Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Inductively-protected Andreev (IPA) spin qubit

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An inductor shunted across an Andreev spin qubit separates its two spin states in phase space, boosting the predicted relaxation time by about five orders of magnitude.

desk verdict New, believable design for a protected Andreev spin qubit; the five-order T1 claim is conditional on an equal-noise assumption and omits gate-induced E0/ESO noise, so the mechanism is solid but the headline number needs a device-specific check. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13530 v1 pith:PVANNIZH submitted 2026-08-13 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

J. L. del Olmo N. , F. J. Matute-Cañadas , A. Levy Yeyati , R. Seoane Souto , R. Aguado This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-conquant-ph
keywords Andreevspinqubitfluxoniumsuperconductingprotectionspin-orbitcouplingquantumdotJosephsonjunctionrelaxationtimewavefunctionoverlap1/fnoise
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 introduces the inductively protected Andreev (IPA) spin qubit: an Andreev spin qubit shunted by a linear inductor. It argues that the inductor lifts the $2\pi$-periodicity of the spin-resolved Josephson potential, so the up-spin and down-spin ground states localize in separate potential wells roughly $2\pi$ apart in superconducting phase. That phase-space separation nearly eliminates the wavefunction overlap that mediates spin relaxation, and the predicted relaxation time $T_1$ is enhanced by about five orders of magnitude relative to both the unshunted Andreev spin qubit and a conventional fluxonium under the same $1/f$ noise. If correct, the design would combine the long coherence of protected superconducting qubits with the gate and flux tunability of a spin degree of freedom.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-resolved Josephson potential $U_\pm(\phi)=E_0\cos(\phi-\phi_{\rm ext})\pm E_{SO}\sin(\phi-\phi_{\rm ext})+\frac{1}{2}E_L\phi^2$ of Eq. (4). Adding the inductor breaks the $2\pi$-periodicity, converting the ASQ's single spin-split well into a double well in which each spin sits in a different minimum; the equivalence to two fluxoniums with $E_J\to\tilde E_J$ and $\phi_{\rm ext}\to\phi_{\rm ext}+\phi_\pm$ is what lets the authors transplant heavy-fluxonium protection to a spin qubit. The quantitative workhorse is the absolute wavefunction overlap $\xi=\int d\phi\,|\psi_0(\phi)|\,|\psi_1(\phi)|$, Eq. (15), because it simultaneously measures phase-space disjointness and the coupling caused by perpendicular magnetic noise, and it is shown to drop by orders of magnitude in the IPA regime.

What would settle it

Measure the IPA relaxation time at $\delta\phi_{\rm ext}\approx0$ in a germanium-based device and compare it with an ASQ fabricated from the same junction parameters under calibrated $1/f$ flux and magnetic noise; if the $T_1$ ratio is far below the predicted $\sim10^5$, the claimed protection is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Eq. (6), obtained by adding a linear inductive term $\frac{1}{2}E_L\phi^2$ to the ASQ Hamiltonian, makes the IPA exactly equivalent to two fluxonium copies, one per spin, with renormalized Josephson energy $\tilde E_J=\sqrt{E_0^2+E_{SO}^2}$ and shifted flux bias. At zero flux detuning the two spin branches occupy neighboring wells separated by up to $\sim 2\pi$, so their wavefunction overlap $\xi$, Eq. (15), is exponentially suppressed as $\tilde E_J/E_C$ grows and has a sweet spot near $E_L\sim E_C$. Because the relaxation rate is controlled by matrix elements of noise operators between the two qubit states, this disjointness suppresses bit-flip transitions; Bloch-Redfield calculations with a common $1/f$ noise spectrum give $T_1$ ratios of about $10^5$ in favor of the IPA over both the ASQ and the fluxonium. The paper also shows that the IPA retains large anharmonicity, tunability by flux and magnetic field, and routes to qubit manipulation via perpendicular magnetic field, gate-derived EDSR, and Raman or STIRAP protocols.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative $T_1$ enhancement assumes that the three qubits experience the same $1/f$ noise amplitude and ignores gate-induced fluctuations of $E_0(V_g)$ and $E_{SO}(V_g)$; if real IPA devices have stronger or different noise, the predicted orders-of-magnitude gain could shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the optimal $E_L\sim E_C$ and $\delta\phi_{\rm ext}\approx0$, the IPA's predicted $T_1$ exceeds both the ASQ and the fluxonium by roughly five orders of magnitude for flux, charge, and magnetic noise with the same $1/f$ spectrum.
  • The low-frequency qubit manifold, large anharmonicity $\alpha$, and reduced bit-flip susceptibility make the IPA a protected-qubit geometry that keeps the spin's operational knobs: perpendicular magnetic field, gate-driven EDSR, and flux driving.
  • Qubit operations can be implemented by Raman pulses through higher-lying states or by STIRAP sequences, so manipulation does not require directly overlapping the protected ground-state wavefunctions.
  • In the IPA regime, dephasing from flux noise is comparable to or worse than the ASQ away from sweet spots, but dephasing from magnetic noise perpendicular to the spin-orbit axis is improved, so the dominant spin-qubit decoherence channel is suppressed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is to build the IPA in isotopically purified germanium proximitized by granular aluminium, where the nuclear-spin bath that limits ASQ coherence is strongly reduced; the paper points toward this platform but does not claim a measured device.
  • The two-fluxonium mapping suggests a design rule beyond the paper: any spin-resolved junction whose spin branches are phase-shifted by $\phi_0$ can receive the same inductive protection, so the mechanism may transfer to multiterminal or gate-defined variants of Andreev qubits.
  • If the $T_1$ enhancement survives realistic gate-induced fluctuations of $E_0(V_g)$ and $E_{SO}(V_g)$, the IPA could relax the noise requirements on control electronics; quantifying that sensitivity is the paper's own stated future work.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an inductively protected Andreev spin (IPA) qubit formed by shunting a quantum-dot Josephson junction with a linear inductor, modeled by Eq. (6). The authors show that in the heavy fluxonium regime the two spin branches of the Andreev potential become localized in distinct wells separated by nearly 2π in phase, so the wavefunction overlap and hence the spin-flip matrix elements are exponentially suppressed. Using exact diagonalization and Bloch–Redfield theory, they compute T1 and T2 benchmarks against the ASQ and fluxonium, reporting up to about five orders of magnitude enhancement in T1 for flux, charge, and magnetic noise at representative parameters. They also discuss flux and magnetic-field dependence, anharmonicity, and possible manipulation via Raman and STIRAP protocols.

Significance. If the predictions hold, the IPA design is a valuable conceptual contribution: it provides a concrete circuit that combines a spin degree of freedom with fluxonium-style protection, and the central mechanism, separating spin states into different fluxon wells in phase space, is physically transparent and robust. The paper's strengths are its clean model, the exact diagonalization of Eq. (6), and the systematic benchmarking of the harmonic approximation against numerics in Figs. 2 and 10, which gives confidence in the qualitative conclusions. The main caveat is that the headline five-order T1 gain is computed for a selected set of noise channels with a common 1/f noise amplitude assumption, and a potentially important gate-noise channel is explicitly deferred to future work by the authors themselves.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (22), Figs. 6(e-h), Sec. V] The central quantitative claim of five-orders-of-magnitude T1 enhancement is computed using noise operators for flux, charge, and magnetic fields only. As the authors state in Sec. V, gate-voltage fluctuations that modulate E0(Vg), ESO(Vg), and the spin-orbit direction n_SO(Vg) are not included; through the dependence of n_SO on Vg such fluctuations generate a spin-flip coupling that enables electric-dipole-spin-resonance-type relaxation. Because this channel is absent from the Bloch-Redfield calculation, the claim that the IPA T1 exceeds that of the ASQ by five orders of magnitude is not yet established. The manuscript should either provide a quantitative estimate of this gate-noise channel for representative parameters or explicitly restrict the claim to the modeled noise channels.
  2. [Eq. (21) and Fig. 6] The T1 ratios in Figs. 6(e-h) assume identical 1/f noise amplitudes A for the IPA, ASQ, and fluxonium. The predicted ratios scale directly with A, and real devices may have different flux, charge, and magnetic noise couplings, for example because of different loop geometries or participation ratios. The assumption is reasonable as a first comparison, but a sensitivity analysis or a physical argument for equal amplitudes is needed to make the quantitative five-order statement robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV A] There is a typo in the text: 'marix element' should read 'matrix element'.
  2. [Sec. IV B] There is a typo: 'asuming' should read 'assuming'.
  3. [Acknowledgements] The phrase 'the the Spanish Ministry' contains a duplicated article and should be corrected.
  4. [Eq. (8)] The expression 2π[(m ± 1/2 - 1/2)] is unnecessarily confusing; it should be simplified to the intended integer or half-integer fluxon labeling.
  5. [Sec. III C, Eq. (15)] The statement that the absolute overlap ξ 'coincides with' the matrix element of the perpendicular magnetic noise operator is only true after choosing a gauge in which both ground-state wavefunctions have the same sign in their respective wells; for the actual eigenstates the two quantities are not identical away from the deeply localized regime. This does not affect the numerical T1 results, but the wording should be corrected.
  6. [Fig. 3(a) caption] The caption states 'for E_tilde_J/E_C >> 1' while the panel uses E_tilde_J/E_C = 5; please clarify the parameter range shown.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted T1 enhancement is a computed consequence of the IPA Hamiltonian and noise model, not a fitted or self-referential input.

full rationale

The central claim, a five-orders-of-magnitude T1 enhancement, is obtained by exact diagonalization of Eq. (6) followed by the Bloch-Redfield rate Eq. (20) with the noise operators Eqs. (22)-(23). No parameter is fitted to a target T1 and no predicted relaxation rate is fed back into the model, so the enhancement is a derived output rather than an input. The equal 1/f-noise-amplitude assumption in Eq. (21) is an explicit benchmark premise used symmetrically for IPA, ASQ, and fluxonium; it may overstate the comparison if real devices differ, but it does not make the derivation circular. The relation between the overlap xi in Eq. (15) and the perpendicular-magnetic-noise matrix element is a stated mathematical identity for real wavefunctions in the model, not a definitional substitution of the target result. The omission of gate-voltage noise on E0(Vg) and ESO(Vg) is acknowledged in Sec. V as essential future work, making the T1 claim conditional rather than circular. Self-citations appear mainly for the established QD-Josephson model Eq. (1) (Refs. [31,32]), which is supported by independent experiments and external theory, and for the FerBo contrast (Ref. [37]), which is not load-bearing for the IPA derivation. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

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

The central claims rest on the established minimal QD junction model and standard circuit QED quantization. The quantitative T1 benchmark additionally assumes equal 1/f noise amplitude for IPA, ASQ, and fluxonium and omits gate-induced fluctuations of E0 and ESO, which the authors acknowledge in Sec. V. No data fitting is performed; the scanned circuit parameters are illustrative choices in the protected regime.

free parameters (5)
  • E_tilde_J/E_C = 27.8
    Heavy-regime Josephson-to-charging ratio used in the main T1/T2 benchmarks (Figs. 4-9); chosen by hand, not fitted to data.
  • E_L/E_C = 5
    Inductive-to-charging ratio used in the main benchmarks, near the protected regime where the overlap is minimized; chosen by hand.
  • E_0/E_SO = 2
    Sets the spin-well offset phi_0 = arctan(1/2); chosen to illustrate the IPA mechanism and varied in App. A.
  • delta_phi_ext = 0.05 pi
    Small flux detuning away from the time-reversal point delta_phi_ext = 0, giving a finite qubit frequency; used to compute finite T1 and T2 ratios.
  • B_z/E_C = 3e-4
    Small parallel Zeeman field used in the relaxation benchmarks; chosen arbitrarily small to break degeneracy or simulate a weak offset field.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bloch-Redfield master equation with 1/f noise S_lambda(f01)=A/f01 describes relaxation and dephasing (Eqs. 20-24).
    The T1 and T2 predictions are computed within this approximation; equal noise amplitude A across qubits is assumed for benchmarking.
  • domain assumption The quantum dot Josephson junction is described by the minimal model H_QD = E0 cos(phi) sigma_0 - E_SO sin(phi) sigma_x (Eq. 1), valid in the large-gap Anderson impurity limit (Refs. [31,32,35]).
    All results inherit this model; the spin-resolved potentials U_plus and U_minus are its eigenvalues.
  • domain assumption The external phase drop occurs predominantly across the weak link, so the circuit Hamiltonian in Eq. (6) applies; the phase drop distribution affects only time-dependent observables, not the energy spectrum (Refs. [38,39]).
    This justifies the fluxonium-like circuit quantization with the QD junction as the only Josephson element.
  • standard math At zero magnetic field the spin sectors decouple because the junction term is diagonal in the sigma_x eigenbasis (Eqs. 1 and 6).
    This block-diagonal structure underlies the two-fluxonium equivalence and the absence of direct spin-flip transitions.
  • standard math Phase slip amplitudes follow the semiclassical expression E_S = A_S exp(-sqrt(8 E_tilde_J/E_C)) (Eq. A2).
    Used for the analytic overlap approximation; verified only qualitatively against exact numerics in App. A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inductively-protected Andreev (IPA) spin qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVANNIZH

@misc{pith2026260813530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inductively-protected Andreev (IPA) spin qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVANNIZH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13530}
}
read the original abstract

The spin of a quasiparticle trapped in a quantum dot Josephson junction forms the basis of an Andreev spin qubit (ASQ): a semiconductor-superconductor device where the interplay between a localized spin degree of freedom and superconductivity leads to a spin-resolved Josephson potential. In this work, we show that shunting an ASQ with a linear inductor enhances its relaxation time by separating the spin-qubit states into distinct potential wells in phase space, nearly eliminating wavefunction overlap. The resulting inductively protected Andreev (IPA) spin qubit is equivalent to two fluxoniums in the heavy regime, one for each spin. Thus, the IPA qubit combines the long coherence times, low-frequency ground-state manifold, and large anharmonicity of a protected superconducting qubit with the operational advantages of a spin degree of freedom.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Top panels: circuits of the (a) Andreev spin qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Comparison between the eigenvalues of the IPA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Lowest-energy eigenstates of the IPA qubit, Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left panels: Josephson potential (thick lines) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (f). This hybridization enlarges the region with small wavefunction overlap, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Top panels: matrix element [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Ratio between the relaxation times, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Ratio of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison between exact overlaps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mohseni, A

    M. Mohseni, A. Scherer, K. G. Johnson, O. Wertheim, M. Otten, N. A. Aadit, Y. Alexeev, K. M. Bresniker, K. Y. Camsari, B. Chapman, S. Chatterjee, G. A. Dag- new, A. Esposito, F. Fahim, M. Fiorentino, A. Gajjar, A. Khalid, X. Kong, B. Kulchytskyy, E. Kyoseva, R. Li, P. A. Lott, I. L. Markov, R. F. McDermott, G. Pe- dretti, P. Rao, E. Rieffel, A. Silva, J. ...

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    G. Q. AI and Collaborators, Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [4]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires, Physics-Uspekhi44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  4. [5]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of physics303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  5. [6]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-abelian anyons and topological quan- tum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  6. [7]

    Aguado and L

    R. Aguado and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Majorana qubits for topological quantum computing, Physics Today73, 44 (2020)

    2020

  7. [8]

    D. M. Pino, R. S. Souto, and R. Aguado, Minimal kitaev- transmon qubit based on double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B109, 075101 (2024)

    2024

  8. [9]

    H. Pan, S. Das Sarma, and C.-X. Liu, Rabi and ram- sey oscillations of a majorana qubit in a quantum dot- superconductor array, Phys. Rev. B111, 075416 (2025)

    2025

Show all 59 references
  1. [10]

    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

  2. [11]

    Danon, A

    J. Danon, A. Chatterjee, A. Gyenis, and F. Kuem- meth, Protected solid-state qubits, Applied Physics Let- ters119, 260502 (2021)

    2021

  3. [12]

    Siddiqi, Engineering high-coherence superconducting qubits, Nature Reviews Materials6, 875 (2021)

    I. Siddiqi, Engineering high-coherence superconducting qubits, Nature Reviews Materials6, 875 (2021)

    2021

  4. [13]

    Roverc’h, A

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

    2026

  5. [14]

    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 super- conducting qubit, PRX Quantum1, 010307 (2020)

    2020

  6. [15]

    Brooks, A

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

    2013

  7. [16]

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

    2025

  8. [17]

    Sellem, A

    L.-A. Sellem, A. Sarlette, Z. Leghtas, M. Mirrahimi, P. Rouchon, and P. Campagne-Ibarcq, Dissipative pro- tection of a gkp qubit in a high-impedance superconduct- ing circuit driven by a microwave frequency comb, Phys. Rev. X15, 011011 (2025)

    2025

  9. [18]

    M. Hays, V. Fatemi, D. Bouman, J. Cerrillo, S. Dia- mond, K. Serniak, T. Connolly, P. Krogstrup, J. Nyg ˚ ard, A. L. Yeyati, A. Geresdi, and M. H. Devoret, Coher- ent manipulation of an Andreev spin qubit, Science373, 10.1126/science.abf0345 (2021)

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    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 Physics 10...

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    N. M. Chtchelkatchev and Y. V. Nazarov, Andreev quan- tum dots for spin manipulation, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 226806 (2003)

    2003

  12. [21]

    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

  13. [22]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, High-coherence flux- onium qubit, Phys. Rev. X9, 041041 (2019)

    2019

  14. [23]

    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

  15. [24]

    P. D. Kurilovich, T. Vakhtel, T. Connolly, C. G. L. Bøttcher, and B. van Heck, Andreev spin qubit protected by franck-condon blockade, Phys. Rev. B113, 115429 (2026)

    2026

  16. [25]

    J. B. Tjernshaugen, F. V. Bostr¨ om, J. Danon, J. Linder, K. Flensberg, and A. L. R. Manesco, Coherent control of spinmons (2026), arXiv:2605.12588 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Manesco, A

    A. Manesco, A. Akhmerov, and V. Fatemi, Loopless multiterminal quantum circuits at odd parity (2026), arXiv:2601.13369 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Pita-Vidal, A

    M. Pita-Vidal, A. Bargerbos, C.-K. Yang, D. J. van Woerkom, W. Pfaff, N. Haider, P. Krogstrup, L. P. Kouwenhoven, G. de Lange, and A. Kou, Gate-tunable field-compatible fluxonium, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 064038 (2020)

    2020

  19. [28]

    W. M. Strickland, B. H. Elfeky, L. Baker, A. Maiani, J. Lee, I. Levy, J. Issokson, A. Vrajitoarea, and J. Sha- bani, Gatemonium: A voltage-tunable fluxonium, PRX Quantum6, 010326 (2025)

    2025

  20. [29]

    B. D. Isakov, S. Singh, A. Parra-Rodriguez, D. Feldstein- Bofill, Z. Sun, A. Kringhøj, S. Krøjer, A. Blais, M. Kjaergaard, and A. Gyenis, Observation of coher- ent flux-charge interaction in a gate-tunable fluxonium, arXiv:2607.07798 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Pita-Vidal, R

    M. Pita-Vidal, R. S. Souto, S. Goswami, C. K. Andersen, G. Katsaros, J. Shabani, and R. Aguado, Novel qubits in hybrid semiconductor-superconductor nanostructures, arXiv:2512.23336 (2025)

    2025

  22. [31]

    Padurariu and Y

    C. Padurariu and Y. V. Nazarov, Theoretical pro- posal for superconducting spin qubits, Phys Rev B81, 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.144519 (2010)

    2010 doi

  23. [32]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 0...

    2023

  24. [33]

    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

  25. [34]

    In fact, fittings to two-tone spectroscopy data confirm that indeed such a variety of situations exists in the experi- ments [32]

    AlthoughE 0 >0 describes aπ-junction regime, the model admits other situations, includingE 0 ≈0 and E0 <0, depending on microscopic details of the QD junction such as the amount of spin-flip tunneling and the contribution from tunneling through higher levels. In fact, fittings...

  26. [35]

    For full details see the supplemental information in Ref

    The model in Eq.(1) can be obtained analytically from a so-called superconducting Anderson impurity model in the limit of large superconducting gap and including ex- tra terms taking into account cotunneling through higher levels as well as spin-flip tunneling. For full detail...

  27. [36]

    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 10.1038/s41567-024- 02497-x (2024)

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    J. J. Caceres, D. S. Marco, J. Ortuzar, E. Flurin, C. Urbina, H. Pothier, M. F. Goffman, F. J. Matute- Ca˜ nadas, and A. L. Yeyati, Ferbo: a noise re- silient qubit hybridizing andreev and fluxonium states, arXiv:2604.01145 (2026)

    2026

  29. [38]

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

    2019

  30. [39]

    Bryon, D

    J. Bryon, D. Weiss, X. You, S. Sussman, X. Croot, Z. Huang, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Time-dependent magnetic flux in devices for circuit quantum electrody- namics, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 034031 (2023)

    2023

  31. [40]

    I. V. Pechenezhskiy, R. A. Mencia, L. B. Nguyen, Y.- H. Lin, and V. E. Manucharyan, The superconducting quasicharge qubit, Nature585, 368 (2020)

    2020

  32. [41]

    Although we do not consider such mechanism here, we expect it will also lead to fur- ther suppression in the IPA regime

    The spin-flip transitions can be further suppressed by the Franck-Condon principle, since the flip of the quasipar- ticle spin can only happen if it is accompanied by the excitation of plasmons [24]. Although we do not consider such mechanism here, we expect it will also lead ...

  33. [42]

    Paveˇ si´ c, M

    L. Paveˇ si´ c, M. Pita Vidal, A. Bargerbos, and R.ˇZitko, Impurity knight shift in quantum dot josephson junc- tions, SciPost Phys.15, 070 (2023)

    2023

  34. [43]

    Nadj-Perge, S

    S. Nadj-Perge, S. M. Frolov, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Spin–orbit qubit in a semiconductor nanowire, Nature468, 1084 (2010)

    2010

  35. [44]

    L. Tosi, C. Metzger, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Poth- ier, S. Park, A. L. Yeyati, J. Nyg ˚ ard, and P. Krogstrup, Spin-orbit splitting of andreev states revealed by mi- crowave spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X9, 011010 (2019)

    2019

  36. [45]

    Metzger, S

    C. Metzger, S. Park, L. Tosi, C. Janvier, A. A. Reynoso, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, A. Levy Yeyati, and H. Poth- ier, Circuit-QED with phase-biased Josephson weak links, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013036 (2021)

    2021

  37. [46]

    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, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 024046 (2025)

    2025

  38. [47]

    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, 1103–1107 (2020)

    2020

  39. [48]

    Cerrillo, M

    J. Cerrillo, M. Hays, V. Fatemi, and A. L. Yeyati, Spin co- herent manipulation in josephson weak links, Phys. Rev. Res.3, L022012 (2021)

    2021

  40. [49]

    In [48], the intermediate states are other ABS manifold, with which the lower one has a quite larger spin flipping matrix element (this is not our situation, with presum- ably weak spin flipping efficiency)

  41. [50]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Reviews6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  42. [51]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor quantum dots, Science 309, 2180 (2005)

    2005

  43. [52]

    D. J. Reilly, J. M. Taylor, J. R. Petta, C. M. Mar- cus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Suppressing Spin Qubit Dephasing by Nuclear State Preparation, Science 321, 817 (2008)

    2008

  44. [53]

    Ithier, E

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

    2005

  45. [54]

    Geier, R

    M. Geier, R. S. Souto, J. Schulenborg, S. Asaad, M. Lei- jnse, and K. Flensberg, Fermion-parity qubit in a prox- imitized double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023281 (2024)

    2024

  46. [55]

    D. M. Pino, R. S. Souto, M. J. Calder´ on, R. Aguado, and J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, Theory of superconducting proximity effect in hole-based hybrid semiconductor- superconductor devices, Phys. Rev. B111, 235443 (2025)

    2025

  47. [56]

    S. S. Babkin, B. Joecker, K. Flensberg, M. Serbyn, and J. Danon, Superconducting proximity effect in two- dimensional hole gases, Phys. Rev. B111, 214518 (2025)

    2025

  48. [57]

    Fabris, P

    G. Fabris, P. Falthansl-Scheinecker, D. Shah, D. M. Pino, M. Borovkov, A. Bubis, K. Roux, D. Sokolova, A. A. Juanes, T. Costanzo, I. Taha, A. Gen¸ c, J. Arbiol, S. Cal- caterra, A. D. C. Oliveira, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, R. S. Souto, M. J. Calderon, R. Aguado, J. C. Abadillo-...

    2026 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Hoffman and C

    S. Hoffman and C. Tahan, Resolving andreev spin qubits in germanium-based josephson junctions (2025), arXiv:2506.13988 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Coppini, P

    V. Coppini, P. D. Vecchio, A. L. R. Manesco, A. Akhmerov, V. Fatemi, B. van Heck, and S. Bosco, Strain engineering of andreev spin qubits in germanium (2026), arXiv:2604.22650 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  51. [60]

    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 Physics20, 1158 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.