SQUID G.A.M.E.: Gamma, Atmospheric, and Mono-Energetic Neutron Effects on Quantum Devices

TL;DR

This study investigates how superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) respond to various radiation types, revealing their sensitivity to neutrons but not gamma rays, and uses simulations to understand the underlying mechanisms.

Contribution

The paper provides experimental data on SQUID responses to neutron and gamma radiation and employs Geant4 simulations to analyze energy deposition and device vulnerability.

Findings

SQUIDs are sensitive to neutron radiation but not gamma rays.

Neutron exposure causes distinguishable burst and peak faults in SQUIDs.

Simulations reveal differences in energy deposition spectra for neutrons and gamma rays.

Abstract

Quantum devices are a promising solution to many research applications, including medical imaging, precision magnetic field measurements, condensed matter physics, and overcoming the limits of classical computing. Among the available implementations, the superconducting technology is the current focus of scientific research and industrial applications, excelling in performance and scalability. Despite this, superconducting quantum systems are extremely prone to decoherence, and in particular, they are highly sensitive to radiation events. In this paper, we analyze the response of a superconducting device (SQUID) to radiation. We expose the SQUID to beams of monoenergetic 14 MeV neutrons (NILE - ISIS), atmospheric 1-800 MeV neutrons (ChipIR - ISIS), and gamma rays with 1.25 MeV average energy (CALLIOPE - ENEA). These experiments show that the SQUID is sensitive to the two neutron fields, while gamma rays at 1.25 MeV leave it mostly unaffected. Following our experiments with neutrons, it is possible to characterize the SQUID's response and even classify faults according to their shape and duration. We identify two categories: bursts (long lasting) and peaks (short lived). To investigate the different responses to neutrons and gamma rays, we employ Geant4 simulations, which highlight differences in the deposition spectra and the energy propagation, but likewise predict the vulnerability of the SQUID in both cases.