Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Synthetic multi-dimensional Aharonov-Bohm cages in Fock state lattices

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Four superconducting qutrits build a three-dimensional Fock-state lattice in photon-number space and demonstrate a genuine Aharonov-Bohm cage that traps an entangled superposition state on a single equatorial plaquette.

desk verdict Solid 2D and pseudo-3D caging data plus a clean six-qutrit subspace-localization demo, but the 'genuine 3D AB cage' claim outruns the evidence because the 3D control lacks a zero-flux comparison and the calibration is tuned until localization appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09766 v2 pith:JOHNLRVO submitted 2024-12-13 quant-ph

Jiajian Zhang , Wenhui Huang , Ji Chu , Jiawei Qiu , Xuandong Sun , Ziyu Tao , Jiawei Zhang , Libo Zhang
show 8 more authors
Yuxuan Zhou Yuanzhen Chen Yang Liu Song Liu Youpeng Zhong Jian-Jian Miao Jingjing Niu Dapeng Yu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Aharonov-BohmcagingFockstatelatticessuperconductingqutritssyntheticdimensionsartificialgaugefieldsFloquetengineeringflat-bandlocalization
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

Aharonov-Bohm caging — complete localization of a wavefunction by destructive interference rather than by barriers — has been confined to two-dimensional lattices, and this paper claims to push it into three dimensions by building the lattice in photon-number space instead of real space. Using four coupled superconducting qutrits, the authors engineer a six-site 'skewed' octahedral Fock-state lattice whose hopping phases, set by Floquet driving, place half a flux quantum through two perpendicular vertical plaquettes. The destructive interference from those $\pi$ fluxes suppresses transport along the vertical axis, while next-nearest-neighbour couplings across the equatorial plaquette keep coherent dynamics alive in the $x$–$y$ plane. Initializing the system in an entangled two-site superposition, they observe its population confined to the equatorial plaquette with the population along the $z$-axis staying near zero — evidence, they argue, for a genuine 3D AB cage. A six-qutrit loop extends the same interference-based localization to a 15-site subspace, showing that the construction scales beyond a single octahedron.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fock-state lattice (FSL): a synthetic lattice whose sites are multi-photon Fock states of the qutrits, with nearest-neighbour hopping through the $|11\rangle$–$|02\rangle$ interaction and next-nearest-neighbour hopping through the $|01\rangle$–$|10\rangle$ interaction, both activated by Floquet parametric driving. The effective Hamiltonian is $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}/\hbar = \sum_{k<l}\left(J_{kl}e^{i\phi_{kl}}|\psi_k\rangle\langle\psi_l| + \mathrm{H.c.}\right)$, and the synthetic flux through a closed path is the Wilson-loop sum $\Phi_C = \sum_C \phi_{kl}$ of the engineered hopping phases. The load-bearing configuration is the skewed octahedron: two perpendicular rhombic plaquettes ($xz$ and $yz$) that share the $z$-axis and each enclose half a flux quantum, plus an equatorial $xy$ plaquette built purely from NNN couplings with the ratio pattern $J_{24}=J_{35}=J_{25}/2=J_{34}/2$. The two $\pi$ fluxes drive destructive interference that blocks transport along $z$, and the equatorial plaquette mediates coherent exchange between the $x$ and $y$ components, so an entangled two-site initial state is confined to a plane. The essential new step is using an entangled superposition as the initial condition, which converts single-site localization into plane localization and distinguishes the genuine 3D cage from two decoupled 2D cages.

What would settle it

Strip out the next-nearest-neighbour couplings that form the equatorial xy plaquette (set $J_{24}=J_{35}=J_{25}=J_{34}=0$) while keeping the $\pi$ fluxes on the xz and yz plaquettes: if the entangled superposition stays confined to the equatorial plane, then the '3D cage' is just two independent 2D cages and the central claim fails, whereas if the state leaks out along $z$, the NNN path is the load-bearing ingredient. A complementary check is whether $P_z$ stays flat rather than slowly rising when the evolution window is extended well past the 400 ns shown in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a genuine three-dimensional Aharonov-Bohm cage can be realized in a synthetic Fock-state lattice built from four superconducting qutrits, extending a phenomenon previously confined to two dimensions. Six four-photon Fock states — $|0202\rangle$, $|0112\rangle$, $|1201\rangle$, $|1102\rangle$, $|0211\rangle$, and $|1111\rangle$ — form a skewed octahedron whose two vertical plaquettes ($xz$ and $yz$) each carry a $\pi$ synthetic flux created by Floquet-engineered hopping phases, while the equatorial $xy$ plaquette is formed by next-nearest-neighbour couplings obeying $J_{24}=J_{35}=J_{25}/2=J_{34}/2$ with no trapped flux. With the system initialized in the entangled superposition $(|0112\rangle + |1201\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, the two $\pi$-flux vertical plaquettes interfere destructively and freeze evolution along $z$, while the NNN couplings drive synchronized SWAP-like oscillations between the $x$ and $y$ components, so the combined population $P_x+P_y$ stays high and $P_z$ stays low. The same mechanism, implemented on a six-qutrit loop, localizes dynamics in 15-site FSL subspaces under two distinct flux configurations. The paper concludes that the confined equatorial dynamics constitute evidence for a genuine 3D AB cage with the assistance of NNN coupling, and that the octahedral FSL can serve as a building block for more complex synthetic lattices.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the idealized six-site hopping model — with its Floquet-set phases, resonance conditions, and next-nearest-neighbour coupling ratios — faithfully represents the real chip, so that the near-zero population at the top and bottom lattice sites comes from destructive Aharonov-Bohm interference rather than from frequency mis-tuning, uneven hopping amplitudes, or leakage into states outside the chosen six-site subspace.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 3D cage claim holds, Aharonov-Bohm caging is no longer restricted to two dimensions: the octahedral FSL becomes a building block from which larger multi-dimensional synthetic lattices can be assembled with only a handful of physical qutrits.
  • Because the synthetic dimension grows with photon number rather than with the number of physical devices, higher-dimensional lattices are reachable on fixed hardware — the four-photon octahedron and the six-qutrit 15-site loop are both realized on small processors.
  • Plane localization, not just single-site localization, becomes possible when the initial state is an entangled superposition, extending interference control in these lattices to quantum-correlated states.
  • Next-nearest-neighbour couplings, ordinarily a source of error in such devices, are converted into the resource that closes the equatorial plaquette and makes the cage genuinely three-dimensional.
  • Choosing which loop edges carry a $\pi$ phase selects the interference pattern — constructive at one site or at four sites — enabling subspace-selective localization in the 15-site FSL.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling argument generalizes, the same octahedron-plus-NNN construction could build 4D and higher synthetic cages by adding more photon Fock states or more qutrits, a regime where direct real-space simulation is currently impractical.
  • The 'skewed' octahedron suggests that exact geometric regularity is unnecessary for 3D caging; what matters is the coupling-ratio pattern and the $\pi$ fluxes through the vertical plaquettes, so other distorted geometries with the same flux pattern should also cage — a testable prediction.
  • Scanning the synthetic flux continuously from 0 to $\pi$ would map how sharply the caging transition sets in; the paper shows only the two extremes, leaving the residual $P_z$ versus flux curve as a natural next measurement.
  • Because the localized object is an entangled superposition rather than a single-particle wavepacket, the technique points toward studying correlated multi-particle dynamics in high-dimensional synthetic lattices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports experiments on superconducting qutrits in which multi-photon Fock states are used as synthetic lattice sites. By Floquet engineering effective NN and NNN hoppings with tunable synthetic phases, the authors demonstrate 2D Aharonov-Bohm caging in a four-site plaquette, a pseudo-3D double-plaquette cage, and claim a genuine 3D AB cage on a six-site octahedral FSL that localizes an entangled two-site superposition in the xy plaquette. The paper also presents analogous subspace-localization dynamics in a 15-site FSL on a six-qutrit loop. The conclusions emphasize the construction of multi-dimensional FSLs and the extension of AB caging from 2D to 3D.

Significance. If the 3D claim is established, this would be a significant experimental extension of AB caging beyond 2D in a synthetic Fock-state platform, and the four-qutrit octahedron would be a useful building block for more complex FSLs. The paper's strengths include direct flux-dependent controls in the 2D and pseudo-3D experiments (comparing φ=0 and φ=π with the same initial state), a detailed supplement with SPAM correction and Floquet-phase calibration, and numerical simulations that capture the 2D data well. The main weakness is that the 3D entangled-state experiment lacks an equivalent same-flux control, and the supplement itself demonstrates a detuning mechanism that can mimic the observed population suppression without invoking AB interference. The central claim therefore needs additional experimental or quantitative support before it can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 (Fig. 3(e–g)); Supplement Sec. III C] The central claim of a genuine 3D AB cage is not independently supported by the data as presented. The main text attributes the low Pz in Fig. 3(g) to destructive π-flux interference in the xz and yz plaquettes, but Supplement Fig. S10(b,d) shows that a 10-MHz detuning between the two loops produces a similar suppression of population at the far site without invoking cage physics, and Supplement Sec. III C states that the operational frequencies were tuned 'until the SWAP-like dynamics is localized in the xy plaquette.' Because the calibration procedure already targets the observed localization, the experiment does not rule out detuning or amplitude imbalance as the dominant cause of the low Pz. Please add a control that varies the synthetic flux between 0 and π under fixed resonance conditions for the same entangled initial state, or provide a quantitative model comparison in which the flux parameter is shown to be necessary to reproduce Pz(t).
  2. [Supplement Fig. S12(d–e)] The zero-flux comparison intended to show that caging is flux-induced is not a controlled comparison: panels (d,e) use only NN hoppings (JNN/2π∼2.85 MHz) and exclude the NNN couplings that are essential to the 3D cage, so the absence of caging in that panel could reflect the different Hamiltonian rather than the absence of π flux. Please repeat the zero-flux case with the same full NN+NNN Hamiltonian and the same hopping parameters as the caging experiment, to isolate the role of the flux.
  3. [Supplement Sec. III C and Fig. S11] The manuscript does not quantify how well the engineered Hamiltonian accounts for the observed residual population outside the xy plaquette. The 'skewed' octahedron relies on the NNN ratio J24=J35=J25/2=J34/2 and on zero flux in the xy plaquette, but the expected Pz under the calibrated disorder and detuning values is not reported. Without an error budget or a fidelity metric that separates flux-induced localization from detuning and leakage, the claim that this is a 'genuine 3D AB cage with the assistance of NNN coupling' remains under-supported. Please provide such an analysis, or present the result as localization in the xy subspace of a synthetic FSL rather than as a genuine 3D AB cage.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion] The conclusion credits 'Floquet engineering and tunable coupler' for the results, but the four-qutrit experiments appear to use direct capacitive couplings; please clarify which experimental runs used the tunable-coupler processor.
  2. [Fig. 3(g) and surrounding text] The definitions of Px=P2+P3, Py=P4+P5, and Pz=P1+P6 are given in the text but not in the figure caption; please add them to the caption for clarity.
  3. [§3 (Fig. 3)] The localized state in the 3D experiment is a two-site entangled superposition, not a single-site compact localized state; the term 'AB cage' is used without a precise definition for this case. Please state explicitly what notion of caging is being claimed for an entangled initial state.
  4. [Supplement Fig. S12 caption] The caption states that panels (b,c) use only NNN hopping with JNNN/2π∼2.85 MHz and panels (d,e) use only NN hopping with JNN/2π∼2.85 MHz, while the main-text localization experiment uses different hopping strengths; please make the relationship between these simulations and the main-text parameters explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the caging observation is a realization of an independently engineered tight-binding model, with calibration caveats that affect robustness rather than derivation.

full rationale

The paper's claim chain is an experimental realization, not a derivation from first principles, and it is self-contained against the effective Hamiltonian of Eq. (2). The synthetic flux values (phi=0 vs phi=pi) and the NNN hopping ratios are fixed by driving phases and coupling calibration before the dynamics are measured; the observed evolution is compared with numerical simulations using independently calibrated device parameters. A zero-flux comparison in Supplemental Fig. S12(d-e) (albeit NN-only) shows that removing the flux removes the caging pattern, so the central claim is not defined into existence. The supplement's statement that operational frequencies were tuned 'until the SWAP-like dynamics is localized in the xy plaquette' (Sec. III.C) is a calibration to the intended resonance condition; together with Fig. S10, which shows a 10 MHz detuning can mimic the population suppression, this is a robustness/control caveat about whether the observed Pz suppression is flux-induced or detuning-induced, not a circular derivation. Earlier self-citations (e.g., Ref. [58] for transmon hardware; Ref. [62] as the paper's own supplement) are not load-bearing: the tight-binding model, the Floquet phase assignments, and the control comparisons stand independently. Therefore no derivation step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on calibrated device parameters and control phases rather than fitted theoretical constants. The effective hopping strengths and synthetic phases are experimental controls; the disorder parameters in simulations are adjusted to match imperfections. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Effective NN hopping strengths J_12, J_23, J_34, J_41 = about 18.4 MHz (2D), 19.8 MHz (pseudo-3D), 11.3 to 17.2 MHz (localization scenarios)
    Set by parametric drive amplitudes and calibrated; the AB cage requires balanced amplitudes, so these are control parameters rather than predicted values.
  • Effective NNN hopping strengths J_24, J_35, J_25, J_34 = J_34/2pi ~ 5.7 MHz, with ratios J24=J35=J25/2=J34/2
    Determined by intrinsic NNN couplings and matrix elements; the 'skewed' octahedron relies on these ratios.
  • Synthetic flux phases phi_ij = 0 or pi/2 per edge, giving total flux 0 or pi per plaquette
    Chosen by the experimenters to realize the caging condition; not fitted to data.
  • Simulation disorder parameters (hopping disorder and detuning) = delta_J ~ 0.4 MHz; 10 MHz detuning in supplemental analysis
    Invoked to reproduce observed deviations; estimated from calibration rather than independently measured.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Floquet-engineered system is described by the effective Hamiltonian H_eff = sum J_kl e^{i phi_kl} |psi_k><psi_l| + H.c. (Eq. 2).
    The caging dynamics and synthetic flux are entirely derived from this model; its validity under the experimental drive conditions is assumed and calibrated in the supplement.
  • domain assumption Each qutrit is truncated to the three lowest levels, and leakage to higher Fock states is negligible.
    The FSL sites are defined in the {|0>,|1>,|2>} subspace; the nonlinearity Ui is relied on to prevent leakage.
  • domain assumption The |11>-|02> interaction between neighboring qutrits acts as the effective hopping between FSL sites.
    The mapping from physical qutrit states to synthetic lattice sites and the identification of hoppings depend on this resonant interaction.
  • standard math Standard rotating-wave approximation and Floquet theory.
    Used to derive the effective Hamiltonian and phase response of the parametric drive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthetic multi-dimensional Aharonov-Bohm cages in Fock state lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JOHNLRVO

@misc{pith2026241209766,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthetic multi-dimensional Aharonov-Bohm cages in Fock state lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JOHNLRVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09766}
}
read the original abstract

Fock-state lattices (FSLs), composed of photon number states with infinite Hilbert space, have emerged as a promising platform for simulating high-dimensional physics due to their potential to extend into arbitrarily high dimensions. Here, we demonstrate the construction of multi-dimensional FSLs using superconducting quantum circuits. By controlling artificial gauge fields within their internal structures, we investigate flux-induced extreme localization dynamics, such as Aharonov-Bohm caging, extending from 2D to 3D. We also explore the coherent interference of quantum superposition states, achieving extreme localization within specific subspaces assisted by quantum entanglement. Our findings pave the way for manipulating the behavior of a broad class of quantum states in higher-dimensional systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09766 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Synthetic AB cage in multi-photon FSLs. (a) Pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Diagram of a free quantum walk in a closed loop. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Schematic of two plaquettes with a common [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Energy level configuration of the 6-qutrit loop. (b) Flux modulation configurations (I and II) on the loop edges. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Boada, A

    O. Boada, A. Celi, J. I. Latorre, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 133001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Lohse, C

    M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, H. M. Price, O. Zilberberg, and I. Bloch, Nature 553, 55 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Zilberberg, S

    O. Zilberberg, S. Huang, J. Guglielmon, M. Wang, K. P. Chen, Y. E. Kraus, and M. C. Rechtsman, Nature 553, 59 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Bouhiron, A

    J.-B. Bouhiron, A. Fabre, Q. Liu, Q. Redon, N. Mittal, T. Satoor, R. Lopes, and S. Nascimbene, Science 384, 223 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Lin, X.-Q

    Q. Lin, X.-Q. Sun, M. Xiao, S.-C. Zhang, and S. Fan, Sci. Adv. 4 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Lustig, S

    E. Lustig, S. Weimann, Y. Plotnik, Y. Lumer, M. A. Bandres, A. Szameit, and M. Segev, Nature 567, 356 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Ozawa and H

    T. Ozawa and H. M. Price, Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 349 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    A. Dutt, Q. Lin, L. Yuan, M. Minkov, M. Xiao, and S. Fan, Science 367, 59 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Xiang, K

    Z.-C. Xiang, K. Huang, Y.-R. Zhang, T. Liu, Y.-H. Shi, C.-L. Deng, T. Liu, H. Li, G.-H. Liang, Z.-Y. Mei, et al. , Nat. Commun. 14 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Arg¨ uello-Luengo, U

    J. Arg¨ uello-Luengo, U. Bhattacharya, A. Celi, R. W. Chhajlany, T. Grass, M. P/suppress lodzie´ n, D. Rakshit, T. Sala- mon, P. Stornati, L. Tarruell, and M. Lewenstein, Com- mun. Phys. 7 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    A. Celi, P. Massignan, J. Ruseckas, N. Goldman, I. B. Spielman, G. Juzeli¯ unas, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 043001 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    L. D. Tzuang, K. Fang, P. Nussenzveig, S. Fan, and M. Lipson, Nat. Photon. 8, 701 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    K. Fang, Z. Yu, and S. Fan, Nat. Photon. 6, 782 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Aharonov and D

    Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959)

    1959

  7. [15]

    Jaksch and P

    D. Jaksch and P. Zoller, New J. Phys. 5, 56 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Dalibard, F

    J. Dalibard, F. Gerbier, G. Juzeli¯ unas, and P. ¨Ohberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1523 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    L. Lu, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, Nat. Photon. 6 8, 821 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zil- berberg, and I. Carusotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015006 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Vidal, R

    J. Vidal, R. Mosseri, and B. Dou¸ cot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5888 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Vidal, B

    J. Vidal, B. Dou¸ cot, R. Mosseri, and P. Butaud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3906 (2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    Vidal, P

    J. Vidal, P. Butaud, B. Dou¸ cot, and R. Mosseri, Phys. Rev. B 64, 155306 (2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    Mosseri, R

    R. Mosseri, R. Vogeler, and J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B 106, 155120 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Sutherland, Phys

    B. Sutherland, Phys. Rev. B 34, 5208 (1986)

    1986

  16. [24]

    J. M. Koh, T. Tai, and C. H. Lee, Nat. Commun. 15 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    L. Yuan, Q. Lin, M. Xiao, and S. Fan, Optica 5, 1396 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Roushan, C

    P. Roushan, C. Neill, A. Megrant, Y. Chen, R. Bab- bush, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, et al. , Nat. Phys. 13, 146 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Y. Li, H. Du, Y. Wang, J. Liang, L. Xiao, W. Yi, J. Ma, and S. Jia, Nat. Commun. 14 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Wang, Y.-K

    Y. Wang, Y.-K. Wu, Y. Jiang, M.-L. Cai, B.-W. Li, Q.-X. Mei, B.-X. Qi, Z.-C. Zhou, and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 130601 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    J. S. C. Hung, J. H. Busnaina, C. W. S. Chang, A. M. Vadiraj, I. Nsanzineza, E. Solano, H. Alaeian, E. Rico, and C. M. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 100503 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    S. K. Kanungo, J. D. Whalen, Y. Lu, M. Yuan, S. Das- gupta, F. B. Dunning, K. R. A. Hazzard, and T. C. Kil- lian, Nat. Commun. 13 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    T. Chen, C. Huang, I. Velkovsky, K. R. A. Hazzard, J. P. Covey, and B. Gadway, Nat. Commun. 15 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Bermudez, T

    A. Bermudez, T. Schaetz, and D. Porras, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 150501 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Longhi, Opt

    S. Longhi, Opt. Lett. 39, 5892 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Mukherjee, M

    S. Mukherjee, M. Di Liberto, P. ¨Ohberg, R. R. Thomson, and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 075502 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Kremer, I

    M. Kremer, I. Petrides, E. Meyer, M. Heinrich, O. Zil- berberg, and A. Szameit, Nat. Commun. 11, 907 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    J. G. Martinez, C. S. Chiu, B. M. Smitham, and A. A. Houck, Sci. Adv. 9 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    T. Chen, C. Huang, I. Velkovsky, T. Ozawa, H. Price, J. P. Covey, and B. Gadway, arXiv:2404.00737

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    I. T. Rosen, S. Muschinske, C. N. Barrett, A. Chatterjee, M. Hays, M. A. DeMarco, A. H. Karamlou, D. A. Rower, R. Das, D. K. Kim, et al. , Nat. Phys. (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Zhang, H

    W. Zhang, H. Wang, H. Sun, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 206401 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    H. Li, Z. Dong, S. Longhi, Q. Liang, D. Xie, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 220403 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Cherdantsev, K

    M. Cherdantsev, K. Cherednichenko, and S. Cooper, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 50, 5825 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    R¨ ontgen, C

    M. R¨ ontgen, C. V. Morfonios, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. B 97, 035161 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    J. Deng, H. Dong, C. Zhang, Y. Wu, J. Yuan, X. Zhu, F. Jin, H. Li, Z. Wang, H. Cai, et al. , Science 378, 966 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Saugmann and J

    P. Saugmann and J. Larson, Phys. Rev. A 108, 033721 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    J. Yuan, H. Cai, and D.-W. Wang, Adv. Phys.:X 9 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    D.-W. Wang, H. Cai, R.-B. Liu, and M. O. Scully, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 220502 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Y. Yao, L. Xiang, Z. Guo, Z. Bao, Y.-F. Yang, Z. Song, H. Shi, X. Zhu, F. Jin, J. Chen, et al. , Nat. Phys. 19, 1459 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Cai and D.-W

    H. Cai and D.-W. Wang, Natl. Sci. Rev. 8 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Mohanta, R

    N. Mohanta, R. Soni, S. Okamoto, and E. Dagotto, Com- mun. Phys. 6 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    R. Ma, B. Saxberg, C. Owens, N. Leung, Y. Lu, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Nature 566, 51 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    D.-W. Wang, C. Song, W. Feng, H. Cai, D. Xu, H. Deng, H. Li, D. Zheng, X. Zhu, H. Wang, et al. , Nat. Phys. 15, 382 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Yan, Y.-R

    Z. Yan, Y.-R. Zhang, M. Gong, Y. Wu, Y. Zheng, S. Li, C. Wang, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, et al. , Science 364, 753 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    M. Gong, S. Wang, C. Zha, M.-C. Chen, H.-L. Huang, Y. Wu, Q. Zhu, Y. Zhao, S. Li, S. Guo, et al. , Science 372, 948 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Saxberg, A

    B. Saxberg, A. Vrajitoarea, G. Roberts, M. G. Panetta, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Nature 612, 435 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Morvan, T

    A. Morvan, T. Andersen, X. Mi, C. Neill, A. Petukhov, K. Kechedzhi, D. Abanin, A. Michailidis, et al. , Nature 612, 240 (2022)

    2022

  48. [57]

    Zhang, H

    K. Zhang, H. Li, P. Zhang, J. Yuan, J. Chen, W. Ren, Z. Wang, C. Song, D.-W. Wang, H. Wang, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 190502 (2022)

    2022

  49. [58]

    J. Niu, L. Zhang, Y. Liu, J. Qiu, W. Huang, J. Huang, H. Jia, J. Liu, Z. Tao, W. Wei, et al. , Nat. Electron. 6, 235 (2023)

    2023

  50. [59]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  51. [62]

    See Supplemental Material at [url] for the system param- eters and experimental details

  52. [63]

    K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  53. [64]

    Wang, H.-R

    X. Wang, H.-R. Li, and F.-L. Li, New J. Phys.22, 033037 (2020)

    2020

  54. [65]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 585 (1988)

    1988

  55. [66]

    Maeno, H

    Y. Maeno, H. Hashimoto, K. Yoshida, S. Nishizaki, T. Fujita, J. G. Bednorz, and F. Lichtenberg, Nature 372, 532 (1994)

    1994

  56. [67]

    Moritomo, A

    Y. Moritomo, A. Asamitsu, H. Kuwahara, and Y. Tokura, Nature 380, 141 (1996)

    1996

  57. [68]

    Schindler, A

    F. Schindler, A. M. Cook, M. G. Vergniory, Z. Wang, S. S. P. Parkin, B. A. Bernevig, and T. Neupert, Sci. Adv. 4 (2018)

    2018

  58. [69]

    Xie, H.-X

    B. Xie, H.-X. Wang, X. Zhang, P. Zhan, J.-H. Jiang, M. Lu, and Y. Chen, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 520 (2021)

    2021

  59. [70]

    Synthetic multi-dimensional Aharonov-Bohm cages in Fock state lattices

    J. ˇSuntajs, J. Bonˇ ca, T. Prosen, and L. Vidmar, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062144 (2020). Supplemental Material for “Synthetic multi-dimensional Aharonov-Bohm cages in Fock state lattices” CONTENTS I. Experimental setup 2 II. Experimental calibration 4 A. Fock state preparation and ...

    2020

  60. [71]

    Device information 16

  61. [72]

    xy plaquette

    Mechanism of coherent interference in quantum superposition states 18 C. Extended data for N = 6 20 References 23 1 arXiv:2412.09766v2 [quant-ph] 16 Dec 2024 I. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP Input Readout 20dB20dB Output Control (XY+Z) XY 4K 15 mK50 mK 6dB 7.5 GHz Room-temp Electronics D...

    2024 arXiv

  62. [73]

    boundary

    Device information Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 qutrit tunable coupler � � � 0 0 0 � � 0 0 0 0 I II Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 J11,02 eiϕ Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 ωq ωidle ωoper ωoper 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 /2π −20 −10 0 10 J11,02 /2π ωc 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 /2π /2π /2π ωidle- ϕ > 0 ϕ < 0 ...

  63. [74]

    AB caging

    Mechanism of coherent interference in quantum superposition states The constructive and destructive interference paths of the superposition states in the FSL, shown in Fig. S13(i), can be decomposed to two parts (see Figs. S15(a,d)). The right parts for two configurations are ...

  64. [75]

    Z. Tao, W. Huang, J. Niu, L. Zhang, Y. Ke, X. Gu, L. Lin, J. Qiu, X. Sun, X. Yang, et al. , arXiv:2303.04582

    arXiv

  65. [76]

    J. H. Shirley, Phys. Rev. 138, B979 (1965)

    1965

  66. [77]

    Oka and S

    T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Annu. Rev. Conden. Ma. P. 10, 387 (2019)

    2019

  67. [78]

    Reagor, C

    M. Reagor, C. B. Osborn, N. Tezak, A. Staley, G. Prawiroatmodjo, M. Scheer, N. Alidoust, E. A. Sete, N. Didier, M. P. da Silva, et al. , Sci. Adv. 4 (2018)

    2018

  68. [79]

    J. G. Martinez, C. S. Chiu, B. M. Smitham, and A. A. Houck, Sci. Adv. 9 (2023). 23

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.