Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Floquet Quasiparticle Poisoning of Frozonium

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dynamically freezing a fluxonium circuit does not suppress quasiparticle loss; the drive frequency must be chosen around Floquet resonances.

desk verdict Careful Floquet theory showing dynamical freezing does not generically suppress quasiparticle loss; the resonance landscape is solid, but the quantitative operating windows hinge on prompt quasiparticle removal. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12454 v1 pith:FE3DMJEJ submitted 2026-08-12 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph

Haoyu Guo , Debanjan Chowdhury This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords frozoniumdynamicalfreezingFloquetFermigoldenrulequasiparticlepoisoningfluxoniumqubitmultiphotonresonanceCooper-pairbreakingsuperconductingcircuitrelaxation
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 dynamical freezing—driving a fluxonium circuit at a special amplitude where the Josephson nonlinearity cancels, leaving a nearly harmonic Floquet oscillator—also protects the circuit from quasiparticle-induced loss. It argues it does not, generically: drive-assisted Cooper-pair breaking is controlled by $2\Delta/n$ multiphoton thresholds at high drive frequency and by multiphoton resonances at low frequency, while tunneling of pre-existing quasiparticles shows resonance ridges inherited from the harmonic Magnus spectrum near the freezing point. The practical consequence is a frequency-selection problem: experiments must place the drive away from both the gap-breaking thresholds and the Floquet resonances. For a representative aluminum device the paper identifies two operating frequencies near 21.7 GHz, each roughly 25 MHz from the nearest resolved resonance, with a relaxation time of about 14 microseconds and a wave-function fidelity near 0.953.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Floquet Fermi's Golden Rule applied to the microscopic tunneling Hamiltonian $\hat H_T(t)=\sum \tau_{kk'} e^{i\hat\varphi_J(t)/2}c^\dagger_{Rk\sigma}c_{Lk'\sigma}+{\rm h.c.}$, written in the same irrotational gauge as the driven fluxonium Hamiltonian $H_{\rm mov}(t)=4E_C\hat n^2+(E_L/2)\hat\varphi^2-E_J\cos(\hat\varphi-\varphi_{\rm ext}-\Theta(t))$, with $\Theta(t)=\phi_{\rm ac}\sin(\omega t)$. The BCS coherence factors enter through two channels, $\cos(\hat\varphi_J/2)$ and $\sin(\hat\varphi_J/2)$; the sideband amplitudes $M^{(q)}_{p,\beta\alpha}$ feed the rates and enforce energy conservation through $f^{(q)}_{\alpha\beta}=(\epsilon_\alpha-\epsilon_\beta)/h+q f_d$. The reference for interpreting the rates is the leading Magnus Hamiltonian $H_M^{(0)}$ and its amplitude-continuous eigenstates; resonances are identified independently through period-averaged energies, and their loci are predicted by the reduced Sambe matrix $C^{(n,p)}_{jk}$ whose generalized eigenvalues give the dressed resonance frequencies.

What would settle it

Measure the relaxation time $T_1$ of an aluminum fluxonium driven at the freezing amplitude $\phi_{\rm ac}\simeq 2.4048$ while sweeping the drive frequency across 21.7 GHz: the paper predicts a sharp $T_1$ dip at the resonance near 21.704 GHz and broad safe intervals around 21.6785 GHz and 21.7290 GHz with $T_1\approx 14$ $\mu$s. Seeing no such frequency structure, or a $T_1$ far below 14 $\mu$s because generated quasiparticles persist, would refute the quantitative predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the freezing points of the Floquet-Magnus expansion—amplitudes $\phi_{\rm ac}$ where $J_0(\phi_{\rm ac})=0$ and the leading effective Hamiltonian becomes $H_{\rm quad}=4E_C\hat n^2+(E_L/2)\hat\varphi^2$ with frequency $\nu=\sqrt{8E_CE_L}/h$—do not single out quasiparticle processes. The pair-generation rate $\Gamma^{\rm pair}_0$ inherits discontinuous openings at the sideband frequencies $f_d \approx 2\Delta/(n h)$; the Magnus reference reproduces the rate down to roughly 20 GHz, and the freezing point brings no special suppression of the pair rate. At lower drive frequencies, spikes in $\Gamma^{\rm pair}_0$ coincide with avoided crossings of period-averaged energies, i.e., multiphoton resonances $E^M_\alpha-E^M_\beta = n h f_d$, whose density grows as $f_d$ falls. Tunneling of pre-existing quasiparticles lacks the $2\Delta/n$ thresholds but shows connected bright ridges formed when the harmonic Magnus spectrum makes the commensurate families $M_{n}/1, M_{2n}/2, M_{3n}/3,\dots$ degenerate at the freezing point; resonant hybridization splits these into avoided-crossing loci, quantitatively captured by a reduced Sambe description. Operating near the freezing point therefore requires choosing $f_d$ that balances the approach to the harmonic limit against these Floquet-enhanced loss channels.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that quasiparticles generated by the drive are promptly removed from the junction, keeping the local density at the assumed level of $x_{\rm qp}=10^{-6}$; if they linger, the predicted lifetimes, fidelities, and safe frequency windows are not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the freezing amplitude, quasiparticle pair generation is not suppressed: the rate still opens at the $2\Delta/n$ sideband thresholds, so choosing $\phi_{\rm ac}\approx 2.4048$ is not by itself a protection strategy.
  • The usable drive frequencies at the freezing point are interrupted by resonance ridges; scanning $f_d$ near 21.7 GHz reveals a resonance at about 21.704 GHz separating two safe intervals centered at 21.6785 GHz and 21.7290 GHz.
  • At those frequencies a representative aluminum device reaches $T_{1,01}\approx 14\,\mu$s and average state fidelity $\bar F_{01}\approx 0.953$, roughly 25 MHz away from the nearest resolved resonance.
  • Lowering $f_d$ has competing effects: it suppresses direct multiphoton pair breaking but increases the density of Floquet resonances, so the optimal frequency is an intermediate compromise.
  • Raising the superconducting gap shifts the pair-breaking thresholds upward and widens the range of frequencies where high oscillator fidelity is possible, making gap and drive frequency coupled design parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same resonance-assisted poisoning mechanism should appear in any driven Josephson circuit whose Floquet spectrum contains near-degenerate multiphoton levels; fluxonium is a clean test bed because its charge-insensitivity avoids the transmon's sector-structure complication.
  • Editorial inference: the quantitative lifetime estimates depend on prompt quasiparticle removal; if experiments show $T_1$ below the predicted 14 $\mu$s at the proposed frequencies, the likely cause is local quasiparticle accumulation rather than a failure of the resonance map.
  • Editorial inference: the avoided-crossing ridges in the tunneling rate could be used as a spectroscopic probe of the Floquet-Magnus spectrum, since the rate map reveals level crossings that are difficult to see in energy measurements alone.
  • Editorial inference: a dedicated experiment sweeping $\phi_{\rm ac}$ at fixed low $f_d$ should observe rate ridges along the predicted $M_{n}/p$ loci, providing a direct test of the harmonic-Magnus organization of the loss channels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Floquet theory of quasiparticle-induced dissipation in a periodically driven fluxonium circuit operating at the frozonium freezing point. Using Floquet Fermi's Golden Rule with exact-diagonalization matrix elements, the authors compute two rate channels: drive-assisted Cooper-pair breaking and tunneling of pre-existing quasiparticles. They identify gap-breaking thresholds at 2Δ/n, multiphoton-resonance enhancements at lower drive frequencies, and connected resonance ridges in the tunneling rate that are organized by the harmonic Floquet-Magnus spectrum. A reduced-Sambe model predicts the hybridized resonance loci with a parameter-free 0.8408 GHz splitting consistent with the 0.8 GHz read from the figure. The paper closes by proposing drive frequencies near 21.7 GHz at the freezing amplitude, with T1 ≈ 14 μs and fidelity ≈ 0.953 for x_qp = 10^-6, and emphasizes that dynamical freezing does not generically suppress quasiparticle poisoning.

Significance. If the results hold, this is the first quasiparticle-loss theory for the frozonium regime and provides a practical framework for choosing drive parameters away from harmful resonances. The numerical work is unusually transparent: Hilbert-space dimension N=200, Nt=512 time samples, solver tolerances 10^-12, and explicit sideband sets are stated. The reduced-Sambe prediction is parameter-free and checked against exact diagonalization, and the branch-labeling algorithm is clearly specified. The central qualitative claim---that dynamical freezing does not generically suppress quasiparticle dissipation---is supported by the resonance landscape and is independent of the prompt-removal assumption. The quantitative operating-window predictions, however, depend on x_qp and on the assumption that drive-generated quasiparticles are promptly removed from the junction, which limits the actionable conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion; Implications for experiments (Fig. 4)] The paper explicitly assumes in the Discussion that 'generated quasiparticles are promptly removed from the junction.' This assumption is load-bearing for the quantitative claims: the pair-generation channel Γ_pair_0 is a source of quasiparticles at a rate comparable to the inverse T1, while Γ_tunnel_0 is linear in the local dimensionless density x_qp. If generated quasiparticles linger or diffuse back, the steady-state local density rises above the assumed x_qp = 10^-6, so the quoted T1 ≈ 14 μs, the fidelity ≈ 0.953, and the proposed operating frequencies 21.6785 GHz and 21.7290 GHz in Fig. 4(b) are not guaranteed. The resonance landscape in Figs. 2 and 3 is unaffected, but the actionable operating-window advice depends on this assumption. The Supplemental Material's finite-width analysis already shows a factor-of-three lifetime change at f_d = 11.8 GHz depending on the quasiparticle spectral distribution, underscoring the sensitivity of the quantitative rates. Please either add a kinetic or transport estimate that closes this loop or explicitly restate the operating-frequency proposal as conditional on prompt removal.
  2. [End Matter, Magnus Resonance Theory] The reduced-Sambe model successfully predicts the two-channel avoided-crossing splitting, but the text notes that the inner dressed state of the three-channel family in Fig. 3(d) is shifted by about 0.15 GHz by the additional |M_36,-4⟩ Sambe state. This is a stated limitation of the truncation, not an error, but it should be reflected in the main-text claim that the ridge structure is quantitatively organized by the harmonic Magnus spectrum. Please either include the fourth Sambe state in the reported comparison or present the inner-locus prediction as approximate rather than fully determined.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4] The Pareto-front construction in Fig. 4(a) is described in one sentence but not defined algorithmically; please specify how the front was computed over the frequency scan.
  2. [Supplemental Material] The solver tolerances are stated, but the QuSpin propagation method used to solve Eq. (S4) is not named; please identify the solver and report a convergence check in N and N_t.
  3. [End Matter] The prefactor 16 E_J/h in the pair-generation rate deserves a one-line derivation or a reference, since the standard Floquet Golden Rule prefactor is not immediately obvious from the definition of E_J.
  4. [Throughout] The notation M_{n/p} is used for p-photon resonances between Magnus levels M_n and M_0; please define it once in a prominent place, such as the first mention in the main text or the Fig. 3 caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QP rates are computed from a microscopic Golden-Rule expression with ED matrix elements; all resonance predictions are checked against independent PAE/ED data, and the only self-cited input (frozonium setup) is background.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at every load-bearing step. The quasiparticle rates are computed by Floquet Fermi's Golden Rule from the microscopic tunneling Hamiltonian Eq. (4), with matrix elements from exact diagonalization; no rate or resonance position is fit to the plotted output. The Magnus reference (Eq. (2)) is obtained by the standard time-average (Floquet-Magnus) expansion, and the resonance condition E_M^n - E_M^0 = p h f_d (Eq. (6)) is checked independently against period-averaged-energy crossings computed from exact diagonalization, and against the unsplit ED rate landscapes. The dressed resonance loci in Fig. 3(c,d) are produced by the parameter-free reduced-Sambe determinant Eq. (26), with the 0.8408 GHz splitting agreeing with the figure without adjustment. The only self-citation with any substantive role is Ref. [15], which supplies the frozonium setup (the irrotational gauge and the J0 freezing point); that input is parameter-free, does not contain the target QP rates, and the harmonic freezing point follows from the same Magnus expansion used here, so it is background rather than a fitted constraint. The explicit limitation in the Discussion (assuming generated quasiparticles are promptly removed from the junction) affects the quantitative T1 and fidelity estimates but is not a circular reduction: those estimates use the stated x_qp = 10^-6 value as a modeling assumption, not as an output of the derivation. No 'prediction' in the paper reduces by construction to an input or to a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Floquet and BCS machinery plus two modeling choices that the authors flag: prompt quasiparticle removal and cold-edge tunneling. The only hand-chosen quantitative input is x_qp = 1e-6, which scales tunneling rates and T1/F01 estimates. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Quasiparticle density x_qp = 1e-6
    Representative dimensionless quasiparticle density chosen to model a device away from ionizing radiation. It scales all tunneling rates and the quantitative T1/F01 estimates linearly and is not measured in this work.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Floquet-Magnus expansion provides a valid description of the driven fluxonium at the frequencies considered.
    Used to define H_M^(0) in Eq. (2), the Magnus reference basis, and the resonance condition Eq. (6). The paper checks its validity against exact diagonalization down to about 20 GHz for pair generation and uses it to predict resonance loci at lower frequencies.
  • domain assumption Floquet Fermi's Golden Rule applies to the tunneling Hamiltonian.
    Equations (13) and (19) assume weak tunneling and Markovian dissipation. This is the standard quasiparticle-rate framework from Refs. [25-27,45,46].
  • domain assumption BCS coherence factors and the Fermi-level density of states approximation are valid for the aluminum junction.
    Form factors S_gen and S_tun in Eqs. (16)-(21) use a constant density of states and BCS u,v factors. This is standard for superconducting-qubit quasiparticle theory.
  • domain assumption Quasiparticles generated by the drive are promptly removed from the junction.
    Stated in the Discussion: 'we have assumed that generated quasiparticles are promptly removed from the junction.' This sets the local quasiparticle density at the assumed x_qp and directly affects quantitative T1/F01 estimates.
  • domain assumption Pre-existing quasiparticles are in the cold-edge regime, with finite energy width treated as a correction.
    Main-text tunneling form factors Eqs. (21) use the cold-edge limit. The Supplemental Material finite-width correction shows the approximation can overestimate rates by up to 66.4 percent at fd = 11.8 GHz.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Floquet Quasiparticle Poisoning of Frozonium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FE3DMJEJ

@misc{pith2026260812454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Floquet Quasiparticle Poisoning of Frozonium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FE3DMJEJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12454}
}
read the original abstract

Periodic driving can suppress the Josephson nonlinearity of a fluxonium superconducting circuit, producing a nearly harmonic Floquet spectrum at isolated freezing points [K. Lewellen et al., Newton 2, 100434 (2026)]. Here we show that this dynamically frozen behavior does not generically suppress quasiparticle-induced dissipation in the resulting frozonium circuit. We formulate quasiparticle processes in the frozonium using a Floquet framework and analyze both drive-assisted Cooper-pair breaking and tunneling of pre-existing quasiparticles. Pair generation is controlled by gap-breaking thresholds at high drive frequencies, while multiphoton resonances produce pronounced rate enhancements at lower frequencies. Quasiparticle tunneling exhibits connected resonance structures organized by the harmonic Floquet-Magnus spectrum near the freezing point, with resonant hybridization generating characteristic avoided crossings. Our results show that suitable operating regimes must balance dynamical freezing against quasiparticle loss and provide a framework for identifying experimental drive parameters away from harmful resonances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12454 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of a driven fluxonium circuit (left) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Pair-generation rate landscape for fluxonium branch 0, which denotes the Floquet eigenstate assigned to the Magnus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quasiparticle tunneling rate landscape for fluxonium branch 0, tracked using the same numerical procedure as in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Freezing-point operating tradeoff for an aluminum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science326, 113 (2009), arXiv:0906.0831

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    J. Koch, V. E. Manucharyan, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Charging effects in the inductively shunted Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 217004 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-coherence fluxonium qubit, Physical Review X9, 041041 (2019), arXiv:1810.11006

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Somoroff, Q

    A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, H. Xiong, R. V. Kuzmin, and V. E. Manucharyan, Millisecond coherence in a superconducting qubit, Physical Review Letters130, 267001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    L. Ding, M. Hays, Y. Sung, B. Kannan, J. An, A. Di Paolo, A. H. Karamlou, T. M. Hazard, K. Azar, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Melville, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, High- fidelity, frequency-flexible two-qubit fluxonium gates with a transmon coupler, Physical Review X13, 031035 ...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    N. A. Masluk, I. M. Pop, A. Kamal, Z. K. Minev, and M. H. Devoret, Microwave characterization of josephson junction arrays: Implementing a low loss superinduc- tance, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 137002 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design de- rived from the Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Ficheux, L

    Q. Ficheux, L. B. Nguyen, A. Somoroff, H. Xiong, K. N. Nesterov, M. G. Vavilov, and V. E. Manucharyan, Fast Logic with Slow Qubits: Microwave-Activated Controlled-Z Gate on Low-Frequency Fluxoniums, Phys- ical Review X11, 021026 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Didier, E

    N. Didier, E. A. Sete, J. Combes, and M. P. da Silva, AC flux sweet spots in parametrically modulated supercon- ducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 054015 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    P. S. Mundada, A. Gyenis, Z. Huang, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Floquet-engineered enhancement of coher- ence times in a driven fluxonium qubit, Physical Review Applied14, 054033 (2020), arXiv:2007.13756

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Huang, P

    Z. Huang, P. S. Mundada, A. Gyenis, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, and J. Koch, Engineering dynamical sweet spots to protect qubits from 1/f noise, Physical Review Applied15, 034065 (2021), arXiv:2004.12458

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Thibodeau, A

    M. Thibodeau, A. Kou, and B. K. Clark, The floquet fluxonium molecule: Driving down dephasing in cou- pled superconducting qubits, PRX Quantum5, 040314 (2024), arXiv:2401.08762

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Wang and A

    Z. Wang and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Quantum control and noise protection of a Floquet 0–πqubit, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042607 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Lewellen, R

    K. Lewellen, R. Mukherjee, H. Guo, S. Roy, V. Fatemi, and D. Chowdhury, Frozonium: Freezing anharmonicity in floquet superconducting circuits, Newton2, 100434 (2026), arXiv:2501.10503

    2026

  8. [16]

    Das, Exotic freezing of response in a quantum many- body system, Phys

    A. Das, Exotic freezing of response in a quantum many- body system, Phys. Rev. B82, 172402 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Haldar, D

    A. Haldar, D. Sen, R. Moessner, and A. Das, Dynam- ical freezing and scar points in strongly driven Floquet matter: Resonance vs emergent conservation laws, Phys. Rev. X11, 021008 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    H. Guo, R. Mukherjee, and D. Chowdhury, Dynamical Freezing in Exactly Solvable Models of Driven Chaotic Quantum Dots, Physical Review Letters134, 226501 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Mukherjee, H

    R. Mukherjee, H. Guo, and D. Chowdhury, Floquet Thermalization via Instantons near Dynamical Freezing, Physical Review X16, 011041 (2026)

    2026

  12. [20]

    Y.-N. Lu, D. Yuan, Y. Ma, Y.-Q. Liu, S. Jiang, X.-Q. Meng, Y.-J. Xu, X.-Y. Chang, C. Zu, H.-Z. Zhao, D.-L. Deng, L.-M. Duan, and P.-Y. Hou, Dynamical freezing for magnetometry in an interacting spin ensemble, Nature 653, 1027 (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    Mukherjee, H

    R. Mukherjee, H. Guo, K. Lewellen, and D. Chowdhury, Arresting quantum chaos dynamically in transmon ar- rays, Newton1, 100011 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Eckardt and E

    A. Eckardt and E. Anisimovas, High-frequency approx- imation for periodically driven quantum systems from a Floquet-space perspective, New J. Phys.17, 093039 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Bukov, L

    M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, and A. Polkovnikov, Univer- sal high-frequency behavior of periodically driven sys- tems: from dynamical stabilization to Floquet engineer- ing, Adv. Phys.64, 139 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    S. M. Anton, J. S. Birenbaum, S. R. O’Kelley, V. Bolkhovsky, D. A. Braje, G. Fitch, M. Neeley, G. C. Hilton, H.-M. Cho, K. D. Irwin, F. C. Wellstood, W. D. Oliver, A. Shnirman, and J. Clarke, Magnetic flux noise in dc SQUIDs: Temperature and geometry dependence, Phys. Rev. Let...

    2013

  17. [25]

    Catelani, J

    G. Catelani, J. Koch, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Quasiparticle relaxation of superconducting qubits in the presence of flux, Physical Review Letters106, 077002 (2011), arXiv:1101.1341

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Catelani, R

    G. Catelani, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Relaxation and frequency shifts induced by quasiparticles in superconducting qubits, Physical Re- view B84, 064517 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    L. I. Glazman and G. Catelani, Bogoliubov quasiparticles in superconducting qubits, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes31, 10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.31 (2021)

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

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

    2009

  21. [29]

    Catelani, Parity switching and decoherence by quasi- particles in single-junction transmons, Phys

    G. Catelani, Parity switching and decoherence by quasi- particles in single-junction transmons, Phys. Rev. B89, 094522 (2014). 7

    2014

  22. [30]

    Rist` e, C

    D. Rist` e, C. C. Bultink, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, K. W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, Millisecond charge-parity fluctuations and induced decoherence in a superconduct- ing transmon qubit, Nature Communications4, 1913 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Serniak, M

    K. Serniak, M. Hays, G. de Lange, S. Diamond, S. Shankar, L. D. Burkhart, L. Frunzio, M. Houzet, and M. H. Devoret, Hot nonequilibrium quasiparticles in transmon qubits, Physical Review Letters121, 157701 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Serniak, S

    K. Serniak, S. Diamond, M. Hays, V. Fatemi, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Direct dispersive monitoring of charge parity in offset-charge- sensitive transmons, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 014052 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Diamond, V

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

    2022

  26. [34]

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

    2014

  27. [35]

    U. Vool, I. M. Pop, K. Sliwa, B. Abdo, C. Wang, T. Brecht, Y. Y. Gao, S. Shankar, M. Hatridge, G. Cate- lani, M. Mirrahimi, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Non-poissonian quantum jumps of a fluxonium qubit due to quasiparticle excita- tions, Phy...

    2014

  28. [36]

    Spilla, F

    S. Spilla, F. Hassler, A. Napoli, and J. Splettstoesser, Dephasing due to quasiparticle tunneling in fluxonium qubits: A phenomenological approach, New Journal of Physics17, 065012 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. A. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. D’Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, C. H. Liu, A. Opremcak, B. G. Christensen, J. L. DuBois, and R. McDermott, Correlated charge noise and relaxation errors in superconducting qubits, Nature594, 369 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    C.-H. Liu, D. C. Harrison, S. Patel, C. D. Wilen, O. Raf- ferty, A. Shearrow, A. Ballard, V. Iaia, J. Ku, B. L. T. Plourde, and R. McDermott, Quasiparticle poisoning of superconducting qubits from resonant absorption of pair- breaking photons, Physical Review Letters132, 01700...

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    V. D. Kurilovich, G. Roberts, L. S. Martin, M. McEwen, A. Eickbusch, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, J. Atalaya, A. Bilmes, J. M. Kreikebaum, A. Bengtsson, P. Klimov, M. Nee- ley, W. Mruczkiewicz, K. Miao, I. L. Aleiner, J. Kelly, Y. Chen, K. Satzinger, and A. Opremcak, Correlated phas...

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    McEwen, L

    M. McEwen, L. Faoro, K. Arya, A. Dunsworth, T. Huang, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Fowler, F. Arute, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, B. B. Buckley, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, R. Collins, S. Demura, A. R. Derk, C. Erickson, M. Giustina, S. D. Harrington, S. Hong, E. Jeffrey, J. Kel...

    2022

  33. [41]

    L. Sun, L. DiCarlo, M. D. Reed, G. Catelani, L. S. Bishop, D. I. Schuster, B. R. Johnson, G. A. Yang, L. Frunzio, L. Glazman, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Measurements of quasiparticle tunneling dy- namics in a band-gap-engineered transmon qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 2...

    2012

  34. [42]

    McEwen, K

    M. McEwen, K. C. Miao, J. Atalaya, A. Bilmes, A. Crook, J. Bovaird, J. M. Kreikebaum, N. Zo- brist, E. Jeffrey, B. Ying, A. Bengtsson, H.-S. Chang, A. Dunsworth, J. Kelly, Y. Zhang, E. Forati, R. Acharya, J. Iveland, W. Liu, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Megrant, Y. Chen, C. Neill, D...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Riwar, A

    R.-P. Riwar, A. Hosseinkhani, L. D. Burkhart, Y. Y. Gao, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. I. Glazman, and G. Cate- lani, Normal-metal quasiparticle traps for superconduct- ing qubits, Phys. Rev. B94, 104516 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    V. Iaia, J. Ku, A. Ballard, C. P. Larson, E. Yelton, C. H. Liu, S. Patel, R. McDermott, and B. L. T. Plourde, Phonon downconversion to suppress correlated errors in superconducting qubits, Nat. Commun.13, 6425 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Kishmar, P

    M. Kishmar, P. D. Kurilovich, A. Klots, T. Connolly, I. L. Aleiner, and V. D. Kurilovich, Quasiparticle-induced decoherence of a driven superconducting qubit, Physical Review Applied26, 014091 (2026), arXiv:2505.00769

    2026 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Chowdhury, M

    S. Chowdhury, M. Hays, S. R. Jha, K. Serniak, T. P. Or- lando, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, Theory of quasi- particle generation by microwave drives in superconduct- ing qubits, Physical Review Applied25, 014042 (2026), arXiv:2505.00773

    2026

  39. [47]

    X. You, J. A. Sauls, and J. Koch, Circuit quantization in the presence of time-dependent external flux, Phys. Rev. B99, 174512 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, QuSpin: a Python package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems. part I: Spin chains, SciPost Phys.2, 003 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, QuSpin: a Python package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems. Part II: bosons, fermions and higher spins, SciPost Physics7, 020 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    See supplemental material for more information

  43. [51]

    Ketzmerick and W

    R. Ketzmerick and W. Wustmann, Statistical mechanics of Floquet systems with regular and chaotic states, Phys. Rev. E82, 021114 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    P. M. Schindler and M. Bukov, Geometric Floquet the- ory, Phys. Rev. X15, 031037 (2025), arXiv:2410.07029

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Gr¨ unhaupt, M

    L. Gr¨ unhaupt, M. Spiecker, D. Gusenkova, N. Maleeva, S. T. Skacel, I. Takmakov, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, H. Rotzinger, W. Wernsdorfer, A. V. Ustinov, and I. M. Pop, Granular aluminium as a superconducting material for high-impedance quantum circuits, Nature Materials 18, 816 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

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

    2025

  47. [55]

    Watanabe, K

    S. Watanabe, K. Hida, K. Matsuura, and Y. Nakamura, Nondemolition fluorescence readout and high-fidelity un- 8 conditional reset of a fluxonium qubit via dissipation engineering, Physical Review A112, 012624 (2025), arXiv:2504.15901

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ateshian, M

    L. Ateshian, M. Hays, D. A. Rower, H. Zhang, K. Azar, R. Assouly, L. Ding, M. Gingras, H. Stickler, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, T. P. Orlando, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, K. Serniak, and W. D. Oliver, Temperature and magnetic-field depen- dence of energy...

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    K. Azar, L. Ateshian, M. T. Randeria, R. De- Pencier Pi˜ nero, J. M. Gertler, J. An, F. Contipelli, L. Ding, M. Gingras, K. Grossklaus, M. Hays, T. M. Haz- ard, J. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, K. L. Tiwari, H. Zhang, J. A. Grover, J. L. Yoder, M. E. Schwartz, W. D. Oli...

    2026

  50. [58]

    Cardani, F

    L. Cardani, F. Valenti, N. Casali, G. Catelani, T. Char- pentier, M. Clemenza, I. Colantoni, A. Cruciani, G. D’Imperio, L. Gironi, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, D. Gusenkova, F. Henriques, M. Lagoin, M. Mart´ ınez, G. Pettinari, C. Rusconi, O. Sander, C. Tomei, A. V. Ustinov, M. We- ber, W....

    2021

  51. [59]

    Anferov, K.-H

    A. Anferov, K.-H. Lee, F. Zhao, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Improved coherence in optically defined nio- bium trilayer-junction qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 024047 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    D. Wang, Y. Wu, N. Pieczulewski, P. Garg, M. C. C. Pace, C. G. L. Bøttcher, B. Mazumder, D. A. Muller, and H. X. Tang, All-nitride superconducting qubits based on atomic layer deposition, Nat. Mater.25, 944 (2026)

    2026

  53. [61]

    C. Wang, Y. Y. Gao, I. M. Pop, U. Vool, C. Axline, T. Brecht, R. W. Heeres, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, G. Catelani, L. I. Glazman, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Mea- surement and control of quasiparticle dynamics in a su- perconducting qubit, Nat. Commun.5, 5836 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    Houzet, K

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

    2019

  55. [63]

    F´ echant, M

    M. F´ echant, M. F. Dumas, D. B´ enˆ atre, N. Gosling, P. Lenhard, M. Spiecker, S. Geisert, S. Ihssen, W. Werns- dorfer, B. D’Anjou, A. Blais, and I. M. Pop, Off- set charge dependence of measurement-induced transi- tions in transmons, Physical Review Letters135, 180603 (2025)...

    2025

  56. [64]

    Floquet Quasiparticle Poisoning of Frozonium

    T. Connolly, P. D. Kurilovich, S. Diamond, H. Nho, C. G. L. Bøttcher, L. I. Glazman, V. Fatemi, and M. H. Devoret, Coexistence of nonequilibrium density and equi- librium energy distribution of quasiparticles in a super- conducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 217001 (2024). 9 ...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.