author: Reza Nikandish,  Elena Blokhina,  and Robert Bogdan Staszewski,  [^1]
title: CMOS Quantum Computing:
  Toward A Quantum Computer System-on-Chip

# Introduction

Quantum computing is experiencing the transition from a scientific to an engineering field with the promise to revolutionize an extensive range of applications demanding high-performance computing. The major areas include artificial intelligence, autonomous driving, cryptography, drug development, chemistry, and financial optimization. Many implementation approaches have been pursued for quantum computing systems, where currently the main streams can be identified based on superconducting, photonic, trapped-ion, and semiconductor qubits. Semiconductor-based quantum computing, specifically using CMOS technologies, is promising as it provides potential for the integration of qubits with their control and readout circuits on a single chip. This paves the way for the realization of a large-scale quantum computing system with many qubits (e.g., over 1000) for solving practical problems.

Quantum computing, first envisioned by Richard Feynman and Paul Benioff in the 1980s , has passed several important milestones to reach the current state of development. The major landmarks include the invention of the Shor's algorithm for prime number factorization and discrete logarithm on a quantum computer , the development of Grover's algorithm for efficient search in large databases , the use of semiconductor quantum dots to implement qubits , a silicon-based quantum computer architecture , the first spin qubit in silicon , the first CMOS spin qubit , and the proposal of using cryogenic CMOS circuits for control and readout of qubits , . Recently, Google announced it has achieved the milestone of *quantum supremacy* : in 200 seconds, its Sycamore quantum processor completed a task, the equivalent of which would take a state-of-the-art supercomputer much longer to complete .

These achievements along with long-term vision for the future of quantum computing have led to growing global interests and increasing amounts of investment by governments, established companies, and start-ups in this field, e.g., the launch of the US National Quantum Initiative and the EU Quantum Technologies Flagship Program .

Since the first realization of semiconductor qubits using quantum dots , many scientific research works have been devoted to improve the quality of these qubits by using different semiconductor materials (e.g., GaAs, SiGe, and Si) and isotopes (e.g., $\rm ^{28}$Si) . Furthermore, several qubit architectures, including spin-1/2 qubit , singlet-triplet qubit and its subset hybrid spin/charge qubit , and exchange interaction qubit , have been proposed to improve the performance and simplify the realization of qubits and logic quantum gates. Most of these developments attempt to improve the performance of individual qubits, e.g., their decoherence time, manipulation time, and fidelity. In a large-scale quantum computing system, however, there are other considerations which can be even more critical than the performance of qubits. For instance, quality of the interface between qubits and classical electronic circuits for control and readout is critical in the performance of a *large-scale* quantum computer.

Quantum computers can outperform classic computers by virtue of running quantum algorithms . These algorithms are realized using *quantum circuits* which are sequences of elementary quantum gates applied to qubits. Semiconductor qubits and quantum gates have limited coherence time, e.g., due to environmental noise, which is usually much shorter than the time required to execute quantum algorithms. Multiple physical qubits can be employed to construct a logical qubit with much higher performance . The associated quantum error correction improves the fault tolerance of quantum algorithms required for large-scale quantum computation. The hardware overhead of redundant qubits is a challenge in the implementation of quantum error correction. In the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era, quantum computers are expected to be realized using *imperfect* and *limited* number of qubits (e.g., 50–100). However, the size of quantum circuits will be limited by noise in the quantum gates and, as a result, the quantum computers can outperform classic computers only in a few computational tasks .

CMOS technology can provide potential for the implementation of high-quality qubits, as a result of the high silicon purity achieved in advanced processes . Large arrays of qubits can be implemented in a compact chip area using nanometer-scale transistors. This allows the integration of redundant qubits for quantum error correction with target qubits on the same chip. Furthermore, the use of cryogenic CMOS circuits for control and readout of qubits enables the opportunity of integrating the qubits and their interface circuits on a single chip. This perspective, however, entails dealing with numerous new challenges, including the lack of precise cryogenic models of CMOS devices (e.g., transistors, inductors, capacitors, resistors, interconnects), process variations, the effects of control circuits on qubit performance, crosstalk between multiple paths of RF control signals, and decoherence of qubits arising from the noise of readout circuits.

In this paper, we present an overview and future perspective of CMOS quantum computing, exploring developed semiconductor qubit structures, quantum gates, as well as control and readout circuits, with a focus on the promises and challenges of CMOS implementation. In Section , we investigate semiconductor qubit structures and quantum gates. The interface of classic and quantum electronics is elaborated in Section , where we discuss qubit control and readout circuits, as well as architectures for large-scale qubit arrays. In Section , we present future trends in CMOS quantum computing toward the realization of scalable quantum computers.

# CMOS Qubits

The fundamental building block of a quantum computer is a qubit, operating based on the *superposition* of two basic quantum states. The qubit's state can be expressed in terms of the basic quantum states, $\Ket{0}$ and $\Ket{1}$, as $\Ket{\psi} = \alpha_0 \Ket{0} + \alpha_1 \Ket{1}$, where $\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_1$ are complex valued coefficients. The measured qubit state is a random outcome with a probability of $|\alpha_0|^2$ for $\Ket{0}$ and $|\alpha_1|^2$ for $\Ket{1}$, with the constraint of $|\alpha_0|^2 + |\alpha_1|^2 = 1$) .

The second fundamental feature of qubits, first noted by Albert Einstein in 1935 , is quantum *entanglement*. The quantum state of each qubit in a pair or group of qubits cannot be described independently of the state of the others. That is, the physical properties of entangled qubits, e.g., position, spin, polarization, are correlated, and if one is measured, that of the others are also collapsed. Entanglement plays an essential role in quantum computing.

Qubits have other special features that distinguish them from classic bits. In a perfectly isolated qubit, there exists a definite phase relation between different states, and the system is called to be coherent. In practice, however, due to interactions of the qubit with the physical environment, the coherence is lost with time through a process called quantum decoherence. Moreover, the qubits are fragile and their quantum state is lost upon measurement. Therefore, the measurement is not deterministically repeatable .

The physical implementation criteria of quantum computers have been laid down by David DiVincenzo in 2000 as follows: 1) scalable physical system with well-characterized qubits, 2) the ability to initialize the state of the qubits, 3) decoherence times much longer than the gate operation time, 4) a universal set of quantum gates, and 5) a qubit-specific measurement capability.

Solid-state quantum dot qubits can be constructed based on the charge or spin of electrons (or holes). In a charge qubit, the quantum states can be defined based on the position of the charge in a quantum dot, while the spin qubits operate based on the polarization of the electron's spin. Several physical implementations have been proposed for these qubits, each featuring different benefits and challenges in terms of operation time, decoherence time, control, and readout requirements. We discuss these qubit structures with a focus on the CMOS implementation for large-scale quantum computing.

## Charge Qubits

The solid-state charge qubits have been extensively studied in the literature . A charge qubit, in its simplest form, can be constructed using a double quantum dot, in which the quantum states are defined by the excess electron occupation in the left and right quantum dots \[Fig. (a)\]. The two quantum dots are connected through an inter-dot tunneling barrier. The quantum dots are weakly coupled to the source and drain via tunneling barriers. The voltages applied to the left, right, and middle gates control the charge transport through the tunneling barriers. The drain-source voltage can be used to set the operating mode of the qubit. The quantum state of the qubit can be read directly using the drain-source current (for the discussed structure) or using a charge sensor implemented as a single electron transistor (SET) or quantum point contact (QPC) . This structure should be operated at very low cryogenic temperatures, e.g., $\ll$ 1 K, to exhibit the quantum effects. The early solid-state qubits were fabricated using GaAs, while, later, silicon-based structures achieved longer coherence times as a result of specific physical features of silicon .

The charge qubit based on the double quantum dot was first demonstrated in GaAs/AlGaAs hetero-structure and achieved 1 ns coherence time . The coherence time improved to 7 ns using one-electron quantum dots and QPC charge detector . This qubit structure can be made compatible with standard CMOS processes . A charge qubit based on an isolated double quantum dot is shown in Fig. (b), where the operations are performed using capacitively coupled elements . The quantum state readout is achieved using a SET device integrated with the qubit structure. A prototype implemented in a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafer with a phosphorous-doped active region exhibits a long coherence time of 200 ns. This is attributed to the weak coupling of the isolated qubit to charge noise in the surrounding gates. However, the operational time is relatively short as a result of low inter-dot coupling. This structure requires extra fabrication steps in a conventional CMOS process. The longest coherence times have been achieved using trapped-ion charge qubits. These structures, however, require extra fabrication steps for precise implantation of donors, which is not fully compatible with current CMOS processes .

The charge qubits offer several advantages for CMOS quantum computing. The structure based on the double quantum dot is compatible with standard CMOS processes. Their readout can be performed directly through the drain-source current of the quantum dot or charge sensors integrated with the qubit. Control of the charge qubit can be performed using gate voltage pulses which can be generated with high accuracy in CMOS processes. The quantum gates can be realized as electrostatically coupled quantum dots . In advanced CMOS, the charge qubits have the potential to achieve fast operating times and maintain coherence significantly longer than the response delay of control and readout circuits. However, there are some challenges that must be addressed for reliable quantum computing using charge qubits. The effects of charge noise on the decoherence and fidelity of charge qubits should be evaluated. Furthermore, the power consumption budget of cooling systems in a large-scale quantum computer limits the minimum temperature of qubits, e.g., 4 K rather than $\ll$`<!-- -->`{=html}1 K. This would degrade the performance of the qubits, which is yet to be investigated.

## Spin Qubits

The early proposals of silicon quantum computers were based on spin qubits . The solid-state spin qubits can be realized as donor-bound spins or electron spins in quantum dots. The donor-based spin qubits use electrons bound to individual donor atoms, e.g., phosphorous, at cryogenic temperatures. Using these spin qubits in high purity silicon, coherence times exceeding 1 s are reported , and it is demonstrated that these can be implemented in MOS-like processes with extra fabrication steps . The need for precise localization of the donors with respect to electrostatic gates is a major challenge in the use of these qubits for large-scale quantum computing. The spin qubits based on quantum dots should be excited by a magnetic field to control the spin of electrons (or holes).

Several variations of spin qubits based on quantum dots are presented in the literature . A spin qubit based on MOS double quantum dot structure is proposed in \[Fig. (c)\]. The structure includes four gates (G1–G4) which can be individually tuned to form a quantum dot. A double quantum dot can be created under G1 and G2, which is tunnel-coupled to an electron reservoir under G3 and G4. A SET device is integrated with the structure for charge sensing. The qubit is compatible with standard CMOS processes. Another CMOS spin qubit is proposed in \[Fig. (d)\]. It is implemented in an SOI process, with two p-channel transistors, one operating as a hole spin qubit, and the other used for the spin readout. There is a buried oxide (BOX) layer between the channel and the silicon substrate, resembling a fully depleted SOI (FDSOI) process. The measured coherence time is 60 ns. A higher performance is expected by using n-type transistors with electrons as charge carriers. This structure is promising for the realization of scalable quantum computing circuits using a standard FDSOI process. Recently, some spin-based qubit structures are implemented in advanced CMOS and SOI processes , but a standard design procedure and comprehensive characterization are yet to be developed.

## Hybrid Charge/Spin Qubits

The hybrid qubit can be viewed as a combination of a spin qubit and a charge qubit . The charge-like characteristics promote a high-speed operation of the qubit, while a long coherence time is achieved due to its spin-like features. The spin operation leads to suppressed charge noise effects because the variations of charge distributions are confined to a single quantum dot . The hybrid qubit can be controlled electrically, without the need for magnetic fields required for the manipulation of spin qubits . This is an attractive feature for fast operation, scalability, and integration with classical electronics. A possible implementation of this qubit structure is shown in Fig. (e), where the gate voltages are used to control the qubit characteristics, and the QPC is used for the quantum state readout. A technique should be developed to control the number of electrons in quantum dots. The hybrid qubit performance and electrical control features are promising for CMOS large-scale quantum computing.

## Comparison of Qubits for Large-Scale Integration

It is noted that both the charge and spin qubits can be realized using quantum dot structures in CMOS processes. The choice between two qubits is dependent on several considerations of their performance and interactions with interface circuits. The spin qubits have received more attention because of superior physical properties, mainly the longer coherence time, when considered as *standalone* components. In a *large-scale* quantum computing scenario, however, there are many other considerations which can be even more critical than the coherence time. We briefly discuss the most important aspects.

1.  Coherence time: Spin qubits feature longer coherence time compared to charge qubits. This offers longer time to perform quantum operations.

2.  Operational time: The charge qubits operate faster than the spin qubits. This allows more quantum operations to be completed within the decoherence time of qubits.

3.  Sensitivity to charge/spin noise: Semiconductor quantum dots are prone to charge and spin noise, resulting in fluctuating electric and magnetic fields in the qubit, respectively. These effects appear as dephasing and decoherence of the qubit state . The noise can also degrade the fidelity of quantum operations. The charge noise is dominant at low frequencies and follows the $1/f$ spectrum , which unfortunately increases at cryogenic temperatures for CMOS transistors . The charge qubit features fast operation resulting from strong coupling to electric fields. However, this feature also leads to strong coupling of charge noise which degrades coherence time of the qubit. The spin qubit offers superior noise performance, as a result of the weak coupling of spins to the environment. Some techniques based on symmetric operation and gate pulse engineering are developed to mitigate the qubit noise .

4.  Quality of the qubit coupling for the realization of quantum gates: The weak interactions of the spin qubits with the environment, which is beneficial to their long coherence times, make inter-qubit operations challenging . The charge qubits, on the other hand, can achieve stronger coupling to each other, enabling the realization of quantum gates through arrays of quantum dots .

5.  Qubits uniformity in the presence of transistors mismatch: In a large-scale quantum computer with many qubits, mismatch of the qubit characteristics can degrade quality of quantum operations. Qubit structures implemented in advanced CMOS experience greater mismatch at cryogenic temperatures . Furthermore, process-voltage-temperature (PVT) variations can significantly deviate the qubits from their optimal operating conditions. Such issues can be mitigated using digital calibration and error correction techniques in CMOS processes .

6.  High-temperature operation of qubits: A large-scale quantum computer requires huge power consumption by the dilution refrigerator to maintain qubits at low temperatures essential for their proper operation. This encourages to increase the operational temperature of the qubits, e.g., from $\ll$ 1 K to 4 K, to reduce the power consumption as well as size of the cooler. However, this degrades the qubit performance in terms of decoherence, charge noise, and fidelity . The effect of increased temperature on performance of the charge and spin qubits as well as quantum gates fabricated using these structures should be evaluated to ensure feasibility of the high-temperature operation of CMOS quantum computing circuits.

7.  Integration of qubits with readout circuits: The charge qubit readout can be performed using charge sensors (e.g., SET or QPC) integrated with the qubit structure. The readout of spin qubits, however, is more complicated and requires the presence of a magnetic field and a spin-to-charge conversion. Therefore, charge qubits are more favorable for a large-scale system.

8.  Control circuits: The control of charge qubits can be performed electrically using gate pulses which can be accurately generated by the CMOS circuitry. For the spin qubits, however, a magnetic field is also required. The operating frequency of readout circuits can be as low as $<$ 1 GHz for the charge qubits while it should be much higher, e.g., 10–20 GHz, for the spin qubits . A lower frequency of operation alleviates the realization of compact integrated and low-power readout circuits for large-scale qubits. Furthermore, the control circuits introduce external noise into the qubits which can degrade their performance . Therefore, sensitivity of spin and charge qubits to such effects should be evaluated for their application in CMOS quantum computing.

## Quantum Gates

Quantum gates are operators that evolve the quantum state of qubits . Semiconductor-based quantum gates can be realized through interactions between quantum dots . We can consider three main approaches to the physical realization of quantum gates. These methods, shown in Fig. , include the electrostatic interaction gates, the exchange interaction between spin-based qubits, and arrays of coupled quantum dots. These can be considered as potential candidates for the CMOS implementation, while still there are many challenges that should be resolved for their reliable operation.

### Electrostatic Interaction Quantum Gates

The most straightforward method for the construction of quantum gates is through the electrostatic interaction between quantum dot-based qubits. As shown in Fig. (a), two double quantum dots with electrostatic coupling can be used to realize quantum gates . In a charge-based operation, coherent oscillations in one double quantum dot are strongly influenced by electron position in the other double quantum dot. The two electrons can simultaneously tunnel in a correlated manner. These coherent oscillations can be interpreted as two-qubit operations. The quantum gate function can be controlled by the coupling strength which is dependent on the physical spacing of the two structures and the voltages applied to the gate terminals of the qubits. Multiple two-qubit operations including CROT, SWAP, and FLIP have been achieved using this technique . This structure is scalable and amenable to CMOS processes. The maximum coupling strength is limited by the minimum spacing rules of the CMOS process.

### Exchange Interaction Quantum Gates

The exchange interaction (Heisenberg interaction) is a quantum mechanical effect resulting from an overlap between the wave functions of two electrons. This effect is proposed to perform quantum operations by using spin qubits . Single-qubit gates based on spin qubits require stringent control of the magnetic fields applied to the spin and are very slow. An exchange interaction technique is proposed to realize universal quantum gates . Single- and two-qubit gates are implemented using three-state spin qubits in which their interactions are controlled through the time duration of the pulses \[Fig. (b)\]. This structure requires 3$\times$ more devices and about 10$\times$ more clock cycles, which can be readily accommodated by the current CMOS processes benefiting from the small transistor area and accurate clock generation. This technique is particularly useful for reconfigurable and scalable quantum computation as it permits selective choice of single- and multi-qubit quantum operations by turning on/off the coupling between qubits. Using this approach, CNOT, CZ, and SWAP gates have been implemented based on spin as well as hybrid qubits . While the operation of single qubits above 1 K has been demonstrated, it is more challenging for quantum gates. Recently, two-qubit logic quantum circuits operating at 1.1 K and 1.5 K are presented in .

### Array of Coupled Quantum Dots

An array of coupled quantum dots \[Fig. (c)\] can be used to implement various quantum gates . Some of the quantum dots can be exploited as charge injectors or charge sensors. A major challenge is the tuning of the large quantum dot arrays. This structure is amenable to CMOS technology and lends itself to the large-scale integration. The coupled quantum dots can be roughly realized as transistors with a shared drain/source terminal. However, as fewer gate terminals are used for each quantum dot compared to standard structures, it can be difficult to control all features of the quantum dots, e.g., the number of electrons in the dots, the dot potentials, and the width of the depletion layer. The required gate pulse voltages can be generated with high accuracy using CMOS circuits. The quantum dot arrays have been recently implemented in standard CMOS processes , but a detailed qubit characterization has not been reported. This can be an important research endeavor in the future. The quantum dot arrays can also be realized using electrically controllable exchange interaction between spins in adjacent quantum dots . Structures based on two-dimensional quantum dot arrays are developed based on this approach , which can be used in the realization of more complex quantum operations. In , two quantum dot arrays with electrostatic coupling at the middle are used to realize quantum gates \[Fig. (d)\]. Each row is constructed by transistor-like devices operating as quantum dots, imposer, and interface devices. The two arrays are used to realize charge qubits, while their entanglement is controlled by the dot-to-dot distance in the interaction area. This structure is implemented using an FDSOI CMOS process.

# Quantum-Classic Electronic Interface

The interface between qubits and classical electronics for the control and readout of their states is of critical importance in a large-scale quantum computer. We discuss the qubit control and qubit readout circuits and proceed with interface architectures for large-scale qubit arrays.

## Qubit Control Circuits

In a quantum computer, individual gate bias voltages, control pulses, and, in some cases, microwave signals should be routed to every qubit. The effects of classical electronic control on the qubit operation are investigated in the literature . For a quantum computer with many qubits (e.g., $>$ 100), it is essential to integrate control circuits with qubits. This provides several advantages in terms of reduced number of control signal paths and interconnect density as well as mitigating the latency and synchronization issues of high-frequency clock propagation over long distances. The cryogenic control circuits can be integrated with qubits, which enables a compact CMOS implementation . The qubit operation and fidelity are affected by the inaccuracies of the control signal, including frequency fluctuations, amplitude and phase noise, jitter, bandwidth, and operating speed . Thermal noise generated by the control circuits is reduced by virtue of operating them at cryogenic temperatures. This improves the fidelity of the qubits, but also imposes new challenges in the cryogenic circuit design.

The low-frequency phase/frequency noise of a signal generator is dominated by flicker ($1/f$) noise of transistors, which increases at cryogenic temperatures . Furthermore, any mismatch between frequency of the control signal and Larmor frequency of the qubit degrades its fidelity during the qubit idle operation. The presence of spurious tones leads to unwanted Rabi oscillations and reduces the fidelity . These indicate stringent phase/frequency noise and spectral purity requirements for the control signal source. Using microwave burst pulses with optimized frequency, amplitude, and pulse duration, the charge qubit control can be performed close to its sweet spot energy level, where the energy difference between the qubit states is insensitive to the detuning energy variations . This approach requires fine control of the gate voltages of quantum dots (e.g., better than 0.1 mV). This can be achieved using high-resolution digital-to-analog converters (DAC), but with extra circuit and power consumption overheads for large arrays of qubits.

Another important issue in a many-qubit system arises from the coupling between control signal paths of different qubits, which can transfer a common noise to correlated errors between the qubits. This effect should be properly evaluated and mitigated to maintain the qubit performance. The operation of control circuits should be fast compared to the decoherence time of qubits and quantum gates. Considering the typical decoherence times of qubits, the speed of current CMOS processes can meet this requirement. Furthermore, the magnetic field required for the control of spin qubits can be implemented using an on-chip transmission line excited by a microwave pulse signal \[known as an electron spin resonance (ESR) technique\]. In a large-scale qubit array, however, this requires extra routing and increases the control complexity. The charge qubits are therefore preferable from the control viewpoint in a large-scale realization.

## Qubit Readout Circuits

The readout of qubits is challenging as a consequence of their fragile quantum states. The readout process should be fast, reliable, and scalable so that it can be used in a practical quantum computer. In the case of charge-based qubits, a charge sensor can be integrated with the qubit to detect the presence of an electron in each quantum dot and generate a current which can be measured using a sensitive amplifier \[Fig. (a)\]. The readout time is limited by constraints on the minimum noise added by the readout amplifier and a coupling strength between the quantum dot and the charge sensor device. Frequency of the readout circuits for the charge qubits can be low ($<$ 1 GHz), which allows their readout using mixed-signal circuits with low power consumption and compact chip area in CMOS processes .

Spin states are difficult to read directly, but can be converted to charge states via the spin-to-charge conversion followed by a single-shot charge readout . As shown in Fig. (b), a magnetic field is applied to split the two-spin quantum states. The dot potential is tuned such that the electron leaves the dot to the reservoir in the spin-down state, while it stays in the dot in the spin-up state. Therefore, the spin state is correlated with the charge state, which can be read using the charge sensor (QPC here). The spin-to-charge conversion can also be achieved using Pauli spin blockade, which is appropriate for the exchange-interaction spin qubits . As the number of qubits is increased, this approach faces challenges due to the required proximity of one charge sensor to each qubit and separate readout amplifier circuits for individual qubits.

RF reflectometry is another readout technique for charge and spin qubits in which a reactive resonator circuit is coupled to the quantum dot to measure changes in its impedance with the quantum state . The qubit has a state-dependent quantum capacitance which introduces a shift in the frequency response (e.g., phase of the reflection coefficient) of the resonator circuit \[Fig. (c)\]. This shift can be measured to detect the quantum state. The resonance circuit and other readout circuitry can be integrated in a CMOS implementation. A highly stable and low-phase-noise reference signal, e.g., generated using direct digital synthesis (DDS), is required to enable accurate measurement of the small phase shift resulting from the capacitance change of quantum dots. This approach is promising for large-scale qubit arrays as a shared readout circuit can be used by multiple qubits. Furthermore, a frequency multiplexing architecture can be realized by using multiple resonator circuits for simultaneous readout of multiple qubits . The frequency of readout circuits is typically in the range of 10–20 GHz for the spin qubits. An implementation challenge arises from the large size of separate resonator circuits required for each qubit. Furthermore, the parasitic coupling between the frequency-multiplexed qubits can be high at such frequencies.

## Interface to Large-Scale Qubit Arrays

A large-scale quantum computer can be realized using two-dimensional qubit arrays. Such structures can be implemented in CMOS processes with nanoscale feature size, which allows the integration of qubits with their control and readout circuits on a single chip. The number of qubits that can be integrated are limited by the chip footprint and power consumption of qubits. A significant challenge arises from requirements on the routing of control signals and gate bias voltages to the qubits. The architectures shown in Fig.  are proposed to address the independent control and readout required for every qubit and chip area limitations.

In a dense qubit array, a crossbar (DRAM-like) network shown in Fig. (a) can be used to route the control and readout signals to the qubits . The row lines (RLs) and column lines (CLs) enable the identification of unique points on the grid for read/write operations. The qubit lines (QLs) connect the plunger gates through vias to the qubits. In the structure proposed in , comprising 480 qubits, a single floating gate is used to define each qubit and another single floating gate provides exchange coupling between qubits to perform quantum operations. Qubits implemented in CMOS processes are expected to exhibit mismatched features, e.g., Rabi oscillation frequencies, due to process variations. Therefore, considering the low tolerance levels of qubits, their gate bias voltages and control signals must be independently calibrated . This has been realized using some extra control lines to tune each qubit in the DRAM-like structure. In the crossbar network presented in , a spin qubit module is used. It combines a global charge control, local tuning, and electron shuttling between dots with alternating local magnetic fields and global ESR control.

In a sparse qubit array, the qubits are arranged in arrays of smaller size, as shown in Fig. (b) . This allows the allocation of more space for the routing and control/readout circuitry. The control circuit transistors can be placed on the same layer as the qubit transistors, to be directly integrated with CMOS fabrication. The local control/readout electronics include digital-to-analog and analog-to-digital converters as well as vector modulators. The optimum array size and performance of the interface electronics should be determined based on features of the CMOS process, the number of qubits, control clock frequency, and available power budget.

A fairly large number of cryogenic quantum controller circuits implemented in standard bulk CMOS and FDSOI processes are recently reported in the literature . These include a 4–8 GHz controller for transmon qubits in 28-nm CMOS , a 2.4 GHz controller for charge qubits in 22-nm FDSOI , a controller in 28-nm FDSOI wire-bonded to a 30-qubit GaAs chip , a 2–20 GHz controller for frequency multiplexed spin and transmon qubits in 22-nm FinFET , and a single chip comprising double quantum dot qubit, 2.8 GHz control circuits, and readout circuits in 28-nm FDSOI .

# Future Trends

The future of quantum computing has been envisioned by many experts representing different viewpoints. We should make a distinction between short- and long-term expectations to distinguish hype from reality , . In the NISQ era, the number of qubits (50–100) is less than what can provide a breakthrough in the state-of-the-art computing power . Furthermore, noisy qubits need extensive assistance from the quantum error correction and/or classic machine learning algorithms to mitigate imperfections in the operation of qubits and their control/readout circuitry.

From another perspective, a wide range of application scenarios can be envisioned, from large quantum computers providing cloud-based services to customers, e.g., Google's quantum computing playground and IBM's "Q Experience", to affordable quantum computers for corporate and personal users. Three levels of development can be envisioned for quantum computing. This starts from the classic scenario in which the quantum processing unit is operating at $<$ 0.1 K, while the control/readout electronics operates at room temperature. In the next level, the control/readout electronics is moved to the cryogenic temperature of 4 K. At the ultimate level, both the quantum processing unit and control/readout circuits are operating at the high cryogenic temperature of 4 K (so-called "hot qubits"), enabling their full integration in a single chip, as shown in Fig.  . An important vision is that *current CMOS technologies can provide all the elements required to leverage the realization of personal quantum computers.* CMOS processes provide nanoscale transistors to implement qubits, precise control and readout operations, as well as intensive digital circuits for quantum error correction and calibration . One of the key challenges in the realization of quantum error correction is a significant overhead of the required extra qubits ($\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}100$\times$) . This can be feasible using CMOS, as large arrays of qubits can be implemented in a compact chip area. Furthermore, digital calibration techniques can be used to further compensate for the errors.

The implementation of qubits in standard CMOS processes can be an important milestone in quantum computing. Almost all qubits reported so far are fabricated under specially well-controlled lab conditions. To this end, two lines of activity should be pursued. Qubit and quantum gate structures amenable to the mainstream CMOS processes should be developed. This can be complemented by fine-tuning the foundry CMOS processes specifically for quantum applications . Furthermore, qubits are usually reported as individual elements with optimized performance (e.g., decoherence time). We emphasize that the definition of high-quality qubit can be different when it should be operated in a *large-scale array integrated with control and readout circuits.* In such operational conditions, there are many other performance metrics which should be considered, including the qubit's interaction with other qubits in the array, resilience against noise, and disturbance of control circuits, coupling to readout circuits, and tolerance of their parasitic elements. This indicates the need for a new design approach for qubit structures amenable to large-scale integration with control and readout circuits.

Recently, several cryogenic CMOS circuits have been presented for quantum computing, including transistor modeling , on-chip passive device modeling , as well as voltage reference , readout amplifiers , circulator , oscillators , and a single-electron injection and detection circuits . Furthermore, several control/readout circuits have been reported for large-scale qubits . In , charge qubit structures are implemented using a standard 22-nm FDSOI CMOS process. These qubits are integrated with their control and readout circuits . Many auxiliary qubits can be realized on a single chip to perform quantum error correction for the main qubits. This is a promising approach to large-scale quantum computing.

A major challenge in the design of these qubits and their interface circuitry is the lack of accurate cryogenic models for transistors . This has motivated foundries to develop such models. It is expected that foundries will provide cryogenic models in the near future. Another requirement is the development of structures and optimum design approaches (e.g., for low power consumption) for the circuits. Finally, the integration of the CMOS qubit arrays with their control/readout circuitry and mitigating the interface design issues (e.g., noise, parasitic elements, loading effects, undesired coupling) is the last mile toward the realization of an integrated quantum computer system-on-chip (SoC).

[^1]: The authors are with the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University College Dublin, Ireland (e-mail: email@example.com).


abstract: Designing a static analysis is generally a substantial undertaking, requiring significant expertise in both program analysis and the domain of the program analysis, and significant development resources. As a result, most program analyses target properties that are universallly of interest (e.g., absence of null pointer dereference) or nearly so (e.g., deadlock freedom). However, many interesting program properties that would benefit from static checking are specific to individual programs, or sometimes programs utilizing a certain library. It is impractical to devote program analysis and verification experts to these problems.
  .
  We propose instead to work on example-based synthesis of program analyses within well-understood domains like type qualifier systems and effect systems. The dynamic behaviors behind the classes of problems these systems prevent correspond to examples that developers who lack expertise in static analysis can readily provide (data flow paths, or stack traces).
author: Colin S. Gordon
title: Synthesizing Program-Specific Static Analyses

# Introduction

Program analysis and verification, broadly, has many examples of successful tools in both research and practice. Program analysis is now capturing the attention of practicing software developers, whose interests lay primarily in producing functioning software in a timely fashion. The area spans the gamut from high-end concurrent program logics capable of verifying the details of the most sophisticated algorithms, to more modest properties like absence of null pointer dereferences , freedom from standard concurrency bugs (e.g., data races ), or simply performing UI updates on the thread expected by the user interface library . For all points along this spectrum, however, the designers of these analyses justify their efforts in terms of impact: the substantial effort involved in developing each of these type systems or program logics is worthwhile because the effort applies to nearly all software written in a given language.

We view this reasoning as slightly misguided: while it certainly identifies problems with strong potential for impact, it is too narrow to justify other worthy endeavors. Many properties practicing developers would be interested in checking statically are specific to a particular system, team, or internal library. Research to statically check these properties will never be justified by the common reasoning, but static checking for them may still be deeply valuable. Large companies including Microsoft, Facebook, Uber, and Samsung can afford to fund and staff dedicated teams that build analyses for the specific needs of specific projects (and have done so). But only a small fraction of companies can manage this, and even within those companies only a fraction of developers reap the benefits.

There is a different way to have broad impact through program analysis, without restricting attention to specific problems with broad appeal. Instead, we can shift some effort towards *classes* of problems, of which many instances may exist, even if individual instances have relatively small potential user bases. Then we can focus on finding ways to derive instances of these classes without program analysis or verification expertise. We have already laid some groundwork for this: there already exist generic characterizations and implementations of type qualifiers , effect systems , and abstract interpreters , among others — we can use developer examples to infer the instantiations of these frameworks.

In the remainder of this paper, we give two examples of such classes of systems, and show how types of examples *familiar to practicing developers* can be used to infer an analysis from a known class. We close by discussing broader challenges.

# Synthesizing Type Qualifiers

Type qualifiers  are a well-established technique for constraining propagation of data, by attaching an extra marker to types that classifies some intrinsic or extrinsic property of the classified data. This qualifier then also participates in subtyping according to a partial order on the qualifiers. For example, untainted data could be treated as tainted, or nonnull references could be treated as nullable — but not the other direction in either example.

In each such system, the partial order on qualifiers amounts to a restriction on which kinds of data can flow to uses of which other kinds of data — a restriction on data flow. This is a familiar concept to practicing developers, who already debug issues with inappropriate data flows, from SQL injections to null pointer dereferences to bugs from mixing up different string formattings of the same concepts. And these are problems for which manually-defined type qualifier systems already work well .

But each of these systems corresponds, primarily, to a choice of qualifiers and a partial order on them. We should be able to infer a set of qualifiers and a partial order from a set of negative examples of data flows — examples of a piece of data making its way from one place to another location it should not reach in a program. Given a number of dynamic traces of such prohibited data flows (generated by hypothetical dynamic instrumentation built for our purpose), preventing the illegitimate flows corresponds to finding the minimum number of edges (between source-level bindings) to cut in the dynamic flows to break those flows. Additional constraints may be relevant (for example, some edges may be known to be required, possibly based on a larger number of positive examples from trusted runs). This is not a new problem for the PL community: finding a minimum number of partial order constraints to ignore corresponds to one way of localizing type inference errors, for example . The rejected edges hint at the partial order among qualifiers, so what remains is to find a way to cluster a larger set of possible (e.g., observed) data flows while keeping vertices from rejected flows in different clusters. This is already similar to some partial order reduction techniques .

# Effect Systems From Stack Traces

*Commutative* effect systems (the traditional style that discards program order information) are ultimately restrictions on the context in which certain actions may occur, whether this describes Java's checked exceptions, or any number of other systems. This means that occurrences of the bugs such effect systems prevent are described by a stack trace, which includes at least one instance of an operation with a larger effect (higher in the join semilattice) that occurs during the dynamic extent of some unit of code (function, etc.) whose intended effect would be smaller (lower in the semilattice).

Stack traces are familiar to nearly all practicing developers, through their use in debuggers or in diagnostics from exceptions. Some problems amenable to effect systems even naturally yield stack traces when developers violate the (implicit) effect discipline. For example, Gordon et al.  give an effect system for ensuring updates to UI elements are run on a distinguished UI event loop thread. This threading discipline is mandated and dynamically enforced by most GUI frameworks: calling methods on most UI elements from the wrong thread leads to an exceptions — which contains a negative stack trace. Android has a similar intended thread confinement discipline[^1], also enforced via dynamic checks and exceptions. Modifying a debug build to produce negative examples for other suitable problems given a reproducible bug would be straightforward.

These examples of illegitimate stack traces then form the same type of example as the data flow paths in the qualifier case. Finding a minimum number of edges to prohibit statically (subject to other constraints) corresponds to finding a join semilattice of effects.

# Challenges, and Looking Forward

The quality of the semilattices inferred for the approaches above depends heavily on having a useful set of bad examples — more examples constrains the minimum choice further, and underconstrained instances may lead to nonsensical choices of edges to prohibit. In some cases, it may be difficult to produce enough exemplar stack traces or data flows to yield a good solution. In this case it might be possible to supplement with developer-chosen endpoints, with paths filled in from a static callgraph or points-to analysis, taking all appropriately directed paths from source to sink as candidate bad paths. This is sensible — the precursor to Gordon et al.'s effect system for thread confinement was in fact an analysis on paths through a callgraph . But the overapproximation may be problematic.

Polymorphism is another challenge, because it will not be explicit in data flows or stack traces. It seems likely that templates can be used to recognize common forms of polymorphism, as has been done for trace-based type inference . More broadly, this corresponds to disallowing *paths* through data/control-flow graphs, rather than edges.

Type qualifiers and effect systems are only two examples of program analyses with generic characterizations that could in principle be inferred from some kind of examples that nearly any developer could provide. They have nearly the same abstractions (join semilattices), but this could eventually work for more sophisticated classes like sequential effect systems  or abstract interpretation .

[^1]: <https://developer.android.com/studio/write/annotations.html#thread-annotations>


**Velocity fields of distant galaxies with FORS2 at the VLT**

Bodo L. Ziegler$^1$,
Elif Kutdemir$^2$,
Cristiano Da Rocha$^1$,
Asmus Böhm$^3$,
Wolfgang Kapferer$^3$,
Harald Kuntschner$^1$,
Reynier F. Peletier$^2$,
Sabine Schindler$^3$
Miguel Verdugo$^4$

$^1$ESO
$^2$Kapteyn Institute, Groningen, Netherlands
$^3$University Innsbruck, Austria
$^4$University Göttingen, Germany

**We describe a method to efficiently obtain two-dimensional velocity fields of distant, faint and small, emission-line galaxies with FORS2 at the VLT. They are examined for kinematic substructure to identify possible interaction processes. Numerical simulations of tidal interactions and ram-pressure effects reveal distinct signatures observable with our method. We detect a significant fraction of galaxies with irregular velocity fields both in the field and cluster environments.**

Galaxy formation and evolution are still principal research topics in modern astrophysics although having been investigated since the recognition of objects outside the Milky Way after the Great Debate between Shapley and Curtis. The main questions include: When and how did galaxies form? Why are there different morphological types? What is the role of environment? Models range from single epoch to continuous creation scenarios. The current theoretical paradigm of a cold dark matter dominated universe predicts a hierarchical bottom-up structure evolution from small entities towards bigger systems through merging. During such a process spiral galaxies can be transformed into ellipticals, however, the disc component can be regained through subsequent new gas accretion and star formation. Many irregular and peculiar galaxies are observed in clusters of galaxies, in which they may experience interactions in addition to merging and accretion.

Much progress was achieved in recent years by deep photometric surveys (like GOODS) finding galaxies and quasars at high redshift ($z\sim6$) corresponding to an epoch just a billion years after the Big Bang and revealing a dichotomy between blue star forming and red passive galaxies at later times with an evolutionary transition between the two groups. Spectroscopic surveys (like CFHRS) additionally produced evidence that there is a sharp decline in the overall star formation activity in the cosmos within the last eight billion years. However, all these results are based on measurements of the luminosity as produced by the stars, while the total mass of a galaxy is mainly composed of dark matter. Because the triggering and process of star formation contains complicated physics, we need to make many assumptions and simplifications in our modeling, and, in addition, we do not clearly understand the scaling between the baryonic and dark matter. Therefore, it would be more favourable if we could observationally determine the total mass of galaxies and compare its evolution directly to the predicted structure assembly.

Such measurements of the dynamical mass even of faint and small, very distant galaxies were achieved recently by a number of research groups using the largest telescopes. Through spectroscopy they derive the internal kinematics (motions) of the stellar system that are subject to the whole gravitational potential. In the optical wavelengths regime, we can conduct this out to redshifts of unity. For spiral galaxies, we can determine the rotation curve from gas emission lines (like \[O II\] at 372.7nm restframe wavelength). If the galaxy is undisturbed, the rotation curve rises in the inner part and turns over into a flat plateau dominated by its dark halo and we can calculate the maximum rotation velocity $V_{\rm max}$. In such a case the assumption of virialization holds, so that we can use the Tully-Fisher relation TFR (Tully & Fisher 1977) as a powerful diagnostic tool that scales the baryonic matter (parameterised, e.g., by stellar luminosity) to the dark matter (as given by $V_{\rm max}$). Our group, for example, has found that the TFR of 130 distant (z=0.5 on average) field galaxies has a shallower slope than the local one if restframe B-band luminosities are considered, so that the brightening of a slowly rotating spiral is much larger than the one of a fastly rotating galaxy (Böhm & Ziegler 2007). This result can be interpreted principally in two ways: either the majority of distant galaxies are much more scattered around the TFR and we do not see enough regular spirals at the faint end or there is a mass-dependent evolution with low-mass objects exhibiting on average a stronger effect over the last five billion years. The latter scenario is supported by chemical evolution modeling of our galaxies that revealed less efficient but extended star formation for slow rotators (Ferreras et al. 2004) and is consistent with other observational evidence for a mass-dependent evolution (often called "downsizing").

For a correct application of the TF analysis it is indispensable that a galaxy is undisturbed so that the assumption of virial equilibrium is fulfilled and, therefore, the rotation curve shows a very regular shape. If this is not the case, can we then still learn something? In the CDM structure formation theory, galaxies evolve by merging and accretion, so that we can look for kinematic signatures of such events and whether there is an increase in the abundance of such types with redshift. To investigate a possible environmental dependence, we need to disentangle such collisions from numerous other interaction phenomena galaxies can experience in groups and clusters. The gas content of spirals reacts to the ram-pressure exerted by the intracluster medium, a hot plasma permeating the whole structure. Part of the gas can also be stripped off by tidal forces (sometimes called "strangulation"). Other processes like harassment can even remove stars from galaxy discs, so that the overall morphology gets altered. However, (irregular) rotation curves from slit spectroscopy do not contain unique information to reveal unambigously a specific interaction process. In addition, peculiar shapes can sometimes be caused artificially by observational and instrumental effects when long-slits are used (Ziegler et al. 2003, Jäger et al. 2004). A more favourable observation would, therefore, be that of a two-dimensional velocity field.

**FORS2 spectroscopy to obtain velocity fields**

Many large telescopes today offer 3D-spectroscopy and most future facilities (like E-ELT) will provide such instrument modes. At the VLT, for example, VIMOS and FLAMES offer IFU spectroscopy in the optical regime. For our specific purpose, however, we conceived a different method to obtain velocity fields that has many advantages for our science case: matched galaxy sizes, good spatial resolution, long wavelength range and high efficieny through a large number of simultanous targets and economic exposure times (Ziegler et al. 2007, Kutdemir et al. 2008).

For our procedure, we utilise the MXU mode of FORS2 that allows to cut slits individually and at any desired orientation into a mask by a laser. We pick up a particular target and start with a slit placing it along the photometric major axis as measured on spatially highly resolved HST/ACS images (Figure 1). The slit covers the full size of the galaxy in its mid-plane with width 1" and extends much beyond it to allow an accurate sky subtraction (common slit lengths are 15-25"). In the same manner, 20-30 more slits are placed on other targets across the full field of view of FORS2 (6.8' x 6.8'); occasionally even two or three objects fall into the same slit. Observations of such a mask will yield in the end rotation curves like for our previous projects with one spatial axis and one velocity axis by measuring centre positions of an emission line row-by-row along the spatial profile of the two-dimensional galaxy spectrum (Böhm et al. 2004). In order to construct a velocity field with two spatial axes we observe all targets twice again with different slit positions using two more masks. This time slits are placed 1" offset along the minor axis of the galaxy to either side of the first position, so that all three slit positions together correspond to a rectangular grid (Figure 1). That way, the full extent of a galaxy is covered, which is particularly important for a TF galaxy, where we need to measure the flat part of the rotation curve, which is usually reached at about three disc scale lengths. At the redshifts of our targets (0.1 - 1.0), this corresponds to angular sizes of about 3" to 6". The spatial resolution along the x-axis of our grid is given by the pixel size of the FORS2 CCD chips of 0.25". For the y-axis, we are restricted by the slit width of 1.0", which is a good compromise between minor losses of light not falling into the slit due to seeing, adequate spectral resolution (R=1000), and spatial sampling in the y-direction.

As spectral element we use a high-throughput holographic VPH grism (600RI) that results in a long wavelength range (330nm) projected onto the CCD with two advantages: for each galaxy several gas emission lines are visible and many absorption lines of the stellar continuum can be combined to derive the stellar rotation curve in addition to the gaseous one. Depending on the redshift of the object, emission lines from the blue \[O II\] line (at 372.7nm) to the red Halpha line (at 656.3nm) are visible. While up to seven different lines can be observed in case of some field galaxies, most cluster members have four (Figure 2). This allows us to derive rotation curves and velocity fields in several independent ways and to check for consistency but also to investigate possible dependencies on the physical state of the gas clouds that emit the respective lines (all galaxies have both recombination and forbidden lines). From line ratios, we can then construct metallicity maps and assess a possible contribution from AGN activity in addition to star formation.

Despite the need for the observation of three masks to construct a velocity field, our method is still highly efficient. The VPH grism with its medium spectral resolution together with the excellent optics of FORS2 makes it possible that with 2.5 hours total integration time, sufficient signal is reached in an emission line to measure accurately line centres in each spectral (CCD) row. This holds also for the outer regions of the galaxies, where the surface brightness drops to low values (from typically 22$V$mag/arcsec$^2$ in the inner part to about 26$V$mag/arcsec$^2$). Therefore, we can obtain the necessary data of a high number of objects (20-30) within a total integration time of only 7.5 hours. For comparison, FLAMES observations with 15 IFUs of similar targets need integration times of 8-13 hours.

The standard reduction of the spectroscopic images produces a wavelength calibrated two-dimensional spectrum for each slit position of the mask separately. Thanks to the high stability of FORS, exposures of the same mask taken in different nights can be combined to a single deep spectrum. Like for the determination of rotation curves, the wavelength of the centre position of a given emission line is measured along the spatial profile. Differences to a common systemic centre can then be translated into velocity space applying Doppler's rule. The construction of the velocity field VF needs a very careful combination of the measurements from the three slit positions. In order to know the exact position of the masks relative to each other, we also included a few stars with narrow slits perpendicular to each other. These stellar spectra are also used to determine the seeing during the exposure. In addition, only for a third of the galaxies per mask the central slit position was taken while the other two thirds had the off-centre positions alleviating both mask acquisition during observations and mask combination after data reduction. To setup the VF, each position-velocity data point is then calculated within a shared coordinate system, whose origin was determined from the intensity maximum of the spatial profile around the emission line in the central slit and its respective wavelength. An example is shown in Figure 3.

**Kinemetric analysis of velocity fields**

Since our VFs cover a large fraction of a galaxy's extent with good spatial resolution, we can analyse them quantitatively to some detail. We use kinemetry (Krajnovic et al. 2006) that was originally developed for nearby galaxies observed with the SAURON 3D-spectrograph, whose VFs have much higher signal and resolve much smaller physical scales than in the case of our distant targets. In polar coordinates the velocity profile of a flat rotating disc can be described by a cosine function of the azimuthal angle. Best fitting ellipses, along which the velocity profiles are extracted, can be determined as a function of radius. Deviations from these fits can be quantified by a harmonic Fourier expansion, whose coefficients can be interpreted in terms of physical parameters. While the first order reflects the bulk motion (the rotation), the third and fifth order, for example, describe the correction to simple rotation and indicate separate kinematic components. For the reconstruction of the intrinsic velocity map free parameters are the flattening and position angle of the ellipses, while their centres are fixed to a common origin. An example of a reconstructed velocity map with best-fitting ellipses overplotted is given in Figure 4. When, instead, the inclination and position angle are fixed to their average global value, a simple rotation field along the kinematic major axis can be modeled. Its residuals with respect to the observed VF may indicate noncircular velocity components like streaming motions along spiral arms or along a bar. Additional components such as a decoupled core can be recognized in such a residual map, too, but also by twists in the position angle and flattening as well as an increase in the $k_5$ Fourier coefficient. A rotation curve is extracted from the observed VF along the kinematic major axis to accurately determine $V_{\rm max}$, which may be different from the one derived from the curve along the central slit aligned with the photometric axis.

**Simulations of interactions: structure & kinematics**

One of the main goals of our project is to identify signatures of possible interaction events. Galaxies may be transformed from one type into another by merging or accretion but also by other effects like ram-pressure stripping or harassment in the environment of a cluster or group. Open questions are still, which processes are efficient under what conditions and whether there is a dominant mechanism responsible for the abundance of elliptical galaxies in local rich clusters. In order to study systematically the distortions and irregularities in rotation curves and velocity fields caused by interaction phenomena, we perform N-body/SPH simulations and extract both structural and kinematic information from computer output in the same manner as from observational data. The numerical calculations are made for the three components dark matter halo, stellar body and collisional gas clouds of a galaxy and are based on the Gadget2 code (Springel 2005) that incorporates hydrodynamic physics (and has explicit prescriptions for star formation and feedback). So far, we have modeled minor and major mergers, tidal interactions caused by fly-bys, and ram-pressure stripping (Kronberger et al. 2006, 2007, 2008). There are large variations in the degree of distortions both in stellar structure and gas kinematics in case of the first three processes with main dependencies on the mass ratio of the galaxies, the geometry of the interaction in real space and the projection onto the sky plane (the viewing angle of the observations). In the case of a major merger, however, there is always a clear signal in the higher-order coefficients of kinemetry's Fourier decomposition (Figure 5). Ram-pressure by the intracluster medium, on the other hand, mainly affects the gas disc pushing away the outer parts creating distortions at the edge of VFs, while regular rotation can be maintained in the inner regions (Figure 6). In certain configurations, the gas disc can also be displaced from the centre of the stellar disc. During the stripping event, gas can also be compressed so that enhanced star formation is triggered, leading to changes in the stellar populations, too (Kapferer et al. 2009).

In addition, we utilise the simulations in order to systematically investigate how velocity fields and characteristic parameters are influenced by the instrumental and observational setup (like spectral resolution, seeing) and for which cases artificial distortions can be induced (Kapferer et al. 2006). A major impact is caused by the decreasing spatial resolution of the spectra when galaxies are observed at higher and higher redshifts. Minor irregularities can be completely smeared out due to seeing and resolution elements being too coarse.

Currently, we are in the process of analyzing each observed galaxy individually. In case of a regular VF, we perform a TF analysis deriving the rotation curve along the kinematic major axis. For irregular galaxies we examine both the VF and the stellar structure (as revealed on our HST/ACS images) and compare them to a suite of simulated events taking into account the specific galaxy parameters in order to pin down the specific interaction mechanism that caused the distortions.

**Velocity fields of distant galaxies**

The spectroscopic observations for the presented method were performed in Periods 74 & 75 in four different cluster fields (MS1008.1-1224 z=0.30, MS2137.3-2353 z=0.31, Cl0412-65 z=0.51, MS0451.6-0305 z=0.54). The target galaxies were not only cluster members but also field galaxies in the background and foreground ($0.1<z<0.9$), so that we can investigate different environments. All cluster fields were imaged with ACS onboard HST enabling an accurate assessment of morphological structure of the galaxies as well. Our method presented here yielded velocity fields for 49 objects with good signal-to-noise appropriate for our kinemetric analysis. Out of these, there are 16 VFs suitable for our investigation of possible interaction processes in rich clusters.

In addition to our detailed analysis with comparison to the simulations, we also investigate average properties to assess the abundance of galaxies that have irregular kinematics irrespective of any assumption of a particular interaction process. To that purpose, we quantify deviations from a simple smooth rotation field with three different indicators measured for each galaxy in the same way. As pure gas kinematic tracers we use 1) $\sigma_{PA}$: the standard deviation of the kinematic position angles of the best-fitting ellipses found by kinemetry across a galaxy and 2) $k_{3,5}/k_1$: an average value of higher-order Fourier coefficients normalised by the rotation velocity. The third parameter compares the global velocity field determined by spectral lines emitted by the (warm) gas content of a galaxy to its morphological structure seen in the continuum light of the stars: 3) $\Delta\phi$: the mean difference between photometric and kinematic position angles across a galaxy. To find an appropriate limit of the value range, below which a galaxy can still be classified as undistorted, we measured the three parameters first for a local sample (taken from Daigle et al. 2006) of 18 galaxies that have high-resolution VFs (Kutdemir et al. 2008).

For our distant sample, we find that the fraction of galaxies classified to be irregular according to the three indicators is not unique. For the pure kinematic tracers we derive a much lower percentage (about 10% and 30%) than for the third parameter (about 70%) (Figure 7 and Kutdemir et al. 2009). The parameters trace different signatures of external processes but are also sensitive to intrinsic properties. For example, the presence of a bar misaligned to the disc's major axis can also cause a large offset between the gas field and the stellar component. In addition, peculiarities in a VF are more affected by a coarse spatial binning and could be "smeared out". Modeling resolution effects we found that the irregularity fractions we measure are lower limits only.

Furthermore, our simulations show that only strong interactions like major mergers induce large values of the kinematic tracers indicating big distortions with high significance. So, most of our observed objects with smaller values of the irregularity parameters probably undergo more subtle events. This is presumably also the reason for the surprisingly similar abundance of peculiar galaxies in the field and cluster environment no matter what indicator is chosen. Since we detect more irregular field galaxies at intermediate redshifts than in the local sample, we probably witness the ongoing growth of their discs via accretion and minor mergers as predicted in CDM models. To decisively clarify the ongoing processes both for field and cluster galaxies, we will in the near future examine all available pieces of information for each galaxy (gas VFs, stellar rotation curves, morphologies, stellar populations) and compare them to our simulations.

Acknowledgements: This work was financially supported by VolkswagenStiftung (I/76 520), DFG (ZI 663/6), DLR (50OR0602, 50OR0404, 50OR0301) and Kapteyn institute. Based on observations ESO PID 74.B–0592 & 75.B-0187 as well as HST PID 10635.

Böhm et al. 2004 A&A 420, 97
Böhm & Ziegler 2007 ApJ 668, 846
Ferreras et al. 2004 MNRAS 355, 64
Daigle et al. 2006 MNRAS 367, 469
Jäger et al. 2004 A&A 422, 941
Kapferer et al. 2006 A&A 446, 847
Kapferer et al. 2009 A&A 499, 87
Krajnović et al. 2006 MNRAS 366, 787
Kronberger et al. 2006 A&A 458, 69
Kronberger et al. 2007 A&A 473, 761
Kronberger et al. 2008 A&A 483, 783
Kutdemir et al. 2008 A&A 488, 117
Kutdemir et al. 2009 A&A in prep.
Springel 2005 MNRAS 364, 1105
Tully & Fisher 1977 A&A 54, 661
Ziegler et al. 2003 ApJL 598, 87
Ziegler et al. 2007 IAU Symp. 235, 258