Dispersive-induced magnon blockade with a superconducting qubit

Jing-Hua Sun; Yan-Hua Wu; Zeng-Xing Liu

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Dispersive-induced magnon blockade with a superconducting qubit

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dispersive qubit coupling drives magnon blockade to 0.04.

desk verdict Good numerical extension of magnon blockade to the dispersive regime, but the paper never checks whether the effective Hamiltonian is valid at the plotted couplings; the blockade may be an artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15559 v1 pith:FFXI5QR7 submitted 2025-04-22 quant-ph

Zeng-Xing Liu , Yan-Hua Wu , Jing-Hua Sun This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords magnonblockadedispersiveregimesuperconductingqubityttrium-iron-garnetsecond-ordercorrelationfunctionsingle-magnonsourcequbit-inducedanharmonicityquantummagnonics

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

The paper claims that a magnon blockade—suppression of simultaneous two-magnon events—can be produced by a dispersive, not resonant, interaction between a superconducting qubit and the Kittel mode of a yttrium-iron-garnet sphere. Solving the Lindblad master equation for the driven system, the authors find that the second-order correlation drops to $g^{(2)}(0)\approx0.04$ when the dispersive coupling is strong and the drive sits on a single-magnon resonance. The mechanism is qubit-induced anharmonicity: each magnon shifts the qubit transition by $2\chi_{qm}$, pushing two-magnon states off resonance. This matters because it extends single-magnon control to the dispersive regime, where qubit readout is straightforward, and the authors show the blockade survives at dilution-refrigerator temperatures.

What carries the argument

The machine is the dispersive interaction $H_{\rm disp}=\frac{1}{2}[2\chi_{qm}(m^{\dagger}m+\tfrac{1}{2})]\sigma_z$, a qubit-state-dependent shift of the magnon ladder that grows with magnon number. This shift makes the $|g,2\rangle$ and $|e,2\rangle$ levels leave the harmonic ladder, forbidding two-magnon transitions from the driven low states; the paper names this qubit-induced anharmonicity. The observable that carries the argument is the equal-time second-order correlation $g^{(2)}(0)=\langle m^{\dagger}m^{\dagger}mm\rangle/\langle m^{\dagger}m\rangle^2$, with $g^{(2)}(0)<1$ marking antibunching, and the companion magnon-number probabilities $P_1$ and $P_2$, which show $P_2\ll P_1$ at every blockade point.

What would settle it

Take the parameters the paper uses, recover $g_{qm}$ and $\Delta_{qm}$ from $\chi_{qm}=g_{qm}^2/\Delta_{qm}$, and solve the same master equation with the full linear interaction $g_{qm}(m^{\dagger}\sigma_- + m\sigma_+)$ instead of the dispersive Hamiltonian; if $g^{(2)}(0)$ does not dip near 0.04 under those drive conditions, the blockade is an artifact of the effective model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that strong dispersive coupling alone turns a magnon mode into a single-magnon emitter. In the rotating frame, the system is governed by the effective Hamiltonian $H' = \Delta_m m^{\dagger}m + \frac{1}{2}\Delta_q\sigma_z + \frac{1}{2}(2\chi_{qm}m^{\dagger}m)\sigma_z + \Omega_s(\sigma_+ + \sigma_-) + \Omega_d(m^{\dagger}+m)$, together with Lindblad dissipation for the qubit and magnon baths. Numerically solving the resulting master equation, the paper reports that at $\chi_{qm}/\gamma=20$ and $40$—and up to $45$—there is a window of driving detuning in which $g^{(2)}(0)\to0.04$, with the two-magnon probability $P_2$ far below the single-magnon probability $P_1$; outside these windows the same parameters give bunching with $g^{(2)}(0)\to100$. The blockade minima occur at single-magnon resonances, while the bunching peaks occur at two-magnon resonances, matching the level-shift picture quantitatively.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the dispersive Hamiltonian $H_{\rm disp}$ remaining valid at the strong couplings used ($\chi_{qm}/\gamma$ up to 45), but the paper does not give the underlying coupling $g_{qm}$ and detuning $\Delta_{qm}$ needed to check the derivation condition $\Delta_{qm}\gg g_{qm}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A dispersively coupled YIG-qubit device can serve as a tunable single-magnon source, with the blockade switched on and off by choosing the drive detuning.
Because the effect appears in the already-demonstrated strong dispersive regime, it can be combined with dispersive qubit readout and single-shot magnon detection.
At dilution-refrigerator base temperatures near 46 to 48 mK the blockade remains observable; the dominant threat is thermal population of the magnon mode, and the paper quantifies the destruction threshold near $m_{\rm th}\sim0.0035$.
The same level-shift mechanism gives a controlled transition from antibunching ($g^{(2)}(0)\approx0.04$) to strong bunching ($g^{(2)}(0)\approx100$) as the drive is swept across single- and two-magnon resonances.

Reading between the lines

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

One direct test would be to fix the bare qubit-magnon coupling and sweep the detuning, checking whether the blockade minimum tracks the predicted single-magnon resonance; this would confirm the shift mechanism rather than only the fit.
Because the mechanism is generic level anharmonicity, the same dispersive blockade should appear for other bosonic modes—phonons or microwave photons—when a qubit is dispersively coupled to them, although the required coupling range will differ.
The reported optimum $g^{(2)}(0)\approx0.04$ is not shown to be a fundamental lower bound; the paper leaves open whether still larger $\chi_{qm}/\gamma$ pushes the correlation closer to zero or whether dissipation sets a floor.
Existing single-shot dispersive magnon detection suggests that the magnon-number distribution itself, not just the correlation function, could be measured directly in the regime studied here.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The authors numerically study magnon blockade in a qubit-magnon system where the qubit is detuned from the magnon, so the interaction is the standard dispersive shift χ m†m σ_z. They solve the Lindblad master equation with QuTiP and show g^(2)(0) can drop to ~0.04 for χ/γ ~ 20–45, with a matching resonance structure. Credit where due: this is a clean, honest numerical study. The resonance conditions in Eq. 11 do match the dips in Fig. 3, the thermal noise analysis is sensible, and the parameters are chosen from real experiments. This is a legitimate extension of magnon blockade from the resonant regime (Ref 42) to the dispersive regime, and the mapping of the anharmonic level structure is useful.

The soft spots are real and one is load-bearing. The paper uses H_disp = χ(m†m + 1/2)σ_z, derived from the Jaynes-Cummings interaction under Δ = |ω_q − ω_m| ≫ g. But the text never reports g or Δ, only χ = g²/Δ. From that relation, the plotted χ/γ = 45 with Δ/g = 10 requires g/γ = 450, far above anything in the cited experiments (g/γ ~ 10). If Δ/g is only 3, the neglected higher-order terms are (g/Δ)² ~ 11% of χ, which is larger than the linewidths. Since the blockade minima sit exactly at the dispersive level shifts, a few-percent error in the Hamiltonian can move or wash them out. The paper needs to state g and Δ, justify the validity regime for every plotted χ, and preferably verify the blockade in the full qubit-magnon model without adiabatic elimination.

Two smaller issues: there are no Fock-space truncation or convergence checks, and the claim of 'experimentally viable' based on 50 mK base temperature glosses over the fact that χ/γ = 20–45 has not been demonstrated; the experiments cited operate at smaller dispersive shifts. These are fixable.

Who is this for? Theorists working on quantum magnonics and circuit QED. It is not a transformative result, but it is a solid extension with a clear gap in parameter validation. I would send it to a serious referee, but the referee should ask for the missing validity check and convergence data before acceptance.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies magnon blockade in a hybrid superconducting-qubit/yttrium-iron-garnet system operating in the dispersive regime. Starting from a cavity-mediated qubit-magnon interaction, the authors adopt the dispersive Hamiltonian H_disp = χ_qm(m†m + 1/2)σ_z (Eq. 4) with χ_qm = g_qm²/Δ_qm, add separate drives on the magnon and qubit, and solve the Lindblad master equation for the steady state. The main results are: (i) the second-order correlation function g^(2)(0) reaches about 0.04 for χ_qm/γ ≈ 20–40 at appropriate magnon drive detunings; (ii) the blockade is attributed to the qubit-induced anharmonicity that suppresses two-magnon transitions; (iii) the resonance conditions obtained by diagonalizing the driven qubit part match the numerically observed dips; and (iv) thermal magnon noise of mth ≈ 0.0035 (corresponding to T ≈ 72 mK for ω_m/2π = 8.5 GHz) destroys the blockade, while qubit thermal noise is less influential.

Significance. If the predictions are correct, the paper extends magnon blockade into the dispersive regime, which is the regime used for quantum non-demolition magnon readout in several recent experiments. The work therefore suggests that a single architecture can both read out and manipulate single magnons. The manuscript provides standard, internally consistent master-equation simulations and gives explicit analytic resonance formulas that are compared with the numerics; the thermal-robustness analysis yields a concrete, testable temperature threshold. The central reservation is that the effective dispersive Hamiltonian is used for parameter values whose consistency with the derivation condition |ω_q−ω_m| ≫ g_qm is not established, so the quantitative prediction of g^(2)(0) ≈ 0.04 may be an artifact of the model rather than a property of the physical system.

major comments (1)

[Section III, numerical simulations] The paper does not report the Fock-space truncation dimension used in the QuTiP master-equation simulations, nor does it provide any convergence test. The quantity g^(2)(0) is computed from the two-magnon population and is sensitive to the truncation of high-number magnon states, particularly in the finite-temperature runs of Fig. 4 where mth > 0 populates higher Fock states. Please state the maximum magnon number retained for each figure and confirm that g^(2)(0) and P_2 are converged with respect to increasing the truncation cutoff.

minor comments (3)

[Section III, resonance positions] The text lists the single-magnon resonance positions as ≈ ±20 and ≈ ±56 for the parameters of Fig. 3 (χ_qm/γ = 45, Δ_q/γ = −20, Ω_s/γ = 15). Evaluating the displayed formulas with these parameters gives ≈ ±23.3 and ≈ ±48.3, respectively; please reconcile this discrepancy or correct the quoted numbers/formulas.
[Section II, Eq. (3)] The sentence preceding Eq. (3) states that the qubit and Kittel mode are nearly resonant when |ω_q−ω_m| ≪ g_cq, g_cm. This condition compares a frequency detuning to coupling strengths rather than to a spectral width; please clarify the intended dimensionless statement or provide a more explicit derivation of the cavity-mediated qubit–magnon coupling.
[Notation] The symbol γ is used both for the gyromagnetic ratio (γ/2π = 28 GHz/T in Section II) and as the frequency scale (γ = 2π × 1 MHz in the figure captions and parameter values). This dual use is confusing; please use a different symbol, such as κ_0 or Γ, for the scaling unit in the figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnon blockade g^(2)(0) is computed from the master equation of an assumed dispersive Hamiltonian, not fitted to or defined by the claimed result.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical claim is obtained by solving the Lindblad master equation (Eq. 10) for the effective dispersive Hamiltonian (Eq. 4) with drive (Eq. 6), control (Eq. 7), and dissipation from Table I. The reported g^(2)(0) -> 0.04 is thus a direct model output, not a fitted quantity: no parameter is adjusted to reproduce g^(2)(0), and the optimal conditions are identified from the model dynamics themselves. The resonance-condition analysis in Fig. 3 is a consistency check using the eigenvalues of the same Hamiltonian, not an independent input. The authors do cite their own earlier magnon-blockade work [42], but the present calculation does not import the central result from that reference; it uses the standard dispersive Jaynes-Cummings form (Eq. 4) attributed to Refs. [57,58] and experimental parameters from external works Refs. [27,28]. Self-citations such as [29,34,35,39] are background and are not load-bearing for the claim. The skeptic's concern that Eq. (4) may be used outside its strict validity range because g_qm and Delta_qm are not reported is a model-validity or parameter-justification issue, not a circularity: the prediction would still follow from the assumed Hamiltonian, so the question is whether the Hamiltonian is valid, not whether the result is equivalent to its inputs. Therefore, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model imports the dispersive Hamiltonian and experimental decay parameters from prior work, then scans dispersive coupling and detuning to produce the blockade. The central numerical claim is self-contained, but the validity of the dispersive Hamiltonian for the large χ values used is not checked, which is the main imported assumption.

free parameters (6)

Dispersive coupling strength χ_qm = 20γ to 45γ in blockade plots; 20γ in thermal analysis
Scanned to locate the g^(2)(0) minimum; the optimal value is a hand-chosen input, not derived from the underlying g_qm and Δ_qm.
Driving detuning Δ_m = optimal near ±20γ and ±56γ; 0 in Fig. 4
Varied to find resonance conditions that minimize g^(2)(0); these are the operating points selected for the blockade claim.
Qubit drive amplitude Ω_s = 15γ
Taken from Refs. [27,28] as an experimental input; affects the dressed-state resonance conditions.
Qubit drive detuning Δ_q = -20γ
Taken from Refs. [27,28]; the sign and magnitude shape the anti-bunching dips.
Magnon drive amplitude Ω_d = 0.1γ
Weak-drive limit to keep the Holstein-Primakoff truncation valid.
Decay rates κ_m, κ_q, κ_1 = 1.4γ, 1.2γ, 1γ
Experimental linewidths from Refs. [27,28]; κ_φ is fixed as (κ_1 + κ_q)/2.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Markovian Lindblad master equation describes the open-system dynamics.
Used in Eq. (10) to compute the steady state; assumes white-noise baths and weak system-bath coupling, which is standard but not derived.
ad hoc to paper The dispersive Hamiltonian H_disp = χ_qm(m†m + 1/2)σ_z is valid in the strong dispersive regime.
The paper uses Eq. (4) for χ_qm/γ up to 45 without reporting g_qm or Δ_qm, even though the derivation requires |Δ_qm| ≫ g_qm. This is the most fragile assumption.
domain assumption Holstein-Primakoff expansion truncated at first order with 1 - m†m/(4S) ≈ 1.
Used for Eq. (6); valid for weak drive and large spin S in the YIG sphere, but the resulting neglect of magnon Kerr nonlinearity is an assumption.
domain assumption Adiabatic elimination of the cavity mode.
The cavity is eliminated to obtain the effective qubit-magnon interaction; requires the cavity to be far off-resonant and weakly coupled.
standard math Rotating-wave approximation in the drive Hamiltonians.
Used to obtain Eqs. (6)-(9); standard for near-resonant drives.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dispersive-induced magnon blockade with a superconducting qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFXI5QR7

@misc{pith2026250415559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dispersive-induced magnon blockade with a superconducting qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFXI5QR7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15559}
}

abstract

We investigate the magnon blockade effect in a quantum magnonic system operating in the strong dispersive regime, where a superconducting qubit interacts dispersively with a magnonic mode in a yttrium-iron-garnet sphere.By solving the quantum master equation, we demonstrate that the magnon blockade, characterized by the second-order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0) \rightarrow 0.04$, emerges under optimal dispersive coupling and driving detuning.The mechanism is attributed to suppressed two-magnon transitions as a result of qubit-induced anharmonicity. Notably, our study identifies the critical role of dispersive interaction strength and environmental temperature, showing that magnon blockade remains observable under experimentally achievable cryogenic conditions.This work extends the magnon blockade effect into the dispersive regime, offering a robust platform for single-magnon manipulation and advancing applications in quantum sensing and information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15559 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The contour plot of the magnon-number distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. (a) The contour plot of the second-order magnon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Coupling phase interference effects in a multimode cavity magnonics system
quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Coupling phases—not just strengths—determine which cavity modes couple to magnons and can produce nonreciprocal transmission at antiresonances in a multimode cavity magnonics system.
Generation of Four-Component Schr\"odinger Cat States via Floquet Engineering in a Hybrid Ferromagnet-Superconductor System
quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A Floquet-driven two-qubit protocol in a ferromagnet-superconductor cavity system generates four-component magnon Schrödinger cat states with high simulated fidelity, robust to modeled dissipation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Tabuchi, S

Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Quantum magnon- ics: The magnon meets the superconducting qubit, C.R. Phys. 17, 729 (2016)

work page 2016
[2]

L.-Q. Dany, T. Yutaka, G. Arnaud, U. Koji, and N. Ya- sunobu, Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics, Appl. Phys. Express 12, 070101 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

Yuan , Y.-S

H.-Y. Yuan , Y.-S. Cao, A. Kamra, R. A. Duine, P. Yan, Quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science, Phys. Rep. 965, 1 (2022)

work page 2022
[4]

Rameshti, S.V

B.Z. Rameshti, S.V. Kusminskiy, J.A. Haigh, K. Us- ami, D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Nakamura, C.-M. Hu, H.X. Tang, G.E.W. Bauer, Y.M. Blanter, Cavity magnonics, Phys. Rep. 979, 1 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

X. Zuo, Z. Y. Fan, H. Qian, M. S. Ding, H. Tan, H. Xiong, and J. Li, Cavity magnomechanics: from classical to quantum, New J. Phys. 26, 031201 (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

K. Wang, Y. P. Gao, R. Jiao, and C. Wang, Recent progress on optomagnetic coupling and optical manip- ulation based on cavity-optomagnonics, Front. Phys. 17, 42201 (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

Xiong, Center-of-mass magnomechanics beyond mag- netostrictive limits, Sci

H. Xiong, Center-of-mass magnomechanics beyond mag- netostrictive limits, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 250313 (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

Li, S.-Y

J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, and G.S. Agarwal, Magnon-photon- phonon entanglement in cavity magnomechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 203601 (2018)

work page 2018

Show all 65 references

[9]

Zhang, M.O

Z. Zhang, M.O. Scully, and G.S. Agarwal, Quantum en- tanglement between two magnon modes via Kerr non- linearity driven far from equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 023021 (2019)

2019
[10]

M. Yu, H. Shen, and J. Li, Magnetostrictively induced stationary entanglement between two microwave ﬁelds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 213604 (2020)

2020
[11]

Azimi Mousolou, Y

V. Azimi Mousolou, Y. Liu, A. Bergman, A. Delin, O. Eriksson, M. Pereiro, D. Thonig, E. Sj¨ oqvist, Magnon- magnon entanglement and its quantiﬁcation via a mi- crowave cavity, Phys. Rev. B 104, 224302 (2021)

2021
[12]

Ren, J.-k

Y.-l. Ren, J.-k. Xie, X.-k. Li, S.-l. Ma, and F.-l. Li, Lo ng- range generation of a magnon-magnon entangled state, Phys. Rev. B 105, 094422 (2022)

2022
[13]

J. M. Li and S. M. Fei, Quantum entanglement gener- ation on magnons assisted with microwave cavities cou- pled to a superconducting qubit, Front. Phys. 18, 41301 (2023)

2023
[14]

J. Zhao, A. V. Bragas, D. J. Lockwood, and R. Merlin, Magnon Squeezing in an Antiferromagnet: Reducing the Spin Noise below the Standard Quantum Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 107203 (2004)

2004
[15]

Li, S.-Y

J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, G.S. Agarwal, Squeezed states of magnons and phonons in cavity magnomechanics, Phys. Rev. A 99, 021801, (2019)

2019
[16]

Sharma, V.A.S.V

S. Sharma, V.A.S.V. Bittencourt, A.D. Karenowska, and S.V. Kusminskiy, Spin cat states in ferromagnetic insu- lators, Phys. Rev. B 103, L100403 (2021)

2021
[17]

Sun, S.-S

F.-X. Sun, S.-S. Zheng, Y. Xiao, Q. Gong, Q. He, and K. Xia, Remote generation of magnon Schr¨ odinger cat state via magnon-photon entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 087203 (2021)

2021
[18]

Kounalakis, G.E.W

M. Kounalakis, G.E.W. Bauer, and Y.M. Blanter, Analog Quantum Control of Magnonic Cat States on a Chip by a Superconducting Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 037205 (2022)

2022
[19]

S. He, X. Xin, F.-Y. Zhang, and C. Li, Generation of a Schr¨ odinger cat state in a hybrid ferromagnet- superconductor system, Phys. Rev. A 107, 023709 (2023)

2023
[20]

D.-W. Liu, Y. Wu, and L.-G. Si, Magnon cat states in- duced by photon parametric coupling, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied 21, 044018 (2024)

2024
[21]

Demokritov, V.E

S.O. Demokritov, V.E. Demidov, O. Dzyapko, G.A. Melkov, A.A. Serga, B. Hillebrands, and A.N. Slavin, Bose-Einstein condensation of quasi-equilibrium magnons at room temperature under pumping, Nature 443, 430, (2006)

2006
[22]

Giamarchi, C

T. Giamarchi, C. R¨ uegg, and O. Tchernyshyov, Bose–Einstein condensation in magnetic insulators, Nat. Phys. 4, 198 (2008). 7

2008
[23]

Schneider, T

M. Schneider, T. Br¨ acher, D. Breitbach, V. Lauer, P. Pirro, D.A. Bozhko, H. Yu. M. Shmarova, B. Heinz, Q. Wang, T. Meyer, F. Heussner, S. Keller, E.T. Pa- paioannou, B. L¨ agel, T. L¨ ober, C. Dubs, A.N. Slavin, V.S. Tiberkevich, A.A. Serga, B. Hillebrands, and A.V. Chumak, ...

2020
[24]

Divinskiy, H

B. Divinskiy, H. Merbouche, V.E. Demidov, K.O. Niko- laev, L. Soumah, D. Gou´ er´ e, R. Lebrun, V. Cros, J.B. Youssef, P. Bortolotti, A. Anane, and S.O. Demokritov, Evidence for spin current driven bose-Einstein condensa- tion of magnons, Nat. Commun. 12, 6541 (2021)

2021
[25]

Tabuchi, S

Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Coherent coupling between a ferromagnetic magnon and a superconducting qubit, Science 349, 405 (2015)

2015
[26]

Lachance-Quirion, Y

D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi , T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, and Y. Nakamura, Resolving quanta of collective spin excitations in a millimeter-size d ferromagnet, Sci. Adv. 3, e1603150 (2017)

2017
[27]

S. P. Wolski, D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Kono, A. Noguchi, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Dissipation- based quantum sensing of magnons with a superconduct- ing qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 117701 (2020)

2020
[28]

Lachance-Quirion, S

D. Lachance-Quirion, S. P. Wolski, Y. Tabuchi, S. Kono, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Entanglement-based single- shot detection of a single magnon with a superconducting qubit, Science 367, 425 (2020)

2020
[29]

Z.-X. Liu, H. Xiong, M.-Y. Wu, and Y.-Q. Li, Absorp- tion of magnons in dispersively coupled hybrid quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 103, 063702 (2021)

2021
[30]

Grangier, J

P. Grangier, J. A. Levenson, and J. P. Poizat, Quantum non-demolition measurements in optics, Nature, 396, 537–542 (1998)

1998
[31]

Pirro, V.I

P. Pirro, V.I. Vasyuchka, A.A. Serga, and B. Hillebrand s, Advances in coherent magnonics, Nat Rev Mater 6, 1114- 1135 (2021)

2021
[32]

Wang, G.-Q

Y.-P. Wang, G.-Q. Zhang, D. Xu, T.-F. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, J.-S. Tsai, and J.-Q. You, Quantum Simula- tion of the Fermion-Boson Composite Quasi-Particles with a Driven Qubit-Magnon Hybrid Quantum System, arXiv:1903.12498

1903 arXiv
[33]

Li, Y.-P

J. Li, Y.-P. Wang, W.-J. Wu, S.-Y. Zhu, and J.Q. You, Quantum Network with Magnonic and Mechanical Nodes, PRX Quantum 2, 040344 (2021)

2021
[34]

Liu, Y.-Q

Z.-X. Liu, Y.-Q. Li, Optomagnonic frequency combs, Photon. Res. 10, 467595 (2022)

2022
[35]

Liu, Dissipative coupling induced UWB magnonic frequency comb generation, Appl

Z.-X. Liu, Dissipative coupling induced UWB magnonic frequency comb generation, Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 032403 (2024)

2024
[36]

Xu, X.-K

D. Xu, X.-K. Gu, H.-K. Li, Y.-C. Weng, Y.-P. Wang, J. Li, H. Wang, S.-Y. Zhu, and J. Q. You, Quantum control of a single magnon in a macroscopic spin system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 193603 (2023)

2023
[37]

Flebus, S

B. Flebus, S. M. Rezende, D. Grundler, and A. Bar- man, Recent advances in magnonics, J. Appl. Phys. 133, 160401 (2023)

2023
[38]

Q. Wang, G. Csaba, R. Verba, A. V. Chumak, and P. Pirro, Nanoscale magnonic networks, Phys. Rev. Applied 21, 040503 (2024)

2024
[39]

Z. X. Liu and H. Xong, Ultra-slow spin waves propa- gation based on skyrmion breathing, New J. Phys. 25, 103052 (2023)

2023
[40]

T. A. Fulton and G. J. Dolan, Observation of single- electron charging eﬀects in small tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 109 (1987)

1987
[41]

Kastner, The single-electron transistor, Rev

M. Kastner, The single-electron transistor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 849 (1992)

1992
[42]

Z.-X. Liu, H. Xiong, and Y. Wu, Magnon blockade in a hybrid ferromagnet-superconductor quantum system, Phys. Rev. B 100, 134421 (2019)

2019
[43]

Yuan and R.A

H.Y. Yuan and R.A. Duine, Magnon antibunching in a nanomagnet, Phys. Rev. B 102, 100402 (2020)

2020
[44]

Xie, S.-L

J.-K. Xie, S.-L. Ma, and F.-L. Li, Quantum-interferenc e- enhanced magnon blockade in an yttrium-iron-garnet sphere coupled to superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042331 (2020)

2020
[45]

Wang, Z.-X

L. Wang, Z.-X. Yang, Y.-M. Liu, C.-H. Bai, D.-Y. Wang, S. Zhang, and H.-F. Wang, Magnon blockade in a PT- symmetric-like cavity magnomechanical system, Ann. Der Phys. 532, 2000028 (2020)

2020
[46]

C. Zhao, X. Li, S. Chao, R. Peng, C. Li, and L. Zhou, Simultaneous blockade of a photon, phonon, and magnon induced by a two-level atom, Phys. Rev. A 101, 063838 (2020)

2020
[47]

Xu, T.-L

Y.-J. Xu, T.-L. Yang, L. Lin, and J. Song, Conventional and unconventional magnon blockades in a qubit-magnon hybrid quantum system, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 38, 876 (2021)

2021
[48]

Y. Wang, W. Xiong, Z. Xu, G.-Q. Zhang, and J.-Q. You, Dissipation induced nonreciprocal magnon blockade in a magnon based hybrid system, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 260314 (2022)

2022
[49]

F. Wang, C. Gou, J. Xu, and C. Gong, Hybrid magnon- atom entanglement and magnon blockade via quantum interference Phys. Rev. A 106, 013705 (2022)

2022
[50]

Jin and J

Z.-Y. Jin and J. Jing, Magnon blockade in magnon-qubit systems, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053702 (2023)

2023
[51]

Zhang, S

W. Zhang, S. Liu, S. Zhang, and H.-F. Wang, Magnon blockade induced by parametric ampliﬁcation, Phys. Rev. A 109, 043712 (2024)

2024
[52]

Huang, X

K.-W. Huang, X. Wang, Q.-Y. Qiu, and H. Xiong, Non- reciprocal magnon blockade via the Barnett eﬀect, Opt. Lett. 49, 758–761 (2024)

2024
[53]

Zhang, S.-S

H.-Q. Zhang, S.-S. Chu, J.-S. Zhang, W.-X. Zhong, and G.-L. Cheng, Nonreciprocal magnon blockade based on nonlinear eﬀects, Opt. Lett. 49, 2009-2012 (2024)

2024
[54]

C. Kong, J. B. Liu, and H. Xiong, Nonreciprocal mi- crowave transmission under the joint mechanism of phase modulation and magnon Kerr nonlinearity eﬀect, Front. Phys. 18, 12501 (2023)

2023
[55]

Kittel, On the theory of ferromagnetic resonance ab- sorption, Phys

C. Kittel, On the theory of ferromagnetic resonance ab- sorption, Phys. Rev. 73, 155 (1948)

1948
[56]

Serga, A.V

A.A. Serga, A.V. Chumak, and B. Hillebrands, YIG magnonics, J. Phys. D 43, 264002 (2010)

2010
[57]

Blais, R.-S, Huang, A

A. Blais, R.-S, Huang, A. Wallraﬀ, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004)

2004
[58]

Gambetta, A

J. Gambetta, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraﬀ, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Qubit-photon interactions in a cavity: Measurement-induced dephasing and number splitting, Phys. Rev. A 74, 042318 (2006)

2006
[59]

Zhang, Y

G. Zhang, Y. Wang, and J. You, Theory of the magnon Kerr eﬀect in cavity magnonics, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, 987511 (2019). 8

2019
[60]

Holstein and H

T. Holstein and H. Primakoﬀ, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940)

1940
[61]

J. Peng, Z. X. Liu, Y. F. Yu, and H. Xiong, Cavity mag- nomechanical chaos, Phys. Rev. A 110, 053704 (2024)

2024
[62]

Walls and G

D. Walls and G. Milburn, Quantum optics (Spinger- Verlag, Berlin, 1994)

1994
[63]

J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013)

2013
[64]

Imamoglu, H

A. Imamoglu, H. Schmidt, G. Woods, and M. Deutsch, Strongly Interacting Photons in a Nonlinear Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 8 (1997)

1997
[65]

G. Zhu, D. G. Ferguson, V. E. Manucharyan, and J. Koch, Circuit QED with ﬂuxonium qubits: Theory of the dispersive regime, Phys. Rev. B 87, 024510 (2013)

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Tabuchi, S

Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Quantum magnon- ics: The magnon meets the superconducting qubit, C.R. Phys. 17, 729 (2016)

work page 2016

[2] [2]

L.-Q. Dany, T. Yutaka, G. Arnaud, U. Koji, and N. Ya- sunobu, Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics, Appl. Phys. Express 12, 070101 (2019)

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Yuan , Y.-S

H.-Y. Yuan , Y.-S. Cao, A. Kamra, R. A. Duine, P. Yan, Quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science, Phys. Rep. 965, 1 (2022)

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Rameshti, S.V

B.Z. Rameshti, S.V. Kusminskiy, J.A. Haigh, K. Us- ami, D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Nakamura, C.-M. Hu, H.X. Tang, G.E.W. Bauer, Y.M. Blanter, Cavity magnonics, Phys. Rep. 979, 1 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

X. Zuo, Z. Y. Fan, H. Qian, M. S. Ding, H. Tan, H. Xiong, and J. Li, Cavity magnomechanics: from classical to quantum, New J. Phys. 26, 031201 (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

K. Wang, Y. P. Gao, R. Jiao, and C. Wang, Recent progress on optomagnetic coupling and optical manip- ulation based on cavity-optomagnonics, Front. Phys. 17, 42201 (2022)

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Xiong, Center-of-mass magnomechanics beyond mag- netostrictive limits, Sci

H. Xiong, Center-of-mass magnomechanics beyond mag- netostrictive limits, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 250313 (2025)

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Li, S.-Y

J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, and G.S. Agarwal, Magnon-photon- phonon entanglement in cavity magnomechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 203601 (2018)

work page 2018