4.5 Article

Effects of device geometry and material properties on dielectric losses in superconducting coplanar-waveguide resonators

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICS-CONDENSED MATTER
Volume 32, Issue 40, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1361-648X/ab98c8

Keywords

quality factor; dielectric constant; loss tangent; dielectric loss; superconducting coplanar-waveguide resonator

Funding

  1. Academy of Finland through its Center of Excellence in Quantum Technology (QTF) [312300]
  2. QUESS project - European Research Council [681311]
  3. Kvanttitietokone project - Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation
  4. Technology Industries of Finland Centennial Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Superconducting coplanar-waveguide (CPW) resonators are one of the key devices in circuit quantum electrodynamics (cQED). Their performance can be limited by dielectric losses in the substrate and in the material interfaces. Reliable modeling is required to aid in the design of low-loss CPW structures for cQED. We analyze the geometric dependence of the dielectric losses in CPW structures using finite-element modeling of the participation ratios of the lossy regions. In a practical scenario, uncertainties in the the dielectric constants and loss tangents of these regions introduce uncertainties in the theoretically predicted participation ratios. We present a method for combining loss simulations with measurements of two-level-system-limited quality factors and resonance frequencies of CPW resonators. Namely, we solve an inverse problem to find model parameters producing the measured values. High quality factors are obtainable by properly designing the cross-sectional geometries of the CPW structures, but more accurate modeling and design methods for low-loss CPW resonators are called for major future improvements. Our nonlinear optimization methodology for solving the aforementioned inverse problem is a step in this direction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available