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; 2 of the 33 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Resolving catastrophic error bursts from cosmic rays in large arrays of superconducting qubits
Open accessVerified 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 · 21 Not checked yet · 21 Own interpretation · 12 No basis given · 3 Own method · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“When interacting with the chip, these rays can deposit energies in the 100 keV to 1 MeV range [5, 8], dwar ng the typical energy scales in our qubits at around 25 eV.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [5] Wilen, C. D. et al. Correlated charge noise and relaxation errors in superconducting qubits. Nature 594, 369–373 (2021). source
The citation supports the energy-deposit range: Modeling of Charge Bursts (p. 9) reports a mean deposit of 100 keV for γ-ray interactions, a spectrum extending to about 1 MeV, and a mean of 460 keV for cosmic-ray muons. The 25 eV figure describes the citing authors’ own qubits and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- 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
plainstates a cause- 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.
- Supported
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.”
plainstates a cause- 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.”
plainstates an association- 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.
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
“In the presence of events, we note a distinct excess of high numbers of simultaneous errors, well above what is reasonable for uncorrelated error sources.”
boostedstates an association- 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 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
“so the number of charges created by an event is 10 5 .”
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
“In the absence of events, we note a strong correspondence of the background error distribution to this simple model, as illustrated in Fig. 2b (II).”
boostedstates an association- 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 independent error model assumes perfect initialization of the qubits.
- Rests on an assumption: Errors from finite T1 and readout fidelities are independent between qubits.
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
“It features a distinct peak where the total number of errors jumps from a baseline of 4 simultaneous errors up to 24 errors.”
plainstates a causeSingle 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 introduce a method to monitor the energy coherence time T 1 during an event and nd it to be severely suppressed across all qubits”
plainstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“The observed 25 ms timescale for the return of the device to equilibrium is in reasonable agreement with a simple model of thermalization that gives 8 ms [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
hedgedstates an association- 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
“Both events then spread through the chip, rising to a peak value around 1.5 ms after the initial impact.”
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.
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
“An impinging particle ionizes the substrate, radiating high energy phonons that induce a burst of quasiparticles, destroying qubit coherence throughout the device.”
plainstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“High-energy radiation has been identied as a source of error in pilot superconducting quantum devices [3{5]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3{5]
plainstates a cause- 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 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
“Further, the magnitude of the T 1 drop can be inferred directly from the peak height.”
plainstates an association- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“which is much larger than the typical QEC round time of 1 s [23, 24].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Foxen, B. et al. Qubit compatible superconducting interconnects. Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 014005 (2017). source
- Not checked yetcites [24] McEwen, M. et al. Removing leakage-induced correlated errors in superconducting quantum error correction. Nat. Commun. 12, 1761 (2021). 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
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
“The strong asymmetry in the rates of correlated decay and excitation errors is therefore strong evidence that the errors in events are due to excess quasiparticles.”
boostedstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“The typical energy for an electron-hole pair is E e-h = 3 : 75eV [3]”
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
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.
In the paper
“Energetic radiation is likely to produce such errors, as devices are bathed in a constant ux of high-energy rays [7].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Zyla, P. et al. Review of particle physics. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys 2020, 083C01 (2020). source
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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 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
“a clear signature of quasiparticle poisoning throughout the chip.”
boostedstates an association- 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 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
“The presence of such a long time period of elevated error rates would be unacceptable for any attempt at logical state preservation using QEC.”
hedgedstates a causeSingle 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 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 is direct evidence of a localised impact on the device which induces high error rates as it spreads over the chip.”
boostedstates a cause- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our results provide a natural explanation for the observations of short periods of signi cantly elevated error found in recent experiments with stabilizer codes [23, 24].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Foxen, B. et al. Qubit compatible superconducting interconnects. Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 014005 (2017). source
- Not checked yetcites [24] McEwen, M. et al. Removing leakage-induced correlated errors in superconducting quantum error correction. Nat. Commun. 12, 1761 (2021). source
plainstates a cause- 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 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 shows that events can be summarized by a global drop in e ective T 1 during an event, providing direct evidence of decay errors induced by excess quasiparticles in the qubits, rather than by coherent control or readout failure.”
boostedstates a cause- 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 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
“The presence of quasiparticles near the junctions in the qubits are the cause of the observed errors.”
plainstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“This timescale is long compared to the typical qubit coherence times, and therefore will have a limited in uence on typical qubit T 1 measurements [4].”
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
plainstates a cause- 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 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
“Phonons produced by the event are primarily responsible for the spread of energy through the chip.”
plainstates a cause- 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
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
“The spread of the initial hot spot arises from the interplay between phonons traveling through the substrate before being absorbed, and the rate of quasiparticles recombining and emitting further phonons in the qubit layer.”
plainstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“A correlated error event is particularly problematic, as a ecting many qubits simultaneously is a recipe for logical faults [6].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Fowler, A. G. & Martinis, J. M. Quantifying the effects of local many-qubit errors and nonlocal two-qubit errors on the surface code. Phys. Rev. A 89, 032316 (2014). source
plainstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“Given the shorter timescale for this relaxation found in Ref. [2], we expect that increased thermalization will serve to reduce the overall duration of the event.”
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
hedgedstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“The relaxation rate of the qubits is proportional to the density of quasiparticles [10]:”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Corcoles, A. D. et al. Protecting superconducting qubits from radiation. Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 181906 (2011). source
plainstates an association- 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 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, excitation errors are not expected to be present in chip-wide quasiparticle poisoning, as they would be in the case of an induced chip-wide readout or coherent control failure.”
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.
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
“Once cooled to near the gap, quasiparticles are not capable of exciting the qubit state, as this requires energies of at least + E 10 .”
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
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
- Could not verifycites [27] Gidney, C. & Ekerå, M. How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits. Quantum 5, 433 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 1.1 discusses cost estimates for factoring with superconducting qubits, and the Conclusion discusses cryptographic applications. Searches for induced charges, spin qubits, and quasiparticle populations found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed sensitivity of spin qubits or Majorana devices. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Not checked yetcites [28] Zwanenburg, F. A. et al. Silicon quantum electronics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 961–1019 (2013). source
hedgedstates an association- 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 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”
plainstates a cause- 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”
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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.”
plainstates a causeSingle 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.”
plainstates an associationSingle 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.”
plainstates a cause- 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.”
plainstates an association- 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).”
boostedstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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.”
plainstates a cause- 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.”
plainstates a cause- 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.”
plainstates a possible cause- 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.”
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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.”
plainstates a cause- 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.”
plainstates a cause- 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.”
plainstates a cause- 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.”
hedgedstates an association- 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.”
boostedstates a cause- 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.”
boostedstates an association- 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
plainstates a cause- 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.”
plainstates a cause- 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).
hedgedstates a cause- 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.”
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
“indicating that events are produced by an asymmetric decay error mechanism, which is compatible with quasiparticle poisoning across the chip.”
hedgedstates a cause- 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.”
boostedstates a cause- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.”
plainstates a cause- 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.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
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).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
