AG-2026.06-543·quant-ph
Ultra-high Q-factor superconducting tantalum resonators on 300 mm Si wafers
Authors
- R. Acharya
- D. Perez Lozano
- Ts. Ivanov
- S. Massar
- C. Vrancken
- Y. Canvel
- Y. Li
- A. M. Vadiraj
- J. Van Damme
- S. Aghaeimeibodi
- A. Khalajhedayati
- M. Mongillo
- O. Painter
- D. Wan
- A. Potočnik
- K. De Greve
Abstract
Superconducting resonators are central to superconducting quantum information technologies and essential for bosonic qubit architectures, where long-lived storage modes enable hardware-efficient error correction. Achieving ultra-high quality factors in scalable planar circuits is challenging because multiple dissipation channels contribute to the total loss. Here we report planar $α$-Ta resonators fabricated on 300 mm ultra-high-resistivity ($>10$ k$Ω$ cm) intrinsic silicon using industrial processes, achieving median internal Q factors exceeding 40 million and maxima above 60 million. Energy-participation-ratio analysis identifies a dominant participation-controlled interface loss mechanism and places conservative upper bounds on substrate-associated dissipation. For the best-performing substrate, the inferred substrate loss tangent is below $1.0 \times 10^{-8}$, establishing industrial MCZ silicon among the lowest-loss substrate platforms reported for superconducting resonators. At the same time, the exceptionally low losses show no clear correlation with commonly cited silicon substrate metrics such as room-temperature resistivity or impurity concentrations. More broadly, these studies establish industrial 300 mm processing, careful interface engineering, and 300 mm MCZ silicon substrates as a promising platform for resonator-heavy superconducting quantum architectures with ultra-high quality factors.
Submitted
9 June 20262 days ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2606.10719
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.