The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 33 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Resolving catastrophic error bursts from cosmic rays in large arrays of superconducting qubits
Open accessChecked 2026-10-06 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Using a 26-qubit subset of a Google Sycamore processor, the paper directly observes high-energy radiation events that cause chip-wide bursts of decay errors from quasiparticle poisoning. The events occur about every 10 s, last tens of milliseconds, and can suppress effective T1 across the chip, highlighting a challenge for quantum error correction.
Key findings
- Rapid Repetitive Correlated Sampling (RReCS) detected correlated error bursts: simultaneous errors jump from a baseline of 4 to 24, saturating the qubit patch, then recover exponentially with a time constant around 25 ms.
- Across 100 datasets of 60 s each, 415 events were extracted; decay timescales were tightly grouped at 25–30 ms, peak heights ranged from 6 to 26 errors, and inter-event times matched a Poisson process with average rate 1/(10 s).
- High-time-resolution runs showed an initial jump from 4 to 10 errors in about 10 µs, saturation to 15 errors over about 1 ms, and a 25 ms decay; heatmaps showed a localized initial hotspot spreading across the chip.
- Excitation-error runs (initializing |0⟩) showed no correlated peaks, supporting an asymmetric quasiparticle decay mechanism; T-RReCS showed peak heights scale exponentially with sampling time, and the largest events correspond to a chip-wide T1 reduction to less than 1 s (as stated).
Methods
- Device: 26-qubit subset of a Google Sycamore processor, using flux-tunable transmon qubits with tunable couplers off; the 10 mm × 10 mm qubit chip is indium-bump-bonded to a 20 mm × 24 mm carrier chip.
- RReCS: prepare |1⟩, idle for a short sampling time (1 µs), measure simultaneously, and repeat every 100 µs; long runs were 100 back-to-back 60 s datasets, with matched filtering and template fits used to identify events. High-resolution runs used a reset protocol with 3 µs intervals; T-RReCS cycled through varying sampling times.
- Analysis: an independent error model based on T1 and readout fidelity; exponential fits to peak heights versus sampling time to extract an average T1; comparison to a zero-parameter global T1 model.
Limitations
- Stated: the analysis neglects intricacies of the energy cascade; different impact energies and locations, plus additional structures and materials (indium, TiN barrier, second substrate), add complexity, and a quantitative understanding remains an open question.
- Stated: the event rate is sensitive to the lower cutoff for event size; data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
- Evident: measurements use only a 26-qubit subset of one processor, with some qubits excluded due to adverse calibration; no direct particle identification is reported, so cosmic-ray versus gamma attribution is inferred; mitigation strategies are discussed but not tested.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
26 Own result · 22 Not checked yet · 21 Own interpretation · 12 No basis given · 3 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, we directly observe high-energy rays impacting a large-scale quantum processor.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We show that high-energy events produce discrete bursts of errors that a ect an entire qubit patch on the processor, e ectively lasting fo thousands of error correction cycles.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The peak features an exponential decay back to the baseline error rate with a time constant around 25 ms”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We nd a lack of correlated events, especially clear in the low noise matched ltered timeseries.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The absolute peak heights correspond well to a zeroparameter model; h = N Q (1 exp( t 0 sampling =T avg 1 )), corresponding to the expected number of qubit errors for N Q = 26 qubits with identical T 1 equal to the T avg 1 extracted from the relative peak heights.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The global T1 model assumes a homogeneous T1 across all qubits equal to the average T1 extracted from relative peak heights.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. S2d shows the distribution of heights h = a + c for the same peaks. We see events from the minimum size identi able of 6 errors at peak, up to the full size of our qubit patch at N Q = 26 simultaneous errors.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. S2c shows the distribution of tted decay constants decay for the 415 peaks found in the 100 datasets presented in the main paper, showing a tight distribution around 25-30 ms.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over more than 35 of such datasets, we found no evidence of any correlated events in excitation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the same 100 datasets as above, we nd 326 time periods between adjacent events in the same dataset.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We do not nd any correlated error peaks, indicating that events are produced by an asymmetric decay error mechanism”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
- It may state two separate claims as one. 39
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using our matched lter, we extract 415 events from these datasets”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using a typical qubit frequency ! q = 2 6 GHz, we calculate a quasiparticle density of x qp 2 : 1 10 5 at the peak of the event, once the error has spread over a large area. We can convert this to an absolute density of n qp = 87 m 3 . Producing this density evenly over the full aluminum qubit layer on the 10 mm x 10 mm qubit chip would require an absorbed energy in the aluminum of E = n qp V 160”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The quasiparticle density is distributed evenly over the full aluminum qubit layer when estimating the energy required to produce the observed T1 time.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taking the same hotspot area of 10 mm 2 , and considering an energy absorbed in the indium to be E In = 50 keV, the recombination timescales are similar. In indium, n cp 13 10 6 m 3 , so we nd a small quasiparticle density x qp 1 10 6 due to the large volume. The short characteristic phonon timescale ph 0 = 0 : 799 ns results in a recombination time r 36 s. However, only recombinations taking”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The speed of sound in indium is 1.2 km/s.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We nd that the decay timescale is tightly grouped in the 25 to 30 ms range, and that peak heights range from the minimum identi able by our analysis up to the full number of qubit used.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For a median impact delivering 100 keV of energy to the substrate [2], where 20% of the energy remains in free charges, the energy absorbed by the initial hotspot in the aluminum layer will be around E hs = 80 keV. We take area of the hotspot to be A = 10 mm 2 , similar to that seen in segment 1 of Fig. 4 of the main paper. The aluminum thickness d = 100 nm. For aluminum, 0 : 18 meV and n cp 4 10”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Terhal, B. M. Quantum error correction for quantum memories. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307–346 (2015). source
- Not checked yetcites [8] Martinis, J. M., Ansmann, M. & Aumentado, J. Energy decay in superconducting josephson-junction qubits from nonequilibrium quasiparticle excitations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 097002 (2009). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the start of this process, we estimate a timescale of 180 s.”
hedged- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This event has e ectively saturated the qubit patch, with all qubits experiencing a high probability of reporting an error, indicating total failure of the coherence on the chip.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“High error rates are initially localized to a small number of qubits, but spread through the device over the course of the event.”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For our carrier chip of 20 mm x 26 mm, the equivalent event rates are 1 = (7 : 6 s) and 1 = (38 s) respectively.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This technique is capable of detecting peaks of heights greater than 2 errors over the background error value around 4 errors, with the smallest identi ed peaks having absolute heights of 6 errors.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note that initializing j 0 i produces much lower background error rates, as T 1 error is suppressed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We nd three distinct timescales; an immediate jump in error from baseline at 4 errors to 10 errors in only 10 s, a slower saturation up to a maximum of 15 over the following 1 ms, and a typical 25 ms exponential decay back towards baseline.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, each event shows a di erent location for the initial area of high error rates; Event A features an initial impact centered on the right side of the qubit patch, Event B features an initial impact on the bottom left side of the qubit patch, and Event C sees an initial impact on the top left of the patch.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While there is localization on short timescales, the events generically a ect all qubits enough to correspond well to a simple homogeneous model.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The global T1 model assumes a homogeneous T1 across all qubits equal to the average T1 extracted from relative peak heights.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also extracted 326 time periods between events occurring in the same dataset and nd a strong correspondence to an exponential distribution with an average event rate = 1 = (10 s).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Smaller events are found more frequently, qualitatively matching the distribution of deposited energies for impinging particles [2].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Terhal, B. M. Quantum error correction for quantum memories. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307–346 (2015). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All three immediate impacts primarily a ect a small patch of qubits, producing a jump from 4 simultaneous errors at baseline to 10 errors.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All three events display the same overall timescales, showing an initial jump in a few tens of s, a saturation to peak value in around 1 ms and an exponential decay back to baseline with a timescale of 25 ms.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In Fig. 4 of the main paper we extracted an e ectively global T 1 time around 1 s at the peak of large events, which is compatible with estimates based on similar device structures [1].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M. & Cleland, A. N. Surface codes: towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The largest detected events correspond to a chip-wide reduction in T 1 to less than 1 s.”
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The global T1 model assumes a homogeneous T1 across all qubits equal to the average T1 extracted from relative peak heights.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. S2a shows time slice of raw data including an event, illustrating the sharp jump and exponential decay that is characteristic of all events.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we calculate the e ective relaxation time of the indium bumps as e r = r z=l 0 : 9 ms. This timescale is similar to the spread of energy from recombination in the groundplane, so recombination in indium is also compatible with the observed spread of the hotspot.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The speed of sound in indium is 1.2 km/s.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, energetic impacts from cosmic rays and latent radioactivity violate both of these assumptions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The key premise is that physical errors can remain both small and su ciently uncorrelated as devices scale, so that logical error rates can be exponentially suppressed.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M. & Cleland, A. N. Surface codes: towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012). source
- Not checked yetcites [2] Terhal, B. M. Quantum error correction for quantum memories. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307–346 (2015). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the event shape is reliable, we can use a matched lter to optimally reduce noise and locate peaks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the event continues, the energy will be distributed over a larger volume, slowing the rate of recombination, and explaining the qualitative shape of the rising behaviour seen here.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quasiparticles in the superconductor rapidly cool to energies near the superconducting gap . When tunneling across the Josephson junction, these quasiparticles are able to absorb the qubit energy E 10 , producing a decay error.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The majority of electron-hole pairs immediately recombine and emit photons but 20% of them avoid immediate recombination and propagate in the substrate [2].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Terhal, B. M. Quantum error correction for quantum memories. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307–346 (2015). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This indicates that the baseline performance of the experiment is well understood and that the peaks represent anomalous correlated error events.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. S2e shows the normalised distribution of these times, along with the probability density function for a Poisson process with = 1 = 10s. The strong correspondence indicates that events occur independantly, as one might expect for events produced by radioactive decays or isolated cosmic ray impact events.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This provides further evidence that the initial localization is caused by a single point of impact and in a location that is independent between di erent events.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using ne time-resolved measurements, we show that events are initially localized but spread over the chip, providing strong evidence for a high-energy impact.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While the incidence rate can be reduced by shielding [3, 4], the ability of even a single event to cause widespread failure calls for mitigation e orts on the chip itself [14].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Cardani, L. et al. Reducing the impact of radioactivity on quantum circuits in a deep-underground facility. Nat. Commun. 12, 2733 (2021). source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Vepsäläinen, A. P. et al. Impact of ionizing radiation on superconducting qubit coherence. Nature 584, 551–556 (2020). source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Karatsu, K. et al. Mitigation of cosmic ray effect on microwave kinetic inductance detector arrays. Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 032601 (2019). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For a smaller sample with area 40 mm 2 gamma ray and cosmic ray events where reported with a rate of 1 = (100 s) and 1 = (500 s), and deposited energies around 100 keV and 1 MeV respectively [2].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Terhal, B. M. Quantum error correction for quantum memories. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307–346 (2015). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our selection of decay = 20 ms will in uence the symmetry and scale of the resulting peak, but not the location of the maximum.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This indicates that the occurrence of the events is independent over time, occurring on average every 10 s without signi cant bunching or anti-bunching.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, this timescale is quite short compared to the run time of error corrected algorithms, which is projected to be several hours [25], so any attempt to preserve a logical state for computation is very likely to see such an event.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Google Quantum AI. Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction. Nature 595, 383–387 (2021).
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also note that the event rate found is sensitive to the lower cuto for size of events located, as less sensitive methods will locate fewer events.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“High-energy radiation has been identi ed as a source of quasiparticles in transmon qubits [4], and single events have been reported in small numbers of specialized devices such as resonators [3] as well as qubits that are charge-sensitive [5].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Vepsäläinen, A. P. et al. Impact of ionizing radiation on superconducting qubit coherence. Nature 584, 551–556 (2020). source
- Not checked yetcites [3] Cardani, L. et al. Reducing the impact of radioactivity on quantum circuits in a deep-underground facility. Nat. Commun. 12, 2733 (2021). source
- Not checked yetcites [5] Wilen, C. D. et al. Correlated charge noise and relaxation errors in superconducting qubits. Nature 594, 369–373 (2021). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our ndings are also relevant for other solid-state quantum systems, such as spin qubits that would be sensitive to the induced charges [26], and Majorana fermion devices that would be sensitive to induced quasiparticle population [27, 28].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Houzet, M., Serniak, K., Catelani, G., Devoret, M. H. & Glazman, L. I. Photon-assisted charge-parity jumps in a superconducting qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 107704 (2019). source
- Not checked yetcites [27] Gidney, C. & Ekerå, M. How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits. Quantum 5, 433 (2021). source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Zwanenburg, F. A. et al. Silicon quantum electronics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 961–1019 (2013). source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicating that events are produced by an asymmetric decay error mechanism, which is compatible with quasiparticle poisoning across the chip.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have shown direct measurements of widespread, long-lived and highly detrimental correlated events in a practical quantum processor, presenting an existential challenge to quantum error correction.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The superconducting gap of TiN lms depends sensitively on the thickness and presence of contaminants, and there is evidence in literature for the possibility of a smeared gap that might allow conduction [9].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Lenander, M. et al. Measurement of energy decay in superconducting qubits from nonequilibrium quasiparticles. Phys. Rev. B 84, 024501 (2011). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case that the TiN lm has a lower superconducting gap than the indium, quasiparticles will rapidly ow from the indium into the aluminum, where they will cool to the aluminum gap. Unable to ow back into the indium, they will recombine in the aluminum at around the rate found previously.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, the indium may play a role in the initial absorption of energy. However, the presence of the aluminum will soon downconvert phonons to below the indium gap, e ectively freezing the indium out of the dynamics at longer timescales.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Indium has a superconducting gap of 0.52 meV, nearly three times higher than aluminum.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The independent error model assumes perfect initialization of the qubits.
“we assume perfect initialization”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The global T1 model assumes a homogeneous T1 across all qubits equal to the average T1 extracted from relative peak heights.
“corresponding to the expected number of qubit errors for N Q = 26 qubits with identical T 1 equal to the T avg 1 extracted from the relative peak heights.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Errors from finite T1 and readout fidelities are independent between qubits.
“Finite T 1 and readout delities will produce errors that are independent between qubits, creating a low background error rate.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Indium has a superconducting gap of 0.52 meV, nearly three times higher than aluminum.
“Indium features a superconducting gap In 0 : 52 meV, nearly three times higher than aluminum.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The speed of sound in aluminum is 6.4 km/s.
“where c = 6 : 4 km/s is the speed of sound in aluminum.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The speed of sound in indium is 1.2 km/s.
“Given the speed of sound is c 1 : 2 km/s”
The paper relies on this without support.
The quasiparticle density is distributed evenly over the full aluminum qubit layer when estimating the energy required to produce the observed T1 time.
“Producing this density evenly over the full aluminum qubit layer on the 10 mm x 10 mm qubit chip would require an absorbed energy in the aluminum of E = n qp V 160 keV”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“We attribute many of these logical errors in the higher-distance codes to a high-energy impact, which can temporarily impart widespread correlated errors to the system57.”
From Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit (2023) · cites this paper as [57]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Rapid Repetitive Correlated Sampling · p. 2
“a larger carrier chip measuring 20 mm x 24 mm”
§ I. ENERGY CASCADE FOLLOWING A HIGH ENERGY IMPACT · p. 8
“our carrier chip of 20 mm x 26 mm”
Citations
Cites
Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor
Arute, F., Arya, K., Babbush, R., Bacon, D., Bardin, J. C., Barends, R., Biswas, R., Boixo, S., Brandao, F. G. S. L., Buell, D. A., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 · Cited by 7,720
Self-citationParticle Data Group, Zyla, P. A., Barnett, R. M., Beringer, J., Dahl, O., Dwyer, D. A., Groom, D. E., Lin, C. J., Lugovsky, K. S., Pianori, E., et al. (2020) · Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics · doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa104 · Cited by 5,180
Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box
Koch, J., Yu, T. M., Gambetta, J., Houck, A. A., Schuster, D. I., Majer, J., Blais, A., Devoret, M. H., Girvin, S. M., & Schoelkopf, R. J. (2007) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.76.042319 · Cited by 3,351
Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation
Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M., & Cleland, A. N. (2012) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.86.032324 · Cited by 3,059
Self-citationSuperconducting Qubits: Current State of Play
Kjaergaard, M., Schwartz, M. E., Braumüller, J., Krantz, P., Wang, J. I.-J., Gustavsson, S., & Oliver, W. D. (2020) · Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics · doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050605 · Cited by 1,544
Quantum error correction for quantum memories
Terhal, B. M. (2015) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.307 · Cited by 1,354
Zwanenburg, F. A., Dzurak, A. S., Morello, A., Simmons, M. Y., Hollenberg, L. C. L., Klimeck, G., Rogge, S. M. J., Coppersmith, S. N., & Eriksson, M. A. (2013) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.85.961 · Cited by 1,183
Superconducting Qubits: Current State of PlayPreprint
Kjærgaard, M., Schwartz, M. E., Braumüller, J., Krantz, P., Wang, J. I.-J., Gustavsson, S., & Oliver, W. D. (2020) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 1,182
Quasiparticle and phonon lifetimes in superconductors
Kaplan, S. B., Chi, C. C., Langenberg, D. N., Chang, J., Jafarey, S., & Scalapino, D. J. (1976) · Physical review. B, Solid state · doi:10.1103/physrevb.14.4854 · Cited by 885
How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits
Gidney, C., & Ekerå, M. (2021) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2021-04-15-433 · Cited by 830
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- D’Addabbo, A. Applications of Kinetic Inductance Detectors to Astronomy and Particle Physics. PhD Thesis, Université de Grenoble (2014).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit
Google Quantum, A. I., Acharya, R., Aleiner, I., Allen, R., Andersen, T. I., Ansmann, M., Arute, F., Arya, K., Asfaw, A., Atalaya, J., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05434-1 · Cited by 1,103
“We attribute many of these high-distance logical errors to a high-energy impact, which can temporarily impart widespread correlated errors to the system [57].”
Self-citationEngineering high-coherence superconducting qubits
Siddiqi, I. (2021) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/s41578-021-00370-4 · Cited by 311
Martinis, J. M. (2021) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00431-0 · Cited by 147
Self-citationNoisy intermediate-scale quantum computers
Cheng, B., Deng, X., Gu, X. Q., He, Y., Hu, G., Huang, P., Li, J., Lin, B., Lu, D., Lu, Y., et al. (2023) · Frontiers of Physics · doi:10.1007/s11467-022-1249-z · Cited by 147
Material matters in superconducting qubits
Murray, C. E. (2021) · Materials Science and Engineering R Reports · doi:10.1016/j.mser.2021.100646 · Cited by 138
Blueprint for a High-Performance Fluxonium Quantum Processor
Nguyen, L. B., Koolstra, G., Kim, Y., Morvan, A., Chistolini, T., Singh, S., Nesterov, K., Jünger, C., Chen, L., Pedramrazi, Z., et al. (2022) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.037001 · Cited by 96
One Hundred Second Bit-Flip Time in a Two-Photon Dissipative Oscillator
Berdou, C., Murani, A., Réglade, U., Smith, W. C., Villiers, M., Palomo, J., Rosticher, M., Denis, A., Morfin, P., Delbecq, M., et al. (2023) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.020350 · Cited by 75
Engineering superconducting qubits to reduce quasiparticles and charge noise
Pan, X., Zhou, Y., Yuan, H., Nie, L., Wei, W., Zhang, L., Li, J., Liu, S., Jiang, Z. H., Catelani, G., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34727-2 · Cited by 70
Two-Level-System Dynamics in a Superconducting Qubit Due to Background Ionizing Radiation
Thorbeck, T., Eddins, A., Lauer, I., McClure, D. T., & Carroll, M. (2023) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.020356 · Cited by 70
Phonon downconversion to suppress correlated errors in superconducting qubits
Iaia, V., Ku, J., Ballard, A., Larson, C. P., Yelton, E., Liu, C. H., Patel, S., McDermott, R., & Plourde, B. L. T. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33997-0 · Cited by 65
Quantum Crosstalk Robust Quantum Control
Zhou, Z., Sitler, R., Oda, Y., Schultz, K., & Quiroz, G. (2023) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.210802 · Cited by 63
Sources of Low-Energy Events in Low-Threshold Dark-Matter and Neutrino Detectors
Du, P., Egaña-Ugrinovic, D., Essig, R., & Sholapurkar, M. (2022) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.12.011009 · Cited by 62
Real-time decoding for fault-tolerant quantum computing: progress, challenges and outlook
Battistel, F., Chamberland, C., Johar, K., Overwater, R. W. J., Sebastiano, F., Skorić, L., Ueno, Y., & Usman, M. (2023) · Nano Futures · doi:10.1088/2399-1984/aceba6 · Cited by 111
Gordon, R. T., Murray, C. E., Kurter, C., Sandberg, M., Hall, S. A., Balakrishnan, K., Shelby, R. M., Wacaser, B. A., Stabile, A., Sleight, J. W., et al. (2022) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/5.0078785 · Cited by 61
Optimizing quantum gates towards the scale of logical qubits
Klimov, P. V., Bengtsson, A., Quintana, C., Bourassa, A., Hong, S., Dunsworth, A., Satzinger, K. J., Livingston, W. P., Sivak, V., Niu, M. Y., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46623-y · Cited by 69
Self-citationMillisecond lifetimes and coherence times in 2D transmon qubits
Bland, M. P., Bahrami, F., Martinez, J. G. C., Prestegaard, P. H., Smitham, B. M., Joshi, A., Hedrick, E., Kumar, S., Yang, A., Pakpour‐Tabrizi, A. C., et al. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09687-4 · Cited by 113
Resisting High-Energy Impact Events through Gap Engineering in Superconducting Qubit Arrays
McEwen, M., Miao, K. C., Atalaya, J., Bilmes, A., Crook, A., Bovaird, J., Kreikebaum, J. M., Zobrist, N., Jeffrey, E., Ying, B., et al. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.240601 · Cited by 55
Self-citationConnolly, T., Kurilovich, P. D., Diamond, S., Nho, H., Bøttcher, C. G. L., Glazman, L. I., Fatemi, V., & Devoret, M. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.217001 · Cited by 54
Kono, S., Pan, J., Chegnizadeh, M., Wang, X., Youssefi, A., Scigliuzzo, M., & Kippenberg, T. J. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48230-3 · Cited by 50
Granular aluminium nanojunction fluxonium qubit
Rieger, D., Günzler, S., Spiecker, M., Paluch, P., Winkel, P., Hahn, L., Hohmann, J., Bacher, A., Wernsdorfer, W., & Pop, I. M. (2022) · Nature Materials · doi:10.1038/s41563-022-01417-9 · Cited by 50
Zhou, C., Lu, P., Praquin, M., Chien, T.-C., Kaufman, R., Cao, X., Xia, M., Mong, R. S. K., Pfaff, W., Pekker, D., et al. (2023) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00723-7 · Cited by 66
Superconducting Qubits above 20 GHz Operating over 200 mK
Anferov, A., Harvey, S. P., Wan, F., Simon, J., & Schuster, D. (2024) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.030347 · Cited by 64
Quasiparticle Poisoning of Superconducting Qubits from Resonant Absorption of Pair-Breaking Photons
Liu, C. H., Harrison, D. C., Patel, S., Wilen, C. D., Rafferty, O., Shearrow, A., Ballard, A., Iaia, V., Ku, J., Plourde, B. L. T., et al. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.017001 · Cited by 47
Quasiparticles in Superconducting Qubits with Asymmetric Junctions
Marchegiani, G., Luigi Amico, A., & Catelani, G. (2022) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.040338 · Cited by 46
Improving qubit coherence using closed-loop feedback
Vepsäläinen, A. P., Winik, R., Karamlou, A. H., Braumüller, J., Paolo, A. D., Sung, Y., Kannan, B., Kjærgaard, M., Kim, D. K., Melville, A. J., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29287-4 · Cited by 52
Distinguishing Parity-Switching Mechanisms in a Superconducting Qubit
Diamond, S., Fatemi, V., Hays, M., Nho, H., Kurilovich, P. D., Connolly, T., Joshi, V., Serniak, K., Frunzio, L., Glazman, L. I., et al. (2022) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.040304 · Cited by 42
Phonon engineering of atomic-scale defects in superconducting quantum circuits
Chen, M., Owens, J. C., Putterman, H., Schäfer, M., & Painter, O. J. (2024) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.ado6240 · Cited by 50
Deterministic quantum state and gate teleportation between distant superconducting chips
Qiu, J., Liu, Y., Hu, L., Wu, Y., Niu, J., Zhang, L., Huang, W., Chen, Y., Li, J., Liu, S., et al. (2024) · 中国科学通报：英文版 · doi:10.1016/j.scib.2024.11.047 · Cited by 56
Self-citationSignatures of non-Markovianity of a superconducting qubit
Gulácsi, B., & Burkard, G. (2023) · Physical review. B./Physical review. B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.174511 · Cited by 38
Distributed Quantum Error Correction for Chip-Level Catastrophic Errors
Xu, Q., Seif, A., Yan, H., Mannucci, N., Sane, B. O., Meter, R. V., Cleland, A. N., & Jiang, L. (2022) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.240502 · Cited by 35
Trapped Electrons and Ions as Particle Detectors
Carney, D., Häffner, H., Moore, D. C., & Taylor, J. M. (2021) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.061804 · Cited by 34
Modular Quantum Processor with an All-to-All Reconfigurable Router
Wu, X., Yan, H., Andersson, G., Anferov, A., Chou, M.-H., Conner, C. R., Grebel, J., Joshi, Y. J., Li, S., Miller, J. M., et al. (2024) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.041030 · Cited by 41
Using materials for quasiparticle engineering
Catelani, G., & Pekola, J. P. (2022) · Materials for Quantum Technology · doi:10.1088/2633-4356/ac4a75 · Cited by 35
Phononic bath engineering of a superconducting qubit
Kitzman, J. M., Lane, J. R., Undershute, C., Harrington, P. M., Beysengulov, N. R., Mikolas, C. A., Murch, K. W., & Pollanen, J. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39682-0 · Cited by 33
A stress-induced source of phonon bursts and quasiparticle poisoning
Anthony-Petersen, R., Biekert, A., Bunker, R., Chang, C. L., Chang, Y.-Y., Chaplinsky, L., Fascione, E., Fink, C. W., Garcia-Sciveres, M., Germond, R., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-50173-8 · Cited by 31
Characterizing Crosstalk of Superconducting Transmon Processors
Ketterer, A., & Wellens, T. (2023) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.20.034065 · Cited by 38
Synchronous detection of cosmic rays and correlated errors in superconducting qubit arrays
Harrington, P. M., Li, M., Hays, M., Pontseele, W. V. D., Mayer, D., Pinckney, H. D., Contipelli, F., Gingras, M., Niedzielski, B. M., Stickler, H., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-61385-x · Cited by 48
Zobrist, N., Clay, W. H., Coiffard, G., Daal, M., Swimmer, N. J., Day, P., & Mazin, B. A. (2022) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.017701 · Cited by 29
Modeling phonon-mediated quasiparticle poisoning in superconducting qubit arrays
Yelton, E., Larson, C. P., Iaia, V., Dodge, K., Magna, G. L., Baity, P., Pechenezhskiy, I., McDermott, R., Kurinsky, N., Catelani, G., et al. (2024) · Physical review. B./Physical review. B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.024519 · Cited by 27
High-Coherence Kerr-Cat Qubit in 2D Architecture
Hajr, A., Qing, B., Wang, K., Koolstra, G., Pedramrazi, Z., Kang, Z., Chen, L., Nguyen, L. B., Jünger, C., Goss, N., et al. (2024) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.041049 · Cited by 36
Transition Edge Sensors: Physics and Applications
de Lucia, M., Bo, P. D., Giorgi, E. D., Lari, T., Puglia, C., & Paolucci, F. (2024) · Instruments · doi:10.3390/instruments8040047 · Cited by 37
Cosmic-ray-induced correlated errors in superconducting qubit array
Li, X., Wang, J., Jiang, Y.-Y., Xue, G., Cai, X., Zhou, J., Gong, M., Liu, Z., Zheng, S.-Y., Ma, D.-K., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59778-z · Cited by 25
Distinguishing between Quantum and Classical Markovian Dephasing Dissipation
Seif, A., Wang, Y.-X., & Clerk, A. A. (2022) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.070402 · Cited by 26
Mitigation of Quasiparticle Loss in Superconducting Qubits by Phonon Scattering
Bargerbos, A., Splitthoff, L. J., Pita‐Vidal, M., Wesdorp, J. J., Liu, Y., Krogstrup, P., Kouwenhoven, L. P., Andersen, C. K., & Grünhaupt, L. (2023) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.19.024014 · Cited by 25
Disentangling the sources of ionizing radiation in superconducting qubits
Cardani, L., Colantoni, I., Cruciani, A., Dominicis, F. D., D’Imperio, G., Laubenstein, M., Mariani, A., Pagnanini, L., Pirro, S., Tomei, C., et al. (2023) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11199-2 · Cited by 31
Self-citationQuasiparticle poisoning in superconducting quantum computers
Aumentado, J., Catelani, G., & Serniak, K. (2023) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/pt.3.5291 · Cited by 24
Gusenkova, D., Valenti, F., Spiecker, M., Günzler, S., Paluch, P., Rieger, D., Pioraş-Ţimbolmaş, L.-M., Zârbo, L. P., Casali, N., Colantoni, I., et al. (2022) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/5.0075909 · Cited by 23
G4CMP: Condensed matter physics simulation using the Geant4 toolkit
Kelsey, M. H., Agnese, R., Alam, Y. F., Langroudy, I. A., Azadbakht, E., Brandt, D., Bunker, R., Cabrera, B., Chang, Y.-Y., Coombes, H., et al. (2023) · Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment · doi:10.1016/j.nima.2023.168473
Identification of Different Types of High-Frequency Defects in Superconducting Qubits
Abdurakhimov, L. V., Mahboob, I., Toida, H., Kakuyanagi, K., Matsuzaki, Y., & Saito, S. (2022) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.040332 · Cited by 26
Crosstalk-robust quantum control in multimode bosonic systems
You, X., Lu, Y., Kim, T. W., Kürkçüog̃lu, D. M., Zhu, S., van Zanten, D. M. T., Roy, T., Lu, Y., Chakram, S., Grassellino, A., et al. (2024) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.22.044072 · Cited by 20
Hierarchical memories: Simulating quantum LDPC codes with local gates
Pattison, C. A., Krishna, A., & Preskill, J. P. (2025) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2025-05-05-1728 · Cited by 46
Adaptive surface code for quantum error correction in the presence of temporary or permanent defects
Siegel, A. C., Strikis, A., Flatters, T., & Benjamin, S. C. (2023) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2023-07-25-1065 · Cited by 20
Modeling Short-Range Microwave Networks to Scale Superconducting Quantum Computation
LaRacuente, N. D., Smith, K. N., Imany, P., Silverman, K. L., & Chong, F. T. (2025) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-08-1581 · Cited by 40
QuFI: a Quantum Fault Injector to Measure the Reliability of Qubits and Quantum Circuits
Oliveira, D. V., Giusto, E., Dri, E., Casciola, N., Baheri, B., Guan, Q., Montrucchio, B., & Rech, P. (2022) · International Conference on Dependable Systems & Networks/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/dsn53405.2022.00025 · Cited by 18
Fink, C. W., Salemi, C. P., Young, B., Schuster, D., & Kurinsky, N. (2024) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.22.054009 · Cited by 33
Multiqubit time-varying quantum channels for NISQ-era superconducting quantum processors
Martínez, J. E., Fuentes, P., iOlius, A. D., Garcia‐Frias, J., Fonollosa, J. R., & Crespo, P. M. (2023) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.033055 · Cited by 17
Waintal, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2313269120 · Cited by 19
Quasiparticle Dynamics in Epitaxial Al - InAs Planar Josephson Junctions
Elfeky, B. H., Strickland, W. M., Lee, J., Farmer, J. T., Shanto, S., Zarassi, A., Langone, D., Vavilov, M., Levenson-Falk, E. M., & Shabani, J. (2023) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.030339 · Cited by 16
Thermometry based on a superconducting qubit
Lvov, D. S., Lemzyakov, S. A., Ankerhold, E., Peltonen, J. T., & Pekola, J. P. (2025) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.23.054079 · Cited by 15
Stable bipolarons in open quantum systems
Moroder, M., Grundner, M., Damanet, F., Schollwöck, U., Mardazad, S., Flannigan, S., Köhler, T., & Paeckel, S. (2023) · Physical review. B./Physical review. B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.214310 · Cited by 16
Low-Energy Backgrounds in Solid-State Phonon and Charge Detectors
Baxter, D., Essig, R., Hochberg, Y., Kaznacheeva, M., von Krosigk, B., Reindl, F., Romani, R. K., & Wagner, F. (2025) · Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100849 · Cited by 14
Mechanical Detection of Nuclear Decays
Wang, J., Penny, T. W., Recoaro, J., Siegel, B., Tseng, Y.-H., & Moore, D. C. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.023602 · Cited by 14
Venkatesha, S., & Parthasarathi, R. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3663672 · Cited by 16
Quasiparticle Dynamics in a Superconducting Qubit Irradiated by a Localized Infrared Source
Benevides, R., Drimmer, M., Bisson, G., Adinolfi, F., von Lüpke, U., Doeleman, H. M., Catelani, G., & Chu, Y. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.060602 · Cited by 16
Fowler, J. W., Szypryt, P., Bunker, R., Edwards, E. R., Florang, I. M. F., Gao, J., Giachero, A., Hoogerheide, S. F., Loer, B., Mumm, H. P., et al. (2024) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.040323 · Cited by 14
A Systematic Methodology to Compute the Quantum Vulnerability Factors for Quantum Circuits
Oliveira, D., Giusto, E., Baheri, B., Guan, Q., Montrucchio, B., & Rech, P. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2023.3313934 · Cited by 17
A Stress Induced Source of Phonon Bursts and Quasiparticle PoisoningPreprint
Anthony-Petersen, R., Biekert, A., Bunker, R., Chang, C. L., Chang, Y.-Y., Chaplinsky, L., Fascione, E., Fink, C. W., Garcia-Sciveres, M., Germond, R., et al. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.02790 · Cited by 14
Reproducible coherence characterization of superconducting quantum devices
McRae, C. R., Stiehl, G. M., Wang, H., Lin, S.-X., Caldwell, S. A., Pappas, D. P., Mutus, J., & Combes, J. (2021) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/5.0060370 · Cited by 15
Self-citationMulti-qubit nanoscale sensing with entanglement as a resource
Rovny, J., Kolkowitz, S., & de Leon, N. P. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09760-y · Cited by 12
Quantum frontiers in high energy physics
Fang, Y., Gao, C., Li, Y.-Y., Shu, J., Wu, Y., Xing, H., Xu, B., Xu, L., & Zhou, C. (2025) · Science China Physics Mechanics and Astronomy · doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2635-4 · Cited by 13
Abatement of ionizing radiation for superconducting quantum devices
Loer, B., Harrington, P. M., Archambault, B. C., Fuller, E. S., Pierson, B., Arnquist, I. J., Harouaka, K., Schlieder, T. D., Kim, D. K., Melville, A. J., et al. (2024) · Journal of Instrumentation · doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/09/p09001 · Cited by 11
Linehan, R., Hernandez, I., Temples, D. J., Dang, S. Q., Baxter, D., Hsu, L., Figueroa-Feliciano, E., Khatiwada, R., Anyang, K., Bowring, D., et al. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.063047 · Cited by 21
Quasiparticle effects in magnetic-field-resilient three-dimensional transmons
Krause, J., Marchegiani, G., Janssen, L. M., Catelani, G., Ando, Y., & Dickel, C. (2024) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.22.044063 · Cited by 10
Cosmic muon flux attenuation methods for superconducting qubit experiments
Bertoldo, E., Sánchez, V. P., Martínez, M., Manel Martínez, A., Khalife, H., & Forn-Díaz, P. (2025) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/adaedc · Cited by 18
Correlated Quasiparticle Poisoning from Phonon-Only Events in Superconducting Qubits
Yelton, E., Larson, C. P., Dodge, K., Okubo, K., & Plourde, B. L. T. (2025) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/h65v-ttbw · Cited by 21
Compact vacuum-gap transmon qubits: Selective and sensitive probes for superconductor surface losses
Žemlička, M., Redchenko, E. S., Peruzzo, M., Hassani, F., Trioni, A., Barzanjeh, S., & Fink, J. M. (2023) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.20.044054 · Cited by 14
Atmospheric Neutron-Induced Fault Generation and Propagation in Quantum Bits and Quantum Circuits
Oliveira, D., Auden, E. C., & Rech, P. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · doi:10.1109/tns.2022.3226141 · Cited by 10
Optimizing Quantum Circuits, Fast and Slow
Xu, A., Molavi, A., Tannu, S. S., & Albarghouthi, A. (2024) · International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems · doi:10.1145/3669940.3707240 · Cited by 24
Gulácsi, B., & Burkard, G. (2025) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.023073 · Cited by 9
Quasiparticle Poisoning of Superconducting Qubits with Active Gamma Irradiation
Larson, C. P., Yelton, E., Dodge, K., Okubo, K., Batarekh, J., Iaia, V., Kurinsky, N., & Plourde, B. L. T. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/2lyd-8swv · Cited by 9
An introduction to the surface code
Cleland, A. N. (2022) · SciPost Physics Lecture Notes · doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.49 · Cited by 10
Analogue Quantum Simulation with Fixed-Frequency Transmon Qubits
Greenaway, S., Smith, A., Mintert, F., & Malz, D. (2024) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2024-02-22-1263 · Cited by 10
Detrimental non-Markovian errors for surface code memory
Kam, J. F., Gicev, S., Modi, K. K., Southwell, A., & Usman, M. (2025) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/adebab · Cited by 16
DISQ: Dynamic Iteration Skipping for Variational Quantum Algorithms
Zhang, J., Wang, H., Ravi, G. S., Chong, F. T., Han, S., Mueller, F., & Chen, Y. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00120 · Cited by 12
Self-citationCharge-parity switching effects and optimisation of transmon-qubit design parameters
Papič, M., Tuorila, J., Auer, A., de Vega, I., & Hosseinkhani, A. (2024) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00860-7 · Cited by 8
Surf-Deformer: Mitigating Dynamic Defects on Surface Code via Adaptive Deformation
Yin, K., Fang, X., Humble, T. S., Li, A., Shi, Y., & Ding, Y. (2024) · IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO) · doi:10.1109/micro61859.2024.00061 · Cited by 9
Spectral Signatures of Nontrivial Topology in a Superconducting Circuit
Peyruchat, L., Rodriguez, R. H., Smirr, J.-L., Leone, R., & Girit, Ç. (2024) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.041041 · Cited by 8
Noise correlations in an atom-based quantum dot array
Donnelly, M. B., Rowlands, J., Kranz, L., Hsueh, Y., Chung, Y., Timofeev, A. V., Geng, H., Singh-Gregory, P., Gorman, S. K., Keizer, J. G., et al. (2025) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/kr2l-c97c · Cited by 13
Low-overhead defect-adaptive surface code with bandage-like super-stabilizers
Wei, Z., He, T., Ye, Y., Wu, D., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Y., Lin, W., Huang, H.-L., Zhu, X., & Pan, J.-W. (2025) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01023-y · Cited by 7
Flip-Chip-Based Fast Inductive Parity Readout of a Planar Superconducting Island
Hinderling, M., ten Kate, S. C., Haxell, D. Z., Coraiola, M., Paredes, S., Cheah, E., Křížek, F., Schott, R., Wegscheider, W., Sabonis, D., et al. (2024) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.030337 · Cited by 7
1/f noise in quantum nanoscience
Falci, G., Hakonen, P. J., & Paladino, E. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-90800-9.00250-x · Cited by 8
Leveraging Collective Effects for Thermometry in Waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics
Sharafiev, A., Juan, M. L., Cattaneo, M., & Kirchmair, G. (2025) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.213602 · Cited by 6
Quantum Error-Corrected Non-Markovian Metrology
Mann, Z., Cao, N., Laflamme, R., & Zhou, S. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/wfyl-wtz3 · Cited by 11
Listening for new physics with quantum acoustics
Linehan, R., Trickle, T., Conner, C. R., Ghosh, S., Lin, T., Sholapurkar, M., & Cleland, A. N. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/63zj-d8z4 · Cited by 12
Understanding Logical-Shift Error Propagation in Quanvolutional Neural Networks
Vallero, M., Dri, E., Giusto, E., Montrucchio, B., & Rech, P. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering · doi:10.1109/tqe.2024.3372880 · Cited by 8
Heralding entangled optical photons from a microwave quantum processor
Haug, T. H., Kockum, A. F., & Laer, R. V. (2024) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.22.034068 · Cited by 7
Continuous real-time detection of quasiparticle trapping in aluminum nanobridge Josephson junctions
Farmer, J. T., Zarassi, A., Hartsell, D. M., Vlachos, E., Zhang, H., & Levenson-Falk, E. M. (2021) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/5.0063445 · Cited by 6
Error Mitigation and Circuit Division for Early Fault-Tolerant Quantum Phase Estimation
Dutkiewicz, A., Polla, S., Scheurer, M., Gogolin, C., Huggins, W. J., & O’Brien, T. E. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/mlmy-yskj · Cited by 20
Accommodating Fabrication Defects on Floquet Codes with Minimal Hardware Requirements
McLauchlan, C., Gehér, G. P., & Moylett, A. E. (2024) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2024-12-12-1562 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- McEwen, M., Faoro, L., Arya, K., Dunsworth, A., Huang, T., Kim, S., Burkett, B., Fowler, A., Arute, F., Bardin, J. C., Bengtsson, A., Bilmes, A., Buckley, B. B., Bushnell, N., Chen, Z., Collins, R., Demura, S., Derk, A. R., Erickson, C., Giustina, M., Harrington, S. D., Hong, S., Jeffrey, E., Kelly, J., Klimov, P. V., Kostritsa, F., Laptev, P., Locharla, A., Mi, X., Miao, K. C., Montazeri, S., Mutus, J., Naaman, O., Neeley, M., Neill, C., Opremcak, A., Quintana, C., Redd, N., Roushan, P., Sank, D., Satzinger, K. J., Shvarts, V., White, T., Yao, Z. J., Yeh, P., Yoo, J., Chen, Y., Smelyanskiy, V., Martinis, J. M., Neven, H., Megrant, A., Ioffe, L., & Barends, R.
- Affiliations
- Google (United States) (US)
- Sorbonne Université (FR)
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Corresponding author
- Barends, Rami
- ORCID
- McEwen, Matt
- Arya, Kunal
- Dunsworth, Andrew
- Huang, Trent
- Kim, Seon
- Burkett, Brian
- Fowler, Austin
- Arute, Frank
- Bardin, Joseph C.
- Bengtsson, Andreas
- Bilmes, Alexander
- Buckley, Bob B.
- Bushnell, Nicholas
- Chen, Zijun
- Collins, Roberto
- Demura, Sean
- Erickson, Catherine
- Giustina, Marissa
- Harrington, Sean D.
- Hong, Sabrina
- Jeffrey, Evan
- Kelly, Julian
- Klimov, Paul V.
- Locharla, Aditya
- Mi, Xiao
- Miao, Kevin C.
- Montazeri, Shirin
- Mutus, Josh
- Naaman, Ofer
- Neeley, Matthew
- Neill, Charles
- Quintana, Chris
- Redd, Nicholas
- Roushan, Pedram
- Sank, Daniel
- Satzinger, Kevin J.
- White, Theodore
- Yao, Z. Jamie
- Yeh, Ping
- Yoo, Juhwan
- Chen, Yu
- Smelyanskiy, Vadim
- Martinis, John M.
- Neven, Hartmut
- Megrant, Anthony
- Ioffe, Lev
- Venue
- Nature Physics
- Published
- 2021-12-13
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 107-111
- ISSN
- 1745-2473 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-2481
- OpenAlex
- W3156619533
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 13
- FWCI
- 9.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Nature Physics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Oskar-Bordeaux (Universite de Bordeaux) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Superconducting and THz Device Technology
- Keywords
- cosmic rays, superconducting qubits, qubit coherence, radiation damage, error correction, error mitigation, quantum computing scalability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
