Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Protected Symmetrical Superconducting Qubit Based on Quantum Flux Parametron

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Degenerium: a superconducting qubit whose two logical states sit in degenerate ground wells, protected against critical-current fabrication spread.

desk verdict A new coupled-QFP protected qubit with a clean Hamiltonian derivation, but the headline fabrication-immunity claim is unsupported because the differential junction energy dE_Ji is never analyzed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06593 v1 pith:YRGNRIK6 submitted 2025-05-10 cond-mat.supr-con

Kian Rafati Sajedi , Mojtaba Hosseinpour Choubi , Mehdi Fardmanesh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 85.25.-j85.25.Cp
keywords superconductingqubitquantumfluxparametron0-piprotectedJosephsonjunctiondegenerategroundstatescriticalcurrentnoisedecoherence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a qubit, called Degenerium, built from two mutually coupled quantum flux parametrons, and argues that its two logical states are exactly degenerate ground states of the circuit potential. The symmetry of the two-junction loops makes the qubit insensitive to common-mode variations in junction critical current, the main fabrication worry, while still allowing charge, flux, and critical-current noise to be evaluated. The paper's noise analysis predicts a depolarization time of 1.25 s and a dephasing time of 90 μs, with bias flux noise as the limiting channel. If the claim holds, Degenerium would be a significantly simpler protected qubit than the 0-π qubit, requiring no large superinductor.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the symmetric two-QFP cell: on each side, a DC SQUID shunts an inductor, and the two sides are coupled by mutual inductance. The argument runs through the circuit Hamiltonian of Eq. (4), whose potential is a sum of parabolic inductor terms and cosines in the phases γ1 and γ2. The key identity is the stationarity of the transition frequency with respect to common-mode Josephson energy at the bias point when dEJi = 0, which cancels the leading effect of critical-current noise.

What would settle it

Solve or simulate Eq. (4) at the nominal bias point with a deliberately introduced critical-current mismatch, e.g. $dE_{Ji}/E_{Ji} = 1\%$, $5\%$, and $10\%$, and inspect the energy splitting of the two lowest states: if the splitting exceeds the quoted noise-decay rates, the central protection claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a pair of SQUID-inductor loops, mutually coupled through inductance and biased by external flux, can host two near-degenerate ground states that serve as the logical basis of a protected qubit. In the phase variables γ1 and γ2, one biased loop creates a double-well potential, and the two lowest states—delocalized with respect to the other loop—are separated by an energy that is ideally zero. Starting from the circuit Lagrangian, the paper derives a quantized Hamiltonian with a common-mode Josephson energy EJi and a differential junction energy dEJi; when the junctions in each pair are identical so that dEJi = 0, the transition frequency becomes stationary against common-mode critical-current fluctuations. This is why the calculated dephasing and depolarization rates from critical-current noise are vanishingly small ($10^{-8}$ rad/s and $10^{-49}$ rad/s, respectively), while flux noise dominates and sets the reported $T_1 = 1.25$ s and $T_2 = 90$ μs.

Load-bearing premise

All coherence numbers assume the two Josephson junctions on each side are exactly identical, so the differential junction energy dEJi in the Hamiltonian is zero; real fabrication leaves a nonzero dEJi that lifts the ground-state degeneracy and is not simulated or bounded in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the coherence numbers hold, Degenerium offers a protected-qubit route that avoids the very large inductors used in 0-π qubits, making fabrication simpler.
  • The same circuit can be biased into single-well, double-well, or 0-π-like periodic regimes, so one chip design could be tuned for different operating points.
  • Since bias flux noise is the dominant decoherence channel, improving flux shielding and bias-line filtering would directly lengthen $T_2$.
  • The symmetry argument implies that critical-current fabrication spread would no longer be the main source of qubit variation across a chip.
  • The ability to encode and read out on different sides of the pair suggests a natural layout for control and measurement lines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical test is to include a small nonzero $dE_{Ji}/E_{Ji}$ in Eq. (4) and compute the ground-state splitting; if the splitting grows faster than the quoted noise rates, the protection is fragile to exactly the asymmetry the paper does not address.
  • The symmetry protection might be extended to other low-frequency noise channels by operating at the flux-bias sweet spot where the transition frequency is stationary, a prediction that could be checked with a Ramsey measurement versus bias flux.
  • Because the two loops are coupled by a transformer, the same unit could serve as a building block for nearest-neighbor qubit couplings, a scalable extension the paper does not discuss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a superconducting qubit, called "Degenerium," built from two mutually coupled quantum flux parametrons, each consisting of a DC SQUID shunted by an inductor. The authors derive the circuit Hamiltonian using standard circuit quantization, argue that the circuit's symmetry produces two ideally degenerate ground states that define the qubit, and compute pure dephasing and depolarization rates from charge, bias-flux, and critical-current noise using Bloch-Redfield theory and Fermi's Golden Rule, with QuTiP eigenmode simulations. They report T1=1.25 s and T2=90 µs and claim that the symmetry makes the qubit insensitive to fabrication-induced variations in junction critical current, while also allowing operation as a double-well, quadruple-well, or 0-π-like protected qubit.

Significance. If substantiated, the proposal would be of genuine interest: a protected-qubit design that avoids the large superinductor of the 0-π qubit and gives quantitative, falsifiable coherence predictions would be a useful contribution to the field. The manuscript is transparent in its circuit derivation, uses external noise amplitudes from the literature, and provides enough detail that the calculations could be reproduced. However, the central claims are currently not supported: the fabrication-robustness statement rests on an unexamined assumption of identical junctions, and the headline coherence times do not follow from the paper's own rates without an unexplained 2π conversion. The strengths are real, but they are outweighed by load-bearing gaps that must be addressed before the claims can be assessed.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III.C, §IV.C, Eq. (4)] The central claim of insensitivity to fabrication-induced critical-current variations is unsupported because the calculations set the differential junction energy dE_Ji to zero without analysis. The text in §III.C explicitly states that the E_Ji variations considered "refer to common mode of each side's junction pair," yet Eq. (4) contains the separate differential term 2 dE_Ji sin(γ_i−φ_bi−φ_i/2) sin(φ_i/2). For any φ_i≠0, a realistic fabrication spread dE_Ji/E_Ji ~ 0.01–0.1 makes this term a symmetry-breaking perturbation that lifts the degeneracy of the two ground states, exactly the disorder sensitivity documented for 0-π qubits in Ref. [20]. The manuscript neither bounds dE_Ji nor simulates its effect, and it does not specify an operating point φ_i=0 at which the term would vanish. The abstract's statement that the design is insensitive to fabrication-induced variations in Ic therefore does not follow from the calculations presented.
  2. [§IV, Conclusion] The reported T1=1.25 s does not follow from the paper's own depolarization rates. The total rate is Γ1 ≈ 1 rad/s (charge) + 4 rad/s (flux) + negligible (critical current) = 5 rad/s, which gives T1=1/Γ1=0.2 s. The value 1.25 s is obtained only by dividing by 2π, an unexplained conversion that is inconsistent with Eq. (10), where Γ is an exponential decay rate in s⁻¹. Either the rates or the reported T1 must be corrected, or a clear convention for angular-frequency rates must be introduced and consistently used.
  3. [§III, Conclusion] The reported T2=90 µs is also inconsistent with the paper's own pure dephasing rates. The conclusion lists charge dephasing 1.4×10³ rad/s and flux dephasing 7.1×10⁴ rad/s, whose sum gives Γϕ≈7.24×10⁴ rad/s and T2≈14 µs, not 90 µs. Again, 90 µs corresponds to dividing by 2π. In addition, §III.B states that bias flux noise contributes 10⁵ rad/s, conflicting with the 7.1×10⁴ rad/s used in the conclusion. These numerical inconsistencies directly affect the headline coherence time and must be resolved.
  4. [§II, Eq. (4)] The degeneracy of the two logical ground states is asserted but not quantitatively established for the chosen parameters. Exact degeneracy holds only in the ideal limit dE_Ji=0 and with exact symmetry; the actual energy splitting, including the tunneling splitting between wells at the finite ratio E_Ji/E_Li=10 used in the simulations, is never reported. Since the coherence rates in Secs. III and IV depend on ω01 and on the matrix elements of the noise operators, the absence of the low-energy spectrum makes it impossible to verify that the computed rates correspond to the claimed protected qubit subspace.
  5. [§III.C, Conclusion] The statement in the conclusion that Degenerium is "totally insensitive to critical current noise" overstates the results. The calculation treats only time-dependent common-mode fluctuations of the junction energies on each side; static differential fabrication disorder, which is the primary meaning of "fabrication-induced variations in critical current," is excluded by the dE_Ji=0 assumption. This is not a wording issue but the central robustness claim of the paper, and it needs to be either proven with a finite-dE_Ji analysis or substantially qualified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typos and formatting issues, including "duaration" for "duration," "FIG. 2: :" in a caption, and "anharmonicity" used where "anharmonicity" is presumably intended. These should be corrected in revision.
  2. [§III.C, Conclusion] The critical-current pure dephasing rate is given as approximately 10⁻¹⁰ rad/s in §III.C but as 3×10⁻⁸ rad/s in the conclusion; the discrepancy should be reconciled.
  3. [§III.B, Conclusion] The flux-noise pure dephasing contribution is quoted as 10⁵ rad/s in §III.B and as 7.1×10⁴ rad/s in the conclusion; a single consistent value should be used.
  4. [Abstract, Conclusion] The phrase "upper hand" in the conclusion should be "upper bound" or similar; the Abstract also does not state that the quoted T1 and T2 are limited by bias flux noise, which is important context for the reported numbers.
  5. [Refs. [7,15,20]] Reference [15] is a self-citation to a conference contribution; it is not load-bearing but should be checked for completeness. Reference [20] (Dempster et al.) is directly relevant to the differential-disorder concern and should be discussed in the main text, not only cited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the Hamiltonian is derived from circuit theory, coherence rates follow from Bloch-Redfield and Fermi's Golden Rule with externally sourced noise amplitudes, and the only self-citation simply names the qubit and is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its circuit model. Eq. (4) is obtained from the Lagrangian of the proposed QFP pair via standard cQED quantization, and the qubit states are obtained by numerical diagonalization of that Hamiltonian. Dephasing and depolarization rates are computed with Bloch-Redfield theory and Fermi's Golden Rule using 1/f noise amplitudes taken from external references ([13], [27], [31]); no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction. The self-citation [15] only attaches the name 'Degenerium' and plays no role in the coherence calculations or in the symmetry argument. The important caveat is that the Hamiltonian contains a differential junction-energy term dEJi (Eq. (4) and Appendix A) that is never bounded or simulated; the text narrows the critical-current analysis to 'common mode of each side's junction pair' (Sec. III C), so the abstract's claim of insensitivity to 'fabrication-induced variations in critical current' is overbroad for differential asymmetry. That is a soundness or missing-analysis concern, not a circular reduction of the predicted T1 and T2 to the paper's inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on a set of chosen simulation parameters (energies, noise amplitudes, cutoffs) and on the unstated assumption of perfectly identical junctions. The noise amplitudes are taken from external references, so they are not fitted to the target coherence times. The most consequential assumption is the silent neglect of differential junction asymmetry, which is exactly what the fabrication-immunity claim depends on.

free parameters (9)
  • E_Ci/h (per-side charging energy) = 1 GHz
    Chosen for the simulation and figures; all coherence rates depend on it.
  • E_Ji/h (per-side Josephson energy) = 100 GHz
    Chosen; sets potential well depth and the EJ/EL ratio.
  • E_Li/h (per-side inductive energy) = 10 GHz
    Chosen; together with EJ sets the operating regime.
  • g/h (mutual coupling energy) = 1 GHz
    Chosen for inter-QFP coupling.
  • C_g/C_Sigma (charge-noise coupling capacitance) = 0.05
    Assumed for the charge noise model in Appendix C.
  • A_ng (charge noise amplitude) = 10^-41 / sqrt(Hz) as printed (likely typo for ~10^-4 e/sqrt(Hz))
    Taken from a reference; directly sets charge-noise dephasing and depolarization rates.
  • A_Phi (flux noise amplitude) = 10^-6 Phi0 / sqrt(Hz)
    Taken from a reference; dominates the dephasing rate.
  • A_IC (critical current noise amplitude) = 10^-7 I_C / sqrt(Hz)
    Taken from a reference; used for critical current noise.
  • omega_ir, omega_c, tau = 1 Hz, 3 GHz, 10 us
    Chosen cutoffs and evolution time in Eq. (8); affect the logarithmic factors in dephasing rates.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Circuit quantization via cQED and Josephson junction phase-flux relations.
    The Hamiltonian in Eq. (4) is derived using standard circuit quantum electrodynamics and Josephson relations.
  • standard math Bloch-Redfield theory and Fermi's Golden Rule describe noise-induced decoherence.
    Used in Sec. III and IV to compute dephasing and depolarization rates.
  • domain assumption Noise sources are stationary, Gaussian, uncorrelated, and have 1/f power spectra.
    Stated in Sec. III; standard for superconducting qubits but an assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Junctions on each side are ideally identical, so dE_Ji = 0 in the coherence calculations.
    Eq. (4) includes dE_Ji terms, but Sec. III C and IV C only analyze common-mode E_Ji; the differential asymmetry that represents fabrication variation is omitted.
invented entities (1)
  • Degenerium qubit circuit
    purpose: New superconducting qubit topology for quantum information processing.
    No fabricated device or experimental data; only numerical simulations of a proposed circuit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Protected Symmetrical Superconducting Qubit Based on Quantum Flux Parametron." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YRGNRIK6

@misc{pith2026250506593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Protected Symmetrical Superconducting Qubit Based on Quantum Flux Parametron},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YRGNRIK6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06593}
}
abstract

Conventional Quantum Flux Parametrons (QFPs) have historically been used for storing classical bits in Josephson junction-based computers. In this work, we propose a novel QFP-based topology dubbed "Degenerium" qubit, to process and compute quantum information. Degenerium combines principles from the 0-$\pi$ qubit and flux qubit to create ideally degenerate quantum ground states, while significantly simplifying the 0-$\pi$ qubit structure. The symmetrical design of Degenerium enables easier qubit control and fabrication. We demonstrate that due to the inherent symmetry of Degenerium, our designed qubit is insensitive to fabrication-induced variations in critical current ($I_c$) of the Josephson junctions. Our calculations of depolarization and dephasing rates due to charge, flux, and critical current noise sources result in depolarization and dephasing times of 1.25 s and 90 $\mu$s, respectively. Further parameter tuning and optimization is possible to meet specific application demands.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06593 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic for Degenerium qubit, which is composed of two QFPs, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: : Degenerium’s a) 3D and b) 2D classical potential plotted against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Calculated pure dephasing rate due to 1/f noise in a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Calculated depolarization rate due to 1/f noise in a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Schematic for half of Degenerium’s circuit that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    J. M. Dempster, B. Fu, D. G. Ferguson, D. I. Schuster, and J. Koch, Understanding degenerate ground states of a protected quantum circuit in the presence of disorder, Physical Review B90, 094518 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    M. M. Waldrop, The chips are down for moore’s law, Nature News530, 144 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Goto and K

    E. Goto and K. F. Loe,Dc Flux Parametron: A New Approach To Josephson Junction Logic, Vol. 6 (World Scientific, 1986)

    work page 1986

  4. [3]

    K. K. Likharev and V. K. Semenov, Rsfq logic/memory family: A new josephson-junction technology for sub- terahertz-clock-frequency digital systems, IEEE Trans- actions on Applied Superconductivity1, 3 (1991)

    work page 1991

  5. [4]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Reviews6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  6. [5]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  7. [6]

    Wang, Quantum computation and quantum informa- tion, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference142, 3 (2012)

    Y. Wang, Quantum computation and quantum informa- tion, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference142, 3 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    D. D. Stancil and G. T. Byrd,Principles of Superconduct- ing Quantum Computers(John Wiley & Sons, 2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  2. [9]

    Kitaev, Protected qubit based on a superconduct- ing current mirror, arXiv preprint (2006), arXiv:cond- mat/0609441 [cond-mat]

    A. Kitaev, Protected qubit based on a superconduct- ing current mirror, arXiv preprint (2006), arXiv:cond- mat/0609441 [cond-mat]

    2006

  3. [10]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topological quantum memory, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452 (2002)

    2002

  4. [11]

    Gladchenko, D

    S. Gladchenko, D. Olaya, E. Dupont-Ferrier, B. Dou¸ cot, L. B. Ioffe, and M. E. Gershenson, Superconducting nanocircuits for topologically protected qubits, Nature Physics5, 48 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Fluxonium: Single cooper-pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science326, 113 (2009)

    2009

  6. [13]

    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, Charge-insensitive qubit design de- rived from the cooper pair box, Physical Review A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  7. [14]

    Brookes, T

    P. Brookes, T. Chang, M. Szymanska, E. Grosfeld, E. Gi- nossar, and M. Stern, Protection of quantum information in a chain of josephson junctions, Physical Review Ap- plied17, 024057 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    K. R. Sajedi, M. H. Choubi, and M. Fardmanesh, Protected symmetrical superconducting qubit based on quantum flux parametron, inProceedings of the Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Materials and Technolo- gies (ICQMT)(2025) ¨Ol¨ udeniz-Fethiye, Mu˘ gla, T¨ urkiye

    2025

  9. [16]

    Brooks, A

    P. Brooks, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Protected gates for superconducting qubits, Physical Review A87, 052306 (2013)

    2013

  10. [17]

    Takeuchi, D

    N. Takeuchi, D. Ozawa, Y. Yamanashi, and N. Yoshikawa, An adiabatic quantum flux parametron as an ultra-low-power logic device, Superconductor Science and Technology26, 035010 (2013)

    2013

  11. [18]

    Vool and M

    U. Vool and M. Devoret, Introduction to quantum elec- tromagnetic circuits, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications45, 897 (2017)

    2017

  12. [19]

    D. I. Schuster,Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics, Ph.d. dissertation, Yale University (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Bloch, Generalized theory of relaxation, Physical Re- view105, 1206 (1957)

    F. Bloch, Generalized theory of relaxation, Physical Re- view105, 1206 (1957)

    1957

  14. [22]

    A. G. Redfield, On the theory of relaxation processes, IBM Journal of Research and Development1, 19 (1957)

    1957

  15. [23]

    J. M. Martinis, K. B. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Stef- fen, M. Ansmann, K. D. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. P. Pappas, R. W. Simmonds, and C. C. Yu, Decoherence in josephson qubits from dielectric loss, Physical Review Letters95, 210503 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    Ithier, E

    G. Ithier, E. Collin, P. Joyez, P. J. Meeson, D. Vion, D. Esteve, C. Urbina, M. H. Devoret, A. Aassime, J. Au- mentado, and G. Sch¨ on, Decoherence in a superconduct- ing quantum bit circuit, Physical Review B72, 134519 (2005), condensed Matter and Materials Physics

    2005

  17. [25]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    F. Yan, J. Koch, J. M. Martinis, and et al., The flux qubit revisited to enhance coherence and reproducibility, Nature Communications7, 12964 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    A. B. Zorin, F.-J. Ahlers, J. Niemeyer, T. Weimann, H. Wolf, V. A. Krupenin, and S. V. Lotkhov, Background charge noise in metallic single-electron tunneling devices, Physical Review B53, 13682 (1996)

    1996

  20. [28]

    R. M. Lutchyn, L. I. Glazman, and A. I. Larkin, Kinetics of the superconducting charge qubit in the presence of a quasiparticle, Physical Review B74, 064515 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    W. D. Oliver and P. B. Welander, Materials in supercon- ducting quantum bits, MRS Bulletin38, 816 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    C. E. Murray, Material matters in superconducting qubits, Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports 146, 100646 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    M. D. Hutchings, J. B. Hertzberg, Y. Liu, G. A. Keefe, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and B. L. T. Plourde, Tunable superconducting qubits with flux-independent coherence, Physical Review Applied8, 044003 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Groszkowski, A

    P. Groszkowski, A. Di Paolo, A. L. Grimsmo, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, and J. Koch, Coherence properties of the 0-pi qubit, New Journal of Physics20, 043053 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Mar- quardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Fermi, Quantum theory of radiation, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics4, 87 (1932)

    E. Fermi, Quantum theory of radiation, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics4, 87 (1932)

    1932

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.