Superconducting quantum devices (qubits, SQUIDs, particle detectors) are limited by magnetic 1/f flux noise whose microscopic origin remains unidentified. Herbst et al. (Supercond. Sci. Technol. 36, 105007, 2023) built a Wheatstone-bridge superconducting microstructure with two cross-correlated dc-SQUID readout chains and AC-susceptibility measurements, connected by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, that separates and quantifies individual noise sources at 40-800 mK; they measured the magnetic 1/f noise of sputtered SiO2 and of a Au:Er dilute magnetic alloy, but could not determine which fluctuator mechanism produces the noise in device-relevant films, and could not explain the broad, logarithmically spaced distribution of spin relaxation times inferred for Au:Er. The open problem is to convert this partial quantification into definitive microscopic attribution: identify the dominant fluctuator ensembles in specific device materials and interfaces, determine the microscopic origin of the Au:Er relaxation-time spectrum and its relation to the expected low-mK spin-glass transition, and reduce the sample-independent platform noise (magnetic Johnson noise, bond-wire and off-sample contributions, cross-talk uncertainty) below the sample-intrinsic level; the authors additionally proposed, as an optional extension rather than part of the attribution goal, validating the fluctuation-dissipation-based platform on a full superconducting circuit such as a SQUID or qubit. Subsequent work continues to propose additional candidate mechanisms (adsorbate spins, quasiparticle-induced noise, disordered exchange between adsorbed O2 molecules), but no published work discriminates among the candidate mechanisms.

Background

Superconducting circuits for quantum information and precision measurement — qubits, SQUIDs (superconducting quantum interference devices, i.e. superconducting loops with Josephson junctions whose output is modulated by magnetic flux), and cryogenic particle detectors — are degraded by low-frequency noise with a power spectral density approximately proportional to 1/f1/f. One long-standing component is magnetic flux noise: stochastic fluctuations of the magnetic flux threading the circuit, produced by fluctuating magnetic moments in surface oxides, insulating layers, adsorbates, and nearby metals. Its amplitude, of order 10−6 Φ0/Hz10^{-6}\,\Phi_0/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}} at 1 Hz (where Φ0\Phi_0 is the magnetic flux quantum), has been nearly device-independent across two decades of experiments, but its microscopic origin has not been identified. Proposed mechanisms include: stochastic spin hopping of adsorbed oxygen molecules (Wang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 077002, 2015); paramagnetic dangling bonds at amorphous semiconductor/oxide interfaces, i.e. unterminated covalent bonds carrying spin 1/2 (de Sousa, Phys. Rev. B 76, 245306, 2007); strongly interacting surface spins with glassy dynamics (Faoro and Ioffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 227005, 2008); metal-induced gap states, i.e. evanescent electron states localized at the metal/insulator interface that can trap magnetic moments (Choi, Lee, Louie, and Clarke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 197001, 2009); and earlier spin-diffusion models (Koch, DiVincenzo, and Clarke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 267003, 2007). Kumar et al. (Phys. Rev. Applied 6, 041001, 2016) showed that the noise tracks a fixed areal density of surface spins and can be reduced about fivefold by surface treatments, the strongest experimental handle to date, but this still does not identify the spins chemically or crystallographically. A complementary thread comes from metallic magnetic calorimeters (MMCs), cryogenic particle detectors that use dilute magnetic alloys such as Au doped with erbium as temperature sensors; these materials show 1/f magnetic noise per impurity ion and complex spin dynamics driven by RKKY interactions (a long-range magnetic coupling mediated by conduction electrons), magnetic dipole-dipole coupling, and crystal-field effects of the host lattice (the splitting of the erbium spin levels by the electrostatic field of the surrounding host ions) (Fleischmann et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. 118, 7, 2000). Herbst et al. (Supercond. Sci. Technol. 36, 105007, 2023) connected these threads: they fabricated superconducting meander pickup coils (serpentine wire patterns) in a Wheatstone-like bridge read out by two independent, cross-correlated dc-SQUID chains, with a residual cross-talk between channels quantified by a parameter δ\delta (defined so that each measured channel time trace contains a fraction 1−δ1-\delta of its own channel's signal and a fraction δ\delta of the other channel's signal, s1(t)=(1−δ) (a(t)+n1(t))+δ (a(t)+n2(t))s_1(t)=(1-\delta)\,(a(t)+n_1(t))+\delta\,(a(t)+n_2(t)) and s2(t)=(1−δ) (a(t)+n2(t))+δ (a(t)+n1(t))s_2(t)=(1-\delta)\,(a(t)+n_2(t))+\delta\,(a(t)+n_1(t)), where aa is the noise of the superconducting microstructure and n1,n2n_1,n_2 are the readout-noise contributions of the two chains; for the device of Herbst et al., δ=(−1±1)%\delta=(-1\pm1)\%, and the uncertainty in δ\delta produces a systematic error at low noise levels). The device operates in two modes: cross-correlation mode, which measures all flux noise picked up by the circuit, and susceptibility mode, in which the complex AC susceptibility χ=χ′+iχ′′\chi = \chi' + i\chi'' of the sample is measured and the noise is computed via the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT, the exact equilibrium relation linking the noise spectrum of a quantity to the dissipative part of its response). Agreement between the two modes certifies thermal-equilibrium magnetic noise and separates it from SQUID readout noise and magnetic Johnson noise (thermal-electron current noise in nearby normal metals, here dominated by the copper experimental platform and bond wires, with a skin-effect low-pass near 143 Hz). At T=46T = 46 mK they measured a nearly temperature-independent 1/fα1/f^{\alpha} (α=1.00±0.03\alpha = 1.00 \pm 0.03) magnetic flux noise from a Au:Er layer (2480 ppm Er) amounting to 0.115 μB2/Hz0.115\,\mu_\mathrm{B}^2/\mathrm{Hz} per erbium atom at 1 Hz, and a weaker 1/f1/f component from a sputtered SiO2 layer, attributable to roughly 60 ppm of impurity moments with erbium-like magnetization or, plausibly, about 200 ppm of spin-1/2 dangling bonds with g≈2g \approx 2 — a hypothesis, not an identification. For Au:Er at T≤69T \le 69 mK the real susceptibility obeys χ′∝−log⁡f\chi' \propto -\log f, implying relaxation times spaced logarithmically over many decades, the signature of spin-glass-like dynamics (a spin glass is a disordered ensemble of interacting spins that freezes into a slow, history-dependent state below a transition temperature); the expected spin-glass transition temperature lies in the low-mK range, below the temperatures accessed. The authors state that the microscopic origin of the noise in both materials remains undetermined, list RKKY, dipole-dipole, crystal-field, and clustering effects as possible — undifferentiated — sources of the broad relaxation-time distribution, and propose, without implementing, the extension of the platform to full devices such as SQUIDs or qubits.

Problem Statement

The common objective is to convert the partial identification and quantification of magnetic 1/f noise sources in superconducting microstructures into definitive microscopic attribution and validated mitigation, using the fluctuation-dissipation-consistent measurement platform of Herbst et al. (2023) or an equivalent method. Concretely: (1) determine which fluctuator ensemble — dangling bonds, adsorbed molecules such as O2, metal-induced gap states at metal/insulator interfaces, interacting surface spins, or localized moments in nearby dilute alloys — dominates the measured magnetic 1/f flux noise in specific device-relevant materials and interfaces, in particular sputtered SiO2 layers and the surfaces of superconducting traces, with an attribution specific enough to exclude the competing mechanisms quantitatively; (2) determine the microscopic origin of the broad, logarithmically spaced distribution of spin relaxation times inferred for Au:Er from χ′∝−log⁡f\chi' \propto -\log f — whether it arises from RKKY interactions, dipole-dipole coupling, crystal-field level distributions, clustering, or a combination — and establish its relation to the expected spin-glass transition in the low-mK regime, which current measurements do not access; (3) isolate and reduce the residual, sample-independent noise components (magnetic Johnson noise from the experimental platform, bond-wire contributions, and possible noise from SiO2 on other chip regions or the front-end SQUID chips) and the systematic uncertainty from the cross-talk parameter δ\delta to below the sample-intrinsic signal, so that attribution claims are not systematic-limited; and (4) as a source-proposed extension, not a requirement of the attribution goal, validate the applicability and sensitivity of the combined cross-correlation and susceptibility method on an actual superconducting circuit, replacing the meander pickup coils with a SQUID or qubit (Herbst et al. describe this in their outlook as "thinkable", and the paper does not present it as necessary for microscopic attribution, which could in principle be definitive on the meander platform). The scientific goal is a definitive, mechanism-level account of the magnetic 1/f noise observed in superconducting devices: (1) and (2) constitute the attribution core, and (3) is the platform condition under which that attribution is credible on real devices.

References

  1. M. Herbst, A. Fleischmann, D. Hengstler, D. Mazibrada, L. Münch, A. Reifenberger, C. Ständer, C. Enss, 'Measuring magnetic 1/f noise in superconducting microstructures and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem', Superconductor Science and Technology 36, 105007 (2023). DOI: 10.1088/1361-6668/acf166; arXiv:2303.15257. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6668/acf166
  2. R. H. Koch, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. Clarke, 'Model for 1/f flux noise in SQUIDs and qubits', Physical Review Letters 98, 267003 (2007). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.267003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.267003
  3. R. de Sousa, 'Dangling-bond spin relaxation and magnetic 1/f noise from the amorphous-semiconductor/oxide interface: Theory', Physical Review B 76, 245306 (2007). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.245306. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.245306
  4. L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, 'Microscopic Origin of Low-Frequency Flux Noise in Josephson Circuits', Physical Review Letters 100, 227005 (2008). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.227005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.227005
  5. S. Choi, D.-H. Lee, S. G. Louie, J. Clarke, 'Localization of Metal-Induced Gap States at the Metal-Insulator Interface: Origin of Flux Noise in SQUIDs and Superconducting Qubits', Physical Review Letters 103, 197001 (2009). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.197001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.197001
  6. H. Wang, C. Shi, J. Hu, S. Han, C. C. Yu, R. Q. Wu, 'Candidate Source of Flux Noise in SQUIDs: Adsorbed Oxygen Molecules', Physical Review Letters 115, 077002 (2015). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.077002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.077002
  7. P. Kumar, S. Sendelbach, M. A. Beck, J. W. Freeland, Zhe Wang, Hui Wang, Clare C. Yu, R. Q. Wu, D. P. Pappas, R. McDermott, 'Origin and Reduction of 1/f Magnetic Flux Noise in Superconducting Devices', Physical Review Applied 6, 041001 (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.6.041001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.6.041001
  8. A. Fleischmann, J. Schönefeld, J. Sollner, C. Enss, J. S. Adams, S. R. Bandler, Y. H. Kim, G. M. Seidel, 'Low Temperature Properties of Erbium In Gold', Journal of Low Temperature Physics 118, 7-21 (2000). DOI: 10.1023/A:1004654401827. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004654401827
  9. M. Herbst, A. Barth, A. Fleischmann, L. Gastaldo, D. Hengstler, N. Kovac, F. Mantegazzini, A. Reifenberger, C. Enss, 'Numerical Calculation of the Thermodynamic Properties of Silver Erbium Alloys for Use in Metallic Magnetic Calorimeters', Journal of Low Temperature Physics 209, 1119-1127 (2022). DOI: 10.1007/s10909-022-02739-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-022-02739-3
  10. Mengli Yao, Xiong Xu, Min Li, Hui Wang, 'Possible Origin of Low-Frequency Magnetic Flux Noise in Superconducting Devices', The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 14, 1854-1861 (2023). DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c03533. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c03533
  11. J. A. Nava Aquino, R. de Sousa, 'Model for 1/f flux noise in superconducting aluminum devices: Impact of external magnetic fields', Applied Physics Letters 122, 224003 (2023). DOI: 10.1063/5.0147500. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0147500
  12. J. A. Nava Aquino, R. de Sousa, 'Nonequilibrium quasiparticles in superconducting circuits: Energy relaxation and charge and flux noise', Physical Review Applied 24, 044088 (2025). DOI: 10.1103/nr6y-zxnb. https://doi.org/10.1103/nr6y-zxnb
  13. K. G. Ray, Y. Rosen, J. L. Dubois, V. Lordi, 'Field-Dependent Qubit Flux Noise Simulated from Materials-Specific Disordered Exchange Interactions Between Paramagnetic Adsorbates', arXiv:2602.09471 (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09471
  14. P. G. Pritchard, J. M. Rondinelli, 'Suppressed paramagnetism in amorphous Ta2O5-x oxides and its link to superconducting qubit performance', arXiv:2410.13160 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13160
  15. R. Gao, F. Wu, H. Sun, J. Chen, H. Deng, X. Ma, X. Miao, Z. Song, X. Wan, F. Wang, T. Xia, M. Ying, C. Zhang, Y. Shi, H.-H. Zhao, C. Deng, 'The effects of disorder in superconducting materials on qubit coherence', arXiv:2310.06621 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06621