A scanning resonator for probing quantum coherent devices

Angela Kou; Jared Gibson; Zhanzhi Jiang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 59 references

A scanning resonator for probing quantum coherent devices

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A high-quality superconducting resonator mounted on a scanning cantilever can be positioned over a transmon qubit and serve as its dispersive readout and control port, allowing the qubit's energy spectrum and coherence times to be…

desk verdict First credible demonstration of coherent transmon readout with a scanning resonator; the 'no extra tip loss' claim is softer than the text admits because it rests on an unvalidated simulated coupling. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22620 v1 pith:WDHILFYO submitted 2025-06-27 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Jared Gibson , Zhanzhi Jiang , Angela Kou This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall

keywords scanningresonatorcircuitquantumelectrodynamicstransmonqubitdispersivereadoutcapacitiveimagingsuperconductingcoherenceprobemicroscopy

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 aims to establish that a high-quality superconducting resonator on a scanning cantilever can act as a movable, reconfigurable readout port for quantum coherent devices. The authors show that by bringing a small tip terminated in a lumped-element resonator close to a transmon qubit, the resonator couples through the tip-sample capacitance and performs dispersive readout and qubit control without any readout circuitry fabricated on the sample chip. They report a resonator internal quality factor above 10,000 at single-photon powers, capacitive imaging with zeptoFarad sensitivity and micron spatial resolution at milliKelvin temperatures, and full characterization of the energy spectrum and coherence times of a 17-qubit array. If the approach holds, it would give experimentalists a way to probe materials and qubit platforms that cannot host high-quality on-chip resonators.

What carries the argument

The central object is a lumped-element superconducting resonator, a 7.955 GHz NbTiN device on a SiN/Si cantilever, terminated in a 2-micron tip. The tip-sample capacitance $C_{ts}$ is the coupling port: changes in $C_{ts}$ shift the resonator frequency (the basis of capacitive imaging), and when the tip is over a transmon the same capacitance produces a qubit-resonator coupling $g$ that enables dispersive readout. The paper calibrates tip-sample distance by fitting measured frequency shifts to simulated $C_{ts}$ curves, and computes the induced qubit relaxation from the Purcell formula $\Gamma_{\text{Purcell}} = (g/\Delta)^2\kappa$, where $\Delta$ is the qubit-resonator detuning and $\kappa$ the resonator linewidth, to separate tip-induced loss from intrinsic qubit loss.

What would settle it

Measure the qubit-resonator coupling directly from an avoided-level crossing (vacuum Rabi splitting) at several tip-sample distances, and compare the Purcell-limited relaxation rate predicted by $(g/\Delta)^2\kappa$ with the measured $T_1$; agreement within uncertainty would confirm the calibration, while a systematic offset would show that the simulated coupling or capacitance is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single high-Q superconducting resonator on a scanning tip can be coherently coupled to a transmon qubit through the tip-sample capacitance and serve as both the readout and control port, so that the qubit's energy spectrum, $T_1$, Ramsey dephasing, and echo coherence can be measured with no on-chip readout circuitry. The authors demonstrate this by positioning the tip over individual transmons, observing the expected dispersive, power-dependent resonator response, resolving the $|g\rangle\to|e\rangle$ transition and a two-photon $|g\rangle\to|f\rangle$ transition, and measuring coherence times. The measured relaxation rate as the tip approaches the qubit matches the Purcell rate predicted from the simulated coupling, which the authors take as evidence that the scanning tip introduces no loss beyond the Purcell channel.

Load-bearing premise

The reported zeptoFarad sensitivity and the conclusion that the tip adds no loss beyond Purcell loss depend on simulated values of tip-sample capacitance and qubit-resonator coupling; if those simulations are wrong in absolute scale, both quantitative claims would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single scanning resonator can characterize many qubits on one chip without fabricating readout resonators, which speeds up testing of qubit arrays and of chips where readout circuitry is impractical.
Materials that cannot host high-quality on-chip resonators, such as those with large microwave loss, can still be probed at the single-photon level by bringing the resonator tip near them.
Because the tip is positionable, the same resonator can map the spatial variation of qubit properties and local loss sources across a device.
Adding a Purcell filter to the resonator tip should suppress the distance-dependent relaxation channel and lengthen qubit $T_1$.
The demonstrated zF/Hz$^{1/2}$ capacitive sensitivity at single-photon powers extends scanning microwave microscopy into a regime suitable for probing quantum coherent systems.

Reading between the lines

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

The same readout mechanism should extend to other quantum coherent systems whose energy scales overlap the resonator frequency, such as spin ensembles or magnons, where on-chip high-Q resonators are hard to fabricate.
The sensitivity floor is set by mechanical vibration; a vibration-isolated or floated scanning stage could push the capacitance noise below the reported zF/Hz$^{1/2}$ and allow smaller tip-sample distances.
The demonstration suggests a path toward spatially resolved noise spectroscopy: by rastering the tip, local two-level-system defects and quasiparticle traps could be located and correlated with qubit decoherence.
A direct test of the method's generality would be to compare extracted coherence times for the same qubit measured both with the scanning resonator and with a conventional on-chip readout.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The central demonstration is real and worth knowing about: the authors mount a high-Q superconducting resonator on a cantilever, scan it over transmon qubits, and use it as both a dispersive readout port and a drive port, extracting the transmon spectrum, T1, Ramsey and echo times, and mapping 17 qubits with no on-chip readout circuitry. Prior scanning-resonator work (refs 30, 31) stayed in the dielectric-imaging regime, so coherent coupling to a qubit is the genuinely new step. The raw measurements that support it—power-dependent dispersive shift, two-tone spectroscopy showing the one- and two-photon transitions, and the time-domain decays—look credible. Qi > 10^4 at single-photon powers and zF/Hz^1/2 capacitive sensitivity at 500 nm are solid benchmarks.

The soft spot is the quantitative loss claim. In Sec. IV the authors conclude the tip adds no loss beyond Purcell, but that conclusion rests entirely on the simulated qubit-resonator coupling g from Ansys Maxwell/scQubits, with no independent measurement. Since the Purcell rate scales as g^2, a factor-of-two error in g changes it by 4x. If the true g is larger, the rising Gamma1 with decreasing distance could be partly tip-induced loss misattributed to Purcell; if smaller, the model overstates Purcell and the fit would mask a distance-dependent discrepancy. The 'minimally invasive' claim is therefore not as firm as the text implies. The lack of error bars on the Gamma1 points in Fig. 4 makes the agreement hard to assess. This is not fatal—the coherent-coupling demonstration stands independently—but the authors should either validate g or soften the claim.

Minor issues: the coherence times are quoted without error bars, and the data availability statement is still a placeholder. Both are easy fixes.

Who this is for: experimentalists in circuit QED, scanning microwave microscopy, and quantum device characterization. It deserves a serious referee—send it out. I would accept after revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a scanning superconducting microwave resonator—a lumped-element NbTiN resonator on a cantilever—as a probe for quantum coherent devices. At 10 mK the authors measure an internal quality factor Qi>10^4 in the single-photon regime, demonstrate capacitive imaging with sensitivity of order 3 zF/Hz^{1/2} and about 2 μm spatial resolution, and then couple the tip to transmon qubits. Using power-dependent dispersive shifts, two-tone spectroscopy, T1, Ramsey, and Hahn-echo measurements, they extract qubit spectra and coherence times for multiple transmons without any on-chip readout circuitry. They also report a tip-sample-distance-dependent relaxation rate that they model as Purcell loss plus a distance-independent term, concluding that the tip introduces no additional loss. Finally, they map fge, T1, and T2E for an array of 17 transmons.

Significance. If correct, the results establish a new scanning-probe tool for circuit QED: a high-Q resonator that can be positioned over arbitrary devices and used for dispersive readout, spectroscopy, and coherence measurements without fabricating readout resonators on the sample chip. The central demonstration—coherent coupling to transmons and multi-qubit characterization with no on-chip readout—is supported by direct measurements. Strengths include the direct two-tone and time-domain data, the clear presentation of the setup, and the data-availability statement. The main caveat is that the quantitative 'no additional loss' conclusion depends on an unvalidated simulated coupling strength, and several quantitative results lack error bars.

major comments (2)

[Section IV; Supplement Sec. VII, Eq. (11)] The conclusion that the tip adds no loss beyond Purcell rests entirely on the simulated qubit-resonator coupling g(d) from the AC Conduction solver and scQubits, inserted into Γ_Purcell = (g/Δ)^2 κ. No independent measurement of g is presented, and the tip-sample distance axis used in Fig. 4 is itself calibrated from the same simulation (Supplement Sec. V). Because the Purcell rate scales as g^2, a factor-of-2 simulation error changes the predicted rate by 4×, and a systematic error in the simulated distance dependence could be partly absorbed into the fit, misattributing distance-dependent tip-induced loss to Purcell or vice versa. To support the 'no additional loss' claim, the authors should either measure g independently (e.g., through an avoided crossing or ac-Stark shift) or provide a sensitivity analysis of the fit to g together with fit residuals. At minimum, the conclusion should be softened to state consistency with Purcell loss within the accuracy of the simulation.
[Figures 3(d-f) and 4] The coherence times and relaxation rates are reported without error bars or confidence intervals, so the agreement between the Γ1 data and the Purcell model in Fig. 4, and the significance of the T2E increase in Fig. 3(f), cannot be quantitatively assessed. The authors should provide statistical uncertainties (from repeated measurements or fit covariance) for T1, T2R, T2E, and Γ1, and include residuals for the Fig. 4 model.

minor comments (5)

[Section III and abstract] The abstract and text state 'zeptoFarad sensitivity' but the reported quantity is 3 zF/Hz^{1/2} at a 1 Hz bandwidth; please state the per-root-Hz units consistently in the abstract.
[Section III and Supplement Sec. V] Because the capacitance-to-frequency conversion α and the tip-sample distance are calibrated using simulated Cts(d) with two fitted parameters (d0 and α), the absolute value of the quoted zF sensitivity is simulation-dependent; the main text should state this caveat explicitly and, if possible, provide an independent calibration.
[Section IV] The sentence 'the qubit coherence is affect by pure dephasing processes' contains a typo ('affect' should be 'affected').
[Supplement Table SI] The EC and EJ values are extracted using the measured fge together with simulations; the table should include a note that these energies are model-dependent and do not include uncertainties.
[Section IV] The calibration of the π-pulse amplitude used in the T1 measurement is not described; a brief statement on pulse calibration would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an experimental demonstration whose quantitative calibrations and model comparisons rely on independent simulations and standard fits, not on claims that reduce to their own inputs.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain of the paper. The central claims are experimental: a high-Q scanning resonator performs capacitive imaging with zeptoFarad sensitivity and reads out transmon qubits with no on-chip circuitry. These claims are supported by direct measurements (resonator spectroscopy, two-tone spectroscopy, T1/T2R/T2E measurements) and not derived from a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The capacitive sensitivity is obtained by converting measured frequency noise to capacitance noise via alpha = 1.12e-8 fF/Hz, a calibration constant determined by fitting the measured approach curve to an Ansys Maxwell simulation of Cts(d). This is a standard calibration, not a self-fulfilling prediction, and the underlying sensitivity is still measured in physical units. The transmon loss analysis compares measured Gamma_1(d) with a simulated Purcell rate Gamma_Purcell = (g/Delta)^2 kappa, plus a fitted distance-independent loss of 0.1 MHz. The Purcell contribution is simulated, not fit to the Gamma_1 data, so the statement that no additional tip-distance-dependent loss is found is a model-comparison inference. One could question the absolute accuracy of the simulated g or the lack of error bars on Fig. 4, but that is a correctness/validation concern, not circularity. The only self-citation (ref. [37] for refrigerator vibration noise) is peripheral and not load-bearing. No step in the paper exhibits a reduction of the claimed result to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental demonstration, so the ledger records fitting parameters used to calibrate and analyze measurements plus modeling assumptions. The central claim, coherent scanning readout of a transmon, rests mainly on direct microwave measurements; the fitted quantities enter the quantitative interpretation of sensitivity and loss, not the existence of the coupling.

free parameters (7)

alpha (capacitance-frequency conversion) = 1.12e-8 fF/Hz
Determined by fitting simulated Cts versus distance to measured resonance shift (Supplement Sec. V); used in Eqs. (1)-(2) to convert frequency noise into the quoted zF/Hz sensitivity and to calibrate tip-sample distance.
Distance-independent relaxation rate in Purcell model = 0.1 MHz
Fit offset in Fig. 4 model, sum of simulated Purcell rate plus this constant; the match between model and data is partly due to this free parameter.
TLS loss parameter delta0_TLS = 2.3e-5
Fit to Qi versus input power and temperature in Supplement Sec. IV; used in the loss model, not directly load-bearing for the qubit demonstration.
Saturated TLS quality factor Qsat = 18000
Fit to high-power Qi in Supplement Sec. IV.
Other loss quality factor Qother = 18000
Fit to temperature dependence of Qi in Supplement Sec. IV.
Superconducting critical temperature Tc = 10 K
Fit from high-temperature Qi in Supplement Sec. IV; also used in the quasiparticle loss model.
Reflection asymmetry parameter theta = -0.16 rad
Fit to the S11 reflection line shape in Eq. (S1); minor line-shape parameter.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Standard circuit QED theory describes the dispersive resonator-transmon interaction.
Invoked in Sec. IV to interpret the power-dependent resonator shift and two-tone spectroscopy; well-established theory from refs. [1,2,39,42].
domain assumption Ansys Maxwell AC Conduction solver and scQubits accurately model tip-sample capacitance and qubit-resonator coupling in the experimental geometry.
Used in Supplement Sec. V and VII for distance calibration and Purcell rate calculation; the quantitative conclusions rely on simulation accuracy.
ad hoc to paper Kinetic inductance fraction alpha is approximately 1 in the frequency-shift fit.
Supplement Eq. (7) assumes alpha ~ 1 to fit the quasiparticle contribution; the supplement also notes a factor-of-10 discrepancy between the predicted TLS frequency shift and data, indicating the model is not fully controlled.
domain assumption Transmon relaxation is described by independent Purcell and constant loss channels.
Used in Fig. 4 to fit Gamma1(d); the conclusion that the tip adds no loss beyond Purcell depends on this decomposition.
domain assumption The two observed transitions at 7.528 GHz and 7.679 GHz correspond to the two-photon |g>-to-|f> and single-photon |g>-to-|e> transitions of a standard transmon.
Standard transmon level structure is assumed; no independent calibration of the qubit frequency is provided beyond the observed transitions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A scanning resonator for probing quantum coherent devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDHILFYO

@misc{pith2026250622620,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A scanning resonator for probing quantum coherent devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDHILFYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22620}
}

read the original abstract

Superconducting resonators with high quality factors are extremely sensitive detectors of the complex impedance of materials and devices coupled to them. This capability has been used to measure losses in multiple different materials and, in the case of circuit quantum electrodynamics (circuit QED), has been used to measure the coherent evolution of multiple different types of qubits. Here, we report on the implementation of a scanning resonator for probing quantum coherent devices. Our scanning setup enables tunable coherent coupling to systems of interest without the need for fabricating on-chip superconducting resonators. We measure the internal quality factor of our resonator sensor in the single-photon regime to be > 10000 and demonstrate capacitive imaging using our sensor with zeptoFarad sensitivity and micron spatial resolution at milliKelvin temperatures. We then use our setup to characterize the energy spectrum and coherence times of multiple transmon qubits with no on-chip readout circuitry. Our work introduces a new tool for using circuit QED to measure existing and proposed qubit platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22620 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Scanning resonator setup. (a) Schematic of the sample puck for housing the scanning setup. (b) False-colored optical image of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Capacitive imaging capabilities. (a) Schematic of tip (blue) and cantilever (gray) over sample consisting of a patterned Ta thin film [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Single-transmon characterization. (a) False-colored optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Relaxation rate of the transmon as a function of the tip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

[1]

Blais, A

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Re- views of Modern Physics 93, 025005 (2021)

work page 2021
[2]

A. A. Clerk, K. W. Lehnert, P . Bertet, J. R. Petta, and Y . Naka- mura, Nature Physics 16, 257 (2020)

work page 2020
[3]

Wallraff, D

A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 431, 162 (2004)

2004
[4]

The measured loss is well- captured by a model including Purcell loss and a tip-sample distance-independent loss

The increase of Γ 1 with the decreasing tip-sample distance is consistent with Purcell loss [43], since the qubit-resonator coupling becomes stronger at smaller tip-sample distances (see details in the supplement). The measured loss is well- captured by a model including Purcell loss and a tip-sample distance-independent loss. Importantly, we do not ﬁnd a...

work page
[5]

M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, B. R. Johnson, L. Sun, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review Letters 105, 173601 (2010)

work page 2010
[6]

K. J. Satzinger, Y . P . Zhong, H.-S. Chang, G. A. Peairs, A. Bi- enfait, M.-H. Chou, A. Y . Cleland, C. R. Conner, É. Dumur, J. Grebel, I. Gutierrez, B. H. November, R. G. Povey, S. J. Whiteley, D. D. Awschalom, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland, Nature 563, 661 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

A. D. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Wei- des, J. Wenner, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Nature 464, 697 (2010)

2010
[8]

Y . Chu, P . Kharel, T. Y oon, L. Frunzio, P . T. Rakich, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 563, 666 (2018)

work page 2018

Show all 59 references

[9]

Arrangoiz-Arriola, E

P . Arrangoiz-Arriola, E. A. Wollack, Z. Wang, M. Pechal, W. Jiang, T. P . McKenna, J. D. Witmer, R. V an Laer, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Nature 571, 537 (2019)

2019
[10]

L. R. Sletten, B. A. Moores, J. J. Viennot, and K. W. Lehnert, Physical Review X 9, 021056 (2019)

2019
[11]

Lachance-Quirion, Y

D. Lachance-Quirion, Y . Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Y amazaki, and Y . Nakamura, Science Advances 3, e1603150 (2017)

2017
[12]

Lachance-Quirion, S

D. Lachance-Quirion, S. P . Wolski, Y . Tabuchi, S. Kono, K. Us- ami, and Y . Nakamura, Science 367, 425 (2020). 7

2020
[13]

Xu, X.-K

D. Xu, X.-K. Gu, H.-K. Li, Y .-C. Weng, Y .-P . Wang, J. Li, H. Wang, S.-Y . Zhu, and J. Q. Y ou, Physical Review Letters 130, 193603 (2023)

2023
[14]

Bienfait, J

A. Bienfait, J. J. Pla, Y . Kubo, X. Zhou, M. Stern, C. C. Lo, C. D. Weis, T. Schenkel, D. Vion, D. Esteve, J. J. L. Morton, and P . Bertet, Nature531, 74 (2016)

2016
[15]

A. J. Sigillito, H. Malissa, A. M. Tyryshkin, H. Riemann, N. V . Abrosimov, P . Becker, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, K. M. Itoh, J. J. L. Morton, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, and S. A. Lyon, Applied Physics Letters 104, 222407 (2014)

2014
[16]

Eichler, A

C. Eichler, A. J. Sigillito, S. A. Lyon, and J. R. Petta, Physical Review Letters 118, 037701 (2017)

2017
[17]

Probst, A

S. Probst, A. Bienfait, P . Campagne-Ibarcq, J. J. Pla, B. Al- banese, J. F. Da Silva Barbosa, T. Schenkel, D. Vion, D. Esteve, K. Mølmer, J. J. L. Morton, R. Heeres, and P . Bertet, Applied Physics Letters 111, 202604 (2017)

2017
[18]

Psaroudaki and C

C. Psaroudaki and C. Panagopoulos, Physical Review Letters 127, 067201 (2021)

2021
[19]

Hirosawa, A

T. Hirosawa, A. Mook, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, PRX Quan- tum 3, 040321 (2022)

2022
[20]

Müller, J

C. Müller, J. Bourassa, and A. Blais, Physical Review B 88, 235401 (2013)

2013
[21]

Y avilberg, E

K. Y avilberg, E. Ginossar, and E. Grosfeld, Physical Review B 92, 075143 (2015)

2015
[22]

J. G. C. Martinez, C. S. Chiu, B. M. Smitham, and A. A. Houck, Science Advances 9, eadj7195 (2023)

2023
[23]

Flat- band (de)localization emulated with a superconducting qubit array,

I. T. Rosen, S. Muschinske, C. N. Barrett, D. A. Rower, R. Das, D. K. Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, M. Schuldt, K. Serniak, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Y oder, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, “Flat- band (de)localization emulated with a superconducting qubit array,” (2025), arXiv:2410.078...

2025 arXiv
[24]

Arute, K

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin...

2019
[25]

K. Lai, W. Kundhikanjana, M. Kelly, and Z. X. Shen, Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments 79, 063703 (2008)

2008
[26]

Jiang, S

Z. Jiang, S. K. Chong, P . Zhang, P . Deng, S. Chu, S. Jahanbani, K. L. Wang, and K. Lai, Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments 94, 053701 (2023)

2023
[27]

L. W. Cao, C. Wu, R. Bhattacharyya, R. Zhang, and M. T. Allen, Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments 94, 093705 (2023)

2023
[28]

J.-Y . Shan, N. Morrison, S.-D. Chen, F. Wang, and E. Y . Ma, Nature Communications 15, 5043 (2024)

2024
[29]

Z. Chu, L. Zheng, and K. Lai, Annual Review of Materials Research 50, 105 (2020)

2020
[30]

M. E. Barber, E. Y . Ma, and Z.-X. Shen, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 61 (2022)

2022
[31]

S. E. de Graaf, A. V . Danilov, A. Adamyan, and S. E. Kubatkin, Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments 84, 023706 (2013)

2013
[32]

Geaney, D

S. Geaney, D. Cox, T. Hönigl-Decrinis, R. Shaikhaidarov, S. E. Kubatkin, T. Lindström, A. V . Danilov, and S. E. de Graaf, Scientiﬁc Reports 9, 12539 (2019)

2019
[33]

J. Shan, N. Morrison, and E. Y . Ma, in 2024 IEEE/MTT-S In- ternational Microwave Symposium - IMS 2024 (2024) pp. 994– 997

2024
[34]

M. R. Vissers, J. Gao, D. S. Wisbey, D. A. Hite, C. C. Tsuei, A. D. Corcoles, M. Steffen, and D. P . Pappas, Applied Physics Letters 97, 232509 (2010)

2010
[35]

J. M. Martinis, K. B. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, K. D. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. P . Pappas, R. W. Simmonds, and C. C. Y u, Physical Review Letters 95, 210503 (2005)

2005
[36]

Chistolini, K

T. Chistolini, K. Lee, A. Banerjee, M. Alghadeer, C. Jünger, M. V . P . Altoé, C. Song, S. Chen, F. Wang, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Applied Physics Letters 125, 204001 (2024)

2024
[37]

K. Lai, W. Kundhikanjana, M. A. Kelly, and Z.-X. Shen, Ap- plied Nanoscience 1, 13 (2011)

2011
[38]

M. E. Barber, Y . Li, J. Gibson, J. Y u, Z. Jiang, Y . Hu, Z. Ji, N. Nandi, J. C. Hoke, L. Bishop-V an Horn, G. R. Arias, D. J. V an Harlingen, K. A. Moler, Z.-X. Shen, A. Kou, and B. E. Feldman, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 215, 1 (2024)

2024
[39]

J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. R. John- son, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Majer, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review B 77, 180502 (2008)

2008
[40]

Blais, R.-S

A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A 69, 062320 (2004)

2004
[41]

L. S. Bishop, E. Ginossar, and S. M. Girvin, Physical Review Letters 105, 100505 (2010)

2010
[42]

Boissonneault, J

M. Boissonneault, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Physical Re- view Letters 105, 100504 (2010)

2010
[43]

Blais, J

A. Blais, J. Gambetta, A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A 75, 032329 (2007)

2007
[44]

E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V . Pound, Physical Review 69, 37 (1946)

1946
[45]

Jeffrey, D

E. Jeffrey, D. Sank, J. Y . Mutus, T. C. White, J. Kelly, R. Barends, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Megrant, P . J. J. O’Malley, C. Neill, P . Roushan, A. V ainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Physical Review Letters 112, 190504 (2014)

2014
[46]

Rosenberg, D

D. Rosenberg, D. Kim, R. Das, D. Y ost, S. Gustavsson, D. Hover, P . Krantz, A. Melville, L. Racz, G. O. Samach, S. J. Weber, F. Y an, J. L. Y oder, A. J. Kerman, and W. D. Oliver, npj Quantum Information 3, 42 (2017)

2017
[47]

Holman, D

N. Holman, D. Rosenberg, D. Y ost, J. L. Y oder, R. Das, W. D. Oliver, R. McDermott, and M. A. Eriksson, npj Quantum In- formation 7, 137 (2021)

2021
[48]

Barends, J

R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, Y . Chen, Y . Yin, B. Chiaro, J. Mutus, C. Neill, P . O’Malley, P . Roushan, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Physical Review Letters 111, 080502 (2013)

2013
[49]

H. Paik, D. I. Schuster, L. S. Bishop, G. Kirchmair, G. Cate- lani, A. P . Sears, B. R. Johnson, M. J. Reagor, L. Frunzio, L. I. Glazman, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review Letters 107, 240501 (2011)

2011
[50]

Quaglio, F

T. Quaglio, F. Dahlem, S. Martin, A. Gérardin, C. B. Winkel- mann, and H. Courtois, Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments 83, 123702 (2012)

2012
[51]

K. A. Moler, Nature Materials 16, 1049 (2017). Supplementary information for: A scanning resonator for probing quantum coherent devices I. RESONA TOR FABRICATION Our resonator chip was fabricated from a Si substrate with capping layers of 500 nm SiN x on both sides. A blanket ...

2017
[52]

Stefanazzi, K

L. Stefanazzi, K. Treptow, N. Wilcer, C. Stoughton, C. Brad- ford, S. Uemura, S. Zorzetti, S. Montella, G. Cancelo, S. Suss- man, A. Houck, S. Saxena, H. Arnaldi, A. Agrawal, H. Zhang, C. Ding, and D. I. Schuster, Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments 93, 044709 (2022)

2022
[53]

M. V . P . Altoé, A. Banerjee, C. Berk, A. Hajr, A. Schwartzberg, C. Song, M. Alghadeer, S. Aloni, M. J. Elowson, J. M. Kreike- baum, E. K. Wong, S. M. Grifﬁn, S. Rao, A. Weber-Bargioni, A. M. Minor, D. I. Santiago, S. Cabrini, I. Siddiqi, and D. F. Ogletree, PRX Quantum 3, 02...

2022
[54]

C. R. H. McRae, H. Wang, J. Gao, M. R. Vissers, T. Brecht, A. Dunsworth, D. P . Pappas, and J. Mutus, Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments 91, 091101 (2020)

2020
[55]

Zmuidzinas, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 3, 169 (2012)

J. Zmuidzinas, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 3, 169 (2012)

2012
[56]

Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (Dover Publica- tions, Inc., 2004)

M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (Dover Publica- tions, Inc., 2004)

2004
[57]

Gao, The Physics of Superconducting Microwave Resonators , Ph.D

J. Gao, The Physics of Superconducting Microwave Resonators , Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, United States – California (2008)

2008
[58]

Shearrow, G

A. Shearrow, G. Koolstra, S. J. Whiteley, N. Earnest, P . S. Barry, F. J. Heremans, D. D. Awschalom, E. Shirokoff, and D. I. Schuster, Applied Physics Letters 113, 212601 (2018), arXiv:1808.06009 [cond-mat]

2018 arXiv
[59]

Groszkowski and J

P . Groszkowski and J. Koch, Quantum 5, 583 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Blais, A

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Re- views of Modern Physics 93, 025005 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [2]

A. A. Clerk, K. W. Lehnert, P . Bertet, J. R. Petta, and Y . Naka- mura, Nature Physics 16, 257 (2020)

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Wallraff, D

A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 431, 162 (2004)

2004

[4] [4]

The measured loss is well- captured by a model including Purcell loss and a tip-sample distance-independent loss

The increase of Γ 1 with the decreasing tip-sample distance is consistent with Purcell loss [43], since the qubit-resonator coupling becomes stronger at smaller tip-sample distances (see details in the supplement). The measured loss is well- captured by a model including Purcell loss and a tip-sample distance-independent loss. Importantly, we do not ﬁnd a...

work page

[5] [5]

M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, B. R. Johnson, L. Sun, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review Letters 105, 173601 (2010)

work page 2010

[6] [6]

K. J. Satzinger, Y . P . Zhong, H.-S. Chang, G. A. Peairs, A. Bi- enfait, M.-H. Chou, A. Y . Cleland, C. R. Conner, É. Dumur, J. Grebel, I. Gutierrez, B. H. November, R. G. Povey, S. J. Whiteley, D. D. Awschalom, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland, Nature 563, 661 (2018)

work page 2018

[7] [7]

A. D. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Wei- des, J. Wenner, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Nature 464, 697 (2010)

2010

[8] [8]

Y . Chu, P . Kharel, T. Y oon, L. Frunzio, P . T. Rakich, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 563, 666 (2018)

work page 2018