Abstract
Approaches to developing large-scale superconducting quantum processors must cope with the numerous microscopic degrees of freedom that are ubiquitous in solid-state devices. State-of-the-art superconducting qubits employ aluminium oxide (AlOx) tunnel Josephson junctions as the sources of nonlinearity necessary to perform quantum operations. Analyses of these junctions typically assume an idealized, purely sinusoidal current–phase relation. However, this relation is expected to hold only in the limit of vanishingly low-transparency channels in the AlOx barrier. Here we show that the standard current–phase relation fails to accurately describe the energy spectra of transmon artificial atoms across various samples and laboratories. Instead, a mesoscopic model of tunnelling through an inhomogeneous AlOx barrier predicts percent-level contributions from higher Josephson harmonics. By including these in the transmon Hamiltonian, we obtain orders of magnitude better agreement between the computed and measured energy spectra. The presence and impact of Josephson harmonics has important implications for developing AlOx-based quantum technologies including quantum computers and parametric amplifiers. As an example, we show that engineered Josephson harmonics can reduce the charge dispersion and associated errors in transmon qubits by an order of magnitude while preserving their anharmonicity.
Similar content being viewed by others
Main
The Josephson effect1,2 is the keystone of quantum information processing with superconducting hardware: it constitutes a unique source of low-loss nonlinearity, which is essential for the implementation of superconducting quantum bits, and it plays a similarly fundamental role as the nonlinear current–voltage relation of diodes in semiconductor circuitry. In particular, tunnel Josephson junctions (JJs), formed by two overlapping superconducting films separated by a thin insulating barrier, have enabled superconducting hardware to become one of the leading platforms for the realization of fault-tolerant quantum computers3,4,5,6. JJs are also at the heart of quantum limited amplification7, metrological applications8 such as the definition of the voltage9 and a possible future current standard10, and they enable quantum detectors such as the microwave photon counter11. With the advancement12,13,14 of superconducting artificial atom technology, the measurement and understanding of subtle features in the Josephson effect, similar to the fine structure discovered in natural atoms, is increasingly relevant in setting the accuracy of both circuit control and circuit models.
Although the mesoscopic dimensions of JJs imply the existence of many conduction channels, for tunnel junctions this complexity is usually condensed into a single effective parameter, the critical current Ic, in the well-known Josephson current–phase relation, CφR (grey line in Fig. 1):
where φ is the superconducting phase difference across the junction. This simplification is remarkable given the fact that other types of junctions, such as weak links, point contacts and ferromagnetic JJs, generally exhibit non-sinusoidal CφRs containing higher Josephson harmonics: \(\sin (2\varphi )\), \(\sin (3\varphi )\) and so on15,16,17,18,19,20,21. Here we show that Josephson harmonics are also relevant for tunnel JJs (Fig. 1).
To understand the limits of the approximation equation (1) for tunnel junctions, we have to take a closer look at commonly used Al–AlOx–Al JJs, fabricated by shadow evaporation22 and schematized in Fig. 2a–c, which reveals a complex microscopic reality. The CφR of the junction is obtained by summing the supercurrents of N conduction channels, \(I(\varphi )=\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{n = 1}^{N}{I}_{n}(\varphi )\). Each channel (Fig. 2b) has a transparency-dependent CφR (refs. 16,23) that can be expressed as a Fourier series:
The conduction channel transparency Tn is defined as the tunnel probability for an electron impinging on the insulating barrier of channel n, and cm(Tn) are the order m Fourier coefficients for In(φ). These coefficients alternate in sign and decay in magnitude with increasing order m (Fig. 2d). The ratio ∣cm+1/cm∣ of successive coefficients increases with Tn (Supplementary Section IA): the more transparent a channel, the more relevant the contribution of higher harmonics. To put it simply, in higher-transparency channels, it is more likely for Cooper pairs to tunnel together in groups of m, which correspond to the \(\sin (m\varphi )\) terms in the CφR.
In the limit Tn → 0, only the \(\sin \varphi\) term of equation (2) survives. If all channels in a JJ are in this limit, we recover the purely sinusoidal CφR of equation (1), with the critical current of the junction Ic proportional to the sum of transparencies. Assuming a perfectly homogeneous barrier, for a typical junction with ~μm2 area and resistance comparable to the resistance quantum, one expects N ≈ 106 and Tn ≈ 10−6 (refs. 24,25), leading to negligible (below 10−6) corrections to the purely sinusoidal CφR.
But is this the reality? Here we argue that in the presence of contaminants, atomic scale defects26 and random crystalline orientations of the grains in contact, evidenced by scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM) images and molecular dynamics simulations (Fig. 2c and Supplementary Section IV), we have reasons to doubt it. In fact, about two decades ago, AlOx barrier inhomogeneity motivated the transition in magnetic junctions to more uniform oxides such as MgO (refs. 27,28,29). Consequently, we expect a distribution of transparencies in AlOx (refs. 30,31) with possibly a few relatively high-transparency channels32,33 introducing measurable corrections to the CφR (Fig. 1). The microscopic structure of each barrier is therefore imprinted on the CφR of the JJ, and the challenge is how to experimentally access this information.
For our study of tunnel JJs, we use transmon devices34, in which a JJ is only shunted by a large capacitor to form a nonlinear oscillator with the potential energy defined by the CφR of the junction (Fig. 2e). The resulting individually addressable transition frequencies in the microwave regime can be measured using circuit quantum electrodynamics techniques35. We compare the spectra of multiple samples to the prediction of the standard transmon Hamiltonian based on a sinusoidal CφR (equation (1)) and find increasing deviations for the higher energy levels of all samples, as sketched in Fig. 2e,f. Only by accounting for higher harmonics in the CφR are we able to accurately describe the entire energy spectrum. A similar methodology was used in ref. 18 to reconstruct the CφR of a semiconductor nanowire Josephson element. While our study focuses on transmon qubits, the conclusions we draw regarding the CφR of tunnel junctions should trigger a re-evaluation of the current models for tunnel-JJ-based devices used in quantum technology and metrology35,36,37,38,39.
Since transmons are widely available in the community, we are able to measure and model the spectra of multiple samples from laboratories around the globe: fixed-frequency transmons fabricated and measured at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT; Supplementary Fig. 18) in three cooldowns (CDs; Supplementary Fig. 19) and Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS) Paris (same device as in ref. 40), a tunable transmon subject to an in-plane magnetic field at the University of Cologne (Köln; identical setup and similar device as in ref. 41; Supplementary Fig. 23) and 20 qubits from the IBM Hanoi processor (IBM). All transmons are based on standard Al–AlOx–Al tunnel junctions (Fig. 2) and are measured in either a three-dimensional architecture or a two-dimensional coplanar waveguide geometry (for detailed descriptions of each sample, see Supplementary Section III). The spectroscopy data consists of (1) transition frequencies f0j into transmon states j = 1, 2, … up to j = 6, each measured as j-photon transitions at frequencies f0j/j, and (2) the resonator frequencies \({f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},\;j}\) depending on the transmon state j = 0, 1 (Methods).
In Fig. 3, we compare the measured transition frequencies to predictions \({f}_{0j}^{{{\;{\rm{model}}}}}\), obtained by exact diagonalization of two different model Hamiltonians. The first model is the standard transmon model, which has served the community for over 15 years34
where EC is the charging energy, EJ is the Josephson energy, ng is the offset charge and the operators n and φ represent the charge normalized by twice the electron charge and the phase difference across the junction, respectively. All models include the readout resonator Hamiltonian given by \({H}_{{{{\rm{res}}}}}={{\varOmega }}{a}^{{\dagger} }a+Gn(a+{a}^{{\dagger} })\), where Ω is the bare resonator frequency, G is the electrostatic coupling strength and a† (a) is the bosonic creation (annihilation) operator. Including \({H}_{{{{\rm{res}}}}}\) ensures that dressing of the states due to transmon-resonator hybridization is taken into account34,35,42,43.
We obtain the parameter set (EC, EJ, Ω, G) of the standard transmon model in equation (3) by solving the inverse eigenvalue problem (IEP)44,45,46,47 for the measured spectroscopy data (Methods). For the Köln sample, these data include the offset charge dispersion (additional data for different magnetic fields are given in Supplementary Section IID). We note that the IEP is the very same science problem that was historically solved to model the energy spectra of natural atoms and molecules (see for example refs. 48,49,50), which led to the discovery of the fine structure.
In Fig. 3a, we show that the standard transmon model in equation (3) fails to describe the measured frequency spectra for all samples. The observed deviations are much larger than the measurement imprecision, for which we can set a conservative upper bound on the order of 1 MHz. While the standard transmon model with two parameters can trivially match the f01 and f02 transitions, the measured f03 can already deviate by more than 10 MHz. The deviations are positive for the KIT, ENS and Köln samples, while the IBM transmons mostly show negative deviations (Supplementary Section IC5). It is important to remark that other corrections, such as the stray inductance in the JJ leads, hidden modes coupled to the qubit, the coupling between qubits as present on the IBM multi-qubit device, or an asymmetry in the superconducting energy gaps, while being relevant, cannot fully account for the measured discrepancy (Supplementary Section ID). Notably, similar deviations can be found in previously published transmon spectra41,51,52,53, as we detail in Supplementary Fig. 4 and Supplementary Sections IC2 and IC4.
In Fig. 3b, we demonstrate that orders of magnitude better agreement with our measured spectra can be achieved by using the Josephson harmonics model:
In general, the values EJm are a fingerprint of each junction’s channel-transparency distribution ρ(T) with many degrees of freedom. Here we consider two simplified models (further models are discussed in Supplementary Section IC): (1) a phenomenological model truncated at EJ4 (top panel) and (2) a mesoscopic model of tunnelling through a non-uniform oxide barrier (bottom panel). We note that the phenomenological EJ4 model guarantees agreement for the lowest four transitions (Methods), and while many samples have physically reasonable EJm coefficients when truncating at EJ4, a few JJs require terms up to EJ6 (Supplementary Section IC3).
The mesoscopic model allows us to derive \(\rho (T;\bar{d},\sigma )\) based on a Gaussian thickness distribution with average thickness \(\bar{d}\) and standard deviation σ (Supplementary Section IB4). As a consequence, all Josephson harmonics for m ≥ 2 are parameterized in terms of the two parameters \(\bar{d}\) and σ according to
where the Fourier coefficients cm(T) (equation (2) and Fig. 2d) are weighted by the channel-transparency distribution \(\rho (T;\bar{d},\sigma )\). In this model, relatively large ratios ∣EJm/EJ1∣ originate from higher-transparency contributions from the narrower regions of the barrier (compare the STEM images in Supplementary Fig. 27). The model can describe the samples at KIT, ENS and Köln (Fig. 3b) but not the IBM device (Supplementary Section IB4). The model parameters \(\bar{d}\) and σ (Fig. 3b) are comparable to results from molecular dynamics simulation and STEM pictures of the oxide barrier (Supplementary Section IV).
In Fig. 3c, we indicate the ranges of EJm coefficients consistent with the measured spectra. The bars represent the lower and upper limits of Josephson harmonics ratios ∣EJm/EJ1∣. The corresponding \(\sin (m\varphi )\) contribution to the CφR is given by m∣EJm/EJ1∣ (see Fig. 1 for the KIT sample). The ratios lie between two limiting cases spanning the physical regime (shaded grey area): (1) the upper limit, ∣EJm/EJ1∣ = 3/(4m2 − 1), corresponds to an open quantum point contact—that is, one channel with T = 1—and (2) the lower limit, ∣EJm/EJ1∣ ≈ (T/4)m−1/m3/2, corresponds to a perfectly homogeneous low-transparency barrier (Tn = T = 10−6 for all n). For the scanning routine, we include harmonics up to EJ10 to obtain results within the physical regime and to see when truncation is possible (Methods). Remarkably, for all samples, the EJ2 contribution is in the few percent range even after considering additional corrections such as series inductance or gap asymmetry in the superconducting electrodes (Supplementary Section ID).
The Josephson harmonics ratios computed from the mesoscopic model in equation (5) are shown with turquoise markers. Notice that the barrier evolved between CDs of the KIT sample due to ageing (CD1 to CD2) and thermal annealing (CD2 to CD3) (Supplementary Section IIIA). Even for the most homogeneous barrier (CD3), the second-harmonic contribution is EJ2/EJ1 ≈ −2.4%, implying that there would be at least one conduction channel with a transparency T ≥ 0.29 (Supplementary Section IA). The methodology presented in Fig. 3 can serve as a tool to characterize Josephson harmonics and tunnel barrier homogeneity, independent of circuit design.
Since the charge dispersion increases for higher transmon levels (even for the standard transmon Hamiltonian34; Fig. 2f) and is exponentially sensitive to the shape of the JJ potential (Fig. 2e), a natural question arises: what are the consequences of the Josephson harmonics on the transmon’s susceptibility to offset charges? In Fig. 4a, we show the measured charge dispersion δf0j of the Köln device for states j = 1, 2, 3 versus the first transition frequency f01, which is tuned by an in-plane magnetic field B∥ of up to 0.4 T (see Supplementary Section IIIC for details). The charge dispersion predicted by the standard model (dashed grey lines) falls short of the measurements by a factor of 2–7 for the three measured transitions. In contrast, when using the Josephson harmonics model, the computed charge dispersion matches the data (blue lines). We emphasize that for both models, we use the same parameters as in the Fig. 3 analysis (that is, the standard model and the EJ4 model) and vary the first Josephson energy to match the qubit frequency f01 for different magnetic fields while keeping the EJm/EJ1 ratios constant.
Interestingly, the presence of large Josephson harmonics, as in the case of the IBM qubits (Fig. 3c), can also reduce the charge dispersion, which directly decreases charge noise decoherence. We show evidence for this in Fig. 4b, on the first three IBM qubits, for which the charge dispersion of the qubit transition can be a factor of 4 lower than expected from the standard transmon model. This observation indicates a possible optimization route in which Josephson harmonics are engineered (for example, by shaping the channel transparencies or adding inductive elements in series) and the spectrum is steered towards regions of reduced charge dispersion and increased anharmonicity (Supplementary Fig. 8). A recent work54 proposes a similar approach to engineer arbitrary-shaped CφRs using networks of effective high-transparency JJs, each of which is a series of tunnel JJs.
The main reason for the failure of the standard transmon model in describing the charge dispersion (when fitted to f01 and f02) is that it misjudges the value of EJ/EC. To quantify this effect, in Fig. 4c we plot the values of EJ1/EC from the Josephson harmonics model against the value of EJ/EC from the standard model. Indeed, the EJ1/EC ranges for many of our measurements are not compatible with the standard model EJ/EC ratio (dashed diagonal). We note that when evaluated for the same EJ/EC, the Josephson harmonics correction to the charge dispersion is relatively small (inset of Fig. 4c).
In summary, we have shown that for ubiquitous AlOx tunnel junctions, the microscopic structure, currently underappreciated in its complexity, causes level shifts and modifies the charge dispersion in superconducting artificial atoms. In order to fully describe the measured transmon energy spectra, we amend the standard \(\sin \varphi\) Josephson CφR for tunnel junctions to include higher-order \(\sin (m\varphi )\) harmonics, with the relative amplitude of the m = 2 term in the few percent range. We confirm this finding in various sample geometries from four different laboratories, and we argue that the source of the Josephson harmonics is the presence of relatively higher-transparency channels with T ≫ 10−6 in the AlOx tunnel barrier. The methodology shown here can reveal percent-level deviations from a sinusoidal CφR, which are hard to detect in more standard measurements based on asymmetric direct current superconducting quantum interference devices55.
The observation of Josephson harmonics in tunnel junctions highlights the need to revisit established models for superconducting circuits. Our work directly impacts the design and measurement of transmon qubits and processors: As an illustration, we show that by engineering Josephson harmonics, the dephasing due to charge noise can be reduced by an order of magnitude without sacrificing anharmonicity. These results ask for future research studying the implications of Josephson harmonics and associated Andreev bound states in other tunnel-JJ-based circuits, for example fluxonium or generalized flux qubits56.
In general, we expect the inclusion of the harmonics will refine the understanding of superconducting artificial atoms and will directly benefit, among others, quantum gate and computation schemes relying on higher levels57,58,59,60,61,62,63, quantum-non-demolition readout fidelities64,65,66 and frequency crowding mitigation in quantum processors67. Josephson harmonics will probably also have to be accounted for in topological JJ circuits68,69,70, parametric pumping schemes employed in microwave amplifiers and bosonic codes71,72, amplification and mixing7,73,74, JJ metrological devices8,9,10, Floquet qubits75,76, protected Josephson qubits68,70,77 and so on, and they can be harnessed to realize Josephson diodes78. As devices become increasingly sophisticated with progressively smaller error margins, higher-order Josephson harmonics will need to be either suppressed via the development of highly uniform and low-transparency barriers or engineered and included as an integral part of the device physics.
Methods
Diagonalizing the Hamiltonians to obtain model predictions
We construct the matrices of Hstd in equation (3) and Hhar in equation (4) by first diagonalizing the bare transmon matrix (excluding \({H}_{{{{\rm{res}}}}}\)) in the charge basis \(\{\left\vert n\right\rangle \}\), where \(4{E}_{{{{\rm{C}}}}}{(n-{n}_{{{{\rm{g}}}}})}^{2}={\sum }_{n}4{E}_{{{{\rm{C}}}}}{(n-{n}_{{{{\rm{g}}}}})}^{2}\left\vert n\right\rangle \,\left\langle n\right\vert\) is diagonal and \(-{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}m}\cos (m\varphi )=-{\sum }_{n}{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}m}/2\,(\left\vert n\right\rangle \,\left\langle n+m\right\vert +\left\vert n+m\right\rangle \,\left\langle n\right\vert )\) has constant entries −EJm/2 on the mth subdiagonal (we ensure enough terms by generally verifying that the predictions do not change if more terms are included). This yields the transmon eigenenergies Ej and eigenstates \(\left\vert\, j\right\rangle\). Then we diagonalize the joint transmon-resonator Hamiltonian \({H}_{{{{\rm{std}}}}/{{{\rm{har}}}}}={\sum }_{j}{E}_{j}\left\vert\, j\right\rangle \,\left\langle\, j\right\vert +{{\varOmega }}{a}^{{\dagger} }a+{\sum }_{j,{j}^{{\prime} }}G\left\vert\, j\right\rangle \,\left\langle\, j\right\vert \,n\,\left\vert\, {j}^{{\prime} }\right\rangle \,\left\langle\, {j}^{{\prime} }\right\vert (a+{a}^{{\dagger} })\), where \(a={\sum }_{k}\sqrt{k+1}\left\vert k\right\rangle \,\left\langle k+1\right\vert\). To each resulting eigenenergy \({E}_{\overline{l}}\) and eigenstate \(\left\vert \overline{l}\,\right\rangle\), we assign a photon label k and a transmon label j based on the largest overlap \(\mathrm{max}_{k,\;j}| \left\langle kj| \overline{l}\,\right\rangle |\) (this only works for small k; Supplementary Section IIC), which yields the dressed energies \({E}_{\overline{kj}}\) and states \(\left\vert \overline{kj}\,\right\rangle\). This procedure is done for both ng = 0 and ng = 1/2. From the resulting dressed energies \({E}_{\overline{kj}}({n}_{{{{\rm{g}}}}})\), we compute the transmon transition frequencies \({f}_{0j}^{{{\;{\rm{model}}}}}({n}_{{{{\rm{g}}}}})=({E}_{\overline{0j}}({n}_{{{{\rm{g}}}}})-{E}_{\overline{00}}({n}_{{{{\rm{g}}}}}))/2\uppi\) and the resonator frequencies \({f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},\,j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}({n}_{{{{\rm{g}}}}})=({E}_{\overline{1j}}({n}_{{{{\rm{g}}}}})-{E}_{\overline{0j}}({n}_{{{{\rm{g}}}}}))/2\uppi\) (setting ℏ = 1). The predicted frequencies are then given by \({f}_{0j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}=({f}_{0j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}(0)+{f}_{0j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}(1/2))/2\), \({f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}=({f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}(0)+{f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}(1/2))/2\), and the charge dispersion is \(\delta {f}_{0j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}=|\, {f}_{0j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}(0)-{f}_{0j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}(1/2)|\). We consistently use n = −N, …, N with N = 14 and thus 2N + 1 = 29 charge states, j = 0, …, M − 1 with M = 12 transmon states and k = 0, …, K − 1 with K = 9 resonator states, where N, M and K have been chosen by verifying that the model predictions change by less than a few kHz when adding more states.
Solving the IEP to obtain model parameters
The inverse problem47,81 to obtain the parameters xstd of the standard model Hamiltonian in equation (3) and xhar of the harmonics model Hamiltonian in equation (4), such that the linear combinations of eigenvalues \({{{\bf{f}}}}=(\,{f}_{01}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}},{f}_{02}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}},\ldots ,{f}_{0{N}_{f}}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}},{f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},0}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}},{f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},1}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}})\) agree with the measured data, is an instance of the Hamiltonian parameterized IEP (HamPIEP; Supplementary Section IIA2). We solve the HamPIEP using the globally convergent Newton method82 with cubic line search and backtracking83 and the Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithm84 as implemented in TensorFlow Probability85,86. The Jacobian ∂f/∂x is obtained by performing automatic differentiation through the diagonalization with TensorFlow. For the EJ4 model shown in Fig. 3b, the IEP is solved unambiguously for x = (EJ1, EJ2, EJ3, EJ4, Ω, G) using the lowest four transmon transition frequencies, and we fix the values \({E}_{{{{\rm{C}}}}}^{{{{\rm{KIT}}}}}/h=\) 242 MHz, \({E}_{{{{\rm{C}}}}}^{{{{\rm{ENS}}}}}/h=\) 180 MHz and \({E}_{{{{\rm{C}}}}}^{{{{\rm{IBM}}}}}/h=\) 300 MHz, respectively, to make the models consistent with further available information such as accurate finite-element simulations (Supplementary Section IIIA) or knowledge of the transmon capacitance. For the mesoscopic model (Supplementary Section IB4), the parameters \({{{\bf{x}}}}=(\bar{d},\sigma ,{E}_{{{{\rm{C}}}}},{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}},{{\varOmega }},G)\) are found by minimizing the function \(\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{j = 1}^{{N}_{f}}|\;{f}_{0j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}/j-{f}_{0j}^{{{\,{\rm{experiment}}}}}/j| +\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{j = 0}^{1}|\, {f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},\,j}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}-{f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},\,j}^{{{\,{\rm{experiment}}}}}|\) using the Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithm. The initial values for the minimization are given by \(\bar{d}=1.64\,{{{\rm{nm}}}}\) (taken from the molecular dynamics result in Supplementary Section IV), \(\sigma =\bar{d}/4\) (also Supplementary Table 2) and (EC, EJ, Ω, G) from the standard transmon model. For the Köln data, where 288 data points have to be described by the same model parameters x (Fig. 4a) and only the Josephson energy is varied, we use cubic interpolation as a function of \({f}_{01}^{{{\,{\rm{model}}}}}\) and include only a few central points for the available frequencies in the solution of the IEP (the residuals are given in Supplementary Fig. 17). All model parameters are provided in the repository87 accompanying this manuscript.
Scanning the Josephson energies
To obtain the range of suitable Josephson energies {EJm} (shown in Fig. 3c) that are consistent with a measured spectrum, we use an exhaustive scanning procedure. A spectroscopy dataset of Nf measured transition frequencies f0j, j = 1, …, Nf and two resonator frequencies \({f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},0}\) and \({f}_{{{{\rm{res}}}},1}\) uniquely determines—via the HamPIEP—the values \({{{\bf{x}}}}=({E}_{{{{\rm{J1}}}}},\ldots ,{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}{N}_{f}},{{\varOmega }},G)\). We then scan the values of four additional ratios \({{{\bf{y}}}}=({E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}{N}_{f}+1}/{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}1},\ldots ,{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}{N}_{f}+4}/{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}1})\) for each of these four EJm/EJ1 over 16 geometrically spaced values between the point contact limit 3(−1)m+1/(4m2 − 1) and \({(-1)}^{m+1}\min \{1{0}^{-7},| {E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}m+1}/{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}1}| \}\) (always skipping the first to ensure ∣EJm/EJ1∣ > ∣EJm+1/EJ1∣). Additionally, we include y = (0, 0, 0, 0) to see if truncation at \({E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}{N}_{f}}\) is allowed. For each combination y, we solve the HamPIEP for the spectroscopy data to obtain the unique solution x. We call the ratios \({{{\bf{e}}}}=(1,{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}2}/{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}1},\ldots ,{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}{N}_{f}+4}/{E}_{{{{\rm{J}}}}1})\) a trajectory that can reproduce the spectrum. However, the trajectory e may not be physical, since (1) some of the leading ratios EJm/EJ for m ≤ Nf might be beyond the quantum point-contact limit, (2) the Josephson energies might not be strictly decreasing in absolute value for increasing order m, or (3) the signs might not be alternating. Note that this can also happen when the Josephson harmonics model in equation (4) is truncated at too-low orders (Supplementary Section IC3). For all EJm, the maximum and minimum possible ratios ∣EJm/EJ∣ define the vertical bars in Fig. 3c.
Data availability
The spectroscopy data and the model parameters that support the findings of this study are available in the Jülich DATA repository at https://doi.org/10.26165/JUELICH-DATA/LGRHUH.
Change history
04 April 2024
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02491-3
References
Josephson, B. D. Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling. Phys. Lett. 1, 251 (1962).
Josephson, B. D. The discovery of tunnelling supercurrents. Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 251 (1974).
Google Quantum AI. Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction. Nature 595, 383–387 (2021).
Krinner, S. et al. Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code. Nature 605, 669–674 (2022).
Sivak, V. V. et al. Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even. Nature 616, 50–55 (2023).
Wendin, G. Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: a perspective. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04558 (2023).
Roy, A. & Devoret, M. Introduction to parametric amplification of quantum signals with Josephson circuits. C. R. Phys. 17, 740–755 (2016).
Gramm, K., Lundgren, L. & Beckman, O. SQUID magnetometer for mangetization measurements. Phys. Scr. 13, 93 (1976).
Shapiro, S. Josephson currents in superconducting tunneling: the effect of microwaves and other observations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 80 (1963).
Crescini, N. et al. Evidence of dual Shapiro steps in a Josephson junction array. Nat. Phys. 19, 851–856 (2023).
Albertinale, E. et al. Detecting spins by their fluorescence with a microwave photon counter. Nature 600, 434–438 (2021).
Arute, F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature 574, 505–510 (2019).
King, A. D. et al. Quantum critical dynamics in a 5,000-qubit programmable spin glass. Nature 617, 61–66 (2023).
Kim, Y. et al. Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance. Nature 618, 500–505 (2023).
Likharev, K. K. Dynamics of Josephson Junctions and Circuits (Gordon and Breach, 1986).
Golubov, A. A., Kupriyanov, M. Y. & Il’ichev, E. The current-phase relation in Josephson junctions. Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 411–469 (2004).
Goldobin, E., Koelle, D., Kleiner, R. & Buzdin, A. Josephson junctions with second harmonic in the current-phase relation: properties of φ junctions. Phys. Rev. B 76, 224523 (2007).
de Lange, G. et al. Realization of microwave quantum circuits using hybrid superconducting-semiconducting nanowire Josephson elements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 127002 (2015).
Kringhøj, A. et al. Anharmonicity of a superconducting qubit with a few-mode Josephson junction. Phys. Rev. B 97, 060508 (2018).
Stoutimore, M. J. A. et al. Second-harmonic current-phase relation in Josephson junctions with ferromagnetic barriers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 177702 (2018).
Bargerbos, A. et al. Observation of vanishing charge dispersion of a nearly open superconducting island. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 246802 (2020).
Dolan, G. J. Offset masks for lift-off photoprocessing. Appl. Phys. Lett. 31, 337–339 (1977).
Beenakker, C. W. J. in Transport Phenomena in Mesoscopic Systems (eds Fukuyama, H. & Ando, T.) 235–253 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1992); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-84818-6_22
Glazman, L. & Catelani, G. Bogoliubov quasiparticles in superconducting qubits. SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes https://doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes (2021).
Kittel, C. Introduction to Solid State Physics (Wiley, 2004).
Fritz, S., Radtke, L., Schneider, R., Weides, M. & Gerthsen, D. Optimization of Al/AlOx/Al-layer systems for Josephson junctions from a microstructure point of view. J. Appl. Phys. 125, 165301 (2019).
Da Costa, V., Tiusan, C., Dimopoulos, T. & Ounadjela, K. Tunneling phenomena as a probe to investigate atomic scale fluctuations in metal/oxide/metal magnetic tunnel junctions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 876–879 (2000).
Parkin, S. S. P. et al. Giant tunnelling magnetoresistance at room temperature with MgO (100) tunnel barriers. Nat. Mater. 3, 862–867 (2004).
Yuasa, S., Nagahama, T., Fukushima, A., Suzuki, Y. & Ando, K. Giant room-temperature magnetoresistance in single-crystal fe/MgO/fe magnetic tunnel junctions. Nat. Mater. 3, 868–871 (2004).
Cyster, M. J. et al. Effect of atomic structure on the electrical response of aluminum oxide tunnel junctions. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013110 (2020).
Cyster, M. J. et al. Simulating the fabrication of aluminium oxide tunnel junctions. npj Quantum Inf. 7, 12 (2021).
Aref, T. et al. Characterization of aluminum oxide tunnel barriers by combining transport measurements and transmission electron microscopy imaging. J. Appl. Phys. 116, 073702 (2014).
Zeng, L. J. et al. Direct observation of the thickness distribution of ultra thin AlOx barriers in Al/AlOx/Al Josephson junctions. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 48, 395308 (2015).
Koch, J. et al. Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box. Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007).
Blais, A., Grimsmo, A. L., Girvin, S. M. & Wallraff, A. Circuit quantum electrodynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021).
Nigg, S. E. et al. Black-box superconducting circuit quantization. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 240502 (2012).
Ansari, M. H. Superconducting qubits beyond the dispersive regime. Phys. Rev. B 100, 024509 (2019).
Riwar, R.-P. & DiVincenzo, D. P. Circuit quantization with time-dependent magnetic fields for realistic geometries. npj Quantum Inf. 8, 36 (2022).
Miano, A. et al. Hamiltonian extrema of an arbitrary flux-biased Josephson circuit. PRX Quantum 4, 030324 (2023).
Lescanne, R. et al. Escape of a driven quantum Josephson circuit into unconfined states. Phys. Rev. Applied 11, 014030 (2019).
Krause, J. et al. Magnetic field resilience of three-dimensional transmons with thin-film Al/AlOx/Al Josephson junctions approaching 1 T. Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 034032 (2022).
Blais, A., Huang, R.-S., Wallraff, A., Girvin, S. M. & Schoelkopf, R. J. Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: an architecture for quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004).
Blais, A. et al. Quantum-information processing with circuit quantum electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. A 75, 032329 (2007).
Friedland, S. Inverse eigenvalue problems. Linear Algebra Appl. 17, 15–51 (1977).
Friedland, S., Nocedal, J. & Overton, M. L. The formulation and analysis of numerical methods for inverse eigenvalue problems. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 24, 634–667 (1987).
Chu, M. T. Inverse eigenvalue problems. SIAM Rev. 40, 1–39 (1998).
Chu, M. & Golub, G. Inverse Eigenvalue Problems: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005); https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198566649.001.0001
Downing, A. C. & Householder, A. S. Some Inverse Characteristic Value Problems Which Arise in the Study of Simple Molecules. Technical report no. CF-55-10-95 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1955); https://doi.org/10.2172/4357461
Toman, S. & Plíva, J. Multiplicity of solutions of the inverse secular problem. J. Mol. Spectrosc. 21, 362–371 (1966).
Brussaard, P. J., Glaudemans, P. W. M. & Klein, A. Shell Model Applications in Nuclear Spectroscopy (North-Holland, 1977); https://doi.org/10.1002/piuz.19790100516
Peterer, M. J. et al. Coherence and decay of higher energy levels of a superconducting transmon qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 010501 (2015).
Xie, E. et al. Compact 3D quantum memory. Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 202601 (2018).
Xie, E. Scalable 3D Quantum Memory. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität München (2019).
Bozkurt, A. M., Brookman, J., Fatemi, V. & Akhmerov, A. R. Double-fourier engineering of Josephson energy-phase relationships applied to diodes. SciPost Phys. 15, 204 (2023).
Della Rocca, M. L. et al. Measurement of the current-phase relation of superconducting atomic contacts. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 127005 (2007).
Nguyen, L. B. et al. Blueprint for a high-performance fluxonium quantum processor. PRX Quantum 3, 037001 (2022).
DiCarlo, L. et al. Demonstration of two-qubit algorithms with a superconducting quantum processor. Nature 460, 240–244 (2009).
Rigetti, C. & Devoret, M. Fully microwave-tunable universal gates in superconducting qubits with linear couplings and fixed transition frequencies. Phys. Rev. B 81, 134507 (2010).
Chow, J. M. et al. Microwave-activated conditional-phase gate for superconducting qubits. New J. Phys. 15, 115012 (2013).
Sank, D. et al. Measurement-induced state transitions in a superconducting qubit: beyond the rotating wave approximation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 190503 (2016).
Negîrneac, V. et al. High-fidelity controlled-z gate with maximal intermediate leakage operating at the speed limit in a superconducting quantum processor. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 220502 (2021).
Rol, M. A. et al. Fast, high-fidelity conditional-phase gate exploiting leakage interference in weakly anharmonic superconducting qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 120502 (2019).
Roy, T., Li, Z., Kapit, E. & Schuster, D. Two-qutrit quantum algorithms on a programmable superconducting processor. Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064024 (2023).
Gusenkova, D. et al. Quantum nondemolition dispersive readout of a superconducting artificial atom using large photon numbers. Phys. Rev. Applied 15, 064030 (2021).
Shillito, R. et al. Dynamics of transmon ionization. Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 034031 (2022).
Cohen, J., Petrescu, A., Shillito, R. & Blais, A. Reminiscence of classical chaos in driven transmons. PRX Quantum 4, 020312 (2023).
Hertzberg, J. B. et al. Laser-annealing Josephson junctions for yielding scaled-up superconducting quantum processors. npj Quantum Inf. 7, 129 (2021).
Gyenis, A. et al. Experimental realization of a protected superconducting circuit derived from the 0–π qubit. PRX Quantum 2, 010339 (2021).
Rymarz, M., Bosco, S., Ciani, A. & DiVincenzo, D. P. Hardware-encoding grid states in a nonreciprocal superconducting circuit. Phys. Rev. X 11, 011032 (2021).
Smith, W. C. et al. Magnifying quantum phase fluctuations with Cooper-pair pairing. Phys. Rev. X 12, 021002 (2022).
Campagne-Ibarcq, P. et al. Quantum error correction of a qubit encoded in grid states of an oscillator. Nature 584, 368–372 (2020).
Lescanne, R. et al. Exponential suppression of bit-flips in a qubit encoded in an oscillator. Nat. Phys. 16, 509–513 (2020).
Frattini, N. E. et al. 3-wave mixing Josephson dipole element. Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 222603 (2017).
Grimm, A. et al. Stabilization and operation of a Kerr-cat qubit. Nature 584, 205–209 (2020).
Huang, Z. et al. Engineering dynamical sweet spots to protect qubits from 1/f noise. Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 034065 (2021).
Gandon, A., Le Calonnec, C., Shillito, R., Petrescu, A. & Blais, A. Engineering, control, and longitudinal readout of floquet qubits. Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 064006 (2022).
Gladchenko, S. et al. Superconducting nanocircuits for topologically protected qubits. Nat. Phys. 5, 48–53 (2008).
Fominov, Y. V. & Mikhailov, D. S. Asymmetric higher-harmonic SQUID as a Josephson diode. Phys. Rev. B 106, 134514 (2022).
Catelani, G. Parity switching and decoherence by quasiparticles in single-junction transmons. Phys. Rev. B 89, 094522 (2014).
Serniak, K. et al. Direct dispersive monitoring of charge parity in offset-charge-sensitive transmons. Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 014052 (2019).
Jaynes, E. T. & Bretthorst, G. L. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003); https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790423
Dennis, J. E. & Schnabel, R. B. Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1996); https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611971200
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T. & Flannery, B. P. Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing 3rd edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
Nocedal, J. & Wright, S. J. Numerical Optimization (Springer, 2006); https://doi.org/10.1007/b98874
TensorFlow Developers. TensorFlow v.2.8.0 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5949125 (2022).
TensorFlow Developers. TensorFlow Probability v.0.15.0 https://github.com/tensorflow/probability/releases/tag/v0.15.0 (2022).
Willsch, D. & Rieger, D. Spectroscopy data and model parameters for ‘Observation of Josephson harmonics in tunnel junctions’. Jülich DATA https://doi.org/10.26165/JUELICH-DATA/LGRHUH (2023).
Jülich Supercomputing Centre JUWELS cluster and booster: exascale pathfinder with modular supercomputing architecture at Juelich Supercomputing Centre. JLSRF 7, A138 (2021).
Acknowledgements
D.W., M.W. and K.M. thank H. De Raedt and H. Lagemann for stimulating discussions. C.D., J.K. and Y.A. thank L.M. Janssen for assistance with the measurements and P. Janke for contributions to the data analysis. I.M.P. thanks U. Vool for providing comments on an early version of the manuscript. C.D. and I.M.P. thank L. DiCarlo for discussions that helped improve the manuscript. L.B.-I., C.M. and I.M.P. thank J. Cole for insightful discussions about simulating the AlOx structure. D.W., M.W. and K.M. gratefully acknowledge the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing e.V. (www.gauss-centre.eu) for funding this project by providing computing time on the GCS Supercomputer JUWELS88 at Jülich Supercomputing Centre. D.W. and M.W. acknowledge support from the project Jülich UNified Infrastructure for Quantum computing, which that has received funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. P.W., B.D., T.R. and G.C. acknowledge support from the BMBF within the project GEQCOS (FKZ: 13N15683 and 13N15685). D.R., S. Geisert, S. Günzler, S.I., W.W., G.C. and I.M.P. acknowledge support from the BMBF within the project QSolid (FKZ: 13N16151 and 13N16149). C.D., J.K. and Y.A. acknowledge support from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant no. 741121) and from Germany’s Excellence Strategy—Cluster of Excellence Matter and Light for Quantum Computing EXC 2004/1-390534769. P.P. acknowledges support from the BMBF within the QUANTERA project SiUCs (FKZ: 13N15209). P.D. was supported by the IBM Quantum Community Advocate internship programme. R.H., J.H.B., P.S. and D.G. acknowledge the support of Hitachi High-Technologies. This work has been supported financially by the BMBF via the TLE4HSQ project (grant no. 13N15983). P.S. acknowledges financial support by the BMBF via the Quantum Futur project MajoranaChips (grant no. 13N15264) within the funding programme Photonic Research Germany. L.B.-I. and C.M. acknowledge support from UEFISCDI Romania through the contract ERANET-QUANTERA QuCos 120/16.09.2019 and from ANCS through Core Program 27N/2023, project no. PN 23 24 01 04.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
D.W., D.R., P.W., M.W. and I.M.P. conceived of the presented study. D.W., D.R., P.W., M.W. and I.M.P. wrote the original draft. D.R., P.W., B.D., S. Günzler, P.P. and T.R. performed the experiments on the KIT sample. C.D. and J.K. performed the experiments on the Köln sample. R.L. and Z.L. performed the experiments on the ENS sample. N.T.B. and P.D. performed the experiments on the IBM sample. R.H., J.H.B., P.S., S. Geisert and S.I. acquired the STEM images and prepared the corresponding samples. D.W., M.W. and G.C. performed the theoretical modelling and the numerical simulations. L.B.-I. and C.M. performed the molecular dynamics simulations. D.P.D., K.M., G.C. and I.M.P. supervised the work. All authors analysed the data and contributed to reviewing and editing the manuscript and the Supplementary Information.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Physics thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Sections I–IV and Figs. 1–27.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Willsch, D., Rieger, D., Winkel, P. et al. Observation of Josephson harmonics in tunnel junctions. Nat. Phys. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02400-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02400-8
This article is cited by
-
Homological Quantum Rotor Codes: Logical Qubits from Torsion
Communications in Mathematical Physics (2024)