Light-Matter Interaction in dispersive Superconducting Circuit QED

Ansh Das; Baladitya Suri; Harsh Arora; Jay Deshmukh; R. Vijay

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Light-Matter Interaction in dispersive Superconducting Circuit QED

T0 review · 4 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 Circuit QED's light-matter coupling cutoff is set by superconducting dispersion, not by the junction capacitance, with loss above the gap effectively decoupling qubit and resonator.

desk verdict A genuine extension of cQED quantization with a sensible physical claim; the central Lamb-shift calculation rests on an asserted spectral density and an unchecked lossless limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09322 v2 pith:M7QM5NPC submitted 2025-05-14 quant-ph

Harsh Arora , Jay Deshmukh , Ansh Das , R. Vijay , Baladitya Suri This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords circuitquantumelectrodynamicssurfaceimpedancesuperconductinggapLambshiftlight-mattercouplingcutoffchargequbitscoplanarwaveguideresonatorsBCSconductivity

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 sets out to show that circuit-QED quantization must include the superconductor's frequency-dependent surface impedance, because that impedance controls how strongly a qubit couples to high-frequency resonator modes. The central claim is that above the superconducting gap, the loss that breaks Cooper pairs also makes the qubit and resonator effectively decouple, so the light-matter interaction has a material- and geometry-dependent cutoff rather than one fixed by the junction capacitance. A sympathetic reader would care because off-resonant modes contribute to Lamb shifts and multi-qubit couplings, and current models treat the resonator as ideal over the whole frequency range. The authors demonstrate the effect by computing Lamb shifts for Aluminum and Niobium resonators of varying center-conductor width, finding a roughly fourfold drop in total Lamb shift for Aluminum between 0.6 µm and 20 µm widths.

What carries the argument

The central object is the frequency-dependent surface impedance $Z_s(\omega)=R_s(\omega)+iX_s(\omega)$, which enters the transmission-line description through the complex refractive index $\epsilon(\omega)=1+\frac{g Z_s(\omega)}{i\omega\ell_m}$. The paper analytically continues the BCS conductivity to complex frequencies so that the dispersion relation has complex fixed points $\omega_n=\Omega_n+i\Gamma_n$, and it constructs the Green's function of the resulting non-Hermitian wave equation from bi-orthogonal eigenmodes. That Green's function feeds the spectral density $J(\omega)$ used in the Lamb-shift integral, converting the lossy broadened modes into a sum over complex poles.

What would settle it

Re-derive $J(\omega)$ by Fano-diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in Eq. (4) and compare the complex-pole weights with Eq. (18); if the weights differ, the width dependence in Figs. 3 and 4 is not secured. Experimentally, one could measure the qubit Lamb shift at fixed qubit frequency for Aluminum resonators with center-conductor widths 1.2 µm and 20 µm, where the paper predicts roughly $-95$ MHz and $-48$ MHz, so a substantially different ratio would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that when the frequency-dependent surface impedance of the superconductor is included in the canonical quantization of a coplanar-waveguide resonator, resonator modes above the superconducting gap acquire finite lifetimes, and this loss effectively decouples the light and matter degrees of freedom at high frequencies. Consequently, the effective cutoff of the qubit-resonator coupling is set by material dispersion and resonator geometry, not by the series capacitance of the qubit junction. The authors further claim that the contribution from beyond-gap modes to the Lamb shift is negligible only for center-conductor widths of roughly 10 µm or larger, while narrow resonators show much larger total Lamb shifts and faster convergence of the partial-sum series.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spectral density $J(\omega)$ stated in Eq. (18), introduced with the phrase "which gives way to," is the correct coupling-weighted mode density for a lossy, dispersive resonator; the paper does not derive it from the resonator-reservoir Hamiltonian.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The effective qubit-resonator coupling cutoff is determined by material dispersion and resonator geometry, not by the junction capacitance that previous models used.
Beyond-gap modes can be safely ignored only for wide center conductors ($s \gtrsim 10\,\mu\mathrm{m}$); for narrow resonators they contribute substantially to the Lamb shift.
Narrower resonators exhibit larger total Lamb shifts, for example about $-212.5$ MHz at 0.6 µm versus about $-47.6$ MHz at 20 µm for the Aluminum case considered.
The convergence of Lamb-shift partial sums is faster for narrow resonators, so truncating the mode sum is safer there despite the larger total shift.
Material-specific behavior differs between the extreme-anomalous limit relevant to Aluminum and the dirty limit relevant to Niobium, including extra modes appearing near the gap.

Reading between the lines

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

If the spectral density in Eq. (18) is correct, the same geometry-dependent decoupling should appear in other observables that sum over high-frequency modes, such as dispersive qubit shifts and inter-qubit couplings; the paper does not compute these.
The predicted red-shift of high modes and the appearance of extra modes near the gap could be probed directly in broadband transmission measurements on Niobium resonators, a signature the paper mentions but does not calculate.
For high-kinetic-inductance materials such as granular aluminum, where the surface impedance is much larger, the effective cutoff should move to lower frequencies and dispersion effects should be stronger; this is an extension beyond the paper's Aluminum and Niobium examples.
The results suggest resonator center-conductor width can be used as a design knob to suppress beyond-gap contributions without changing the qubit itself.

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

Two things to know up front. This is a genuine extension of cQED quantization, not a repackaging: the paper puts the complex, frequency-dependent Mattis-Bardeen surface impedance into the current-conserving Hamiltonian and continues the conductivity into the complex plane to find the complex poles that set the light-matter cutoff. The supplement does real work—the distributed-element Lagrangian, the Fano diagonalization, the Green's-identity commutator, and a long elliptic-integral evaluation. No free parameters are fitted, and the physical idea, that quasiparticle loss above 2Δ acts as a natural cutoff, is sensible. But the quantitative claim—that the cutoff is geometry-dependent with a threshold near s ≳ 10 µm—rests on an asserted spectral density and a limit that is never checked. I would not take the numbers at face value until that is resolved.

Soft spots, in proportion. First, Eq. (18), the spectral density J(ω) feeding the Lamb shift, is introduced with "which gives way to" rather than derived from the Hamiltonian. The residue sum in Eq. (19) inherits its normalization, and the supplement derives the mode expansions but stops short of producing J(ω). A referee is entitled to see that step.

Second, the stress-test concern about the lossless limit lands, in my reading. As g→0 (or Zs→0), the framework should reduce to the no-dispersion result of Ref. [3]. Table I suggests otherwise: the smallest-g row, s=20 µm, gives Δ_dispersion = −47.62 MHz against Δ_nodispersion = −276 MHz, a factor of six. One can construct a defense: the beyond-gap modes are a damped continuum whose coupling vanishes with Rs, while the no-dispersion model retains discrete modes with a capacitive cutoff, so the two need not match. But the paper never makes that argument, and the trend in s points to a small-g limit near −45 MHz, far from −276 MHz. If the residue weights in Eq. (19) are normalized incorrectly, the width dependence—and the s ≳ 10 µm threshold—loses its support.

Minor: the supplement drops two integrals after Eq. (S81) as "negligible" without numbers, and there are typos ("josephon", "di-magnetic", Eq. 1 vs Eq. 2).

Who this is for: cQED theorists working on multimode effects, Lamb shifts, and wide-band devices. The framework deserves engagement; the specific predictions do not yet. I would send it to peer review—the novelty and the technical substance justify referee time—but the referee should push hard on the derivation of J(ω) and on the lossless limit. Expect a major revision, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantization of a coplanar-waveguide resonator coupled to a charge qubit that includes the frequency-dependent surface impedance of the superconductor. The central object is a resonator-reservoir Hamiltonian whose classical limit recovers a non-Hermitian wave equation with complex refractive index. The authors solve for complex eigenfrequencies as fixed points of the dispersion relation, extend the Mattis-Bardeen conductivity to complex frequencies, and use the resulting spectral density to compute a Lamb shift. Their main claim is that superconducting loss effectively decouples light and matter at frequencies beyond the gap, so that the Lamb-shift partial sums converge more rapidly for narrow center conductors, with the contribution of beyond-gap modes negligible only for s ≳ 10 µm.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive scrutiny, the result is significant: it identifies a material- and geometry-dependent cutoff for multimode circuit-QED interactions, replacing the common purely capacitive cutoff estimate. The paper has notable strengths: no free parameters are fitted to the computed Lamb shifts; the complex poles are determined as fixed points of the dispersion relation; and the analytic continuation of the Mattis-Bardeen conductivity is worked out in explicit form. The prediction of a geometry-dependent convergence threshold is falsifiable and practically relevant. However, the central quantitative bridge from the quantized fields to the Lamb shift, namely the spectral density in Eq. (18) and the residue sum in Eq. (19), is asserted rather than derived, and the g→0 limit in Table I shows a large unexplained discrepancy against the no-dispersion baseline. These issues prevent me from endorsing the paper's quantitative conclusions in their present form.

major comments (4)

[Main text, Eq. (18)] The spectral density J(ω) is asserted rather than derived. The text states that Eq. (17) for gn 'gives way to' Eq. (18), but no derivation of the specific combination ω²(gRs/(ωℓm))Re{ϵ}Re{G} + ω²|ϵ|²Im{G} is provided from the field expansions in Eqs. (11) and (12), from Eq. (4), or in the Supplemental Material. The complex poles of the Green's function determine mode frequencies and decay rates, but the residue weights entering the Lamb shift in Eq. (19) are governed by the numerator of J(ω). A different normalization of the dipole moment, the biorthogonal modes, or the Fano diagonalization would change the weight of each pole and hence the values in Figs. 3 and 4. Because the geometry-dependent cutoff claim rests entirely on this bridge, the derivation of Eq. (18) is load-bearing and must be supplied.
[Table I and the g→0 limit] The manuscript never checks the Lamb shift against the known lossless limit, and the table appears inconsistent with it. As g→0, the surface-impedance term in Eq. (10) vanishes, and Eq. (17) reduces to the current-conserving coupling gn ∝ √ωn of Ref. [3]; hence Δ_dispersion should tend to Δ_nodispersion. Table I shows that the smallest-g entry, s = 20 µm, has Δ_dispersion = −47.62 MHz while Δ_nodispersion = −276.164 MHz, a factor of about 5.8, and the trend from s = 10 µm (−51.07 MHz) to s = 20 µm (−47.62 MHz) suggests that the g→0 limit lies near −45 MHz, not −276 MHz. This discrepancy indicates a normalization or residue-weight error in Eq. (19), or an incorrect proportionality factor in Eq. (18). This issue must be resolved before the central claim of a geometry-dependent cutoff can be accepted.
[Supplement, 'Extreme Anomalous Limit', Eq. (S81)] The analytic continuation of the conductivity drops two integrals on the basis of an unquantified numerical statement: 'Numerical integration showed that the contribution of the last two integrals in (S79) is negligible, hence we have dropped them from further analysis.' No parameter range, error estimate, or supporting plot is given. Since Eqs. (15) and (16) are used to compute the complex fixed points {ω_n, γ_n} that feed Eq. (19), this truncation is load-bearing. The authors should provide a quantitative bound or a numerical comparison showing that the dropped terms are small over the full range of frequencies, widths s, and damping rates used in Figs. 3 and 4.
[Main text, Eq. (19)] The contour-integral evaluation leading to Eq. (19) is not shown. The result is stated as a sum over complex poles of the Green's function plus mirrored terms, but the derivation should also justify the neglect of possible branch-cut contributions from the analytically continued conductivity and from ϵ(ω). In addition, the expression should be validated against the known result in the limit g→0, which would also resolve the discrepancy noted above. As written, Eq. (19) is the only quantitative output of the paper, and its derivation cannot be left as an assertion.

minor comments (5)

[Main text, Eq. (1) and surrounding text] The sentence 'leading to É ∼ O(10^3) GHz' should read 'leading to a cutoff frequency ω ∼ 10^3 GHz'; also, the following sentence refers to 'Equation (1) is non-hermitian', but the non-Hermitian object is the wave equation (2), not Eq. (1).
[Throughout] There are several typos and garbled symbols: 'josephon junction' should be 'Josephson junction'; 'Kirchoﬀ's laws' should be 'Kirchhoff's laws'; 'Kramer-Kronig' should be 'Kramers-Kronig'; 'oﬀ-set' should be 'offset'; 'de-tuning' should be 'detuning'; and 'Én f 2∆/ℏ' and 's g 10µm' should be 'ω_n < 2Δ/ℏ' and 's ≳ 10 µm'.
[Fig. 4 and accompanying text] The dashed horizontal line is said to denote the 70% convergence, but it is not specified in the caption which quantity the partial sums are normalized by and why the normalization denominator is the 2500-term sum; this should be stated explicitly.
[References] References [11] and [33] are the same dissertation by J. Gao; citing the same work twice with different numbers is confusing and should be consolidated.
[Supplement, Eq. (S5)] The term 'di-magnetic term' should be 'diamagnetic term', and the notation should be defined where first introduced to avoid confusion with the magnetic inductance ℓm.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Lamb-shift and cutoff results are computed from fixed-point poles of the dispersion relation rather than from fitted or self-referential inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: Eqs. (2)-(3) define the dispersive wave equation from the surface impedance Z_s; Eqs. (8)-(10) determine the complex poles as fixed points of the dispersion relation; Eqs. (17)-(18) give a spectral density J(ω); and Eq. (19) evaluates the Lamb shift as a residue sum over those fixed points. No free parameter is fitted to the computed Lamb shifts or to the partial-sum convergence in Figs. 3-4: the geometric factor g is an input geometry, the Mattis-Bardeen conductivity is an external material model analytically continued in the Supplement, and the no-dispersion baseline is taken from the external current-conserving Hamiltonian of Ref. [3]. The only same-author citation is Ref. [53], appearing in a footnote about periodic boundary conditions, and it is not load-bearing. The skeptical concerns that J(ω) in Eq. (18) is asserted rather than derived from Eq. (12), and that Eq. (19) is not checked against the g→0 limit, are potential correctness risks rather than circularity: positing a spectral density is an assumption, not a reduction of the prediction to its input, and an unverified limit check does not demonstrate equivalence by construction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the zero-temperature Mattis-Bardeen surface impedance model extended to complex frequencies, the distributed-element wave equation with open boundary conditions, and the asserted spectral density J(ω). No free parameters are fitted to the target results; the plotted values come from geometric and material inputs.

free parameters (2)

center conductor width s = 0.6 to 20 µm (chosen)
Design input chosen to illustrate geometry dependence; not fitted to the Lamb shift results.
geometric factor g = 0.137e6 to 3e6 m^-1 (chosen)
Taken from resonator geometry via Ref [33]; scales the surface impedance term in Z(ω). Not fitted to target results.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Zero-temperature Mattis-Bardeen conductivity, extended to complex frequencies by replacing ω with ω+iγ, correctly describes the surface impedance of CPW resonators above the gap.
Invoked in main text Eqs. (13)-(16) and the supplement; no experimental or independent numerical validation is provided for typical thin-film CPW geometries.
domain assumption The distributed-element transmission line with Z(ω)=iωℓ_m+gZ_s(ω) and open (Neumann) boundary conditions captures the resonator physics, with quasiparticle loss dominating other loss channels above the gap.
Main text after Eq. (2) and before Eq. (10): 'we consider open boundary conditions' because quasi-particle loss greatly exceeds other loss sources.
domain assumption The spectral density J(ω) in Eq. (18), taken from Ref [43], applies to this lossy resonator-reservoir system with complex ϵ and G.
J(ω) is the bridge to the qubit Lamb shift Eq. (19); the paper states it 'gives way to' without derivation.
ad hoc to paper The two integrals dropped in the analytic continuation of the conductivity are negligible for the parameter range studied.
Supplement, after Eq. (S79): the authors state 'Numerical integration showed ... negligible, hence we have dropped them'; no quantitative bound or parameter scan is provided, yet the closed-form expressions (15)-(16) depend on this.
standard math Standard mathematical tools: Kramers-Kronig relations, bi-orthogonal eigenfunction completeness, Green's identity, and residue calculus are applied correctly.
Used throughout the supplement; treated as background assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light-Matter Interaction in dispersive Superconducting Circuit QED." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M7QM5NPC

@misc{pith2026250509322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light-Matter Interaction in dispersive Superconducting Circuit QED},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M7QM5NPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09322}
}

read the original abstract

It is well known that superconducting waveguides strongly attenuate the propagation of electromagnetic waves with frequencies beyond the superconducting gap. In circuit QED, the interaction between non-linear charge qubits and superconducting resonators invariably involves the qubit coupling to a large set of resonator modes. So far, strong dispersion effects near and beyond the superconducting-gap have been ignored in quantization models. Rather, it is assumed that the superconducting resonator behaves ideally across the large frequency intervals. We present a quantization approach which includes the superconducting frequency-dependent surface impedance and demonstrate that superconducting dispersion plays a role in determining the effective light-matter interaction cut-off.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09322 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Coupling strengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Lamb shifts, obtained from the real part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Convergence of the normalized Lamb shift partial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[3]

Malekakhlagh and H

M. Malekakhlagh and H. E. T¨ ureci, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012120 (2016)

work page 2016
[1]

A. J. Hoﬀman, S. J. Srinivasan, S. Schmidt, L. Spietz, J. Aumentado, H. E. T¨ ureci, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 053602 (2011)

2011
[2]

A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. Koch, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 080502 (2008)

2008
[4]

Malekakhlagh, A

M. Malekakhlagh, A. Petrescu, and H. E. T¨ ureci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 073601 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

M. F. Gely, A. Parra-Rodriguez, D. Bothner, Y. M. Blanter, S. J. Bosman, E. Solano, and G. A. Steele, Phys. Rev. B 95, 245115 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Additionally, for high frequencies the dipole approxima- tion breaks down since the wavelength of the CPW mode is comparable to the transmon’s spatial extent, resulting in the mode averaging out to zero over the transmon[48] for ω >> 104 GHz. 6

work page
[7]

R. L. Kautz, Journal of Applied Physics 49, 308 (1978)

work page 1978
[8]

C. Chi, W. Gallagher, I. Duling, D. Grischkowsky, N. Ha- las, M. Ketchen, and A. Kleinsasser, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 23, 1666 (1987)

work page 1987

Show all 53 references

[9]

Chi and D

C. Chi and D. Grischkowsky, in Proceedings 1988 IEEE International Conference on Computer Design: VLSI (IEEE Computer Society, 1988) pp. 168–169

1988
[10]

Gallagher, C.-C

W. Gallagher, C.-C. Chi, I. Duling III, D. Grischkowsky, N. Halas, M. Ketchen, and A. Kleinsasser, Applied physics letters 50, 350 (1987)

1987
[12]

M¨ uller, J

C. M¨ uller, J. H. Cole, and J. Lisenfeld, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 124501 (2019)

2019
[13]

J. M. Martinis, K. B. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Steﬀen, M. Ansmann, K. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. P. Pap- pas, R. W. Simmonds, et al. , Physical review letters 95, 210503 (2005)

2005
[14]

De Visser, J

P. De Visser, J. Baselmans, S. Yates, P. Diener, A. Endo, and T. Klapwijk, Applied Physics Letters 100 (2012)

2012
[15]

P. J. de Visser, D. J. Goldie, P. Diener, S. Withington, J. J. A. Baselmans, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 047004 (2014)

2014
[16]

P. V. Klimov, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, M. Neeley, A. Megrant, B. Burkett, R. Barends, K. Arya, B. Chiaro, Y. Chen, et al. , Physical review letters 121, 090502 (2018)

2018
[17]

D. S. Wisbey, J. Gao, M. R. Vissers, F. da Silva, J. S. Kline, L. Vale, and D. P. Pappas, Journal of Applied Physics 108 (2010)

2010
[18]

J. Gao, M. Daal, A. Vayonakis, S. Kumar, J. Zmuidzinas, B. Sadoulet, B. A. Mazin, P. K. Day, and H. G. Leduc, Applied Physics Letters 92 (2008)

2008
[19]

Romanenko and D

A. Romanenko and D. I. Schuster, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 264801 (2017)

2017
[20]

P. V. Klimov, J. Kelly, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04594 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[21]

Deutscher, M

G. Deutscher, M. Gershenson, E. Gr¨ unbaum, and Y. Imry, Granular superconducting ﬁlms, Tech. Rep. (De- partment of Physics and Astronomy, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel . . . , 1973)

1973
[22]

F. Yang, T. Gozlinski, T. Storbeck, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, I. M. Pop, and W. Wulfhekel, Phys. Rev. B 102, 104502 (2020)

2020
[23]

R. W. Cohen and B. Abeles, Phys. Rev. 168, 444 (1968)

1968
[24]

Gupta, P

V. Gupta, P. Winkel, N. Thakur, P. van Vlaanderen, Y. Wang, S. Ganjam, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12611 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[25]

Gr¨ unhaupt, M

L. Gr¨ unhaupt, M. Spiecker, D. Gusenkova, N. Maleeva, S. T. Skacel, I. Takmakov, F. Valenti, P. Winkel, H. Rotzinger, W. Wernsdorfer, et al. , Nature materials 18, 816 (2019)

2019
[26]

Valenti, F

F. Valenti, F. Henriques, G. Catelani, N. Maleeva, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, U. von L¨ upke, S. T. Skacel, P. Winkel, A. Bilmes, A. V. Ustinov, J. Goupy, M. Calvo, A. Beno ˆ ıt, F. Levy-Bertrand, A. Monfardini, and I. M. Pop, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 054087 (2019)

2019
[27]

Levy-Bertrand, A

F. Levy-Bertrand, A. Beno ˆ ıt, O. Bourrion, M. Calvo, A. Catalano, J. Goupy, F. Valenti, N. Maleeva, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, I. Pop, and A. Monfardini, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 044002 (2021)

2021
[28]

Stockklauser, P

A. Stockklauser, P. Scarlino, J. V. Koski, S. Gasparinetti , C. K. Andersen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraﬀ, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011030 (2017)

2017
[29]

Jan ´ ık, K

M. Jan ´ ık, K. Roux, C. Borja-Espinosa, O. Sagi, A. Bagh- dadi, T. Adletzberger, S. Calcaterra, M. Botifoll, A. Garz´ on Manj´ on, J. Arbiol, et al. , Nature Commu- nications 16, 2103 (2025)

2025
[30]

Caloz and T

C. Caloz and T. Itoh, Electromagnetic metamateri- als: transmission line theory and microwave applications (John Wiley & Sons, 2005)

2005
[31]

Planat, A

L. Planat, A. Ranadive, R. Dassonneville, J. Puer- tas Mart ´ ınez, S. L´ eger, C. Naud, O. Buisson, W. Hasch- Guichard, D. M. Basko, and N. Roch, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021021 (2020)

2020
[32]

A. L. Grimsmo and A. Blais, npj Quantum Information 3, 20 (2017)

2017
[33]

Gao, The physics of superconducting microwave res- onators (California Institute of Technology, 2008)

J. Gao, The physics of superconducting microwave res- onators (California Institute of Technology, 2008)

2008
[34]

The quasi-particles have a ﬁnite lifetime and recombine into Cooper pairs via emission of phonons[49–52]
[35]

D. C. Mattis and J. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. 111, 412 (1958)

1958
[36]

Varvelis, D

E. Varvelis, D. Biswas, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2314846121 (2024)

2024
[37]

Khanahmadi, M

M. Khanahmadi, M. M. Lund, K. Mølmer, and G. Jo- hansson, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043071 (2023)

2023
[38]

Heinrich, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 41, 45 (1993)

W. Heinrich, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 41, 45 (1993)

1993
[39]

See Supplemental Material
[40]

Malekakhlagh, A

M. Malekakhlagh, A. Petrescu, and H. E. T¨ ureci, Phys. Rev. A 94, 063848 (2016)

2016
[41]

P. M. Morse and H. Feshbach, Methods of theoretical physics (Technology Press, 1946)

1946
[42]

The generalization to periodic boundary conditions, aris- ing in the context of ring-resonator based couplers is straightforward[53]
[43]

H¨ ummer, F

T. H¨ ummer, F. J. Garc ´ ıa-Vidal, L. Mart ´ ın-Moreno, and D. Zueco, Phys. Rev. B 87, 115419 (2013)

2013
[44]

Silveri, S

M. Silveri, S. Masuda, V. Sevriuk, K. Y. Tan, M. Jenei, E. Hyypp¨ a, F. Hassler, M. Partanen, J. Goetz, R. E. Lake, L. Gr¨ onberg, and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, Nature Physics 15, 533 (2019)

2019
[45]

H. J. Carmichael, Statistical methods in quantum op- tics 1: master equations and Fokker-Planck equations (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

2013
[46]

B. J. Dalton, S. M. Barnett, and B. M. Garraway, Phys. Rev. A 64, 053813 (2001)

2001
[47]

Ritschel and A

G. Ritschel and A. Eisfeld, The Journal of Chemical Physics 141, 10.1063/1.4893931 (2014)

2014 doi
[48]

Filipp, M

S. Filipp, M. G¨ oppl, J. M. Fink, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, L. Steﬀen, and A. Wallraﬀ, Phys. Rev. A 83, 063827 (2011)

2011
[49]

C. Wang, Y. Y. Gao, I. M. Pop, U. Vool, C. Ax- line, T. Brecht, R. W. Heeres, L. Frunzio, M. H. De- voret, G. Catelani, et al., Nature communications 5, 5836 (2014)

2014
[50]

Rothwarf and B

A. Rothwarf and B. N. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 27 (1967)

1967
[51]

S. B. Kaplan, C. C. Chi, D. N. Langenberg, J. J. Chang, S. Jafarey, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B 14, 4854 (1976)

1976
[52]

B. I. Miller and A. H. Dayem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 1000 (1967)

1967
[53]

Hazra, A

S. Hazra, A. Bhattacharjee, M. Chand, K. V. Salunkhe, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 024018 (2021). Supplementary Material: Light-Matter Interaction in dispersive Superconducting Circuit QED Harsh Arora, 1 Jay Deshmukh, 2 Ansh Das, 3 R. V...

2021
[54]

Complex conjugate symmetry G(x,x ′, −É) = G⋆(x,x ′,É ), which follows from the fact that: Z ⋆(É) = Z(−É). We start oﬀ with the symmetry property: ∂2G(x,x ′;É) ∂x′2 +É2c(x′)ℓm ( 1 + g iÉℓm Zs(É) ) G(x,x ′;É) = ¶(x −x′) Multiplying the above equation with G⋆(x1,x ′;É) and integr...

2016

Pith tools

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

[1] [3]

Malekakhlagh and H

M. Malekakhlagh and H. E. T¨ ureci, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012120 (2016)

work page 2016

[2] [1]

A. J. Hoﬀman, S. J. Srinivasan, S. Schmidt, L. Spietz, J. Aumentado, H. E. T¨ ureci, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 053602 (2011)

2011

[3] [2]

A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. Koch, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 080502 (2008)

2008

[4] [4]

Malekakhlagh, A

M. Malekakhlagh, A. Petrescu, and H. E. T¨ ureci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 073601 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

M. F. Gely, A. Parra-Rodriguez, D. Bothner, Y. M. Blanter, S. J. Bosman, E. Solano, and G. A. Steele, Phys. Rev. B 95, 245115 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Additionally, for high frequencies the dipole approxima- tion breaks down since the wavelength of the CPW mode is comparable to the transmon’s spatial extent, resulting in the mode averaging out to zero over the transmon[48] for ω >> 104 GHz. 6

work page

[7] [7]

R. L. Kautz, Journal of Applied Physics 49, 308 (1978)

work page 1978

[8] [8]

C. Chi, W. Gallagher, I. Duling, D. Grischkowsky, N. Ha- las, M. Ketchen, and A. Kleinsasser, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 23, 1666 (1987)

work page 1987