , A. Giachero , M. Vissers , P. Campana , J. Wheeler , J. Gao , J. Austermann , J. Hubmayr

show 2 more authors

A. Nucciotti J. Ullom

This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords kineticinductancetravelingwaveparametricamplifierthree-wavemixingNbTiNinvertedmicrostripdispersionengineeringquantum-limitedsuperconductingreadout

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports a design-and-measurement method for traveling-wave parametric amplifiers built from the nonlinear kinetic inductance of a thin superconducting NbTiN film, and shows that such amplifiers can operate near the quantum limit. The fabricated inverted-microstrip devices, dispersion-engineered with stub-loaded cells and biased for three-wave mixing, deliver more than 25 dB of true gain over more than 3 GHz and add a minimum mean excess noise of 1.1 quanta on top of the unavoidable half-quantum vacuum floor. According to the paper, this is the first near-quantum-limited traveling-wave parametric amplifier, of either the kinetic-inductance or Josephson-junction type, demonstrated without magnetic shielding. The practical payoff, if the result holds, is a first-stage amplifier for multiplexed quantum and detector readout that is simpler to fabricate than Josephson arrays, tolerates input powers roughly three orders of magnitude higher, and is resilient to magnetic fields.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the current-dependent kinetic inductance of the superconducting NbTiN film, expanded as $L_k(I)=L_0[1+(I/I_{*,2})^2+(I/I_{*,4})^4+\cdots]$, with $I_{*,2}$ and $I_{*,4}$ the second- and fourth-order scaling currents. A dc bias current $I_{\mathrm{dc}}$ controls the relative strength of three-wave versus four-wave mixing through $\varepsilon=2I_{\mathrm{dc}}/(I_*^2+I_{\mathrm{dc}}^2)$, and the pump, signal, and idler must satisfy the 3WM phase-matching condition $\Delta\beta=\Delta k+\tfrac{1}{8}\xi I_{p0}^2(k_p-2k_s-2k_i)$, under which the gain grows as $\cosh^2(g_3x)$. The dispersion engineering is realized with a stub-loaded inverted-microstrip artificial transmission line: electromagnetic simulations of 320 cells extract the series inductance and stub capacitance per cell, cascaded ABCD matrices of the full device place the photonic bandgap at the desired pump frequency, and a coupled-mode-equation solver with additional modes and reverse propagation predicts the gain and parasitic mixing before fabrication.

What would settle it

Measure the shot-noise tunnel junction's package return loss in situ at 50 mK over 9.5-12 GHz, where the room-temperature $|S_{11}|$ shows a feature near $-12$ dB; if the cold return loss differs, the assumed $\eta_0 = 0.93$ transmittivity, and with it the 1.1-quanta excess noise, shifts. A cross-check with a different calibrated noise source, such as a variable-temperature matched load, would confirm or contradict the floor independently.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a 10 nm NbTiN inverted-microstrip kinetic-inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifier, used as the first amplifier in a cryogenic readout chain, performs at near-quantum-limited noise while exceeding Josephson-junction TWPAs in dynamic range and magnetic-field tolerance. The device is a stub-loaded artificial transmission line with periodic 48-ohm and 78-ohm cells that creates a photonic bandgap for broadband phase matching, biased with a dc current so that three-wave mixing dominates. Measured at the amplifier die, the minimum mean excess noise is 1.1 quanta once the gain is above roughly 20 dB; the device sustains true gain, on/off gain corrected for insertion loss, above 25 dB across more than 3 GHz, and the noise bandwidth widens when the pump is positively detuned to compensate insertion loss. The first- and third-order input compression intercepts are -68 dBm and -55 dBm. Because performance is unchanged with the magnetic shield removed after cooldown, the paper claims the first near-quantum-limited traveling-wave parametric amplifier demonstrated without magnetic shielding.

Load-bearing premise

The 1.1-quanta floor rests on the calibrated noise source's package transmitting identically at 50 mK as at room temperature, on the amplifier's excess noise splitting evenly between signal and idler, and on the following amplifier's noise being negligible at high gain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A kinetic-inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifier can serve as the first-stage amplifier in a cryogenic readout chain with near-quantum-limited noise, more than 25 dB true gain, and more than 3 GHz bandwidth, with no magnetic shield around the first amplifier.
Readout chains for multiplexed qubit and superconducting-detector arrays can tolerate input signals roughly three orders of magnitude larger than Josephson-junction TWPAs allow, easing filtering and thermalization requirements.
Positive detuning of the pump frequency is a practical tuning knob: it compensates the KIT's insertion loss, flattens the true-gain profile, and widens the band over which the amplifier stays within a factor of two of its noise floor.
Because gain per unit length grows with sheet kinetic inductance for a fixed 50-ohm impedance, continuing to raise the sheet inductance while thinning the film yields shorter devices for the same gain target, which is expected to improve fabrication yield.
The first simultaneous first- and third-order compression-point measurement of a KIT gives an IIP3 of -55 dBm, more than 13 dB above IIP1, which matters for crosstalk-limited multiplexing factors in dense readout systems.

Reading between the lines

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

A future noise measurement that separates signal and idler contributions would test the even-split assumption used in the reference-plane transform and could revise the 1.1-quanta floor.
If the 1.1-quanta floor is set inside the KIT itself, moving the bias-tee and coupler losslessly on-chip would bring the externally referenced noise down toward that floor, not below it; the remaining gap to the 0.5-quantum ideal would have to come from internal loss or pump noise.
Since the same NbTiN film supports both three-wave and four-wave mixing, the design-and-noise methodology should transfer to four-wave-mixing KITs, where the pump participates in the lowest-order intermodulation product and the IIP3/IIP1 headroom is expected to differ.
The shielding-free operation suggests that broadband traveling-wave kinetic-inductance amplifiers should inherit the Tesla-scale magnetic-field resilience already shown in resonant kinetic-inductance amplifiers, which would open axion-search and other in-magnet readout chains.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The KIT paper from Howe et al. is worth reading, but not for the headline number. The 1.1-quanta system noise figure is not reproducible from the paper's own calibration data. The stress-test note is correct: Sec. IV.C gives the bias tee and directional coupler as -0.2 dB and -0.3 dB, then sets η1 = 0.94 (-0.5 dB). Ten to the -0.5/10 is 0.891, not 0.94. Appendix F makes the same error for η0: -0.1, -0.3, and -0.2 dB sum to -0.6 dB, i.e. 0.871, not 0.93. The quoted values look like a linear '1 minus dB/100' approximation. Since η0 and η1 scale the input noise directly, every excess-noise curve in Figs. 6(b) and 7(b) is off by roughly 5-13%, and the sign can go either way. The actual minimum could be below or above the quantum limit. As it stands, the central claim is unverified.

That is a shame, because the rest of the paper is genuinely good. The inverted-microstrip topology and 10 nm NbTiN film are real engineering advances: lower pump power, shorter device, no short-to-ground failure mode. The cryostat work is careful: true gain separated from on/off gain, insertion loss removed with a through reference, SNTJ calibration with reference-plane analysis. The first simultaneous IIP1/IIP3 measurement on a KIT is useful, and the twpasolver code is a good community resource. The model-to-hardware correlation for impedance and gain is strong, and the no-shield operation is a practical result that matters for detector readout.

Other soft spots, in proportion: no uncertainty is quoted for the 1.1-quanta value; the abstract calls it "system noise" while the body defines it as excess noise above the 0.5-quanta vacuum floor (so the total is ~1.6); and the even signal/idler split in Eq. (18) is assumed without direct evidence. The room-temperature SNTJ package S11 assumption is flagged by the authors themselves and is a smaller effect. None of these are fatal, and the dB conversion error is a fixable math slip, not a judgment call.

This paper deserves a serious referee. The fabrication and measurement methodology are too good to desk-reject, and the noise issue is fixable with a recomputation. I would send it out, with the explicit request that the authors re-derive η0 and η1 and restate the headline with uncertainties. After that, it could be a solid contribution. As is, I would not cite the noise number.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a design-and-characterization study of kinetic-inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifiers (KITs) based on 10-nm NbTiN in an inverted-microstrip geometry. The authors describe an electromagnetic-simulation workflow that extracts unit-cell L and C from test structures, a coupled-mode-equation solver (twpasolver) that includes extra modes and reverse propagation, and a device that shows >25 dB gain, >3 GHz bandwidth, and a quoted minimum mean excess noise of 1.1 quanta when operated as the first-stage amplifier. The noise measurement uses an SNTJ calibrated source with a two-stage reference-plane analysis, and the paper claims this is the first near-quantum-limited TWPA demonstrated without magnetic shielding. The manuscript also reports improved dynamic range (IIP1 = -68 dBm, IIP3 = -55 dBm) and magnetic-field resilience relative to Josephson-junction TWPAs.

Significance. If the 1.1-quanta excess-noise result survives correction, this is a valuable advance: it would place NbTiN KITs on par with JTWPA noise performance while retaining their well-known advantages in power handling, fabrication simplicity, and resilience to magnetic fields. The paper is also strong methodologically: true gain is separated from on/off gain via a cryogenic through reference, insertion loss is removed, noise is calibrated with an SNTJ, and the simulation toolchain is released as open-source software. These strengths are real and should be credited. However, the headline noise number is not yet a settled measurement because the transmittivity arithmetic that sets the calibration scale is internally inconsistent, and the abstract mislabels the excess noise as system noise.

major comments (2)

[Sec. IV.C, Appendix F, Eqs. (17)-(18)] The transmittivity values used to calibrate the noise measurement are arithmetically inconsistent. Sec. IV.C lists the bias tee and directional coupler as -0.2 dB and -0.3 dB and then states η1 = 0.94; the correct linear product is 10^(-0.5/10) = 0.891, not 0.94. Appendix F repeats the error: it lists -0.25 dB and -0.2 dB for the same components and states η1 = 0.95, whereas the correct product is 0.902. For η0, the stated components (-0.1 dB dc block, -0.3 dB isolator, -0.2 dB lowpass) give 10^(-0.6/10) = 0.871, not the quoted 0.93. Because the input noise in Eq. (17) is Nin = η0η1 e|V|/2, and η1 enters directly into the reference-plane transform of Eq. (18), this arithmetic error changes the fitted excess noise and the Fig. 7(b) curve by several percent. The authors must recompute the reported 1.1-quanta value and all derived noise quantities with correctly converted dB values, and they should reconcile the conflicting component-loss listings between Sec. IV.C and Appendix F.
[Abstract and Sec. IV.B, Fig. 6(b)] The abstract states that the devices "achieve ultimate system noise levels of 1.1 quanta," but the body and Fig. 6(b) define the measured quantity as the system excess noise, with the total system noise being the excess noise plus the quantum limit of 0.5 quanta. By the paper's own definition, the system noise is approximately 1.6 quanta, not 1.1. The wording in the abstract should be corrected to "excess noise" or the definition should be changed so that the headline number matches the reported measurement.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (17)] The neglect of the HEMT-added-noise term in the high-gain, low-HEMT-noise limit is asserted but not quantified; a brief estimate of the residual HEMT contribution referred to the KIT input would strengthen the validity claim.
[Appendix F] The assumption that the room-temperature SNTJ package S11 (with |S11| ~ -12 dB between 9.5 and 12 GHz) is unchanged at 50 mK is acknowledged but not quantified; a sentence estimating the resulting uncertainty in η0 would be helpful.
[Sec. IV.C vs Appendix F] The component insertion losses for the bias tee and directional coupler are given as -0.2/-0.3 dB in Sec. IV.C and -0.25/-0.2 dB in Appendix F; these two listings are mutually inconsistent and should be reconciled.
[Abstract] There is a grammatical error in "simpler fabrication and able to providing three orders of magnitude higher dynamic range"; the phrase should be revised.
[Sec. IV.B] The text refers to kB as the "Stefan-Boltzmann constant"; the Boltzmann constant is the correct name.
[Fig. 6(b)] The y-axis label uses N^s_{1,ex} (excess noise) while the caption refers to "system noise"; aligning the terminology would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the design parameters are extracted from co-fabricated test structures and the noise/gain results are verified by external SNTJ and VNA calibrations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Predicted amplifier gain uses L and C extracted from electromagnetic fits to test structures (Appendix A, Appendix D) and I* from a phase-shift fit to Eq. (15); the measured gain is an independent on/off transmission measurement corrected by insertion loss measured with cryogenic switches (Sec. IV.A), so the model-to-hardware comparison is not a fit renamed as a prediction. The headline noise value is extracted from a shot-noise tunnel junction whose output is set by the physical bias voltage through the asymptotic formula N_SNTJ = e|V|/(2ℏω) (Eq. 16), with system gain and excess noise determined as the slope and intercept of the same linear fit in Eq. (17). No parameter is fitted to the reported 1.1-quanta value, and the reference-plane transform of Eq. (18) is a standard cascade formula supported by independent calibration literature [50]. The η values are measured component transmittivities, not fitted outputs. Self-citations to [20] and [36] provide the CME framework and measurement formalism, but the central claims are verified against independent benchmarks (SNTJ, VNA, cryogenic switches) and the simulation code is public (twpasolver, GitHub). No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice. A non-circular correctness caveat should be flagged explicitly: Sec. IV.C quotes bias-tee and directional-coupler transmittivities of -0.2 dB and -0.3 dB and then sets η1 = 0.94 (-0.5 dB), whereas the correct product is 10^(-0.5/10) = 0.891; Appendix F lists -0.25 dB and -0.2 dB and concludes η1 = 0.95, whereas the product is 0.902. Similarly, η0 = 0.93 is inconsistent with the stated -0.6 dB total insertion loss (correct value 0.871). This arithmetic inconsistency would shift the reported noise floor by a few percent and should be corrected, but it is a measurement-calculation error, not a circular reduction. Appendix F's stated assumption that the room-temperature SNTJ package S11 is unchanged at 50 mK is another non-circular uncertainty already acknowledged by the authors.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The performance claims rest on standard parametric amplifier theory, empirically extracted material parameters (L0, c, I*) with independent test-structure evidence, and several explicitly stated measurement-calibration assumptions. No exotic entities are introduced. The largest unverified inputs are the noise-analysis assumptions (items 6-8).

free parameters (3)

I* (scaling currents) = I*,2 = 2.14 mA, I*,4 = 1.95 mA (measured); 2 mA used in design
Extracted from dc-bias-dependent phase fits to Eq. (15); sets the gain per unit length in Eq. (9) and the Idc/Ic operating point. Not fitted to the final measured gain.
Sheet kinetic inductance L0 = 30 pH/sq design value; measured 28-36 pH/sq across runs
Input to the ABCD/CME design (Table I); measured independently on dc and resonator test structures (Appendix D), so it does not come from fitting the amplifier gain.
Specific capacitance c and permittivity epsilon_r = c = 0.81-0.9 fF/um^2; epsilon_r = 8.1-9.6
Sets the stub lengths for the 48/78-ohm cells; measured from lumped resonators (Appendix D); design splits bracket process spread rather than being tuned to the measured device response.

assumptions (8)

standard math Coupled-mode equations (CME) and harmonic balance for three-wave mixing in a nonlinear transmission line (Eqs. 4-6)
Taken from [20] and Boyd's handbook; standard parametric amplifier theory used to predict gain.
domain assumption Kinetic inductance nonlinearity Lk(I) = L0[1+(I/I*,2)^2+(I/I*,4)^4] with current-dependent prefactors epsilon and xi (Eqs. 1-3)
From Anlage/Beasley and Zmuidzinas; assumes even-power current dependence and frequency-independent scaling currents.
domain assumption Superconductivity breaks down when current exceeds I*, limiting achievable delta-L to at most 0.027 (Eq. 7 and following text)
Basis for the claim that Ic about I*/3 limits practical gain per unit length; not independently re-derived.
domain assumption Lumped-element approximation of the stub-loaded IMS unit cell is valid for frequencies up to about 25 GHz (stub resonance around 250 GHz)
Justifies the ABCD matrix of Eq. (12) and the low-frequency extraction of L and C in Appendix A.
domain assumption The 3WM phase-matching condition of Eq. (4) including the pump-modulation term proportional to xi Ip0^2 (kp - 2ks - 2ki)
Adopted from [20]; the paper does not re-derive the phase-modulation coefficient.
domain assumption Noise extraction model of Eq. (17): the HEMT-added-noise term is negligible in the high-KIT-gain, low-HEMT-noise limit
Explicitly assumed in Sec. IV.B; violation would falsely attribute HEMT noise to the KIT.
domain assumption Excess noise is split evenly between signal and idler in Eq. (18) when moving the reference plane
Stated as an assumption in Sec. IV.C; no justification or sensitivity analysis is given.
domain assumption SNTJ package transmittivity measured at room temperature is unchanged at 50 mK
Appendix F: 'we are forced to assume this does not change appreciably upon cooldown'; supports the eta0 estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetic Inductance Traveling Wave Parametric Amplifiers Near the Quantum Limit: Methodology and Characterization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LQJHK4IS

@misc{pith2026250707706,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetic Inductance Traveling Wave Parametric Amplifiers Near the Quantum Limit: Methodology and Characterization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LQJHK4IS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07706}
}

abstract

We present a detailed simulation and design framework for realizing traveling wave parametric amplifiers (TWPAs) using the nonlinear kinetic inductance of disordered superconductors -- in our case niobium-titanium-nitride (NbTiN). These kinetic inductance TWPAs (KITs) operate via three-wave mixing (3WM) to achieve high broadband gain and near-quantum-limited (nQL) noise. Representative fabricated devices -- realized using an inverted microstrip (IMS), dispersion-engineered, artificial transmission line -- demonstrate power gains above 25 dB, bandwidths beyond 3 GHz, and achieve ultimate system noise levels of 1.1 quanta even when operated with no magnetic shielding. These performance metrics are competitive with state-of-the-art Josephson-junction-based TWPAs but involve simpler fabrication and able to providing three orders of magnitude higher dynamic range ($IIP_1 = -68$ dBm, $IIP_3 = -55$ dBm), and high magnetic field resilience -- making KITs an attractive technology for highly multiplexed readout of quantum information and superconducting detector systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07706 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Unit cell impedance simulation results as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Simulating a full device. Parameters are given in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. KIT characterization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Fabricated KIT photos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Measuring the system noise with a KIT FSA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Moving the reference plane via transforming the ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Multi-stage Quantum Amplifier Readout Chain
quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A two-stage KTWPA readout chain achieves <2 quanta added noise over 1 GHz bandwidth with ~1000x less power than semiconductor-amplifier chains.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Kaufman, T

R. Kaufman, T. White, M. I. Dykman, A. Iorio, G. Ster- ling, S. Hong, A. Opremcak, A. Bengtsson, L. Faoro, J. C. Bardin, T. Burger, R. Gasca, and O. Naaman, Joseph- son parametric amplifier with Chebyshev gain profile and high saturation, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 054058 (2023)

work page 2023
[2]

J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, K. M. Sundqvist, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Strong environmen- tal coupling in a Josephson parametric amplifier, Applied Physics Letters 104, 263513 (2014)

2014
[3]

H. R. Nilsson, L. Chen, G. Tancredi, R. Rehammar, D. Shiri, F. Nilsson, A. Osman, V. Shumeiko, and P. Dels- ing, A small footprint travelling-wave parametric ampli- fier with a high Signal-to-Noise Ratio improvement in a wide band, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16366 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[4]

J. Wang, K. Peng, J. M. Knecht, G. D. Cunningham, A. E. Lombo, A. Yen, D. A. Zaidenberg, M. Gingras, B. M. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, et al. , High-Efficiency, Low-Loss Floquet-mode Traveling Wave Parametric Am- plifier, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11812 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[5]

Walter, P

T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Mag- nard, A. Potoˇ cnik, Y. Salath´ e, M. Pechal, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Rapid High- Fidelity Single-Shot Dispersive Readout of Superconduct- ing Qubits , Phys. Rev. Appl. 7, 054020 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

B. Abdo, O. Jinka, N. T. Bronn, S. Olivadese, and M. Brink, High-Fidelity Qubit Readout Using Interfer- ometric Directional Josephson Devices , PRX Quantum 2, 040360 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Lecocq, L

F. Lecocq, L. Ranzani, G. A. Peterson, K. Cicak, X. Y. Jin, R. W. Simmonds, J. D. Teufel, and J. Aumentado, Efficient Qubit Measurement with a Nonreciprocal Mi- crowave Amplifier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 020502 (2021)

work page 2021
[8]

K. M. Backes, D. A. Palken, S. A. Kenany, B. M. Brubaker, S. Cahn, A. Droster, G. C. Hilton, S. Ghosh, H. Jackson, S. K. Lamoreaux, et al., A quantum enhanced search for dark matter axions , Nature 590, 238 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 54 references

[9]

A. P. Quiskamp, G. R. Flower, S. Samuels, B. T. McAllis- ter, P. Altin, E. N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, and M. E. To- bar, Near-quantum-limited axion dark matter search with the ORGAN experiment around 26 µeV, Phys. Rev. D 111, 095007 (2025)

2025
[10]

X. Bai, M. J. Jewell, J. Echevers, K. van Bibber, A. Droster, M. H. Esmat, S. Ghosh, E. Graham, H. Jackson, C. Laffan, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. F. Leder, K. W. Lehnert, S. M. Lewis, R. H. Maruyama, R. D. 11 Nath, N. M. Rapidis, E. P. Ruddy, M. Silva-Feaver, M. Simanovskaia, S. Sing...

2025
[11]

Metelmann, O

A. Metelmann, O. Lanes, T. Chien, A. McDonald, M. Hatridge, and A. Clerk, Quantum-limited amplifica- tion without instability , arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.00024 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[12]

Heinsoo, C

J. Heinsoo, C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Krinner, T. Walter, Y. Salath´ e, S. Gasparinetti, J.-C. Besse, A. Potoˇ cnik, A. Wallraff,et al. , Rapid High-fidelity Mul- tiplexed Readout of Superconducting Qubits , Phys. Rev. Applied 10, 034040 (2018)

2018
[13]

A. Remm, S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, G. J. Norris, C. Eichler, and A. Wall- raff, Intermodulation distortion in a Josephson traveling- wave parametric amplifier , Physical Review Applied 20, 034027 (2023)

2023
[14]

Youssefi, S

A. Youssefi, S. Kono, M. Chegnizadeh, and T. J. Kippen- berg, A squeezed mechanical oscillator with millisecond quantum decoherence, Nature Physics 19, 1697 (2023)

2023
[15]

Fesquet et al., Perspectives of microwave quantum key distribution in the open air , Phys

F. Fesquet et al., Perspectives of microwave quantum key distribution in the open air , Phys. Rev. A 108, 032607 (2023), arXiv:2203.05530 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Braggio, G

C. Braggio, G. Cappelli, G. Carugno, N. Crescini, R. Di Vora, M. Esposito, A. Ortolan, L. Planat, A. Ranadive, N. Roch, et al. , A haloscope amplification chain based on a traveling wave parametric amplifier , Rev. Sci. Instrum. 93, 094701 (2022)

2022
[17]

Bartram, T

C. Bartram, T. Braine, R. Cervantes, N. Crisosto, N. Du, G. Leum, P. Mohapatra, T. Nitta, L. J. Rosenberg, G. Rybka, et al. , Dark matter axion search using a Josephson Traveling wave parametric amplifier , Review of Scientific Instruments 94, 044703 (2023)

2023
[18]

J. M. Navarro and B.-K. Tan, Optimising the design of a broadband Josephson junction TWPA for axion dark matter search experiments , Proc. of SPIE 11881, 1188115 (2021)

2021
[19]

Ramanathan, N

K. Ramanathan, N. Klimovich, R. Basu Thakur, B. H. Eom, H. G. Leduc, S. Shu, A. D. Beyer, and P. K. Day, Wideband Direct Detection Constraints on Hidden Pho- ton Dark Matter with the QUALIPHIDE Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 231001 (2023)

2023
[20]

Malnou, M

M. Malnou, M. Vissers, J. Wheeler, J. Aumentado, J. Hubmayr, J. Ullom, and J. Gao, Three-Wave Mixing Kinetic Inductance Traveling-Wave Amplifier with Near- Quantum-Limited Noise Performance, PRX Quantum 2, 010302 (2021)

2021
[21]

M. R. Vissers, R. P. Erickson, H.-S. Ku, L. Vale, X. Wu, G. C. Hilton, and D. P. Pappas, Low-noise kinetic induc- tance traveling-wave amplifier using three-wave mixing , Applied Physics Letters 108, 012601 (2016)

2016
[22]

Faramarzi, R

F. Faramarzi, R. Stephenson, S. Sypkens, B. H. Eom, H. LeDuc, and P. Day, A 4–8 GHz kinetic inductance traveling-wave parametric amplifier using four-wave mix- ing with near quantum-limited noise performance , APL Quantum 1, 036107 (2024)

2024
[23]

Vaartjes, A

A. Vaartjes, A. Kringhøj, W. Vine, T. Day, A. Morello, and J. J. Pla, Strong microwave squeezing above 1 Tesla and 1 Kelvin , Nature Communications 15, 4229 (2024)

2024
[24]

Frasca, C

S. Frasca, C. Roy, G. Beaulieu, and P. Scarlino, Three- wave-mixing quantum-limited kinetic inductance para- metric amplifier operating at 6 T near 1 K , Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 024011 (2024)

2024
[25]

M. Xu, R. Cheng, Y. Wu, G. Liu, and H. X. Tang, Mag- netic field-resilient quantum-limited parametric amplifier, PRX Quantum 4, 010322 (2023)

2023
[26]

Ho Eom, P

B. Ho Eom, P. K. Day, H. G. LeDuc, and J. Zmuidz- inas, A wideband, low-noise superconducting amplifier with high dynamic range , Nature Physics 8, 623 (2012)

2012
[27]

Macklin, K

C. Macklin, K. O’Brien, D. Hover, M. E. Schwartz, V. Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. D. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, A near–quantum-limited Josephson traveling-wave para- metric amplifier , Science 350, 307 (2015)

2015
[28]

J. Y. Qiu, A. Grimsmo, K. Peng, B. Kannan, B. Lien- hard, Y. Sung, P. Krantz, V. Bolkhovsky, G. Calusine, D. Kim, et al. , Broadband squeezed microwaves and am- plification with a Josephson travelling-wave parametric amplifier, Nature Physics 19, 706 (2023)

2023
[29]

Gaydamachenko, C

V. Gaydamachenko, C. Kissling, and L. Gr¨ unhaupt, An rf-SQUID-based traveling-wave parametric amplifier with-84 dBm input saturation power across more than one octave bandwidth , arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02489 (2025)

2025
[30]

Simbierowicz, V

S. Simbierowicz, V. Vesterinen, J. Milem, A. Lin- tunen, M. Oksanen, L. Roschier, L. Gr¨ onberg, J. Has- sel, D. Gunnarsson, and R. E. Lake, Characterizing cryogenic amplifiers with a matched temperature-variable noise source, Review of Scientific Instruments 92, 034708 (2021)

2021
[31]

Malnou, B

M. Malnou, B. Miller, J. Estrada, K. Genter, K. Cicak, J. Teufel, J. Aumentado, and F. Lecocq, A traveling- wave parametric amplifier and converter , arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19476 (2024)

2024
[32]

Ranadive, B

A. Ranadive, B. Fazliji, G. L. Gal, G. Cappelli, G. But- seraen, E. Bonet, E. Eyraud, S. B¨ ohling, L. Planat, A. Metelmann, et al. , A traveling wave parametric am- plifier isolator , arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19752 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[33]

Ranadive, M

A. Ranadive, M. Esposito, L. Planat, E. Bonet, C. Naud, O. Buisson, W. Guichard, and N. Roch, Kerr reversal in Josephson meta-material and traveling wave parametric amplification, Nature communications 13, 1737 (2022)

2022
[34]

S. Shu, N. Klimovich, B. H. Eom, A. D. Beyer, R. B. Thakur, H. G. Leduc, and P. K. Day, Nonlinearity and wide-band parametric amplification in a (nb,ti)n mi- crostrip transmission line, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023184 (2021)

2021
[35]

Giachero, M

A. Giachero, M. Vissers, J. Wheeler, L. Howe, J. Gao, J. Austermann, J. Hubmayr, A. Nucciotti, and J. Ullom, Kinetic inductance traveling wave amplifier designs for practical microwave readout applications, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 215, 152 (2024)

2024
[36]

L. Howe, A. Giachero, M. Vissers, J. Wheeler, J. Auster- mann, J. Hubmayr, and J. Ullom, Compact Supercon- ducting Kinetic Inductance Traveling Wave Parametric Amplifiers With On-Chip rf Components , IEEE Trans- actions on Applied Superconductivity , 1 (2025)

2025
[37]

Kubo, Superfluid flow in disordered superconductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depairing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating field , Phys

T. Kubo, Superfluid flow in disordered superconductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depairing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating field , Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033203 (2020)

2020
[38]

Anlage, H

S. Anlage, H. Snortland, and M. Beasley, A current con- trolled variable delay superconducting transmission line , IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 25 (1989)

1989
[39]

R. W. Boyd, A. L. Gaeta, and E. Giese, Springer Handbook of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics (Springer, 2008) pp. 1097–1110. 12

2008
[40]

Zmuidzinas, Superconducting microresonators: Physics and applications , Annu

J. Zmuidzinas, Superconducting microresonators: Physics and applications , Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 3, 169 (2012)

2012
[41]

A. Giachero et al., Characterization of NbTiN Films With Thicknesses Below 20 nm for Low Power Kinetic Induc- tance Amplifiers, IEEE Transactions on Applied Super- conductivity 33, 1 (2023)

2023
[42]

Such identification does not imply recom- mendation or endorsement by NIST, nor does it imply that the product identified is necessarily the best avail- able for the purpose

Commercial instruments and software are identified in this paper in order to adequately specify the experimen- tal procedure. Such identification does not imply recom- mendation or endorsement by NIST, nor does it imply that the product identified is necessarily the best avail...
[43]

Pozar, Microwave Engineering (Wiley, 2012)

D. Pozar, Microwave Engineering (Wiley, 2012)

2012
[44]

Campana, L

P. Campana, L. Howe, and A. Giachero, Coupled Mode Equations solver for Traveling Wave Parametric Amplifiers, https://github.com/twpalab/twpasolver (2024)

2024
[45]

Dixon, J

T. Dixon, J. Dunstan, G. Long, J. Williams, P. Meeson, and C. Shelly, Capturing Complex Behavior in Josephson Traveling-Wave Parametric Amplifiers, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 034058 (2020)

2020
[46]

Planat, A

L. Planat, A. Ranadive, R. Dassonneville, J. Puer- tas Mart ´ ınez, S. L´ eger, C. Naud, O. Buisson, W. Hasch- Guichard, D. M. Basko, and N. Roch, Photonic-Crystal Josephson Traveling-Wave Parametric Amplifier , Phys. Rev. X 10, 021021 (2020)

2020
[47]

S. Kern, P. Neilinger, E. Il’ichev, A. Sultanov, M. Schmelz, S. Linzen, J. Kunert, G. Oelsner, R. Stolz, A. Danilov, S. Mahashabde, A. Jayaraman, V. Antonov, S. Kubatkin, and M. Grajcar, Reflection-enhanced gain in traveling-wave parametric amplifiers , Phys. Rev. B 107, 174520 (2023)

2023
[48]

L. Howe, P. Campana, A. Giachero, J. Austermann, J. Hubmayr, and J. Ullom, Strongly Directional Amplifi- cation with a Kinetic Inductance Traveling Wave Para- metric Amplifier, in preparation (2025)

2025
[49]

J. A. B. Mates, D. T. Becker, D. A. Bennett, B. J. Dober, J. D. Gard, G. C. Hilton, D. S. Swetz, L. R. Vale, and J. N. Ullom, Crosstalk in microwave SQUID multiplexers, Applied Physics Letters 115, 202601 (2019)

2019
[50]

Malnou, T

M. Malnou, T. Larson, J. Teufel, F. Lecocq, and J. Au- mentado, Low-noise cryogenic microwave amplifier char- acterization with a calibrated noise source, Review of Sci- entific Instruments 95 (2024)

2024
[51]

Howe, Integrated kinetic inductance traveling wave parametric amplifier (U.S

L. Howe, Integrated kinetic inductance traveling wave parametric amplifier (U.S. Patent Pending 63/758,922 (2025))

2025
[52]

Bahl, Lumped Elements for RF and Microwave Circuits (Artech House, 2003)

I. Bahl, Lumped Elements for RF and Microwave Circuits (Artech House, 2003)

2003
[53]

Mart ´ ın,Artificial Transmission Lines for RF and Mi- crowave Applications (John Wiley and Sons, Incorpo- rated, 2015)

F. Mart ´ ın,Artificial Transmission Lines for RF and Mi- crowave Applications (John Wiley and Sons, Incorpo- rated, 2015)

2015
[54]

and others , Submm python routines, https: //github.com/Wheeler1711/submm_python_routines (2022)

Wheeler, J. and others , Submm python routines, https: //github.com/Wheeler1711/submm_python_routines (2022). Near-quantum-limited Kinetic Inductance Traveling Wave Parametric Amplifiers: Methodology and Characterization – Supplementary Information Appendix A: Model for extrac...

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Kaufman, T

R. Kaufman, T. White, M. I. Dykman, A. Iorio, G. Ster- ling, S. Hong, A. Opremcak, A. Bengtsson, L. Faoro, J. C. Bardin, T. Burger, R. Gasca, and O. Naaman, Joseph- son parametric amplifier with Chebyshev gain profile and high saturation, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 054058 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [2]

J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, K. M. Sundqvist, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Strong environmen- tal coupling in a Josephson parametric amplifier, Applied Physics Letters 104, 263513 (2014)

2014

[3] [3]

H. R. Nilsson, L. Chen, G. Tancredi, R. Rehammar, D. Shiri, F. Nilsson, A. Osman, V. Shumeiko, and P. Dels- ing, A small footprint travelling-wave parametric ampli- fier with a high Signal-to-Noise Ratio improvement in a wide band, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16366 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

J. Wang, K. Peng, J. M. Knecht, G. D. Cunningham, A. E. Lombo, A. Yen, D. A. Zaidenberg, M. Gingras, B. M. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, et al. , High-Efficiency, Low-Loss Floquet-mode Traveling Wave Parametric Am- plifier, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11812 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

Walter, P

T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Mag- nard, A. Potoˇ cnik, Y. Salath´ e, M. Pechal, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Rapid High- Fidelity Single-Shot Dispersive Readout of Superconduct- ing Qubits , Phys. Rev. Appl. 7, 054020 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

B. Abdo, O. Jinka, N. T. Bronn, S. Olivadese, and M. Brink, High-Fidelity Qubit Readout Using Interfer- ometric Directional Josephson Devices , PRX Quantum 2, 040360 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Lecocq, L

F. Lecocq, L. Ranzani, G. A. Peterson, K. Cicak, X. Y. Jin, R. W. Simmonds, J. D. Teufel, and J. Aumentado, Efficient Qubit Measurement with a Nonreciprocal Mi- crowave Amplifier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 020502 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [8]

K. M. Backes, D. A. Palken, S. A. Kenany, B. M. Brubaker, S. Cahn, A. Droster, G. C. Hilton, S. Ghosh, H. Jackson, S. K. Lamoreaux, et al., A quantum enhanced search for dark matter axions , Nature 590, 238 (2021)

work page 2021