Synthetic $\pi$-flux system in 2D superconducting qubit array with tunable coupling

Changrong Xie; Dapeng Yu; Jiajian Zhang; Jiawei Qiu; Jiawei Zhang; Ji Chu; Ji Jiang; Jingjing Niu; Libo Zhang; Peisheng Huang

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 21 references

Synthetic $\pi$-flux system in 2D superconducting qubit array with tunable coupling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A seven-qubit superconducting array realizes a π-flux rhombic lattice and observes the resulting Aharonov-Bohm caging of single excitations.

desk verdict Competent tunable-coupler realization of known π-flux rhombic caging physics; the authors need to quantify the residual couplings they invoke. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06743 v2 pith:I63QGEDE submitted 2025-01-12 quant-ph

Yiting Liu , Jiawei Zhang , Zechen Guo , Peisheng Huang , Wenhui Huang , Yongqi Liang , Jiawei Qiu , Xuandong Sun

show 16 more authors

Zilin Wang Changrong Xie Xiaohan Yang Jiajian Zhang Libo Zhang Ji Chu Weijie Guo Ji Jiang Xiayu Linpeng Song Liu Jingjing Niu Yuxuan Zhou Youpeng Zhong Wenhui Ren Ziyu Tao Dapeng Yu

This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords syntheticmagneticfluxπ-fluxrhombiclatticeflatbandAharonov-Bohmcagingsuperconductingqubitstunablecouplersquantumsimulationdestructiveinterference

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 claims that a seven-qubit superconducting processor with tunable couplers can be programmed to implement a rhombic lattice threaded by a synthetic π flux, and that this implementation reproduces the model's distinguishing physics: single-excitation dynamics that remain localized through destructive interference, spectroscopy-determined eigenenergies, and adiabatic preparation of the π-flux ground state with population fidelity around 0.92. The motivation is that flat-band lattices host degenerate, compact localized states whose suppressed kinetic energy can seed exotic phases, but scalable solid-state realizations with controllable per-plaquette flux have been scarce. If the claims hold, the device becomes a reconfigurable quantum simulator for flat-band physics, and the mapping to a trimer lattice extends the platform's reach to topological lattice models even without tunable couplings.

What carries the argument

The essential resource is the tunable coupler, whose effective qubit–qubit coupling geff can be set positive or negative with a null-coupling point as the sign boundary, giving per-bond phase factors $e^{{iφ}}$ with φ = 0 or π. Summing φ over each rhombic plaquette yields the synthetic flux Φ. For Φ = π, the single-excitation Hamiltonian factorizes under the change of basis |±_j⟩ = (|1↑,j⟩ ± |1↓,j⟩)/√2 into a sum over decoupled three-level and two-level systems, H/ℏ = −√2 J Σ_j (σ⁺_{A,j}σ⁻_{+,j} + σ⁺_{A,j+1}σ⁻_{-,j} + h.c.), which produces compact localized states and the observed destructive interference. A second mechanism is the anti-symmetric detuning, which in the |±⟩ basis appears as Δ σ⁺_{+,j}σ⁻_{-,j} and converts the localized π-flux system into a trimer lattice with intra-cell hopping √2J and inter-cell hopping Δ, thereby linking the experiment to the Zak-phase physics of trimer chains.

What would settle it

Repeating the population-transfer measurement with a quantitative calibration of residual next-nearest-neighbor couplings, and checking that the edge-site population in the π-flux configuration stays at zero over times an order of magnitude longer than the single-hop timescale, would settle whether the destructive interferences are genuine or mimicked by residual couplings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a square-lattice array of seven transmon qubits connected by tunable couplers implements the π-flux rhombic Hamiltonian of Eq. (1). Setting the effective nearest-neighbor couplings to +J or −J via coupler bias assigns a phase 0 or π to each bond, and these phases sum to a synthetic flux Φ = π around each plaquette. In the single-excitation subspace this flux splits the seven-site system into decoupled three-level bulk cells and two-level edges, so an excitation launched at the middle site (A,2) never appears at the edge sites (A,1) and (A,3), a direct time-resolved observation of destructive interference. The paper also reports spectroscopy of a four-qubit rhombus showing eigenenergies at ±√2 J, and adiabatic preparation of the π-flux ground state with population fidelity F ≈ 0.92, compared with ≈ 0.97 for Φ = 0. Finally, it shows that anti-symmetric detunings ±Δ on the upper and lower qubits act as inter-cell couplings in a trimer-lattice description, connecting the experiment to topological trimer-lattice models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the device's dynamics match the single-excitation tight-binding Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), with all nearest-neighbor hopping magnitudes equal and per-bond phases exactly 0 or π, and with residual next-nearest-neighbor couplings negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same static coupler-bias controls can be reconfigured to implement other tight-binding models with complex hoppings, including Φ = 0 and Φ = π in any plaquette, making the device a programmable flat-band simulator.
The vanishing edge-site population under π-flux provides a benchmark measurement that can be used to calibrate larger rhombic arrays and to detect phase or coupling errors.
The trimer-lattice equivalence implies that platforms lacking tunable couplers can still simulate topological trimer lattices by programming on-site anti-symmetric detunings as effective inter-cell couplings.
The adiabatic preparation of the four-qubit π-flux ground state with fidelity ≈ 0.92 demonstrates that degenerate flat-band eigenstates are reachable, opening the door to encoding quantum information in the degenerate manifold of larger flat-band systems.
The authors suggest the platform can explore the interplay of geometry and interactions by adding more excitations, where flat-band caging is expected to give way to interaction-induced delocalization.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step, not performed here, would be to sweep the anti-symmetric detuning Δ through √2J and measure the effective trimer lattice's Zak phase; the paper's equivalence predicts a transition from trivial to topological behavior at that point.
The fidelity gap between Φ = 0 (≈ 0.97) and Φ = π (≈ 0.92) suggests that the π-flux configuration accumulates extra phase or coupling errors; a systematic study of adiabatic fidelity versus ramp time and coupling strength could separate decoherence from calibration imperfections.
If the single-excitation model remains valid at larger system sizes, the same architecture could address the inverse Anderson transition in flat-band geometries, where disorder is expected to delocalize rather than localize excitations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a competent experimental paper: it realizes a π-flux rhombic chain on seven superconducting qubits with tunable couplers, shows the expected Aharonov-Bohm caging (vanishing edge-site population when starting from the middle A-site), and demonstrates adiabatic preparation of the single-excitation ground state of a four-qubit rhombus with population fidelity ~0.92. The underlying model and the caging phenomenon are established theory, already seen in photonic and superconducting systems. What's new is the tunable-coupler implementation with anti-symmetric detuning acting as an effective inter-cell coupling, mapping the π-flux system onto a trimer lattice. That mapping is a nice conceptual addition, though it is not deeply explored beyond three detuning values.

The good news: the four-qubit benchmark matches the exact single-particle unitary without any fitting, and the main caging signature in Fig. 2 is qualitatively clean. The circularity burden is low; J is independently calibrated. The adiabatic preparation numbers are plausible. So the central claim is believable.

The soft spots are real but addressable. First, the paper never quantifies residual next-nearest-neighbor couplings. The SM caption for Fig. S5 explicitly attributes the Δ=10J discrepancy to "residual NNN couplings" but gives no magnitude. Since the same device is used for the main caging measurement, a referee should ask for a bound on NNN couplings in the relevant configuration, or a direct measurement. That said, the vanishing populations in Fig. 2(b) are a strong qualitative indicator that the π-flux interference dominates; I don't think the observation is spurious, but it should be supported by a number. Second, there are no error bars anywhere, and no raw data release. For a small-system quantum simulation paper this is common but still worth flagging. Third, the title says "2D" but the experiment is a one-dimensional rhombic chain; the device is 2D, the physics is 1D. That's an overstatement, not a fatal flaw. Fourth, the "ground state preparation" is a single-excitation state, not a many-body state; the significance is accordingly modest.

Who is this for? Groups working on superconducting quantum simulators and flat-band physics. They will find it a useful, believable data point. It is not a paradigm shift, but it is a legitimate experimental result that deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review, with requests for NNN quantification, error bars, and data availability.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports experiments on a 7-qubit (and 4-qubit) tunable-coupler superconducting processor configured as a rhombic lattice with synthetic flux Φ=0 or π. It claims to observe π-flux destructive interference and Aharonov-Bohm caging, maps anti-symmetric detunings onto inter-cell couplings of a trimer lattice, and prepares the 4-qubit π-flux ground state adiabatically with a reported population fidelity F≈0.92. The main evidence is time-resolved single-excitation population dynamics compared with exact unitary evolution of the nearest-neighbor tight-binding Hamiltonian Eq. (1).

Significance. If the device indeed realizes Eq. (1) over the full array, this is a valuable reconfigurable platform for flat-band and Aharonov-Bohm caging physics in superconducting circuits. The paper's strongest assets are the parameter-free exact predictions (SM Eqs. S11-S14), independent calibration of J, and a clean four-qubit benchmark; there is no circular fitting. The principal weakness is the unquantified role of residual next-nearest-neighbor couplings, which the SM itself invokes to explain a discrepancy, and the absence of statistical uncertainties on the central data.

major comments (4)

[SM Fig. S5; main text Fig. 3(c)] The SM Fig. S5 caption states that the discrepancy between experiment and simulation for Δ=10J 'arises from the residual next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) couplings,' but the manuscript nowhere quantifies these couplings or includes them in the simulations. This matters because the main text (Section 'Anti-symmetric detuning', Fig. 3(c)) claims that numerical simulations support the Δ=10J data, and those data are central to the trimer-lattice mapping. Please either measure and report the residual coupling matrix elements (e.g., two-qubit vacuum-Rabi measurements on all nominally non-nearest-neighbor pairs in the 7-qubit geometry) and include them in the numerical simulations, or explicitly present the Δ=10J data as qualitative and remove the claim that the ideal nearest-neighbor model quantitatively describes them.
[Fig. 2(b); SM Fig. S4] The central π-flux caging signature in Fig. 2(b) is the vanishing population at edge sites (A,1) and (A,3) for initial state |1_{A,2}>. This signature is only conclusive if all non-nearest-neighbor coupling paths are negligible, but the manuscript provides no bound on the worst-case residual coupling in the full 7-qubit array. The four-qubit benchmark in SM Fig. S3 bounds leakage into a single site of one rhombus, not all NNN paths in the two-plaquette configuration. Please report a quantitative estimate of the residual couplings (or show that the 'theoretical simulation' panels in SM Fig. S4 include them and still match the data); without such a bound, the destructive-interference explanation is not uniquely established.
[Section 'Ground state preparation'; Fig. 4] The reported fidelity F=Σ_i sqrt(n_i n_i^{th}) is a classical Bhattacharyya coefficient between population distributions, not a full quantum-state fidelity. The text's phrasing 'the rhombic system follows the instantaneous ground state' and 'reaching the ground state with F≈0.92' therefore overstates what is demonstrated unless the coherence of the prepared superposition is verified independently. Please add phase-sensitive verification (e.g., pairwise interferometry or full single-excitation-subspace tomography) or describe F as a population-distribution fidelity and temper the ground-state claim accordingly.
[Figs. 2-4; SM Figs. S3-S6] No error bars, shot counts, or repetition statistics are reported for any measured population, including the 'vanishing' edge-site populations that carry the caging claim. Because the paper's central evidence is quantitative agreement with parameter-free unitary predictions, statistical uncertainty should be provided for each data point (or, at minimum, for a representative subset, together with the number of experimental repetitions). Without this, the deviation level between experiment and theory cannot be assessed.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (1) and throughout] The symbol '³' appears in place of '↓' in several site labels; please correct the typesetting.
[Section 'Anti-symmetric detuning'] In the description of the effective 1D model, the list of sites '(A, 1), (+, 1), (−, 1), (A, 2), (+, 1) · · ·' contains a repeated '(+, 1)'; the second occurrence should be '(+, 2)'.
[Section 'Ground state preparation'] Because the formula F=Σ_i sqrt(n_i n_i^{th}) is called a fidelity, please state explicitly in the text that it compares population distributions and is not a quantum state fidelity.
[Title and abstract] The '2D superconducting qubit array' in the title refers to the hardware, while the rhombic lattice studied in this work is a one-dimensional chain; please make this distinction explicit to avoid confusing the lattice dimensionality with the device layout.
[Fig. 4(a)] The spectroscopy peaks are reported at E=±√2J, but no linewidths or fit details are given; please add them so the resonance assignment can be checked.
[Discussion] The Discussion mentions future possibilities for exploring interactions and quantum information encoding, but no interacting case is studied in this work; please clearly mark those statements as outlook rather than experimental results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the observed dynamics are independent unitary evolutions from the calibrated Hamiltonian, with no predicted observable used to fit a model parameter.

full rationale

Examining the derivation chain, Eq. (1) is the input tight-binding model, with J determined by independent vacuum-Rabi calibrations (SM Fig. S2), not by the population data it predicts. The π-flux signature n_{A,2}=0 in the four-qubit benchmark is derived analytically from Eq. (S10) in SM Eq. (S14) and then compared with measurement; no measured population is used to fix Φ or J. The 7-qubit dynamics in Fig. 2 are compared with numerical simulation of the same calibrated Hamiltonian; the edge-site suppression follows algebraically from the model and is not an output fitted to data. The anti-symmetric-detuning section is an exact basis change plus an external mapping to a trimer lattice (Refs. 53-54), not a self-citation chain. Ground-state fidelity F uses the theoretical population distribution as a target, not a fitted parameter. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. 10, 13, 36, 52) concern device design or related experiments and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The unquantified residual NNN couplings invoked in the SM Fig. S5 caption for Δ=10J are a correctness/robustness limitation, but they do not make any prediction equivalent to an input by construction. Therefore no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core result depends on the tight-binding reduction of a tunable-coupler transmon array, on the exactness of the 0/π coupling phases, and on the adiabatic protocol. No new physical entities are postulated. The main unresolved ledger item is the unquantified residual NNN coupling invoked for the Δ=10J data.

free parameters (3)

J (effective nearest-neighbor coupling) = 2π x 4.2 MHz
Calibrated independently via vacuum Rabi oscillations (SM Fig. S2); used as a simulation input, not fitted to the observed π-flux dynamics.
Δ (anti-symmetric detuning) = 0, √2 J, 10 J
Chosen experimental operating points for different trimer-lattice regimes; values are controls, not fitted.
1/Γ_i (dephasing time in simulation) = 1 µs, 10 µs
Chosen in the Lindblad simulation (SM Fig. S6) to show decoherence effects; not fitted to the measured fidelity.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Single-excitation tight-binding Hamiltonian Eq. (1) faithfully describes the qubit array in the single-excitation subspace.
Assumed in 'Model and experimental realization' and SM Eq. (S1); transmon anharmonicity and coupler-mediated coupling are treated as hard-core boson hopping, ignoring multi-excitation states and leakage.
domain assumption Coupler bias realizes uniform coupling magnitude J with phase 0 or π on every bond.
SM Sec. II-B and II-D and Eq. (S8); crosstalk is corrected to 0.06%, but per-bond phase homogeneity is not directly measured.
standard math Local unitary transformation to Bell states |+_j>, |-_j> is exact and |-_j> decouples for Δ=0 and homogeneous couplings.
SM Sec. I, Eqs. (S2)-(S3); exact algebra given the stated Hamiltonian.
domain assumption The adiabatic ramp stays in the instantaneous ground state.
Ground-state preparation section and Fig. 4; no explicit adiabaticity criterion is given.
domain assumption Lindblad master equation with pure dephasing captures decoherence in the fidelity estimate.
SM Sec. II-E, Eq. (S15); dephasing rates 1/Γ = 1 µs and 10 µs are chosen values, not measured on the device.
ad hoc to paper Residual next-nearest-neighbor couplings are negligible except where invoked post hoc for Δ=10J.
Main model Eq. (1) is NN-only; SM Fig. S5 attributes the Δ=10J discrepancy to residual NNN couplings without a quantitative model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthetic $\pi$-flux system in 2D superconducting qubit array with tunable coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I63QGEDE

@misc{pith2026250106743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthetic $\pi$-flux system in 2D superconducting qubit array with tunable coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I63QGEDE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06743}
}

abstract

Flat-band systems provide an ideal platform for exploring exotic quantum phenomena, where the strongly suppressed kinetic energy in these flat energy bands suggests the potential for exotic phases driven by geometric structure, disorder, and interactions. While intriguing phenomena and physical mechanisms have been unveiled in theoretical models, synthesizing such systems within scalable quantum platforms remains challenging. Here, we present the experimental realization of a $\pi$-flux rhombic system using a two-dimensional superconducting qubit array with tunable coupling. We experimentally observe characteristic dynamics, e.g., $\pi$-flux driven destructive interference, and demonstrate the protocol for eigenstate preparation in this rhombic array with coupler-assisted flux. Our results provide future possibilities for exploring the interplay of geometry, interactions, and quantum information encoding in such degenerate systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06743 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Anti-symmetric detuning on qubit frequencies. (a) Illu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Energy spectrum and ground state preparation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Synthetic $\pi$-flux system in 2D superconducting qubit array with tunable coupling

For particular values of the mag- netic ﬂux, such as π -ﬂux, a strong localization mecha- nism induced by the magnetic ﬁeld can be observed in two-dimensional structures, i.e., the so-called Aharonov- Bohm (AB) caging 2–4. These systems featuring ﬂat en- ergy bands 5–8 are typically represented in terms of com- pact localized states 9–12, in which the eig...

work page Pith review arXiv 2011
[2]

In this representation, the Bell state |+jð = ( |1↑,j ð+ |1³,j )/ √ 2 forms an eﬀective 1D array on the 2 l + 1 sites {(A, 1), (+, 1) , (A, 2), (+, 2), · · · } in the single-excitation subspace [ 5]. Besides the eﬀective 1D array fea- turing two dispersive energy bands, the Bell state |−jð = ( |1↑,j ð − |1³,j ð)/ √ 2 is decoupled with the system Hamiltoni...

work page
[3]

J. G. C. Martinez, C. S. Chiu, B. M. Smitham, and A. A. Houck, Flat-band localization and interaction-induced delocalization of photons , Sci. Adv. 9, 50 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

School of Physics and Electronic-Electrical Engineering, Ningxia University, Yinchuan, 750021, China

work page
[5]

While intriguing phenomena and physical mechanisms have been unveiled in theoretical models, synthesizing such syste ms within scalable quantum platforms remains challenging

Shenzhen Branch, Hefei National Laboratory, Shenzhen 5180 48, China (Dated: 3 September 2025) Flat-band systems provide an ideal platform for exploring exotic quant um phenomena, where the strongly suppressed kinetic energy in these ﬂat energy bands suggests the pot ential for exotic phases driven by ge- ometric structure, disorder, and interactions. Whil...

work page 2025
[6]

Longhi, Inverse Anderson transition in photonic cages , Opt

S. Longhi, Inverse Anderson transition in photonic cages , Opt. Lett. 46, 2872 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

H. Li, Z. Dong, S. Longhi, Q. Liang, D. Xie, and B. Yan, Aharonov-Bohm caging and inverse Anderson transition in ultracold atoms , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 220403 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

I. T. Rosen, S. Muschinske, C. N. Barrett, D. A. Rower, R. Das, D. K . Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, M. Schuldt, K. Serniak, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, J. A. Grover, an d W. D. Oliver, Flat-band (de)localization emulated with a superconducting qubit array , arXiv preprint, arXiv:2410.07878 (2024)

arXiv 2024

Show all 21 references

[9]

Danieli, A

C. Danieli, A. Andreanov, T. Mithun, and S. Flach, Nonlinear caging in all-bands-ﬂat lattices , Phys. Rev. B 104, 085131 (2021)

2021
[10]

V. M. Martinez Alvarez and M. D. Coutinho-Filho, Edge states in trimer lattices , Phys. Rev. A 99, 013833 (2019)

2019
[11]

Anastasiadis, G

A. Anastasiadis, G. Styliaris, R. Chaunsali, G. Theocharis, and F. K. Diakonos, Bulk-edge correspondence in the trimer Su-Schrieﬀer-Heeger model , Phys. Rev. B 106, 085109 (2022)

2022
[12]

F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Campbell, T. P. Orlando, S . Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing high-ﬁdelity two-qubit gates , Phys. Rev. Applied 10, 054062 (2018)

2018
[13]

Y. Xu, J. Chu, J. Yuan, J. Qiu, Y. Zhou, L. Zhang, X. Tan, Y. Yu, S. Liu, J. Li, et al. , High- ﬁdelity, high-scalability two-qubit gate scheme for superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240503 (2020)

2020
[14]

Liang, C

Y. Liang, C. Xie, Z. Guo, P. Huang, W. Huang, Y. Liu, J. Qiu, X. Sun, Z. Wang, X. Yang, et al. , Dephasing-assisted diﬀusive dynamics in superconducting quantum ci rcuits, arXiv pre- print, arXiv:2411.15571 (2024)

2024
[15]

E. A. Sete, A. Q. Chen, R. Manenti, S. Kulshreshtha, and S. Poletto, Floating tunable coupler for scalable quantum computing architectures , Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 064063 (2021)

2021
[16]

Blais, A

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraﬀ, Circuit quantum electrodynamics , Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

2021
[17]

X. Yang, J. Chu, Z. Guo, W. Huang, Y. Liang, J. Liu, J. Qiu, X. Sun, Z. Tao, J. Zhan g, 13 J. Zhang, L. Zhang, Y. Zhou, W. Guo, L. Hu, J. Jiang, Y. Liu, X. Linpeng, T. Chen, Y. Ch en, J. Niu, S. Liu, Y. Zhong, and D. Yu, Coupler-assisted leakage reduction for scalable quantum ...

2024
[18]

K. J. Satzinger, Y. P. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, G. A. Peairs, A. Bienfait, M.-H. Chou, A. Y. Cleland, C. R. Conner, ´E. Dumur, J. Grebel, I. Gutierrez, B. H. November, R. G. Povey, S . J. Whiteley, D. D. Awschalom, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland, Quantum control of surface acous...

2018
[19]

Yan, Y.-R

Z. Yan, Y.-R. Zhang, M. Gong, Y. Wu, Y. Zheng, S. Li, C. Wang, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu , C. Guo, L. Sun, C.-Z. Peng, K. Xia, H. Deng, H. Rong, J. Q. You, F. Nori, H. Fan, X. Zh u, and J.-W. Pan, Strongly correlated quantum walks with a 12-qubit superconducting p rocessor, Scie...

2019
[20]

Shi, R.-Q

Y.-H. Shi, R.-Q. Yang, Z. Xiang, Z.-Y. Ge, H. Li, Y.-Y. Wang, K. Huang, Y. Tian, X. Son g, D. Zheng, K. Xu, R.-G. Cai, and H. Fan, Quantum simulation of hawking radiation and curved spacetime with a superconducting on-chip black hole , Nat. Commun. 14, 3263 (2023)

2023
[21]

Johansson, P

J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source python framework for the dy- namics of open quantum systems , Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012) . 14

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Synthetic $\pi$-flux system in 2D superconducting qubit array with tunable coupling

For particular values of the mag- netic ﬂux, such as π -ﬂux, a strong localization mecha- nism induced by the magnetic ﬁeld can be observed in two-dimensional structures, i.e., the so-called Aharonov- Bohm (AB) caging 2–4. These systems featuring ﬂat en- ergy bands 5–8 are typically represented in terms of com- pact localized states 9–12, in which the eig...

work page Pith review arXiv 2011

[2] [2]

In this representation, the Bell state |+jð = ( |1↑,j ð+ |1³,j )/ √ 2 forms an eﬀective 1D array on the 2 l + 1 sites {(A, 1), (+, 1) , (A, 2), (+, 2), · · · } in the single-excitation subspace [ 5]. Besides the eﬀective 1D array fea- turing two dispersive energy bands, the Bell state |−jð = ( |1↑,j ð − |1³,j ð)/ √ 2 is decoupled with the system Hamiltoni...

work page

[3] [3]

J. G. C. Martinez, C. S. Chiu, B. M. Smitham, and A. A. Houck, Flat-band localization and interaction-induced delocalization of photons , Sci. Adv. 9, 50 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

School of Physics and Electronic-Electrical Engineering, Ningxia University, Yinchuan, 750021, China

work page

[5] [5]

While intriguing phenomena and physical mechanisms have been unveiled in theoretical models, synthesizing such syste ms within scalable quantum platforms remains challenging

Shenzhen Branch, Hefei National Laboratory, Shenzhen 5180 48, China (Dated: 3 September 2025) Flat-band systems provide an ideal platform for exploring exotic quant um phenomena, where the strongly suppressed kinetic energy in these ﬂat energy bands suggests the pot ential for exotic phases driven by ge- ometric structure, disorder, and interactions. Whil...

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Longhi, Inverse Anderson transition in photonic cages , Opt

S. Longhi, Inverse Anderson transition in photonic cages , Opt. Lett. 46, 2872 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

H. Li, Z. Dong, S. Longhi, Q. Liang, D. Xie, and B. Yan, Aharonov-Bohm caging and inverse Anderson transition in ultracold atoms , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 220403 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

I. T. Rosen, S. Muschinske, C. N. Barrett, D. A. Rower, R. Das, D. K . Kim, B. M. Niedzielski, M. Schuldt, K. Serniak, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, J. A. Grover, an d W. D. Oliver, Flat-band (de)localization emulated with a superconducting qubit array , arXiv preprint, arXiv:2410.07878 (2024)

arXiv 2024