Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Chiral states and nonreciprocal phases in a Josephson junction ring

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A triangular Josephson ring can host chiral current states that, while they persist, scatter signals nonreciprocally.

desk verdict A solid extension of Koch/Müller that proposes a concrete loading protocol for chiral ring states; the nonreciprocal S-matrix is derived in an idealized stationary subspace and needs a time-resolved justification before the device claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.11254 v1 pith:7KX4V53J submitted 2020-09-23 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

R. Asensio-Perea , A. Parra-Rodriguez , G. Kirchmair , E. Solano , E. Rico This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords Josephsonjunctionringchiralstatesnonreciprocalscatteringtime-reversalsymmetrybreakingsuperconductingcircuitsdirectionalcouplertransmonregimespectralflow
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

This paper proposes that a triangular ring of three Josephson junctions, operated in the transmon regime, possesses two chiral eigenstates in which Cooper pairs circulate clockwise or counterclockwise. It shows how to load one of them: hold the ring at a magnetic flux of 2π, cool to the ground state, then suddenly switch the flux off, leaving the chiral state as a long-lived excitation. The paper argues that chirality produces a nonreciprocal scattering matrix when three transmission lines are coupled to the ring: signals pick up direction-dependent phases, with a fixed asymmetry of 4π/3, making the device a tunable directional coupler. The mechanism works as long as the chiral state survives, which the paper estimates at about 100 nanoseconds for a Josephson-to-charge energy ratio of $10^{5}$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the charge-conserving representation of the ring Hamiltonian in the basis |N,ϕ2,ϕ3⟩, where ϕ2 and ϕ3 are gauge-invariant phase differences across two of the junctions and N is the total Cooper-pair number. The external flux appears as equal phase shifts φe/3 in the three cosine terms, and at φe=2π the potential is iso-spectral to the zero-flux potential but with eigenstates shifted by the displacement operator $e^{{−in3 2π/3}}$$e^{{in2 2π/3}}$, which cycles the three states |N,0,0⟩, |N,2π/3,−2π/3⟩, and |N,−2π/3,2π/3⟩. This spectral-flow correspondence is what makes the cooling-and-quench protocol work. For the scattering analysis, a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation projects the ring-plus-resonator Hamiltonian onto the chiral state, producing nearest-neighbour hopping amplitudes with phases $e^{{±i2π/3}}$; the Fourier diagonalization gives three modes whose frequencies enter the input-output formula, and the resulting S-matrix is the non-symmetric circulant matrix of Eq. (14).

What would settle it

A direct test would be to measure the S-matrix phase asymmetry between two ports of the three-line device after the flux-cooling-and-quench protocol: if the asymmetry is not 4π/3 at any frequency, or if the chiral current half-life at EJ/EC≈$10^{5}$ is far below the predicted ~100 ns, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the triangular Josephson junction ring—three superconducting nodes connected by three junctions, each biased to ground—has two chiral eigenstates, |N,2π/3,−2π/3⟩ and |N,−2π/3,2π/3⟩, for any fixed total Cooper-pair number N. These states carry a persistent current circulating clockwise or counterclockwise and are mapped into each other by time reversal or parity, so a nonzero chiral current signals time-reversal-symmetry breaking. The paper shows that holding the ring at an external flux φe=2π makes one of these states the ground state; cooling there and then suddenly switching the flux to zero leaves the chiral state as a long-lived excitation of the field-free Hamiltonian. Coupling three transmission lines to the ring through Josephson junctions, the effective resonator Hamiltonian acquires directional hopping phases $e^{{±i2π/3}}$, which yield a scattering matrix S with S≠S^T and a phase asymmetry arg(S)−arg(S^T)=4π/3, independent of frequency, coupling, and decay rate. The claim is that while the chiral state lives, the device acts as a tunable directional coupler, able to concentrate output power in any chosen port.

Load-bearing premise

The nonreciprocal response is derived under the assumption that the ring remains fully projected onto one chiral state for the whole measurement, while the paper's own lifetime estimate for that state is only about 100 ns at EJ/EC≈$10^{5}$; if leakage, charge decay, or decoherence pushes the effective lifetime below the measurement time, the directional-coupler behaviour fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At flux φe=2π the ground state is the chiral state |N,2π/3,−2π/3⟩, so a simple cool-then-quench sequence loads a nonzero chiral current without any coherent control.
  • The chiral current half-life grows as a power law of EJ/EC, so increasing the Josephson-to-charge energy ratio lengthens the useful operation window; the paper's fit places a 100 ns lifetime at EJ/EC≈10^5.
  • The scattering matrix is exactly unitary and nonreciprocal with a parameter-independent phase asymmetry of 4π/3, so the nonreciprocity is a property of the chiral state rather than a fine-tuned interference effect.
  • By choosing the input frequency, the device directs output power into any of the three ports with maximal directionality 2/3, and the rotational symmetry makes the behaviour independent of which pair of ports is used.
  • The conserved total charge N and the phase-regime work point make the chiral state robust against charge noise, a practical advantage for superconducting circuits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the same spectral-flow loading works at higher flux periods or in larger plaquettes; a natural extension is to test the cooling-quench protocol with φe=2πm for m>1, where the chirality phase may become 2π/N_plaq.
  • A direct check of the mechanism would be to measure the transmission phase between two ports as a function of time after the quench; the phase asymmetry should stay at 4π/3 only while the chiral state survives, giving an experimental handle on the lifetime.
  • The scattering analysis assumes the ring stays in the chiral subspace; if the quench populates multiple N sectors or the charge-decay channel mixes them, the device's directionality will degrade, so quantifying the fidelity of the single-subspace projection is a natural next step.
  • The predicted lifetime scaling τ=τ0(EJ/EC)^0.609 is falsifiable by measuring τ at two or three ratios; seeing an exponential rather than power-law dependence would indicate that uncontrolled dissipation, not the intrinsic charge-energy perturbation, sets the lifetime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a triangular Josephson junction ring in the transmon regime. It defines three N-conserving flux states, identifies the two nontrivial ones as chiral under parity and time reversal, and proposes a loading protocol: cool at external flux φe=2π, then suddenly quench to zero flux. The authors numerically compute the chiral-current decay and extract a power-law lifetime that reaches about 100 ns near EJ/EC≈10^5. They then couple the ring to three resonators and transmission lines, derive an effective photon Hamiltonian by Schrieffer-Wolff projection, and from it obtain a scattering matrix with S≠S^T and a frequency-independent phase asymmetry of 4π/3, which they propose to use as a tunable directional coupler.

Significance. The proposal is conceptually attractive and potentially useful: it connects the well-known chiral states of a Josephson ring to a concrete loading protocol and to a compact, magnet-free nonreciprocal device. The symmetry characterization in Sec. II is clean, and the derivation of the hopping phases in Eq. (10) is explicit and not circular. The numerical continuum-limit checks in Appendix B are a real strength, and the paper gives enough detail for the main simulations to be reproduced. If the stationarity issue raised below is resolved, the directional-coupler claim would be a valuable addition to the nonreciprocal superconducting circuit literature. At present, however, the main device claim is presented more strongly than the underlying time-dependent state preparation supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eqs. (13) and (14); Appendix D] The central nonreciprocity claim is derived from Eq. (9), which projects onto the chiral state |N,2π/3,-2π/3>, and from Eq. (13), a frequency-domain input-output relation for the time-independent effective Hamiltonian (10). After the quench to φe=0, the full ring Hamiltonian (5) is time-reversal invariant, the two chiral states are exactly degenerate, and the prepared state is not an eigenstate because of the EC term; Fig. 3 shows a finite half-life τ. A stationary S-matrix is therefore not strictly defined on timescales comparable to τ. Appendix D contains the caveat that the result holds 'as long as the chiral state lives in the plaquette,' but the main text and abstract present the 4π/3 phase asymmetry as a fixed device property. Please provide a time-resolved scattering treatment or, at minimum, an explicit validity condition such as τ≫1/Γ or pulse durations much shorter than τ, and state this condition in the main text.
  2. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (9); Appendix C] The Schrieffer-Wolff projection in Eq. (9) and the matrix elements in Appendix C assume the plaquette returns to the same chiral state after every second-order process. The intermediate states in Eq. (C1) have ring charge N±1 and the energy denominators in Eq. (C4) contain EN and ωr, but the EC term that causes the decay in Fig. 3 is not included in the effective dynamics. Since the chiral subspace is not invariant under the full Hamiltonian (5), this projection needs a justification that the decay rate is negligible on the timescale of the resonator hopping (g^{-1}), or the decay should be incorporated into the effective model. Without this, the phases in Eq. (10) are computed in a subspace that the exact evolution leaves.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3(b)] The 100 ns half-life estimate rests on a power-law fit with two free parameters, α and τ0, over the numerical range EJ/EC up to about 1.6×10^3, extrapolated two orders of magnitude to 10^5. The quoted uncertainties are fitting errors only; systematic errors from the finite phase-grid discretization and from the assumed functional form are not discussed. Please present the extrapolation as an estimate rather than a quantitative prediction, and test it at at least one intermediate ratio if feasible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV A] There are typos: 'transmon regimen' should be 'transmon regime,' and 'Schrieffer-Wolf transformation' should be 'Schrieffer-Wolff transformation.'
  2. [Sec. IV A, Fig. 4 caption] The notation '1√2' appears without the division slash in several places; it should read '1/√2' for the resonator initial state (|100⟩−|010⟩)/√2.
  3. [Eqs. (10) and (11)] The symbol N is used both as a conserved quantum number and as an integer in the text after Eq. (11); please clarify whether Eq. (11) is meant for a fixed eigenvalue N of the total charge operator.
  4. [Sec. IV B after Eq. (14)] The phrase 'maximal directionality of 2/3' should be defined precisely, since the scattering matrix has nonzero diagonal entries and the maximum of |S̃_{3-}|² is not by itself a directionality ratio.
  5. [Reference list] Reference [39] is garbled: 'Phys. Rev. B 99, 174512 (2019). (Wiley, New York, 1998), Chap. B.' mixes two different entries; please correct the citation and full reference.
  6. [Appendix E] The statement that local charge decay leaves 'the phase properties unchanged' should be clarified: the nonreciprocal S-matrix depends on coherent phase relations between hopping amplitudes, not only on the steady-state mixture over N sectors, so the statement should be made about coherences, not just about the chiral current.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the nonreciprocal phases are derived from the loaded chiral state via a Schrieffer-Wolff effective Hamiltonian, with no fitted parameter used as an input and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The chiral states |N,2π/3,−2π/3⟩ and |N,−2π/3,2π/3⟩ are defined by their transformation under cyclic permutations, and the paper independently shows that they are the ground states of the flux-threaded ring Hamiltonian in the appropriate flux interval (Sec. III, Fig. 2). The effective resonator Hamiltonian of Eq. (10) is obtained by a genuine second-order Schrieffer-Wolff projection (Eq. (9), Appendix C), not by imposing the target nonreciprocal phases. The phases e^{−i2π/3} in the hopping terms are matrix elements evaluated in the loaded chiral state; they are consequences of that state, not fitted inputs. The S-matrix of Eq. (14) follows from standard input-output relations (Eq. (13)) applied to this effective Hamiltonian, and its nonreciprocal phase difference 4π/3 is computed, not assumed. The lifetime estimate is a numerical extrapolation of the authors' own simulation data and is not used as an input to the model. The cited works [35,36] are external references, not self-citations, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Appendix D's caveat that the scattering matrix holds only 'as long as the chiral state lives in the plaquette' is a stated validity limitation, not a circular step; it concerns the transient nature of the prepared state, which the paper explicitly acknowledges. Thus no step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claim (100 ns lifetime) rests on a two-parameter power-law fit to the authors' own numerical simulation of the chiral current; the parameters are not independently measured. The rest of the derivation uses standard circuit-QED assumptions and the cited input-output formalism. No new particles, mediators, or forces are invented.

free parameters (2)
  • Lifetime power-law exponent α = 0.6088601 ± 6×10^-7
    Fitted to the numerical half-life data in Fig. 3(b) using τ/τ0=(EJ/EC)^α; used to extrapolate a 100 ns lifetime at EJ/EC≈10^5.
  • Lifetime prefactor τ0 = 0.04859 ± 2×10^-5 ns
    Second free parameter in the same power-law fit; sets the absolute lifetime scale for the chiral current.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption External flux is uniformly distributed among the three junctions: φe,i = φe/3.
    Used to write Eq. (1); a gauge choice that preserves translational symmetry and affects the form of the potential V(ϕ2,ϕ3).
  • domain assumption The transmon parameter hierarchy EN ≫ EJ ≫ EC holds, so the EC kinetic term in Eq. (5) can be neglected when identifying the ground states.
    Invoked in Sec. III to justify that |N,ϕ2,ϕ3⟩ are eigenstates and that the flux-2π ground state is the chiral state |N,2π/3,−2π/3⟩.
  • domain assumption During the Schrieffer-Wolff derivation the ring remains in the single-excitation chiral subspace Pplq = |N,2π/3,−2π/3⟩⟨N,2π/3,−2π/3|.
    Used in Sec. IV A and Appendix C to derive Eq. (10); leakage out of this subspace is not quantified in the effective model.
  • domain assumption Input-output theory with a Markovian decay rate Γ describes the coupling to the transmission lines.
    Taken from Refs. [35,36] and used in Eq. (13); it assumes a frequency-independent density of states ρ.
  • domain assumption The external flux can be switched suddenly from 2π to 0 without additional non-adiabatic heating or dephasing of the chiral state.
    The loading protocol in Sec. IV relies on this sudden quench leaving the chiral state populated.
  • standard math The charge-flux Fourier relation |φ⟩ = Σ_n e^{-iφ n}|n⟩ gives a complete and exact basis for the superconducting nodes.
    Used throughout Sec. II to define the states |N,ϕ2,ϕ3⟩ and to justify the phase-basis diagonalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral states and nonreciprocal phases in a Josephson junction ring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7KX4V53J

@misc{pith2026200911254,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral states and nonreciprocal phases in a Josephson junction ring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7KX4V53J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.11254}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we propose how to load and manipulate chiral states in a Josephson junction ring in the so called transmon regimen. We characterise these states by their symmetry properties under time reversal and parity transformations. We describe an explicit protocol to load and detect the states within a realistic set of circuit parameters and show simulations that reveal the chiral nature. Finally, we explore the utility of these states in quantum technological nonreciprocal devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.11254 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Circuit representation of the triangular plaquette given by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spectrum of Hamiltonian ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Chiral current expected value time evolution obtained for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Circuit representation of the triangular plaquette coupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Chiral current expected value time evolution and contin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Long time behaviour of the chiral current expected value for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Modulus (panel a) and c)) and argument (panel b) and d)) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In fact, the phase acquired by the state under the permuta- tionP123 can be understood as a Berry phase. III. CIRCUIT QED ARCHITECTURE Following [35, 36], we consider a minimal circuit QED (cQED) set up consisting of a ring of three Josephson junc- tions threaded by an external magnetic flux with capacitive bias to ground (see Fig. 1). By making use of flux...

    work page

  2. [2]

    V ool, M

    U. V ool, M. H. Devoret, Int. J. Circ. Theor. Appl. 45, 897-934 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y . X. Liu and F. Nori, Phys. Rep. 718-719, 1-102 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Tafuri, Fundamentals and Frontiers of the Josephson Effect (Springer, 2019)

    F. Tafuri, Fundamentals and Frontiers of the Josephson Effect (Springer, 2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Fazio and G

    R. Fazio and G. Sch ¨on, Ann. Phys. 3-4, 113-117 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    R. Fazio. H. v.d. Zant, Phys. Rep. 355, 235-334 (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Nunnenkamp, J

    A. Nunnenkamp, J. Koch, S. M. Girvin, New J. Phys. 13, 095008 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Roushan et al., Nat

    P. Roushan et al., Nat. Phys. 13, 146-151 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Alaeian et al., Phys

    H. Alaeian et al., Phys. Rev. A 99, 053834 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Caloz, A

    C. Caloz, A. Al `u, S. Tretyakov, D. Sounas, K. Achouri, Z.-L Deck-L´eger, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 047001 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Kamal, Nonreciprocity in active Josephson junction circuits, PhD dissertation, Yale University, 2013

    A. Kamal, Nonreciprocity in active Josephson junction circuits, PhD dissertation, Yale University, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    C. L. Hogan, Bell Sys. Tech. J. 31, 1-31

  5. [13]

    Kamal, J

    A. Kamal, J. Clarke and M. H. Devoret, Nat. Phys. 7, 311-315 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Ranzani, J

    L. Ranzani, J. Aumentado, New J. Phys. 17, 023024 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    A. C. Mahoney, J. I. Colless, S. J. Pauka, J. M. Hornibrook, J. D. Watson, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, A. C. Doherty, D. J. Reilly, Phys. Rev. X7, 011007 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Bosco, F

    S. Bosco, F. Haupt, D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. Appl. 7, 024030 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Viola, D

    G. Viola, D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. X4, 021019 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Byeong Ho Eom, P. K. Day, H. G. LeDuc, J. Zmuidzinas, Nat. Phys. 8, 623-627 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Macklin, K

    C. Macklin, K. O Brien, D. Hover, M. E. Schwartz, V . Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. D. Oliver, I. Siddiqi, Science 350, 307-310 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Yamamoto, K

    T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, M. Watanabe, K. Matsuba, T. Miyazaki, W. D. Oliver, Y . Nakamura, J. S. Tsai, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 042510 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    M. R. Vissers, R. P. Erickson, H.-S. Ku, L. Vale, X. Wu, G. C. Hilton and D. P. Pappas, Appl. Phys. Lett.108, 012601 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Liu, T.-C

    C. Liu, T.-C. Chien, M. Hatridge, D. Pekker, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042323 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    M. A. Castellanos-Beltra and K. W. Lehnert, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 083509 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Bergeal, R

    N. Bergeal, R. Vijay, V . E. Manucharyan, I. Siddiqi, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M. Girvin and M. H. Devoret, Nat. Phys.6, 296- 302 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    E. A. Thol ´en, A. Erg ¨ul, E. M. Doherty, F. M. Weber, F. Gr`egis et al, Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 253509 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    B. Abdo, A. Kamal, M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. B 87, 014508 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    B. Abdo, N. T. Bronn, O. Jinka, S. Olivadese, A. D. C ´orcoles, V . P. Adiga, M. Brink, R. E. Lake, X. Wu, D. P. Pappas, J. M. Chow, Nat. Comm. 10, 3154 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Lecocq, L

    F. Lecocq, L. Ranzani, G. A. Peterson, K. Cicak, R. W. Sim- monds, J. D. Teufel, J. Aumentado, Phys. Rev. Appl.7, 024028 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Barzanjeh, M

    S. Barzanjeh, M. Wulf, M. Peruzzo, M. Kalaee, P. B. Dieterle, O. Painter and J. M. Fink, Nat. Comm. 8, 953 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    K. M. Sliwa, M. Hatridge, A. Narla, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. X5 041020 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Bernier, L

    N.R. Bernier, L. D. T ´oth, A. Koottandavida, M. A. Ioannou, D. Malz, A. Nunnenkamp, A. K. Feofanov and T. J. Kippenberg, Nat. Comm. 8, 604 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    M ¨uller, S

    C. M ¨uller, S. Guan, N. V ogt, J. H. Cole and T. M. Stace, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 213602 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Kerckhoff, K

    J. Kerckhoff, K. Lalumi `ere, B. J. Chapman, A. Blais and K. W. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. Appl. 4 034002 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    X. G. Wen, F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. B 39, 11413 (1989)

    1989

  27. [35]

    Rastelli, I

    G. Rastelli, I. M. Pop and F. W. J. Hekking, Phys. Rev. B 87, 174513 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    J. Koch, A. Houck, K. Le Hur, S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. A 82, 043811 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Mueller, S

    C. Mueller, S. Guan, N. V ogt, J. H. Cole, and T. M. Stace, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 213602 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    M. H. Devoret, in Quantum Fluctuations in Electrical Circuits, Proceedings of the Les Houches Summer School, Session LXIII (Elsevier Science B. V ., New York, 1995)

    1995

  31. [39]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc and G. Grynberg, Atom- Photon Interactions: Basic Processes and Applications

  32. [40]

    X. You, J. A. Sauls, and J. Koch Phys. Rev. B 99, 174512 (2019). (Wiley, New York, 1998), Chap. B

    2019

  33. [41]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt and R. J. Schoelkopf, Revs. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.