Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 54 references

Lifetime renormalization of driven weakly anharmonic superconducting qubits: II. The readout problem

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A missed Josephson term explains why readout power shortens qubit T1.

desk verdict Plausible mechanism for drive-dependent T1 drop in transmon readout, but the quantitative rate increase rests on a resonant first-order term whose smallness is uncontrolled. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01240 v1 pith:QQJLIO4E submitted 2019-08-03 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con

Alexandru Petrescu , Moein Malekakhlagh , Hakan E. Türeci This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con
keywords superconductingqubitsdispersivereadoutdrive-dependentrelaxationnumber-nonconservingtermsJosephsonpotentialeffectivemasterequationSchrieffer-WolfftransformationPurcelleffect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Recent experiments on transmon qubits show that the qubit relaxation time $T_1$ drops when the readout drive is made stronger, a limit on readout speed and fidelity. The paper claims the drop is not environmental but structural: number-nonconserving terms in the Josephson potential open a new decay channel once the cavity is driven. At lowest order in the weak anharmonicity $\epsilon=\sqrt{2E_C/E_J}$, the dominant channel is a correlated process in which one qubit photon and one cavity photon leave together, giving a relaxation rate that grows approximately linearly with the steady-state cavity photon number $\bar n_c$. The authors derive an effective master equation exhibiting this channel and show numerically that a Kerr-only model, which keeps only number-conserving terms, predicts no drive-dependent renormalization. If the mechanism is right, the readout-power limit on $T_1$ is intrinsic to the Josephson nonlinearity rather than a symptom of extra losses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the time-dependent Schrieffer-Wolff generator $\hat G_4(t)$, fixed by the Floquet condition $e^{-\hat G(t)}[\hat H_s(t)-i\partial_t]e^{\hat G(t)}=\hat H_{s,\mathrm{eff}}(t)-i\partial_t$ at first order in the anharmonicity. It cancels every number-nonconserving monomial of the Josephson quartic potential from the driven Hamiltonian, and in doing so dresses the system-bath coupling, turning the bare bath-coupled quadrature into a sum of renormalized collapse operators. The term that does the work is the correlated operator $\hat a(\eta_x^*\hat c-\eta_x\hat c^\dagger)$ entering $\hat C(\omega_a)$ in Eq. (34), whose $1/(\omega_c-\omega_d)$ resonance factor explains why the effect appears only when the readout drive is near the cavity frequency. A displacement transformation that absorbs the drive fixes $\eta_x$ self-consistently through the dissipative linear response of the cavity, Eq. (24).

What would settle it

Measure the qubit relaxation rate during readout at fixed steady-state cavity photon number while stepping the drive frequency away from the cavity resonance: the paper predicts the renormalization drops to near zero once the detuning exceeds roughly $10\chi_{ac}$. Alternatively, check linearity: at small $\bar n_c$ the normalized rate shift $\delta\kappa_a^{\mathrm{EME}}/\kappa_a^{\mathrm{EME}}(0)$ should grow linearly with $\bar n_c$; a rate increase that is flat in $\bar n_c$, or that persists at large detuning, would rule out the correlated-decay mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for a weakly anharmonic transmon dispersively coupled to a single-mode cavity and driven near the cavity resonance, the lowest-order correction to the qubit relaxation rate comes from number-nonconserving quartic terms of the Josephson potential. Working at zero temperature and with no intrinsic qubit decay, so that all relaxation is radiative (Purcell) through the cavity, the authors obtain an effective master equation whose qubit collapse operator is approximately $\hat C(\omega_a)\approx -i[\dots]\hat a - i(\epsilon/2)(\bar\omega_a/\omega_c)v_{ca}u_{ac}u_{aa}^2\,\omega_d/(\omega_c-\omega_d)\,\hat a(\eta_x^*\hat c-\eta_x\hat c^\dagger)$, with the second term a drive-activated correlated relaxation $\hat a\hat c$ (and its conjugate conversion process $\hat a\hat c^\dagger$). Because the coherent displacement $\eta_x$ grows as $\sqrt{\bar n_c}$, this term makes the extracted qubit relaxation rate $\kappa_a^{\mathrm{EME}}(\bar n_c)$ increase roughly linearly with the steady-state cavity photon number. The same mechanism produces drive-induced qubit excitation at zero temperature, and the entire renormalization disappears when the drive is detuned far from the cavity frequency. A Kerr-only master equation with bare $\hat a$ and $\hat c$ dissipators shows no such effect.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the qubit has no intrinsic decay or dephasing, all relaxation is radiative through a zero-temperature Markovian cavity bath, and the paper itself says quantitative comparison with experiments would require adding finite temperature and pure dephasing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the photon numbers typical of dispersive readout ($\bar n_c$ of a few), the qubit relaxation rate increases roughly linearly with $\bar n_c$, so pushing readout power buys less measurement time than Kerr-only models predict.
  • The correction is selective in frequency: it acts only when the drive is close to the cavity resonance and decays algebraically as the drive-cavity detuning grows beyond roughly ten times the cross-Kerr shift $\chi_{ac}$.
  • Even at zero temperature the drive induces qubit excitation alongside relaxation, so the qubit's steady-state population during readout is not purely thermal.
  • Number-nonconserving Josephson terms affect dissipators at the same order of anharmonicity at which number-conserving terms renormalize frequencies; any calculation truncated to number-conserving (Kerr) terms misses the dominant drive dependence of $T_1$.
  • The double expansion in anharmonicity and drive amplitude is a general route to effective master equations for driven, weakly nonlinear dissipative bosonic circuits.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If this correlated-decay channel is dominant in real devices, readout pulse optimization should target it; Kerr-only or two-level models will systematically overestimate the tolerable readout power.
  • The same $\hat a\hat c$ process should appear in driven parametric gates and cat-state stabilization protocols, which populate cavity modes; power-dependent lifetimes observed there could be the same mechanism.
  • The predicted slope of $1/T_1$ versus $\bar n_c$ should scale linearly with the anharmonicity parameter $\epsilon$, so comparing devices with different $E_C/E_J$ at fixed hybridization would isolate the effect.
  • Adding finite temperature and pure dephasing, which the paper explicitly leaves for future work, could either amplify or mask the predicted increase; quantitative device comparison needs those terms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives an effective master equation (EME) for a transmon qubit dispersively coupled to a readout cavity under a coherent drive, using a two-parameter perturbative expansion in the Josephson anharmonicity ε and the drive amplitude. It shows that number-nonconserving terms in the Josephson potential, when dressed by a time-dependent unitary transformation, generate drive-activated correlated qubit-cavity dissipation (dominantly âĉ) and hence a qubit relaxation rate that increases with the steady-state cavity photon number −n_c, approximately linearly at low power. The EME is compared numerically with a Kerr-only master equation, and the difference is attributed to the number-nonconserving terms. The paper also provides a one-mode version in Appendix D and discusses why the usual two-level truncation of the nonlinearity misses this effect.

Significance. If quantitatively reliable, this mechanism would explain the observed drive-power-dependent T1 reduction in dispersive readout without invoking dephasing noise and would identify number-nonconserving terms in the Josephson potential as the physical origin. The derivation is parameter-free in the sense that nothing is fitted to the target observation; the result follows from the circuit Hamiltonian and standard open-quantum-system methods. The explicit collapse operators and the direct comparison with a Kerr-only model make the mechanism falsifiable, and the systematic unitary-transformation technique is of broader utility. The main caveat is that the quantitative accuracy of the leading-order EME is not controlled for the near-resonant channel, so the central quantitative claim (the linear-in-−n_c rate increase) needs additional support before the numerical prediction can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (34), (27), (38); App. C, Eq. (C8)] The dominant correlated term in Ĥ C(ω_a) is not parametrically small in ε. Its coefficient is proportional to ε ω_d/(ω_c−ω_d); with the readout detuning ω_d = ω_c−χ_ac/2 and χ_ac ∝ ε, the ratio ω_d/(ω_c−ω_d) ∝ 1/ε, so the ε-dependence cancels and the term is of order η_x times O(1) hybridization factors. More precisely, using χ_ac = ε ω_a u_ac^2 u_aa^2/2, the strength of this channel relative to the linear collapse operator is set by η_x/u_ac rather than by ε. Because the same near-resonant denominators appear in the generator equation (11) and in the second-order generator equation (C8), the effective expansion parameter for this channel is η_x/u_ac, which is of order 0.3–1 for the parameters of Fig. 3, not ε≈0.1. The paper does not estimate the next-order contributions to the collapse operators, so the quantitative prediction δκ_a/κ_a versus −n_c in Fig. 2c is not established to the claimed accuracy, even though the qualitative direction of the effect may be correct. Please provide a bound on the next-order corrections, a resummation of the resonant channel, or an explicit numerical convergence check in ε.
  2. [Sec. III B and App. E, Eq. (E37)] The numerical EME (33) uses the rotating-wave (secular) form of the master equation, whereas the derivation in App. E shows that the more general non-RWA form (E37) is required when transition frequencies become close compared with relaxation rates. The simulation parameters have κ_c ≈ 10^−2π and χ_ac ≈ 1.7×10^−3π, so the RWA is not automatically justified, and no comparison with Eq. (E37) is reported. Since the central rate extraction relies on this EME, please justify the RWA for the chosen parameters or demonstrate numerically that the non-RWA terms are negligible.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (27) and Sec. III B below Eq. (38)] There is a factor-of-two discrepancy in the definition of χ_ac: Eq. (27) gives χ_ac = ε ω_a u_ac^2 u_aa^2/4 (with ω_a replaced by ω̄_a), while the text below Eq. (38) states χ_ac = ε ω_a u_aa^2 u_ac^2/2. Please reconcile the two definitions and check the quoted numerical value 1.7×10^−3ω̄_c against the parameters in Eq. (36).
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption for panel b) reads 'The drive strength is adjusted such that the cavity has a mean steady state population −n_c' and appears to be grammatically incomplete; please finish the sentence (for example, 'as a function of time').
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (25), and Sec. III B] The symbol −n_c is defined in Eq. (25) as the linear-theory steady-state population, but in Sec. III B it is also used for the numerically extracted steady-state population; please state explicitly that the two agree for the chosen parameters, as asserted in the text, so the notation is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the drive-dependent relaxation rate follows from an explicit perturbative derivation with no fitted target.

full rationale

The paper starts from the quantized circuit Hamiltonian (Eq. 2) and the drive/bath couplings (Eqs. 5-6), then derives the effective master equation (Eq. 33) through an explicit displacement transformation (App. B), a first-order Schrieffer-Wolff generator solving Eq. (11) (App. C), and a Born-Markov/secular reduction (App. E). No parameter is fitted to the target observable: the steady-state photon number nbar is computed from the linear displacement amplitude eta_x (Eq. 25), and the qubit relaxation rate is extracted by simulating the EME and fitting the transient decay (Eqs. 40-41), not by imposing the drive-power dependence. The dominant correlated collapse term in Eq. (34) follows algebraically from the commutators [Y_a, G_4(t)] listed in App. F, so the prediction is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The references to Part I (Ref. 13) supply the unitary-transformation method and normal-mode coefficients, but the current paper re-derives the generator, the collapse operators, and the EME; this self-citation is not load-bearing. The reviewer concern about the first-order truncation at near-resonance is a quantitative convergence/correctness issue, not a circularity issue: the prefactor in Eq. (34) contains epsilon times a near-resonant denominator, so the expansion may not be uniformly controlled, but this does not make the prediction an input of the calculation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to experimental data; the quoted numerical values (ϵ=0.1, ω̄a=0.77π, ω̄c=π, g=0.025π, Q ratio 51.5) are illustrative and disclosed in Sec. III B. The central claim rests on the standard transmon model, the zero-temperature Markovian bath plus Born-Markov and secular approximations, the linear-response displacement, and the absence of intrinsic qubit decay, each listed as an axiom. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The transmon is a single bosonic mode with a cosine Josephson potential; the weak-anharmonicity expansion keeps terms to quartic order in phase (small ϵ).
    Standard transmon model (Koch et al.) and the starting point of Part I; the entire perturbative expansion is in this ϵ parameter.
  • domain assumption The environment is a zero-temperature Markovian bath with a broadband spectral density; the Born-Markov and secular approximations are valid for the low-photon dynamics.
    Used in App. E to obtain the Lindblad EME (33); the authors state in Sec. IV that quantitative comparison to experiments would require finite temperature and pure dephasing, and in App. E they note the RWA is not justified for the full transmon spectrum.
  • domain assumption The displacement that removes the coherent drive is computed from the linear driven-dissipative response, neglecting nonlinear back-action on the displacement amplitude.
    Eqs. (23)-(25) and App. B use the bare relaxation rates to set ηx and n̄c; the paper argues weak hybridization makes this a good estimate.
  • domain assumption The qubit has no intrinsic decay channel; all relaxation is Purcell decay through the cavity.
    Sec. II states there is no intrinsic decay rate for the bare qubit oscillator; the computed renormalization is specifically of the radiative rate.
  • standard math Bosonic commutation relations, Floquet theory, and Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff expansions are used to solve the generator equations.
    Standard mathematical background used in Sec. II and App. C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lifetime renormalization of driven weakly anharmonic superconducting qubits: II. The readout problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QQJLIO4E

@misc{pith2026190801240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lifetime renormalization of driven weakly anharmonic superconducting qubits: II. The readout problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QQJLIO4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01240}
}
read the original abstract

Recent experiments in superconducting qubit systems have shown an unexpectedly strong dependence of the qubit relaxation rate on the readout drive power. This phenomenon limits the maximum measurement strength and thus the achievable readout speed and fidelity. We address this problem here and provide a plausible mechanism for drive-power dependence of relaxation rates. To this end we introduce a two-parameter perturbative expansion in qubit anharmonicity and the drive amplitude through a unitary transformation technique introduced in Part I. This approach naturally reveals number non-conserving terms in the Josephson potential as a fundamental mechanism through which applied microwave drives can activate additional relaxation mechanisms. We present our results in terms of an effective master equation with renormalized state- and drive-dependent transition frequency and relaxation rates. Comparison of numerical results from this effective master equation to those obtained from a Lindblad master equation which only includes number-conserving terms (i.e. Kerr interactions) shows that number non-conserving terms can lead to significant drive-power dependence of the relaxation rates. The systematic expansion technique introduced here is of general applicability to obtaining effective master equations for driven-dissipative quantum systems that contain weakly non-linear degrees of freedom.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematics of the readout setup. A Josephson junc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Master equation simulations for our model of dispersive readout [see Fig. 1]. a) EME solution: The natural logarithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Magnitudes of a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. EME results versus drive frequency, at ¯n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. An EME is derived here for a transmon qubit (mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Results from EME solution for a qubit coupled to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Blais , author R.-S

    author author A. Blais , author R.-S. \ Huang , author A. Wallraff , author S. M. \ Girvin , \ and\ author R. J. \ Schoelkopf ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.062320 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 69 ,\ pages 062320 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physreva.69.062320 2004

  2. [2]

    Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics: Coherent Coupling of a Single Photon to a Cooper Pair Box

    author author A. Wallraff , author D. I. \ Schuster , author A. Blais , author L. Frunzio , author R.-S. \ Huang , author J. Majer , author S. Kumar , author S. M. \ Girvin , \ and\ author R. J. \ Schoelkopf ,\ 10.1038/nature02851 journal journal \ volume 431 ,\ pages 162 ( year 2004 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0407325 cond-mat/0407325 NoStop

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    Boissonneault , author J

    author author M. Boissonneault , author J. M. \ Gambetta , \ and\ author A. Blais ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.79.013819 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 79 ,\ pages 013819 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physreva.79.013819 2009

  4. [4]

    Koch , author T

    author author J. Koch , author T. M. \ Yu , author J. Gambetta , author A. A. \ Houck , author D. I. \ Schuster , author J. Majer , author A. Blais , author M. H. \ Devoret , author S. M. \ Girvin , \ and\ author R. J. \ Schoelkopf ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042319 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 76 ,\ pages 042319 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physreva.76.042319

  5. [5]

    Mundhada , author S

    author author S. Mundhada , author S. Shankar , author A. Narla , author E. Zalys-Geller , author S. Girvin , \ and\ author M. Devoret ,\ @noop journal journal APS March Meeting \ volume V48.5 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Minev , author S

    author author Z. Minev , author S. Mundhada , author S. Shankar , author P. Reinhold , author R. Guti \'e rrez-J \'a uregui , author R. Schoelkopf , author M. Mirrahimi , author H. Carmichael , \ and\ author M. Devoret ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ ,\ pages 1 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Makhlin , author G

    author author Y. Makhlin , author G. Sch\"on , \ and\ author A. Shnirman ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.357 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 73 ,\ pages 357 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.357 2001

  8. [8]

    Bouchiat , author D

    author author V. Bouchiat , author D. Vion , author P. Joyez , author D. Esteve , \ and\ author M. H. \ Devoret ,\ 10.1238/physica.topical.076a00165 journal journal Physica Scripta \ volume T76 ,\ pages 165 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1238/physica.topical.076a00165 1998

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Vion , author A

    author author D. Vion , author A. Aassime , author A. Cottet , author P. Joyez , author H. Pothier , author C. Urbina , author D. Esteve , \ and\ author M. H. \ Devoret ,\ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 296 ,\ pages 886 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002

  2. [10]

    author author K. W. \ Lehnert , author K. Bladh , author L. F. \ Spietz , author D. Gunnarsson , author D. I. \ Schuster , author P. Delsing , \ and\ author R. J. \ Schoelkopf ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.027002 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 90 ,\ pages 027002 ( year ...

    doi

  3. [11]

    author author E. A. \ Sete , author J. M. \ Gambetta , \ and\ author A. N. \ Korotkov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.104516 journal journal \ volume 89 ,\ eid 104516 ( year 2014 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5545 arXiv:1401.5545 [quant-ph] NoStop

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    author author D. H. \ Slichter , author R. Vijay , author S. J. \ Weber , author S. Boutin , author M. Boissonneault , author J. M. \ Gambetta , author A. Blais , \ and\ author I. Siddiqi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.153601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 109 ,\ pages ...

    doi

  5. [13]

    Malekakhlagh , author A

    author author M. Malekakhlagh , author A. Petrescu , \ and\ author H. E. \ T \"u reci ,\ @noop journal journal ArXiv e-prints \ ( year 2018 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.04667 arXiv:1809.04667 [quant-ph] NoStop

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    author author S. E. \ Nigg , author H. Paik , author B. Vlastakis , author G. Kirchmair , author S. Shankar , author L. Frunzio , author M. H. \ Devoret , author R. J. \ Schoelkopf , \ and\ author S. M. \ Girvin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.240502 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett...

    doi

  7. [15]

    Zhang , author B

    author author Y. Zhang , author B. J. \ Lester , author Y. Y. \ Gao , author L. Jiang , author R. J. \ Schoelkopf , \ and\ author S. M. \ Girvin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.012314 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 99 ,\ pages 012314 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi

  8. [16]

    author author N. E. \ Frattini , author V. V. \ Sivak , author A. Lingenfelter , author S. Shankar , \ and\ author M. H. \ Devoret ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.054020 journal journal Phys. Rev. Applied \ volume 10 ,\ pages 054020 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi

  9. [17]

    author author V. V. \ Sivak , author N. E. \ Frattini , author V. R. \ Joshi , author A. Lingenfelter , author S. Shankar , \ and\ author M. H. \ Devoret ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv e-prints \ ,\ eid arXiv:1902.10575 ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.10575 arXiv:19...

    1902 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ginossar , author L

    author author E. Ginossar , author L. S. \ Bishop , author D. I. \ Schuster , \ and\ author S. M. \ Girvin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.022335 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 82 ,\ pages 022335 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    author author M. D. \ Reed , author L. DiCarlo , author B. R. \ Johnson , author L. Sun , author D. I. \ Schuster , author L. Frunzio , \ and\ author R. J. \ Schoelkopf ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.173601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 105 ,\ pages 173601 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    doi

  12. [20]

    Leghtas , author S

    author author Z. Leghtas , author S. Touzard , author I. M. \ Pop , author A. Kou , author B. Vlastakis , author A. Petrenko , author K. M. \ Sliwa , author A. Narla , author S. Shankar , author M. J. \ Hatridge , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 347 ,\ pages 8...

    2015

  13. [21]

    Vlastakis , author G

    author author B. Vlastakis , author G. Kirchmair , author Z. Leghtas , author S. E. \ Nigg , author L. Frunzio , author S. M. \ Girvin , author M. Mirrahimi , author M. H. \ Devoret , \ and\ author R. J. \ Schoelkopf ,\ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 342 ,\ pages 607 (...

    2013

  14. [22]

    Puri , author S

    author author S. Puri , author S. Boutin , \ and\ author A. Blais ,\ @noop journal journal npj Quantum Information \ volume 3 ,\ pages 18 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  15. [23]

    Rigetti \ and\ author M

    author author C. Rigetti \ and\ author M. Devoret ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.134507 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 81 ,\ pages 134507 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    author author J. M. \ Chow , author J. M. \ Gambetta , author A. W. \ Cross , author S. T. \ Merkel , author C. Rigetti , \ and\ author M. Steffen ,\ 10.1088/1367-2630/15/11/115012 journal journal New Journal of Physics \ volume 15 ,\ eid 115012 ( year 2013 ) ,\ http://arxiv.o...

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    author author D. C. \ McKay , author S. Filipp , author A. Mezzacapo , author E. Magesan , author J. M. \ Chow , \ and\ author J. M. \ Gambetta ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Applied \ volume 6 ,\ pages 064007 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  18. [26]

    Magesan \ and\ author J

    author author E. Magesan \ and\ author J. M. \ Gambetta ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv e-prints \ ,\ eid arXiv:1804.04073 ( year 2018 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.04073 arXiv:1804.04073 [quant-ph] NoStop

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sheldon , author E

    author author S. Sheldon , author E. Magesan , author J. M. \ Chow , \ and\ author J. M. \ Gambetta ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 93 ,\ pages 060302 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  20. [28]

    Caldwell , author N

    author author S. Caldwell , author N. Didier , author C. Ryan , author E. Sete , author A. Hudson , author P. Karalekas , author R. Manenti , author M. da Silva , author R. Sinclair , author E. Acala , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Applied \ volume 10 ,\ page...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Didier , author E

    author author N. Didier , author E. A. \ Sete , author M. P. \ da Silva , \ and\ author C. Rigetti ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.022330 journal journal \ volume 97 ,\ eid 022330 ( year 2018 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06566 arXiv:1706.06566 [quant-ph] NoStop

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Reagor , author C

    author author M. Reagor , author C. B. \ Osborn , author N. Tezak , author A. Staley , author G. Prawiroatmodjo , author M. Scheer , author N. Alidoust , author E. A. \ Sete , author N. Didier , author M. P. \ da Silva , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Science advances \ volum...

    2018

  23. [31]

    author author L. S. \ Bishop , author E. Ginossar , \ and\ author S. M. \ Girvin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.100505 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 105 ,\ pages 100505 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    Boissonneault , author J

    author author M. Boissonneault , author J. M. \ Gambetta , \ and\ author A. Blais ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.100504 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 105 ,\ pages 100504 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    Grifoni \ and\ author P

    author author M. Grifoni \ and\ author P. H \"a nggi ,\ @noop journal journal Physics Reports \ volume 304 ,\ pages 229 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998

  26. [34]

    Lescanne , author L

    author author R. Lescanne , author L. Verney , author Q. Ficheux , author M. H. \ Devoret , author B. Huard , author M. Mirrahimi , \ and\ author Z. Leghtas ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.11.014030 journal journal Phys. Rev. Applied \ volume 11 ,\ pages 014030 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi

  27. [35]

    Verney , author R

    author author L. Verney , author R. Lescanne , author M. H. \ Devoret , author Z. Leghtas , \ and\ author M. Mirrahimi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.11.024003 journal journal Phys. Rev. Applied \ volume 11 ,\ pages 024003 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi

  28. [36]

    Sank , author Z

    author author D. Sank , author Z. Chen , author M. Khezri , author J. Kelly , author R. Barends , author B. Campbell , author Y. Chen , author B. Chiaro , author A. Dunsworth , author A. Fowler , author E. Jeffrey , author E. Lucero , author A. Megrant , author J. Mutus , auth...

  29. [37]

    Feshbach ,\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003491658900071 journal journal Annals of Physics \ volume 5 ,\ pages 357 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

    author author H. Feshbach ,\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003491658900071 journal journal Annals of Physics \ volume 5 ,\ pages 357 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

    1958

  30. [38]

    author author E. M. \ Kessler ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.012126 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 86 ,\ pages 012126 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Reiter \ and\ author A

    author author F. Reiter \ and\ author A. S. \ S rensen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.032111 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 85 ,\ pages 032111 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    Mirrahimi \ and\ author P

    author author M. Mirrahimi \ and\ author P. Rouchon ,\ booktitle booktitle Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on ,\ @noop \ volume 54 ,\ pages 1325 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  33. [41]

    Bouten , author R

    author author L. Bouten , author R. van Handel , \ and\ author A. Silberfarb ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Functional Analysis \ volume 254 ,\ pages 3123 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  34. [42]

    Bouten \ and\ author A

    author author L. Bouten \ and\ author A. Silberfarb ,\ 10.1007/s00220-008-0513-6 journal journal Communications in Mathematical Physics \ volume 283 ,\ pages 491 ( year 2008 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0686 arXiv:0707.0686 [math-ph] NoStop

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Tezak , author N

    author author N. Tezak , author N. H. \ Amini , \ and\ author H. Mabuchi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.062113 journal journal \ volume 96 ,\ eid 062113 ( year 2017 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.05369 arXiv:1704.05369 [quant-ph] NoStop

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    author author J. R. \ Schrieffer \ and\ author P. A. \ Wolff ,\ 10.1103/PhysRev.149.491 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 149 ,\ pages 491 ( year 1966 ) NoStop

    1966 doi

  37. [45]

    Wallraff , author D

    author author A. Wallraff , author D. I. \ Schuster , author A. Blais , author L. Frunzio , author R.-S. \ Huang , author J. Majer , author S. Kumar , author S. M. \ Girvin , \ and\ author R. J. \ Schoelkopf ,\ 10.1038/nature02851 journal journal Nature \ volume 431 ,\ pages 1...

    doi

  38. [46]

    Malekakhlagh , author A

    author author M. Malekakhlagh , author A. Petrescu , \ and\ author H. E. \ T\"ureci ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.063848 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 94 ,\ pages 063848 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    author author M. H. \ Devoret ,\ in\ http://www.copilot.caltech.edu/documents/260-les_houches_devoret_quantum_fluctuations_electrical_circuits_1997.pdf booktitle Les Houches, Session LXIII ,\ Vol. volume 7 ,\ editor edited by\ editor S. Reynaud , editor E. Giacobino , \ and\ e...

    1997

  40. [48]

    Malekakhlagh , author A

    author author M. Malekakhlagh , author A. Petrescu , \ and\ author H. E. \ T\"ureci ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.073601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 119 ,\ pages 073601 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    Sambe ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.7.2203 journal journal Phys

    author author H. Sambe ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.7.2203 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 7 ,\ pages 2203 ( year 1973 ) NoStop

    1973 doi

  42. [50]

    author author R. Z itko ,\ 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.05.013 journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 182 ,\ pages 2259 ( year 2011 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4697 arXiv:1105.4697 [quant-ph] NoStop

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    \ Breuer \ and\ author F

    author author H.-P. \ Breuer \ and\ author F. Petruccione ,\ @noop title The theory of open quantum systems \ ( publisher Oxford University Press on Demand ,\ year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002

  44. [52]

    Solgun , author D

    author author F. Solgun , author D. P. \ DiVincenzo , \ and\ author J. M. \ Gambetta ,\ @noop journal journal IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques \ volume 67 ,\ pages 928 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  45. [53]

    Velasco-Martinez , author V

    author author D. Velasco-Martinez , author V. G. \ Ibarra-Sierra , author J. C. \ Sandoval-Santana , author J. L. \ Cardoso , \ and\ author A. Kunold ,\ @noop journal journal ArXiv e-prints \ ( year 2014 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0236 arXiv:1409.0236 [quant-ph] NoStop

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Redfield ,\ in\ https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-3114-3.50007-6 booktitle Advances in Magnetic Resonance ,\ series Advances in Magnetic and Optical Resonance , Vol

    author author A. Redfield ,\ in\ https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-3114-3.50007-6 booktitle Advances in Magnetic Resonance ,\ series Advances in Magnetic and Optical Resonance , Vol. volume 1 ,\ editor edited by\ editor J. S. \ Waugh \ ( publisher Academic Press ,\ year 1965...

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.