Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Readout Calibration Error Analysis
Quantum State Geometry Fidelity
Superconducting Qubits
High Fidelity Qubit Readout with the Superconducting Low-Inductance Undulatory Galvanometer Microwave Amplifier
arXiv
Authors: D. Hover, S. Zhu, T. Thorbeck, G. J. Ribeill, D. Sank, J. Kelly, R. Barends, John M. Martinis, R. McDermott
Year
2013
Paper ID
2255
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
76
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We describe the high fidelity dispersive measurement of a superconducting qubit using a microwave amplifier based on the Superconducting Low-inductance Undulatory Galvanometer (SLUG). The SLUG preamplifier achieves gain of 19 dB and yields a signal-to-noise ratio improvement of 9 dB over a state-of-the-art HEMT amplifier. We demonstrate a separation fidelity of 99% at 700 ns compared to 59% with the HEMT alone. The SLUG displays a large dynamic range, with an input saturation power corresponding to 700 photons in the readout cavity.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Superconducting Qubits research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2013 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We describe the high fidelity dispersive measurement of a superconducting qubit using a microwave amplifier based on the Superconducting Low-inductance Undulatory Galvanometer...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.