Flux qubits in a planar circuit quantum electrodynamics architecture: Quantum control and decoherence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report experiments on superconducting flux qubits in a circuit quantum electrodynamics (cQED) setup. Two qubits, independently biased and controlled, are coupled to a coplanar waveguide resonator. Dispersive qubit state readout reaches a maximum contrast of 72%. We measure energy relaxation times at the symmetry point of 5 and $10\ensuremath{\mu}\mathrm{s}$, corresponding to 7 and $20\ensuremath{\mu}\mathrm{s}$ when relaxation through the resonator due to Purcell effect is subtracted out, and levels of flux noise of 2.6 and $2.7\phantom{\rule{0.222222em}{0ex}}\ensuremath{\mu}{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Phi}}}_{0}/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}$ at 1 Hz for the two qubits. We discuss the origin of decoherence in the measured devices. The strong coupling between the qubits and the cavity leads to a large, cavity-mediated, qubit-qubit coupling. This coupling, which is characterized spectroscopically, reaches 38 MHz. These results demonstrate the potential of cQED as a platform for fundamental investigations of decoherence and quantum dynamics of flux qubits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".