Loopless multiterminal quantum circuits at odd parity

Anton Akhmerov; Antonio Manesco; Valla Fatemi

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Loopless multiterminal quantum circuits at odd parity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An odd-parity three-terminal Andreev circuit with no loop hosts a four-dimensional spin-chirality subspace that can be controlled with electric fields alone.

desk verdict A genuinely new loopless odd-parity trijunction construction with a solid microscopic derivation and an honest, addressable soft spot: odd parity is assumed rather than stabilized, and the SU(4) control claim is asserted more than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.13369 v3 pith:QAXNHINB submitted 2026-01-19 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Antonio Manesco , Anton Akhmerov , Valla Fatemi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph PACS 74.50.+r85.25.Cp03.67.Lx

keywords oddfermionparitymultiterminalJosephsonjunctionAndreevspinqubitspin-orbitcouplingenergy-phaserelationdoublewellsuperconductingcircuitchirality

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

The paper asks whether a loopless multiterminal superconducting weak link can do what flux-biased Josephson circuits do—host a protected double-well spectrum—without the flux noise. It argues yes: at odd fermion parity, a three-terminal quantum dot coupled to superconducting leads has an energy-phase relation shaped like a triangle of pi-junctions, giving two degenerate minima corresponding to opposite chiral phase windings. Added spin-orbit coupling makes the spin-dependent part of that relation genuinely three-axial, unlike two-terminal Andreev spins, and capacitive shunting localises circuit states in the two wells with exponentially small splitting. The payoff is a low-energy spin-chirality subspace with universal electric-field control, pointing toward qubits that avoid the heavy-circuit-versus-flux-noise tradeoff.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin-phase energy relation of a two-orbital quantum dot tunnel-coupled to three superconducting leads, derived by fourth-order perturbation theory as U = Σ E0 cos φij + Σ Eσ n_ij·σ sin φij. The first sum is exactly the potential of a triangle of pi-junctions and produces the phase-chirality double well; the second is the spin-orbit field that, near a minimum, tilts along different Pauli directions for different phase-space trajectories. Capacitive shunting turns the phase drops into quantum operators, and the resulting circuit Hamiltonian is diagonalised numerically to obtain the spectrum and drive matrix elements. The effective low-energy Hamiltonian for the spin-c

What would settle it

Measure the lowest circuit transitions of a capacitively shunted three-terminal dot as a function of charging energy and compare to the predicted exponential splitting; or, in the spinful case, drive both nodes with the stated circularly polarised tones and check whether the transition matrix elements follow the σ_x τ_z / σ_y τ_z structure. If the splitting does not drop exponentially with EC/E0, or if the drive selectivity pattern is absent, the double-well and SU(4)-control claims fail. A complementary, simpler falsifier: add a realistic dot charging energy to stabilise parity and check whet

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a three-terminal dot in the odd-parity sector, the authors find that the ground-state energy depends on two independent superconducting phase differences as a balanced double well, whose two minima correspond to opposite windings of the phases (time-reversed counterparts), even though the circuit contains no loop and therefore no magnetic flux. The spin-orbit-induced term in the spin-phase energy relation spans all three Pauli axes, in contrast to the uniaxial spin term of two-terminal devices. When the circuit is shunted by capacitors, the phase degrees of freedom become quantum, and the two wells host a chirality degree of freedom; with weak spin-orbit coupling the low-energy sector is

Load-bearing premise

The whole low-energy story assumes the odd-parity sector is the relevant one, but the circuit Hamiltonian contains no charging-energy or quasiparticle-poisoning term that pins the device to odd fermion parity; the authors themselves postpone parity stabilization to a later stage of the work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the spinless case, capacitive shunting produces an exponentially suppressed splitting between the two chirality states, giving a flux-free protected heavy circuit; the paper estimates a splitting of about 1 Hz for aluminium-gap parameters at EC/h ≈ 1 MHz.
In the spinful case with weak spin-orbit coupling, the lowest doublets split into spin-orbit doublets, and circularly polarised driving of both nodes yields chirality-selective spin rotations of the form σ_x(τz ± 1).
Combining charge driving with gate tuning of one tunnelling amplitude provides both spin-flipping and chirality-flipping terms, which together generate SU(4); the paper concludes universal electric-field control of the four-level subspace.
The double well arises without any loop or flux parameter, so the design avoids the standard tradeoff in which heavier, lower-relaxation circuits become more sensitive to flux noise.
Because the spin-orbit field in three-terminal devices is multi-axial, the scheme enables spin manipulation without flux bias, a route to Andreev spin qubits without flux-noise-limited coherence.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves the odd-parity sector unprotected: its Hamiltonian has no charging energy on the dot or quasiparticle-poisoning term, and the authors explicitly defer parity stabilisation to future work. If stabilising parity requires a dot charging energy large enough to renormalise the tunnellings, the double-well depth and the Eσ ≪ E0 hierarchy could change; that is the main caveat.
One concrete test follows from the predicted exponential scaling: measuring the ground-state splitting of the capacitively shunted trijunction as a function of EC/E0 should show the exponential suppression in the spinless case and the saturation at 2V_SO·z in the spinful case—a fingerprint that distinguishes this mechanism from ordinary flux-tunable double wells.
If the Eσ ≫ E0 regime is reached, the authors expect a return to a strongly coupled spin-chirality two-level subspace per trijunction; extending the model there (or to four-terminal geometries) is a natural next step not performed in this paper.
Tiling these trijunctions in 1D or 2D arrays is suggested by the authors as a route to pseudospin chains and spin-liquid-type quantum simulation; this is a speculation of the paper rather than a demonstrated result.

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

Colleague,

The one thing to know: this is a serious theory paper with a genuinely new circuit idea—the loopless odd-parity trijunction with full SU(2) spin-phase coupling—and it should be refereed, not desk-rejected. The central double-well result holds up as a derived consequence of summing pi-junction cosines; no parameter was fit to produce it. The supplementary microscopic derivation is explicit, the Pymablock and analytic routes agree, and the code and data are on Zenodo. That is real evidence.

The newness is accurately described. The double-well geometry maps to the known triangle of pi-junctions [19], but the loopless odd-parity model with full spin-phase coupling, the shunted-circuit spectra, and the chirality-selective control scheme are not in prior work. The spinless circuit spectra are computed from the full microscopic potential, not just the weak-coupling form, which strengthens the exponential-splitting claim.

The main soft spot is exactly the one the authors flag themselves in the Discussion: odd parity is imposed, not stabilized. The Hamiltonian in Eqs. (8) and (34) has no charging-energy or poisoning term that makes the single-quasiparticle sector the ground state, and U in Eq. (35) is the energy of an excited mean-field sector. So the qubit subspace is metastable under the model as written. That is an external-validity gap, not an internal contradiction, and it is common in this literature—but for this paper the gap is load-bearing because the protected double-well and the chirality degree of freedom live in that sector. A referee should push for a concrete stabilization mechanism and a check that the double-well survives in the true ground state.

Two smaller issues. The spinful results use the truncated lowest-harmonic SPER rather than the full microscopic potential, so the spinful spectra are less secure than the spinless ones. And the SU(4) universality claim is asserted: the authors show generators but do not prove they generate SU(4). That may be fixable with a short argument, but as written it is a claim, not a theorem.

Nothing here is fatal. The literature placement is honest, the estimates are grounded in existing experimental numbers, and the absence of an experiment is normal for a theory proposal at this stage.

Bottom line: worth serious referee time. I would engage, bring it to reading group, and cite it.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a microscopic model of a two-orbital quantum dot tunnel-coupled to three superconducting leads in the odd-parity sector, with and without spin-orbit coupling. The spin-phase energy relation is computed to fourth order in tunneling, yielding a spinless potential equivalent to a triangle of pi-junctions and a double-well landscape with minima of opposite phase chirality. Adding spin-orbit coupling produces spin-dependent terms with multi-axial spin textures. The authors then shunt the circuit capacitively, quantize the phase degrees of freedom, and numerically diagonalize the resulting circuit Hamiltonian. In the spinless case they find an exponentially small splitting between the two lowest states; in the spinful case, a four-dimensional low-energy spin-chirality subspace emerges. They propose electric-field-only universal control of this subspace via charge driving and gate tuning. A microscopic derivation is given in the Supplementary Material, and numerical codes are provided.

Significance. If the results hold, this work offers a loopless route to double-well superconducting circuits and Andreev spin qubits, eliminating the magnetic-flux noise that plagues conventional flux-biased protected qubits. The microscopic derivation is explicit and careful, using Pymablock for quasi-degenerate perturbation theory and Kwant for numerical diagonalization, with code and data publicly available. The identification of the odd-parity trijunction with a triangle of pi-junctions is a clean theoretical insight, and the multi-axial spin texture from SOC is a genuine qualitative distinction from two-terminal Andreev spins. However, the physical interpretation as a ground-state qubit relies on the odd-parity sector being the low-energy sector, which is not established in the model. The spinful circuit analysis also depends on a truncated SPER, and the claimed SU(4) universality is not demonstrated. These gaps are addressable but currently limit the strength of the central claims.

major comments (3)

[Discussion; Supplementary Eq. (35)] The entire low-energy subspace is constructed in the one-quasiparticle sector: U(φ) in Eq. (35) is evaluated with ⟨γ†γ⟩=1. The circuit Hamiltonian Eq. (34) contains no term that energetically favors this sector, and the authors explicitly defer parity stabilization to future work. Since the double-well spectrum and qubit subspace in the abstract are described as the physical low-energy properties of the circuit, this is a load-bearing external-validity gap. Please either add a parity-stabilizing mechanism (e.g., dot charging energy) and show the SPER and circuit spectra survive, or explicitly condition all qubit claims on such a mechanism throughout the abstract and conclusions.
[Spinful case; Eqs. (2)-(3); Supplementary Eq. (28)] The spinless spectra use the full microscopic potential from Eq. (35), but the spinful spectra and the effective Hamiltonian Eq. (5) rely on the fourth-order, lowest-harmonic SPER of Eqs. (2) and (3). At the parameters used in Fig. 4 (t=0.1∆, θ=π/30), higher-order corrections and higher harmonics are presumably small, but no estimate or convergence check is provided. Since the barrier height and spin texture determine the qubit splittings, please include a quantitative comparison with the full numerical U(φ) for the spinful case at representative points, or a controlled bound on the neglected terms.
[Spinful case, Eq. (7); Discussion] The statement that the generators in Eq. (5), together with the drive terms, are 'sufficient generators of SU(4)' is asserted without proof. In addition, Eq. (7) is derived under a rotating-wave approximation and assumes a specific detuning; the static term ϵσzτz modifies the rotating frame and the validity of the RWA needs justification. Since universal electric-field control is a central claim of the abstract, please provide either a Lie-algebra closure proof or an explicit control sequence with numerical demonstration that the full SU(4) group is generated.

minor comments (4)

[Supplementary Eq. (15)] The expression for Δ^ij_4(0) appears to have a typo: the denominator is written as ∆i∆j^2, whereas subsequent definitions (γ_ij) and the final SPER use ∆i∆jµ1. Please check and correct the prefactor.
[Supplementary, around Eq. (29)] The abbreviation 'ASQ' is used without definition in the main text. Please spell out 'Andreev spin qubit' at first use in the main text.
[Fig. 4 caption and main text] The phrase 'saturates for EC < 2V_SO·ẑ|minU' is unclear; the units and the physical meaning of the saturation should be stated explicitly. The discussion of Fig. 4(b) is also brief and could be expanded by one or two sentences.
[Introduction and Discussion] The term 'heavy circuits' is used without definition; please define it in the Introduction or at first use (e.g., large shunt capacitance / low plasma frequency).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are derived from the stated microscopic model, and the odd-parity stabilization issue is an explicitly deferred external-validity limitation, not a circular input.

full rationale

The paper's central double-well and spin-chirality claims are derived, not assumed: the spin-phase energy relation is obtained from the microscopic Hamiltonian of Eq. (8) by fourth-order perturbation theory, yielding U0 = Σ Eij0 cos φij and USO = Σ Eijσ nij·σ sin φij (Eqs. (2)-(3)). The coupling constants are defined from the microscopic tunneling amplitudes and spin-orbit angles, not fitted to the target low-energy spectrum. The circuit Hamiltonian (Eq. (34)) is obtained by promoting phases to operators and adding the capacitive charging term, again without encoding the claimed double-well or four-level subspace. The effective Hamiltonian Eq. (5) has couplings defined as traces of derivatives of H, i.e. as derived matrix elements, not as fitted parameters reproducing the spectrum. Self-citations (Pymablock [49], Zenodo code [29]) are computational tools and are accompanied by an analytical derivation, so they are not load-bearing circular evidence. The only notable gap is external validity: the odd-parity sector is imposed by hand (Eq. (35) uses ⟨γ†γ⟩=1), and the model contains no charging-energy term that stabilizes that sector. The authors explicitly flag this: 'The physics described here should be inspected again after adding physics to stabilize the odd parity sector, such as charging energy [11].' That is a stated limitation about whether the odd-parity subspace is the physical ground-state sector, not a circular step in the derivation of the energy-phase relation within that sector. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on a minimal model with several chosen scales (t, Delta, mu_1, EC, theta) and on approximations (flat-band leads, two orbitals, fourth-order perturbation theory, lowest harmonics). No data are fitted, but the quantitative predictions are model-dependent. The odd-parity sector and the small-SOC regime are assumed rather than derived from a stabilizing mechanism.

free parameters (5)

Tunneling amplitudes t_i = t = 0.1 Delta to 0.75 Delta (symmetric); t1/t = 0.5 to 1.5
Set the weak-coupling and E_sigma << E_0 regime that the claims require; not fitted to experimental data.
Spin-orbit precession angle theta = theta = pi/30
Small-SOC illustration; the multi-axial spin splitting claim is made for weak spin-orbit strength.
Higher-orbital energy mu_1 = mu_1 = 5 Delta
Energy denominator in fourth-order perturbation theory; chosen large compared with Delta by construction.
Charging energy scale EC/E0 = EC/E0 = 1e-3 to 1e-2
Heavy-circuit regime chosen to exponentially suppress the doublet splitting; not independently measured.
Pairing amplitudes and capacitance matrix = Delta_i = Delta (symmetric); C matrix not fully specified in text
Symmetry assumption for illustrative numerics; the capacitance matrix enters through normalized inverse C^-1.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Flat-band BCS leads: H_SC^i = Delta_i nu_x (Supplementary Eq. 10)
Neglects continuum and lead band structure; standard for Andreev-level models but limits quantitative accuracy.
domain assumption Two-orbital dot; higher orbitals and continuum neglected
The higher orbital enters only as a virtual state in fourth-order processes; authors note real devices need full band-structure treatment.
domain assumption Fourth-order perturbation theory and lowest-harmonic SPER
Valid for t_i << Delta_i and mu_1; higher harmonics and nonanalytic size effects are flagged as future work.
domain assumption Odd-parity sector is the low-energy sector (one quasiparticle) without a parity-stabilizing term
No charging-energy term in Eq. (8) or (34); the authors list parity stabilization as future work.
domain assumption Time-reversal symmetry and no magnetic flux or loop
Central to balanced wells and noise-resilience claims; loopless geometry is the paper's premise.
domain assumption Rashba spin-orbit coupling with specific d-vector directions and Peierls phases
Specific minimal SOC structure; actual d-vector arrangement in materials may differ.

invented entities (1)

Chirality pseudospin tau
purpose: Labels the two phase-winding wells and forms the four-level spin-chirality subspace in Eq. (5).
Effective low-energy label derived from phase-space localization, not an independently observed conserved quantity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Loopless multiterminal quantum circuits at odd parity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QAXNHINB

@misc{pith2026260113369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Loopless multiterminal quantum circuits at odd parity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QAXNHINB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.13369}
}

read the original abstract

We theoretically investigate loopless multiterminal hybrid superconducting devices at odd fermion parity with time-reversal symmetry. We find that the energy-phase relationship has a double minimum corresponding to opposite windings of the superconducting phases. Spin-orbit coupling adds multi-axial spin splittings, which contrasts with two-terminal devices where spin dependence is uniaxial. Capacitive shunting localizes quantum circuit states in the wells and exponentially suppresses their splitting. For weak spin-orbit strength, the system has a four-dimensional spin-chirality low-energy subspace which can be universally controlled with electric fields only.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.13369 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Schematic diagram of the microscopic toy model for obtaining the Hamiltonian of the trijunction at odd parity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Circuit diagram for a capacitively-shunted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The lowest eight energy levels for the heavy spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.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

Inductively-protected Andreev (IPA) spin qubit
cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Shunting an Andreev spin qubit with a linear inductor separates its two spin states into distinct phase-space wells, exponentially suppressing wavefunction overlap and enhancing predicted relaxation times by orders of...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[19]

Feinberg and C

D. Feinberg and C. A. Balseiro, Spontaneous vortex state and phi-junction in a superconducting bijunction with a localized spin, Physical Review B90, 075432 (2014)

2014
[1]

Janvier, L

C. Janvier, L. Tosi, L. Bretheau, C. O. Girit, M. Stern, P. Bertet, P. Joyez, D. Vion, D. Esteve, M. F. Goffman, H. Pothier, and C. Urbina, Coherent manipulation of An- dreev states in superconducting atomic contacts, Science 349, 1199 (2015)

2015
[2]

M. H. Devoret, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, Circuit- QED: How strong can the coupling between a Josephson junction atom and a transmission line resonator be?, An- nalen der Physik16, 767 (2007)

2007
[3]

M. Hays, V. Fatemi, K. Serniak, D. Bouman, S. Dia- mond, G. de Lange, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, A. Geresdi, and M. H. Devoret, Continuous monitoring of a trapped superconducting spin, Nature Physics16, 1103 (2020)

2020
[4]

M. Hays, V. Fatemi, D. Bouman, J. Cerrillo, S. Diamond, K. Serniak, T. Connolly, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, A. L. Yeyati, A. Geresdi, and M. H. Devoret, Coherent ma- nipulation of an Andreev spin qubit, Science373, 430 (2021)

2021
[5]

Pita-Vidal, J

M. Pita-Vidal, J. J. Wesdorp, L. J. Splitthoff, A. Barg- erbos, Y. Liu, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and C. K. Andersen, Strong tunable coupling between two distant supercon- ducting spin qubits, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

2024
[6]

Pita-Vidal, J

M. Pita-Vidal, J. J. Wesdorp, and C. K. Andersen, Blueprint for All-to-All-Connected Superconducting Spin Qubits, PRX Quantum6, 010308 (2025)

2025
[7]

H. Lu, I. A. Day, A. R. Akhmerov, B. van Heck, and V. Fatemi, Kramers-Protected Hardware-Efficient Error Correction with Andreev Spin Qubits, Physical Review Letters135, 210602 (2025)

2025

Show all 50 references

[8]

P. D. Kurilovich, T. Vakhtel, T. Connolly, C. G. L. Bøttcher, and B. v. Heck, Andreev spin qubit protected by Franck-Condon blockade (2025), arXiv:2506.08568 [cond-mat]

2025
[9]

N. M. Chtchelkatchev and Y. V. Nazarov, Andreev Quan- tum Dots for Spin Manipulation, Physical Review Letters 90, 226806 (2003)

2003
[10]

Padurariu and Y

C. Padurariu and Y. V. Nazarov, Theoretical proposal for superconducting spin qubits, Physical Review B81, 144519 (2010)

2010
[11]

Pavesic and R

L. Pavesic and R. Zitko, Generalized transmon Hamil- tonian for Andreev spin qubits, Physical Review B109, 155164 (2024)

2024
[12]

Bulaevskii, V

L. Bulaevskii, V. Kuzii, and A. Sobyanin, Superconduct- ing system with weak coupling to the current in the ground state, JETP Letters25, 290 (1977)

1977
[13]

J. A. van Dam, Y. V. Nazarov, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, S. De Franceschi, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Supercurrent reversal in quantum dots, Nature442, 667 (2006)

2006
[14]

Fatemi, P

V. Fatemi, P. Kurilovich, M. Hays, D. Bouman, T. Connolly, S. Diamond, N. Frattini, V. Kurilovich, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, A. Geresdi, L. Glazman, and M. Devoret, Microwave Susceptibility Observation of In- teracting Many-Body Andreev States, Physical Review Letters129, 22...

2022
[15]

van Heck, S

B. van Heck, S. Mi, and A. R. Akhmerov, Single fermion manipulation via superconducting phase differences in multiterminal Josephson junctions, Physical Review B 90, 155450 (2014)

2014
[16]

Svetogorov, K

A. Svetogorov, K. Piasotski, W. Belzig, and M. Ple- tyukhov, Theory of three-terminal Andreev spin qubits, Physical Review B112, L100508 (2025)

2025
[17]

Coraiola, D

M. Coraiola, D. Haxell, D. Sabonis, M. Hinderling, S. t. Kate, E. Cheah, F. Krizek, R. Schott, W. Wegschei- der, and F. Nichele, Spin-Degeneracy Breaking and Par- ity Transitions in Three-Terminal Josephson Junctions, Physical Review X14, 031024 (2024)

2024
[18]

Matute-Ca˜ nadas, L

F. Matute-Ca˜ nadas, L. Tosi, and A. L. Yeyati, Quantum Circuits with Multiterminal Josephson-Andreev Junc- tions, PRX Quantum5, 020340 (2024)

2024
[20]

T. P. Orlando, J. E. Mooij, L. Tian, C. H. van der Wal, L. S. Levitov, S. Lloyd, and J. J. Mazo, Superconducting persistent-current qubit, Physical Review B60, 15398 (1999)

1999
[21]

Doucot and J

B. Doucot and J. Vidal, Pairing of Cooper Pairs in a Fully Frustrated Josephson-Junction Chain, Physical Review Letters88, 227005 (2002)

2002
[22]

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
[23]

Gyenis, P

A. Gyenis, P. S. Mundada, A. Di Paolo, T. M. Hazard, X. You, D. I. Schuster, J. Koch, A. Blais, and A. A. Houck, Experimental Realization of a Pro- tected Superconducting Circuit Derived from the$0$– $\ensuremath{\pi}$Qubit, PRX Quantum2, 010339 (2021)

2021
[24]

Schrade, C

C. Schrade, C. M. Marcus, and A. Gyenis, Protected Hybrid Superconducting Qubit in an Array of Gate- Tunable Josephson Interferometers, PRX Quantum3, 030303 (2022)

2022
[25]

Hassani, M

F. Hassani, M. Peruzzo, L. N. Kapoor, A. Trioni, M. Zemlicka, and J. M. Fink, Inductively shunted trans- mons exhibit noise insensitive plasmon states and a fluxon decay exceeding 3 hours, Nature Communications 14, 3968 (2023)

2023
[26]

Bargerbos, M

A. Bargerbos, M. Pita-Vidal, R. ˇZitko, L. J. Splitthoff, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, J. J. Wesdorp, Y. Liu, L. P. Kouwenhoven, R. Aguado, C. K. Andersen, A. Kou, and B. van Heck, Spectroscopy of Spin-Split Andreev Levels in a Quantum Dot with Superconducting Leads, Physical Review Let- t...

2023
[27]

Park and A

S. Park and A. L. Yeyati, Andreev spin qubits in multi- channel Rashba nanowires, Physical Review B96, 125416 (2017)

2017
[28]

Vool and M

U. Vool and M. Devoret, Introduction to quantum elec- tromagnetic circuits, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications45, 897 (2017)

2017
[29]

A. L. Rigotti Manesco, A. Akhmerov, and V. Fatemi, Loopless multiterminal quantum circuits at odd parity, 7 10.5281/zenodo.18244491 (2026)

2026 doi
[30]

Burkard, T

G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 025003 (2023)

2023
[31]

Blais, A

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

2021
[32]

Zhang, S

H. Zhang, S. Chakram, T. Roy, N. Earnest, Y. Lu, Z. Huang, D. Weiss, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Uni- versal Fast-Flux Control of a Coherent, Low-Frequency Qubit, Physical Review X11, 011010 (2021)

2021
[33]

L. Tosi, C. Metzger, M. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Pothier, S. Park, A. L. Yeyati, J. Nyg ˚ ard, and P. Krogstrup, Spin- Orbit Splitting of Andreev States Revealed by Microwave Spectroscopy, Physical Review X9, 011010 (2019)

2019
[34]

Pita-Vidal, A

M. Pita-Vidal, A. Bargerbos, R. ˇZitko, L. J. Splitthoff, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, J. J. Wesdorp, Y. Liu, L. P. Kouwenhoven, R. Aguado, B. van Heck, A. Kou, and C. K. Ander- sen, Direct manipulation of a superconducting spin qubit strongly coupled to a transmon qubit, Nature Physics19,...

2023
[35]

H. Lu, D. F. Bofill, Z. Sun, T. Kanne, J. Nyg ˚ ard, M. Kjaergaard, and V. Fatemi, Andreev spin relaxation time in a shadow-evaporated InAs weak link, Physical Review Applied24, 024046 (2025)

2025
[36]

Gyenis, A

A. Gyenis, A. Di Paolo, J. Koch, A. Blais, A. A. Houck, and D. I. Schuster, Moving beyond the Trans- mon: Noise-Protected Superconducting Quantum Cir- cuits, PRX Quantum2, 030101 (2021)

2021
[37]

Brosco, G

V. Brosco, G. Serpico, V. Vinokur, N. Poccia, and U. Vool, Superconducting Qubit Based on Twisted Cuprate Van der Waals Heterostructures, Physical Re- view Letters132, 017003 (2024)

2024
[38]

Bargerbos, M

A. Bargerbos, M. Pita-Vidal, R. ˇZitko, J. ´Avila, L. J. Splitthoff, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, J. J. Wesdorp, C. K. Andersen, Y. Liu, L. P. Kouwenhoven, R. Aguado, A. Kou, and B. van Heck, Singlet-Doublet Transitions of a Quantum Dot Josephson Junction Detected in a Transmon Circuit, PR...

2022
[39]

V. V. Baran, E. J. P. Frost, and J. Paaske, Surrogate model solver for impurity-induced superconducting sub- gap states, Physical Review B108, L220506 (2023)

2023
[40]

Zalom, M

P. Zalom, M. ˇZonda, and T. Novotn´ y, Hidden Sym- metry in Interacting-Quantum-Dot-Based Multitermi- nal Josephson Junctions, Physical Review Letters132, 126505 (2024)

2024
[41]

Houzet, J

M. Houzet, J. S. Meyer, and Y. V. Nazarov, Josephson quantum mechanics at odd parity, Physical Review B 110, L020504 (2024)

2024
[42]

G¨ ung¨ ord¨ u, R

U. G¨ ung¨ ord¨ u, R. Ruskov, S. Hoffman, K. Serniak, A. J. Kerman, and C. Tahan, Quantum dynamics of semicon- ductor quantum dot Josephson junctions, Physical Re- view B111, 214503 (2025)

2025
[43]

Levchenko, A

A. Levchenko, A. Kamenev, and L. Glazman, Singular length dependence of critical current in superconductor/normal-metal/superconductor bridges, Physical Review B74, 212509 (2006)

2006
[44]

Fatemi, P

V. Fatemi, P. Kurilovich, A. R. Akhmerov, and B. van Heck, Nonlinearity of transparent SNS weak links de- creases sharply with length, SciPost Physics18, 091 (2025)

2025
[45]

Zhang, Z

B. Zhang, Z. Li, V. Aguilar, P. Zhang, M. Pendharkar, C. P. Dempsey, J. S. Lee, S. D. Harrington, S. Tan, J. S. Meyer, M. Houzet, C. J. Palmstrøm, and S. M. Frolov, Evidence of phi0-Josephson junction from skewed diffrac- tion patterns in Sn-InSb nanowires, SciPost Physics18, ...

2025
[46]

Lakic, W

L. Lakic, W. I. L. Lawrie, D. van Driel, L. E. A. Ste- houwer, Y. Su, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, F. Kuem- meth, and A. Chatterjee, A quantum dot in germanium proximitized by a superconductor, Nature Materials24, 552 (2025)

2025
[47]

Dorier, F

J. Dorier, F. Becca, and F. Mila, Quantum compass model on the square lattice, Physical Review B72, 024448 (2005)

2005
[48]

Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics January Special Issue,321, 2 (2006)

A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics January Special Issue,321, 2 (2006)

2006
[49]

I. A. Day, S. Miles, H. K. Kerstens, D. Varjas, and A. R. Akhmerov, Pymablock: an algorithm and a package for quasi-degenerate perturbation theory (2024)

2024
[50]

C. W. Groth, M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, and X. Waintal, Kwant: a software package for quantum transport, New Journal of Physics16, 063065 (2014). 8 Minimal Model Derivation We consider a set of superconducting leads weakly coupled to a two-orbital normal dot/island with total ...

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [19]

Feinberg and C

D. Feinberg and C. A. Balseiro, Spontaneous vortex state and phi-junction in a superconducting bijunction with a localized spin, Physical Review B90, 075432 (2014)

2014

[2] [1]

Janvier, L

C. Janvier, L. Tosi, L. Bretheau, C. O. Girit, M. Stern, P. Bertet, P. Joyez, D. Vion, D. Esteve, M. F. Goffman, H. Pothier, and C. Urbina, Coherent manipulation of An- dreev states in superconducting atomic contacts, Science 349, 1199 (2015)

2015

[3] [2]

M. H. Devoret, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, Circuit- QED: How strong can the coupling between a Josephson junction atom and a transmission line resonator be?, An- nalen der Physik16, 767 (2007)

2007

[4] [3]

M. Hays, V. Fatemi, K. Serniak, D. Bouman, S. Dia- mond, G. de Lange, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, A. Geresdi, and M. H. Devoret, Continuous monitoring of a trapped superconducting spin, Nature Physics16, 1103 (2020)

2020

[5] [4]

M. Hays, V. Fatemi, D. Bouman, J. Cerrillo, S. Diamond, K. Serniak, T. Connolly, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, A. L. Yeyati, A. Geresdi, and M. H. Devoret, Coherent ma- nipulation of an Andreev spin qubit, Science373, 430 (2021)

2021

[6] [5]

Pita-Vidal, J

M. Pita-Vidal, J. J. Wesdorp, L. J. Splitthoff, A. Barg- erbos, Y. Liu, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and C. K. Andersen, Strong tunable coupling between two distant supercon- ducting spin qubits, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

2024

[7] [6]

Pita-Vidal, J

M. Pita-Vidal, J. J. Wesdorp, and C. K. Andersen, Blueprint for All-to-All-Connected Superconducting Spin Qubits, PRX Quantum6, 010308 (2025)

2025

[8] [7]

H. Lu, I. A. Day, A. R. Akhmerov, B. van Heck, and V. Fatemi, Kramers-Protected Hardware-Efficient Error Correction with Andreev Spin Qubits, Physical Review Letters135, 210602 (2025)

2025