Modeling Dielectric Loss in Superconducting Resonators: Evidence for Interacting Atomic Two-Level Systems at the Nb/Oxide Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While several experiments claim that two-level system (TLS) defects in amorphous surfaces and interfaces are responsible for energy relaxation in superconducting resonators and qubits, none can provide quantitative explanation of their data in terms of the conventional noninteracting TLS model. Here a model that interpolates between the interacting and noninteracting TLS loss tangent is proposed to perform numerical analysis of experimental data and extract information about TLS parameters and their distribution. As a proof of principle, the model is applied to TESLA cavities that contain only a single lossy material in their interior, the niobium-niobium oxide interface. The best fits show interacting TLSs with a sharp modulus of electric dipole moment for both thin ($5\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}\mathrm{nm}$) and thick ($100\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}\mathrm{nm}$) oxides, indicating that the TLSs are ``atomic'' instead of ``glassy.'' The proposed method can be applied to other devices with multiple material interfaces and substrates, with the goal of elucidating the nature of TLSs causing energy loss in resonators and 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 | 0.000 | 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".