Comparison of coherence times in three dc SQUID phase qubits
Hanhee Paik, B. K. Cooper, S. K. Dutta, R. M. Lewis, R. C. Ramos, T., A. Palomaki, A. J. Przybysz, A. J. Dragt, J. R. Anderson, C. J. Lobb, and F., C. Wellstood (CSR, JQI, University of Maryland)

TL;DR
This study compares coherence times in three different dc SQUID phase qubits, revealing that flux noise is not the primary decoherence source, with variations observed based on device design and material.
Contribution
It provides the first comparative analysis of coherence times across different dc SQUID phase qubit geometries and materials, highlighting the impact of device design on decoherence.
Findings
Coherence times ranged from 4 to 10 ns across devices.
Rabi oscillation decay times were longer in the Al device.
Flux noise was not the dominant decoherence mechanism.
Abstract
We report measurements of spectroscopic linewidth and Rabi oscillations in three thin-film dc SQUID phase qubits. One device had a single-turn Al loop, the second had a 6-turn Nb loop, and the third was a first order gradiometer formed from 6-turn wound and counter-wound Nb coils to provide isolation from spatially uniform flux noise. In the 6 - 7.2 GHz range, the spectroscopic coherence times for the gradiometer varied from 4 ns to 8 ns, about the same as for the other devices (4 to 10 ns). The time constant for decay of Rabi oscillations was significantly longer in the single-turn Al device (20 to 30 ns) than either of the Nb devices (10 to 15 ns). These results imply that spatially uniform flux noise is not the main source of decoherence or inhomogenous broadening in these devices.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
