pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.06430 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Revisiting the multi-mode rhombus circuit as a biased-noise qubit

Pablo Aramburu Sanchez , Trevyn F. Q. Larson , Anthony P. McFadden , Constantin Schrade , Joshua Combes , Andr\'as Gyenis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords rhombus qubitbiased noiseJosephson junction interferometersuperconducting qubitqubit relaxation timeflux noisequasiparticle tunnelingphase valley localization
0
0 comments X

The pith

A modified rhombus circuit of Josephson junctions functions as a biased-noise qubit when operated away from half-flux frustration.

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

The authors investigate a rhombus interferometer made of Josephson junction pairs by deliberately changing the energy of one junction to create a softer version of the qubit. This modification enables direct measurement of transitions across GHz frequencies while the large shunting capacitors keep the states localized in separate phase valleys away from half a flux quantum. As a result the noise becomes biased, with relaxation times averaging 500 microseconds compared to 27 microseconds at the frustrated flux point. Analysis of losses shows that flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling set the low-frequency limits, indicating a sweet spot for operation near a few GHz.

Core claim

Away from a half flux quantum external field, the large shunting capacitors of the circuit ensure localized qubit states in different phase valleys, leading to a biased-noise qubit. In the realized circuit, we measure an average T1 of approximately 500 microseconds relaxation time in the biased-noise regime, while an average T1 of approximately 27 microseconds at frustration. The loss analysis indicates that at low frequencies, flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling limit the relaxation times, pointing toward an optimal operating regime of around a few GHz.

What carries the argument

The multi-mode rhombus circuit with one intentionally altered Josephson junction energy, where shunting capacitors localize the qubit wavefunctions in distinct phase valleys to produce biased noise.

If this is right

  • The qubit shows significantly longer relaxation times away from the half-flux point than at frustration.
  • Dephasing times are shorter in the biased-noise regime but relaxation dominates the coherence.
  • Flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling are identified as the main loss sources at low frequencies.
  • An optimal operating frequency exists around a few GHz for this circuit.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Biased-noise qubits of this type could be integrated into quantum error correction schemes that tolerate asymmetric noise better than symmetric noise.
  • Further experiments varying the junction energy difference might optimize the trade-off between protection and direct accessibility.
  • Extending this design to arrays could test whether the biased noise persists in multi-qubit interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The modification to one junction energy creates no new unaccounted loss channels and the localization of states truly produces the biased noise behavior observed.

What would settle it

Observing that the relaxation time does not increase substantially when moving away from the half-flux point, or remains below 100 microseconds in the supposed biased regime, would contradict the localization mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06430 by Andr\'as Gyenis, Anthony P. McFadden, Constantin Schrade, Joshua Combes, Pablo Aramburu Sanchez, Trevyn F. Q. Larson.

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 ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Full capacitances of the Rhombi, including capacitance to view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we revisit the idea of using an interferometer of pairs of Josephson junctions as a protected rhombus qubit. Unlike in the original proposal, where the qubit states are encoded into odd and even parity charge states, here, we intentionally alter the energy of one of the junctions to investigate the soft version of the rhombus qubit. This approach allows us to directly probe the qubit transitions over several GHz and reduce the potential drawbacks of the interferometer-based protection. Away from a half flux quantum external field, the large shunting capacitors of the circuit ensure localized qubit states in different phase valleys, leading to a biased-noise qubit. In the realized circuit, we measure an average $T_1\approx500\,\mu$s relaxation time in the biased-noise regime (with a Ramsey dephasing time of $T^{R}_\varphi\approx90\,$ns), while an average $T_1\approx27\,\mu$s relaxation time at frustration (with $T^{R}_\varphi\approx670\,$ns). Our loss analysis on this multi-mode circuit indicates that at low frequencies, flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling limit the relaxation times, pointing toward the presence of an optimal operating regime of around a few GHz.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript revisits the multi-mode rhombus circuit as a biased-noise qubit by intentionally altering the energy of one Josephson junction to create a 'soft' version. This allows direct probing of transitions over several GHz while the large shunting capacitors localize states in distinct phase valleys away from half-flux, yielding a biased-noise qubit. Experimental results report average T1 ≈ 500 μs (with Ramsey Tφ^R ≈ 90 ns) in the biased regime versus T1 ≈ 27 μs (Tφ^R ≈ 670 ns) at frustration. Loss analysis on the multi-mode circuit attributes low-frequency relaxation limits to flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling, indicating an optimal regime around a few GHz.

Significance. If the loss attribution holds, the work demonstrates a viable experimental path to biased-noise qubits with substantially improved T1 via capacitor-induced localization and junction softening, which could aid error-corrected quantum computing by reducing certain noise channels. The concrete T1/Tφ contrast and multi-mode circuit realization are strengths, providing falsifiable predictions for optimal frequency. However, the result's impact is limited by incomplete verification of the mechanism, as gaps in quantitative loss modeling leave open whether the T1 improvement fully stems from the intended localization without new channels.

major comments (1)
  1. Loss analysis (abstract and results section): The claim that low-frequency T1 is limited only by flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling (rather than dielectric loss from large shunting capacitors, junction asymmetry, or higher-mode couplings) lacks quantitative modeling or participation ratio calculations. Without explicit comparison of expected dielectric loss rates or multi-mode effects to the measured T1 ≈ 500 μs, the attribution remains incomplete and the central claim that no new loss channels are introduced is not fully supported by the data presented.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and results report average T1 and Tφ values without error bars, standard deviations, number of devices/measurements, or device-specific parameters (e.g., exact junction energies, capacitor values), which would improve clarity and allow independent assessment of the biased-noise regime.
  2. Figure captions or methods should explicitly state the full circuit parameters and loss model assumptions to support reproducibility of the multi-mode analysis.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive feedback on the loss analysis. We address the major comment point by point below and have prepared revisions to strengthen the presentation of the supporting calculations and discussion.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Loss analysis (abstract and results section): The claim that low-frequency T1 is limited only by flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling (rather than dielectric loss from large shunting capacitors, junction asymmetry, or higher-mode couplings) lacks quantitative modeling or participation ratio calculations. Without explicit comparison of expected dielectric loss rates or multi-mode effects to the measured T1 ≈ 500 μs, the attribution remains incomplete and the central claim that no new loss channels are introduced is not fully supported by the data presented.

    Authors: We agree that additional quantitative detail would make the loss attribution more robust. The original manuscript based the attribution on the measured frequency dependence of T1 (showing the expected 1/f-like increase toward lower frequencies consistent with flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling) together with the observed contrast between biased and frustrated regimes. However, we acknowledge the absence of explicit participation-ratio estimates and direct numerical comparisons to dielectric loss. In the revised manuscript we have added (i) participation-ratio calculations for the large shunting capacitors using the circuit parameters and electromagnetic simulations, (ii) an estimate of the dielectric-loss-limited T1 using a conservative loss tangent of 5×10^{-7} typical for the capacitor dielectrics, yielding an expected T1 > 1 ms—well above the measured 500 μs—and (iii) a brief circuit-simulation analysis showing that junction asymmetry and higher-mode couplings do not open additional relaxation channels at the operating frequencies of a few GHz. These additions support the original claim that the observed T1 is not limited by the shunting capacitors or new circuit-induced mechanisms, while preserving the conclusion that flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling set the low-frequency limit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on direct measurements and standard loss attribution.

full rationale

The paper presents an experimental realization and characterization of a modified rhombus circuit. The central claims concern measured relaxation times (T1 ≈ 500 μs away from frustration, T1 ≈ 27 μs at frustration) and the attribution of low-frequency limits to flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling via standard loss analysis. No derivation chain, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, self-definitional equation, or load-bearing self-citation is present in the provided text or abstract. The localization of states in phase valleys follows from the circuit topology and large shunting capacitors, which is a direct consequence of the design rather than a self-referential result. The loss analysis is an empirical attribution, not a mathematical reduction to inputs. This is a self-contained experimental report with no circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on established superconducting circuit theory and standard noise models; no new entities are postulated and no free parameters are fitted to produce the central claim.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard circuit quantum electrodynamics and Josephson junction models correctly describe the multi-mode rhombus circuit and its phase valleys.
    Invoked to interpret localized states and biased-noise behavior away from half-flux.
  • domain assumption Flux noise and quasiparticle tunneling are the dominant loss mechanisms at low frequencies in this device.
    Stated in the loss analysis section of the abstract as the basis for identifying the optimal operating regime.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5544 in / 1565 out tokens · 51684 ms · 2026-05-08T11:03:34.598630+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, An- nals of Physics303, 2 (2003)

    A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, An- nals of Physics303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  2. [2]

    L. B. Ioffe, V . B. Geshkenbein, M. V . Feigel’man, A. L. Fauch`ere, and G. Blatter, Environmentally decoupled sds -wave Josephson junctions for quantum computing, Nature398, 679 (1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    L. B. Ioffe, M. V . Feigel’man, A. Ioselevich, D. Ivanov, M. Troyer, and G. Blatter, Topologically protected quantum bits using Josephson junction arrays, Nature415, 503 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    L. B. Ioffe and M. V . Feigel’man, Possible realization of an ideal quantum computer in Josephson junction array, Phys. Rev. B66, 224503 (2002)

    2002

  5. [5]

    Douc ¸ot, M

    B. Douc ¸ot, M. V . Feigel’man, and L. B. Ioffe, Topological Or- der in the Insulating Josephson Junction Array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 107003 (2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    Douc ¸ot, M

    B. Douc ¸ot, M. V . Feigel’man, L. B. Ioffe, and A. S. Ioselevich, Protected qubits and Chern-Simons theories in Josephson junc- tion arrays, Phys. Rev. B71, 024505 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    Douc ¸ot and L

    B. Douc ¸ot and L. B. Ioffe, Physical implementation of protected qubits, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 072001 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    Gyenis, A

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

    2021

  9. [9]

    Brooks, A

    P. Brooks, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Protected gates for super- conducting qubits, Phys. Rev. A87, 052306 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Douc ¸ot and J

    B. Douc ¸ot and J. Vidal, Pairing of Cooper Pairs in a Fully Frus- trated Josephson-Junction Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 227005 (2002)

    2002

  11. [11]

    Gladchenko, D

    S. Gladchenko, D. Olaya, E. Dupont-Ferrier, B. Douc ¸ot, L. B. Ioffe, and M. E. Gershenson, Superconducting nanocircuits for topologically protected qubits, Nature Phys5, 48 (2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    M. T. Bell, J. Paramanandam, L. B. Ioffe, and M. E. Gershen- son, Protected Josephson Rhombus Chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 167001 (2014)

    2014

  13. [13]

    Schrade, C

    C. Schrade, C. M. Marcus, and A. Gyenis, Protected hybrid su- perconducting qubit in an array of gate-tunable josephson inter- ferometers, PRX Quantum3, 030303 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Dodge, Y

    K. Dodge, Y . Liu, A. R. Klots, B. Cole, A. Shearrow, M. Sen- atore, S. Zhu, L. B. Ioffe, R. McDermott, and B. L. T. Plourde, Hardware implementation of quantum stabilizers in supercon- ducting circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 150602 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Blatter, V

    G. Blatter, V . B. Geshkenbein, and L. B. Ioffe, Design aspects of superconducting-phase quantum bits, Phys. Rev. B63, 174511 (2001)

    2001

  16. [16]

    I. V . Protopopov and M. V . Feigel’man, Anomalous periodicity of supercurrent in long frustrated Josephson-junction rhombi chains, Phys. Rev. B70, 184519 (2004)

    2004

  17. [17]

    I. M. Pop, K. Hasselbach, O. Buisson, W. Guichard, B. Pan- netier, and I. Protopopov, Measurement of the current-phase re- lation in Josephson junction rhombi chains, Phys. Rev. B78, 104504 (2008)

    2008

  18. [18]

    Banszerus, C

    L. Banszerus, C. W. Andersson, W. Marshall, T. Lindemann, M. J. Manfra, C. M. Marcus, and S. Vaitiek ˙enas, Hybrid Josephson Rhombus: A Superconducting Element with Tai- lored Current-Phase Relation, Phys. Rev. X15, 011021 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    W. C. Smith, A. Kou, X. Xiao, U. V ool, and M. H. Devoret, Su- perconducting circuit protected by two-Cooper-pair tunneling, npj Quantum Inf6, 1 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    W. C. Smith, M. Villiers, A. Marquet, J. Palomo, M. R. Del- becq, T. Kontos, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, B. Douc ¸ot, and Z. Legh- tas, Magnifying Quantum Phase Fluctuations with Cooper-Pair Pairing, Phys. Rev. X12, 021002 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Protected qubit based on a superconducting current mirror

    A. Kitaev, Protected qubit based on a superconducting current mirror (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0609441

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  22. [22]

    D. K. Weiss, A. C. Y . Li, D. G. Ferguson, and J. Koch, Spectrum and coherence properties of the current-mirror qubit, Phys. Rev. B100, 224507 (2019)

    2019

  23. [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, Experimen- tal realization of a protected superconducting circuit derived from the0–πqubit, PRX Quantum2, 010339 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    T. W. Larsen, M. E. Gershenson, L. Casparis, A. Kringhøj, N. J. Pearson, R. P. G. McNeil, F. Kuemmeth, P. Krogstrup, K. D. Petersson, and C. M. Marcus, Parity-protected superconductor- semiconductor qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 056801 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Feldstein-Bofill, L

    D. Feldstein-Bofill, L. U. Jacobsen, K. Shagalov, Z. Sun, C. Wied, S. Singh, A. Kringhøj, J. Hastrup, A. Gyenis, K. Flensberg, S. Krøjer, and M. Kjaergaard, Controlled Parity of Cooper Pair Tunneling in a Hybrid Superconducting Qubit (2026), arXiv:2601.11303

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Kalashnikov, W

    K. Kalashnikov, W. T. Hsieh, W. Zhang, W.-S. Lu, P. Kamenov, A. Di Paolo, A. Blais, M. E. Gershenson, and M. Bell, Bifluxon: Fluxon-parity-protected superconducting qubit, PRX Quantum 1, 010307 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    M. Hays, J. Kim, and W. D. Oliver, Nondegenerate noise- resilient superconducting qubit, PRX Quantum6, 040321 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    Roverc’h, A

    E. Roverc’h, A. Borgognoni, M. Villiers, K. Gerashchenko, W. C. Smith, C. Wilson, B. Douc ¸ot, A. Petrescu, P. Campagne- Ibarcq, and Z. Leghtas, Experimental realization of acos(2φ) transmon qubit (2026), arXiv:2603.13114 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Messelot, A

    S. Messelot, A. Leblanc, J. S. Tettekpoe, F. Lefloch, Q. Ficheux, J. Renard, and E. Dumur, Coherence limits in interference- 12 based cos(2φ) qubits (2026), arXiv:2601.10209 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    S. Puri, L. St-Jean, J. A. Gross, A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, P. S. Iyer, A. Krishna, S. Touzard, L. Jiang, A. Blais, S. T. Flam- mia, and S. M. Girvin, Bias-preserving gates with stabilized cat qubits, Science Advances6, eaay5901 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, and S. T. Flammia, Ultrahigh error threshold for surface codes with biased noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 050505 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    K. K. Likharev, Superconducting weak links, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics51, 101 (1979)

    1979

  33. [33]

    Willsch, D

    D. Willsch, D. Rieger, P. Winkel, M. Willsch, C. Dickel, J. Krause, Y . Ando, R. Lescanne, Z. Leghtas, N. T. Bronn, P. Deb, O. Lanes, Z. K. Minev, B. Dennig, S. Geisert, S. G ¨unzler, S. Ihssen, P. Paluch, T. Reisinger, R. Hanna, J. H. Bae, P. Sch¨uffelgen, D. Gr¨utzmacher, L. Buimaga-Iarinca, C. Morari, W. Wernsdorfer, D. P. DiVincenzo, K. Michielsen, G....

    2024

  34. [34]

    J. Kim, M. Hays, I. T. Rosen, J. An, H. Zhang, A. Goswami, K. Azar, J. M. Gertler, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, T. P. Orlando, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, Emergent Harmonics in Josephson Tunnel Junctions Due to Series Induc- tance, arXiv:2507.08171 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv

  35. [35]

    A. M. Bozkurt, J. Brookman, V . Fatemi, and A. R. Akhmerov, Double-Fourier engineering of Josephson energy-phase rela- tionships applied to diodes, SciPost Phys.15, 204 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Leblanc, C

    A. Leblanc, C. Tangchingchai, Z. Sadre Momtaz, E. Kiy- ooka, J.-M. Hartmann, F. Gustavo, J.-L. Thomassin, B. Brun, V . Schmitt, S. Zihlmann, R. Maurand, E. Du- mur, S. De Franceschi, and F. Lefloch, Gate- and flux-tunable sin(2ϕ) Josephson element with planar-Ge junctions, Nat Commun16, 1010 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Messelot, N

    S. Messelot, N. Aparicio, E. de Seze, E. Eyraud, J. Coraux, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and J. Renard, Direct measurement of asin(2φ)current phase relation in a graphene superconduct- ing quantum interference device, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 106001 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    T. Roy, S. Kundu, M. Chand, S. Hazra, N. Nehra, R. Cosmic, A. Ranadive, M. P. Patankar, K. Damle, and R. Vijay, Imple- mentation of pairwise longitudinal coupling in a three-qubit su- perconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Appl.7, 054025 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Universal Hamiltonian control in a planar trimon circuit

    V . Maurya, D. Kowsari, K. Saurav, S. A. Shanto, R. Vijay, D. A. Lidar, and E. M. Levenson-Falk, Universal hamiltonian control in a planar trimon circuit (2026), arXiv:2603.04566 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    R. J. Schoelkopf, A. A. Clerk, S. M. Girvin, K. W. Lehnert, and M. H. Devoret, Qubits as spectrometers of quantum noise, in Quantum Noise in Mesoscopic Physics, edited by Y . V . Nazarov (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2003) pp. 175–203

    2003

  41. [41]

    Zhang, S

    H. Zhang, S. Chakram, T. Roy, N. Earnest, Y . Lu, Z. Huang, D. K. Weiss, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Universal fast-flux control of a coherent, low-frequency qubit, Phys. Rev. X11, 011010 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    N. K. Zhurbina, S. Singh, L. J. Splitthoff, E. Y . Huang, F. Yil- maz, M. A. Bozkurt, and C. K. Andersen, Coherence limita- tions of a Fourier-engineeredcos 2φtransmon qubit, (to ap- pear) (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    A. P. McFadden, T. F. Q. Larson, S. Gill, A. V . Dixit, R. Sim- monds, F. Lecocq, J. Oh, and L. Zhou, Interface-sensitive mi- crowave loss in superconducting tantalum films sputtered on c-plane sapphire, Phys. Rev. Mater.9, 096201 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    Ithier, E

    G. Ithier, E. Collin, P. Joyez, P. J. Meeson, D. Vion, D. Es- teve, F. Chiarello, A. Shnirman, Y . Makhlin, J. Schriefl, and G. Sch ¨on, Decoherence in a superconducting quantum bit cir- cuit, Phys. Rev. B72, 134519 (2005)

    2005

  45. [45]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y . Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Noise spectroscopy through dynamical decoupling with a su- perconducting flux qubit, Nature Physics7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  46. [46]

    M. T. Randeria, T. M. Hazard, A. Di Paolo, K. Azar, M. Hays, L. Ding, J. An, M. Gingras, B. M. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, J. A. Grover, J. L. Yoder, M. E. Schwartz, W. D. Oliver, and K. Ser- niak, Dephasing in fluxonium qubits from coherent quantum phase slips, PRX Quantum5, 030341 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    A. B. Zorin, F.-J. Ahlers, J. Niemeyer, T. Weimann, H. Wolf, V . A. Krupenin, and S. V . Lotkhov, Background charge noise in metallic single-electron tunneling devices, Phys. Rev. B53, 13682 (1996)

    1996

  48. [48]

    A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. Koch, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, M. H. De- voret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Controlling the spon- taneous emission of a superconducting transmon qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 080502 (2008)

    2008

  49. [49]

    Braum ¨uller, L

    J. Braum ¨uller, L. Ding, A. P. Veps¨al¨ainen, Y . Sung, M. Kjaer- gaard, T. Menke, R. Winik, D. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Melville, J. L. Yoder, C. F. Hirjibehedin, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Characterizing and Optimiz- ing Qubit Coherence Based on SQUID Geometry, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 054079 (2020)

    2020

  50. [50]

    Catelani, J

    G. Catelani, J. Koch, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. De- voret, and L. I. Glazman, Quasiparticle relaxation of supercon- ducting qubits in the presence of flux, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 077002 (2011)

    2011

  51. [51]

    Catelani, R

    G. Catelani, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glaz- man, Relaxation and frequency shifts induced by quasiparticles in superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. B84, 064517 (2011)

    2011

  52. [52]

    I. M. Pop, K. Geerlings, G. Catelani, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Coherent suppression of elec- tromagnetic dissipation due to superconducting quasiparticles, Nature508, 369 (2014)

    2014

  53. [53]

    T. F. Q. Larson, S. G. Jones, T. Kalm ´ar, P. A. Sanchez, S. P. Chitta, V . Verma, K. L. Genter, S. T. Gill, K. Cicak, S. W. Nam, G. F ¨ul¨op, J. Koch, R. W. Simmonds, and A. Gyenis, Local- ized quasiparticles in a fluxonium with quasi-two-dimensional amorphous kinetic inductors, Nature Communications17, 3022 (2026)

    2026