Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 69 references

A network of parametrically driven silicon nitride mechanical membranes

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Four silicon nitride membranes on a single chip, individually tuned and read out by one laser, form strongly coupled Kerr parametric oscillators whose collective parametric states appear as overlapping Arnold tongues.

desk verdict A solid platform paper: tunable, coupled SiN membranes with parametric response, but the hybridized-state assignment is inferred from one membrane's readout and theory. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00850 v1 pith:J2CAB2UD submitted 2025-06-01 cond-mat.mes-hall physics.app-ph

Luis Mestre , Suyash Singh , Gabriel Margiani , Letizia Catalini , Alexander Eichler , Vincent Dumont This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph PACS 85.85.+j05.45.-a
keywords siliconnitridemembranesKerrparametricoscillatorscoupledmechanicalresonatorsdrivingArnoldtonguesavoidedcrossingcapacitivetuninganalogcomputing
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 reports a chip-based electromechanical platform in which four silicon nitride membranes act as coupled, individually controllable nonlinear resonators. Each membrane can be tuned in frequency by several kilohertz with a DC voltage, shows quality factors around $10^4$, and is coupled to its neighbors strongly enough that the normal-mode splitting is comparable to, or larger than, the mechanical linewidth. The authors demonstrate a continuous crossover from a detuned regime of mostly single-membrane modes to a hybridized normal-mode regime, where parametric driving yields overlapping Arnold tongues attributed to symmetric and antisymmetric collective states. If correct, the device is a scalable, controllable setting for coupled nonlinear resonator physics, with applications to analog computing and the study of collective phenomena.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coupled, parametrically driven membrane network of Eq. (1): each membrane is a Duffing (Kerr) oscillator whose spring constant is modulated at twice its resonance frequency, damped, and linearly coupled to its neighbors through the shared substrate. Three mechanisms carry the demonstration. First, capacitive voltage tuning shifts each membrane's frequency quadratically, $\delta\Omega_i \propto -U_i^2$, enabling individual in-situ control. Second, the two-mode eigenvalue problem gives the avoided-crossing frequencies and a normal-mode splitting $\Delta_{ij} = J_{ij}^2/\Omega_i$ at resonance, so the coupling strength is read directly from the gap. Third, parametric driving produces Arnold tongues—regions in drive-strength versus frequency space where the oscillator locks into oscillating states—whose boundary follows the threshold condition $\lambda_{\rm th} = 2/Q_i$. The paper combines these to interpret the measured response of one membrane as the phase diagram of the coupled network.

What would settle it

Measure the displacement of both membranes in the hybridized parametric regime (e.g., with wide-field stroboscopic imaging). If the two membranes do not oscillate in the symmetric ($x_1 + x_2$) or antisymmetric ($x_1 - x_2$) combination predicted, or if the measured Arnold tongues do not match the two-mode model's overlap pattern, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper demonstrates that metallized silicon nitride membranes on a common silicon substrate, driven capacitively at twice their resonance frequency, form a network of Kerr parametric oscillators with individually tunable frequencies and nearest-neighbor coupling through the substrate. The key quantitative results are a frequency tunability exceeding 2 kHz, a quality factor up to about $1.6\times10^4$, a coupling $J_{12}/2\pi \approx 3.34$ kHz corresponding to a normal-mode splitting $\Delta_{12}/2\pi \approx 55$ Hz that is on the order of the combined linewidth, and the observation of avoided crossings that allow the system to be swept from a detuned resonator regime into a hybridized normal-mode regime. In the hybridized regime, parametric driving produces a pattern of overlapping Arnold tongues attributed to symmetric and antisymmetric collective parametric states, with jumps between states visible in the amplitude of a single read-out membrane. The paper claims this is the first high-quality-factor mechanical system in which strong coupling and in-situ tuning are combined in a scalable architecture, giving access to physics previously studied only in lower-quality electrical resonator networks.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation of the hybridized parametric response as overlapping symmetric and antisymmetric Kerr-oscillator states assumes that the two-membrane model with a fixed symmetric coupling describes the dynamics, and that measuring only one membrane's amplitude and phase is enough to identify which collective state the network occupies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same platform can be extended to larger membrane arrays (six or nine) without major technical changes, yielding programmable networks of coupled KPOs.
  • Because the normal-mode splitting matches the linewidth, the system can enter the strongly coupled KPO regime, which theoretical work connects to ghost states and mixed-symmetry states previously seen only in electrical resonator networks.
  • With the detuning between membranes controllable in situ, the network can implement asymmetric Ising models relevant to neural-network emulation.
  • The slow ringdown times (tens of milliseconds) make the platform well suited for studying activated fluctuations and interstate transitions in multi-stable systems.
  • A single-laser interferometric readout of one membrane suffices to infer the state of the whole coupled network, simplifying the measurement of future networks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that a direct measurement of the relative phase $x_1 - x_2$ in the driven hybridized regime would harden the central interpretation; the paper identifies symmetric and antisymmetric states from single-membrane data combined with theory.
  • We infer that the platform, if it scales to six or nine membranes as argued, is a plausible testbed for KPO-based Ising machines and Boltzmann sampling, but multi-membrane imaging would be needed to resolve the state of each membrane.
  • We infer that applying soft clamping to raise $Q$ by orders of magnitude could push the system into a regime where thermal switching between KPO phase states is slow enough to observe directly.
  • We infer that since coupling runs through the shared substrate, the connectivity graph is fixed by geometry; engineering the substrate could open paths to non-reciprocal or programmable couplings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an electromechanical platform based on four metallized silicon nitride membranes on a common chip, capacitively actuated and read out with a single laser interferometer. The authors characterize the linear response of individual membranes (Q1 ≈ 1.6×10^4, Q2 ≈ 5.2×10^3, Q3 ≈ 4.1×10^3), demonstrate electrostatic frequency tuning exceeding 2 kHz, and measure parametric Arnold tongues for single membranes. They then measure avoided crossings between membranes 1–2 and 1–3, extracting couplings J12/2π = (3.34 ± 0.03) kHz and J13/2π = (2.77 ± 0.03) kHz with normal-mode splittings comparable to the mechanical linewidth. Parametrically driving pairs of membranes, they observe tongue patterns that change as the membranes are tuned into and out of resonance, and interpret the near-resonant data as overlapping symmetric and antisymmetric KPO states. The claimed central result is a scalable, tunable high-Q mechanical platform for strongly coupled KPO networks.

Significance. If the coupled-state interpretation is accepted, the paper is a valuable step: it brings KPO network physics, previously demonstrated mainly in lower-Q electrical circuits, into a high-Q mechanical platform with individual tunability and substrate-mediated coupling. The paper has several genuine strengths: coupling values are extracted from avoided-crossing fits with quoted uncertainties; the parametric tongue outlines are compared with predictions using independently measured damping; and the sign of the linear coupling term is checked with a wide-field stroboscopic interferometer. The authors are also transparent about key limitations, including uncalibrated displacement amplitudes and drive-mismatch artifacts. However, the headline claim of strongly hybridized KPOs with overlapping symmetric and antisymmetric Arnold tongues is underdetermined by the presented measurements, because only one membrane is read out in the coupled nonlinear regime and the symmetry of the nonlinear parametric states is not directly verified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Coupled membranes, Fig. 4, Appendix F] The assignment of the second jump in Fig. 4(a)(ii) and the overlapping tongue pattern in Fig. 4(b)(ii) to a transition from the symmetric to the antisymmetric KPO state is not directly supported by the measurement. At the avoided crossing, the symmetric (x1+x2) and antisymmetric (x1−x2) normal modes both produce the same displacement amplitude on membrane 1, and the phase of x1 relative to the parametric drive does not distinguish the two spatial symmetries; distinguishing them requires the relative phase x1−x2 or the motion of membrane 2. Appendix F only verifies the linear eigenmode symmetry with a wide-field interferometer, not the symmetry of the nonlinear parametric states in the overlap region. Because the paper's novelty over previous electrical-resonator work rests on demonstrating strongly hybridized KPO states, this underdetermination is load-bearing. I recommend either measuring the second membrane simultaneously (or the relative phase), or explicitly presenting the state assignment as an inference from Eq. (1) and Refs. [41,43] rather than as a demonstrated observation.
  2. [Eq. (4) and Appendix F] The sign convention for the normal-mode branches is inconsistent. In Eq. (4), Ω+ is the larger eigenfrequency, and Appendix F defines the splitting as Δij = Ω+ − Ω− and identifies the higher-frequency branch with x1+x2. The main text, however, defines Δ12 ≡ Ω− − Ω+ and writes Ω± = Ω1 ∓ J12^2/(2Ω1), which reverses the branch assignment. The fitted magnitude of the gap is unaffected, but the inconsistent notation makes it impossible to track which branch is called symmetric, which matters for the interpretation of the parametric tongues. Please correct the signs and define the branch assignment unambiguously.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption and throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'solide lines' in the Fig. 2 caption, 'reduced laser absorption' in Appendix A, and 'orders of magnitudes' in the Summary and outlook.
  2. [Appendix F] The text 'symmetric coupling Jij = Jji0' contains a stray '0' and should read 'Jij = Jji'.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'we read out multiple mechanical resonators using a single laser interferometer,' but in the coupled measurements only membrane 1 is read out and the laser is moved between membranes for individual characterization; please clarify that the readout is sequential unless the wide-field interferometer is used.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The coupling enters as Jij^2 rather than as a linear coupling constant; since Jij has units of frequency and the resulting normal-mode splitting is J^2/Ω, this unconventional form should be stated explicitly where the coupling is introduced to avoid confusion with standard coupled-oscillator notation.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The inset mentioned in Fig. 4(i)(b) appears to show modeled x1 and x2 waveforms rather than measured data; the caption should state that the inset is an illustration.
  6. [Summary and outlook] The claim of a 'continuous crossover' between regimes is supported by only three voltage points along the avoided crossing; the wording slightly exceeds the displayed evidence, although the qualitative trend is clear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: fitted couplings and independently measured damping are used as inputs; the coupled-KPO interpretation rests on prior theory, not on a re-used output.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The coupling strengths J12 and J13 are extracted by fitting the two-branch avoided-crossing dispersion Eq. (4) to measured spectral data (Fig. 3, Fig. 8), and the resulting normal-mode splittings are computed from those fits; no claimed quantity is reused as an input to predict itself. The single-membrane Arnold-tongue outlines in Fig. 2(d) and Appendix D use damping values independently measured from linear resonance fits (Figs. 2(a), 6) and use only the center frequency as an adjustable parameter to account for DC-bias shifts, so the tongue shapes are a consistency test of Eq. (D2), not a fit disguised as a prediction. The coupled-KPO interpretation behind Fig. 4(ii) relies on the theory of Refs. [41,43], which are prior published models (with some author overlap) rather than quantities fitted here; the paper also notes that those models were previously tested with electrical resonators [32,34,41]. The only genuine weakness is underdetermination, not circularity: the paper acknowledges reading out only membrane 1 ('even though we only measure the amplitude and phase of membrane 1', and 'To calibrate and directly confirm such experiments, our setup could be combined with wide-field stroboscopic imaging'), and Appendix F verifies only the linear eigenmode symmetry, not the nonlinear parametric state symmetry. That leaves the symmetric/antisymmetric KPO-state assignment less directly evidenced, but it does not reduce a derived quantity to an input by construction. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core platform claims rest on measured couplings, damping, and frequencies, plus several modeling assumptions: a two-mode symmetric-coupling ansatz, a parallel-plate capacitance model with a mode-shape integral, an effective mass estimate, relative parametric drive normalization, and theory from Refs. [41,43] used to label hybridized KPO states.

free parameters (5)
  • Coupling J12/2pi = 3.34 +/- 0.03 kHz
    Fitted from the avoided crossing between membranes 1 and 2 via Eq. (4); central to the strong-coupling claim.
  • Coupling J13/2pi = 2.77 +/- 0.03 kHz
    Fitted from the avoided crossing between membranes 1 and 3; used to demonstrate distance-dependent coupling.
  • Membrane-electrode distance d0 = approximately 13 micrometers
    Extracted from the quadratic voltage-frequency fit using Eq. (C12), relying on the estimated effective mass; used in the capacitance and coupling model.
  • Parametric threshold lambda_th = not calibrated in absolute units
    Arnold tongue axes are normalized by the measured threshold lambda_th; absolute AC drive voltages are not reported, so drive strengths are relative.
  • Effective mass m = approximately 38 ng (estimated from layer masses)
    Estimated from material densities and mode shape rather than directly measured; enters the d0 extraction and frequency shift model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pairs of membranes are described by Eq. (1) with symmetric coupling J_ij = J_ji and equal effective masses; higher-order membrane modes, substrate modes, and the other two membranes are ignored in the coupled analysis.
    Used in Appendix F to derive avoided crossing frequencies and mode assignment; not directly validated in the driven experiment.
  • domain assumption The fundamental out-of-plane mode shape is u(y,z) = sin(pi y/L) sin(pi z/L) with clamped boundaries, and the membrane-electrode capacitance follows the parallel-plate form C_i = epsilon0 A / d_i with d_i = d0 + u x_i.
    Underlies the capacitive force, spring constant, and frequency shift equations (C3)-(C12).
  • domain assumption The parametric drive creates a modulation depth lambda proportional to the AC voltage with DC bias dominating (U_i much larger than U_2omega,i), and the Duffing nonlinearity beta x^3 saturates the oscillation.
    Used to interpret Arnold tongues and phase states; beta is not independently measured.
  • domain assumption The theoretical phase diagrams for strongly coupled KPOs in Refs. [41,43] correctly predict the observed overlapping Arnold tongues and state sequence.
    Used to label the hybridized states in Fig. 4(ii) without a direct measurement of both membrane displacements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A network of parametrically driven silicon nitride mechanical membranes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J2CAB2UD

@misc{pith2026250600850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A network of parametrically driven silicon nitride mechanical membranes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J2CAB2UD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00850}
}
read the original abstract

Networks of nonlinear resonators offer a promising platform for analog computing and the emulation of complex systems. However, realizing such networks remains challenging, as it requires resonators with high quality factors, individual frequency tunability, and strong inter-resonator coupling. In this work, we present a system that meets all these criteria. Our system is based on metallized silicon nitride membranes that are coupled via their common substrate and controlled capacitively via electrodes. We demonstrate individual frequency tuning and strong parametric driving of each membrane. Notably, we tune membrane frequencies through avoided crossings and demonstrate tunability of the coupled membrane's parametric response. This platform provides a scalable and controllable setting for exploring collective phenomena, dynamical phase transitions, nonlinear topology, and analog computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00850 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Coupled silicon nitride membranes. (a) Four sili [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Characterization of single membrane resonator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Avoided crossing between the fundamental modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Parametric response of two coupled membranes (1 and 2). Columns (i)-(iii) correspond to three different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Parametric membranes device. (a) Microscope im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Linear mechanical response of membranes 2 and 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Parametric sweeps of (i) membrane 2 and (ii) mem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Coupled parametric response of membranes 1 and 3. Columns (i)-(iii) correspond to three different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2(b) relating the change in mechanical frequency for an applied voltage ¯Ui, we obtain d0 ≈ 13 µm

    = 2 π × (0.309 ± 0.001) Hz/V2 from the fit in Fig. 2(b) relating the change in mechanical frequency for an applied voltage ¯Ui, we obtain d0 ≈ 13 µm. At that distance, the membrane- electrode capacitance is Ci ≈ 140 fF. Equilibrium position: We note that the first term, i.e. Fc,i(0), in eq. (C6) leads to a shift of the membrane’s equilibrium position to x...

    work page

  2. [2]

    S. H. Strogatz, Exploring complex networks, Nature 410, 268 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    De Domenico, More is different in real-world multi- layer networks, Nat

    M. De Domenico, More is different in real-world multi- layer networks, Nat. Phys. 19, 1247 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    S. N. Dorogovtsev, A. V. Goltsev, and J. F. Mendes, Crit- ical phenomena in complex networks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1275 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    J. J. Hopfield, Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities, PNAS 79, 2554 (1982)

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    Mohseni, P

    N. Mohseni, P. L. McMahon, and T. Byrnes, Ising ma- chines as hardware solvers of combinatorial optimization problems, Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 363 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Arenas, A

    A. Arenas, A. D ´ ıaz-Guilera, J. Kurths, Y. Moreno, and C. Zhou, Synchronization in complex networks, Phys. Rep. 469, 93 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Scheffer, J

    M. Scheffer, J. Bascompte, W. A. Brock, V. Brovkin, S. R. Carpenter, V. Dakos, H. Held, E. H. Van Nes, M. Rietkerk, and G. Sugihara, Early-warning signals for critical transitions, Nature 461, 53 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Scheffer, S

    M. Scheffer, S. R. Carpenter, T. M. Lenton, J. Bas- compte, W. Brock, V. Dakos, J. Van de Koppel, I. A. Van de Leemput, S. A. Levin, E. H. Van Nes, et al., An- ticipating critical transitions, Science 338, 344 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Z. Liu, X. Zhang, X. Ru, T.-T. Gao, J. M. Moore, and G. Yan, Early predictor for the onset of critical transi- tions in networked dynamical systems, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031009 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Grziwotz, C.-W

    F. Grziwotz, C.-W. Chang, V. Dakos, E. H. van Nes, M. Schwarzl¨ ander, O. Kamps, M. Heßler, I. T. Tokuda, A. Telschow, and C.-h. Hsieh, Anticipating the oc- currence and type of critical transitions, Sci. Adv. 9, eabq4558 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Harris, L

    B. Harris, L. L. Gollo, and B. D. Fulcher, Tracking the distance to criticality in systems with unknown noise, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031021 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Artime, M

    O. Artime, M. Grassia, M. De Domenico, J. P. Gleeson, H. A. Makse, G. Mangioni, M. Perc, and F. Radicchi, Robustness and resilience of complex networks, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 114 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    D. M. Abrams and S. H. Strogatz, Chimera states for coupled oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 174102 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    M. H. Matheny, J. Emenheiser, W. Fon, A. Chapman, A. Salova, M. Rohden, J. Li, M. Hudoba de Badyn, M. P´ osfai, L. Duenas-Osorio, et al., Exotic states in a simple network of nanoelectromechanical oscillators, Sci- ence 363, eaav7932 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    M. C. Lifshitz, R. Cross, Nonlinear dynamics of nanome- chanical and micromechanical resonators, in Reviews of Nonlinear Dynamics and Complexity (Wiley, 2009) pp. 1–52

    2009

  9. [17]

    Bachtold, J

    A. Bachtold, J. Moser, and M. Dykman, Mesoscopic physics of nanomechanical systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 045005 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Dykman, Fluctuating Nonlinear Oscillators (Oxford University Press, 2012)

    M. Dykman, Fluctuating Nonlinear Oscillators (Oxford University Press, 2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Eichler and O

    A. Eichler and O. Zilberberg, Classical and Quantum Parametric Phenomena(Oxford University Press, 2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Mahboob and H

    I. Mahboob and H. Yamaguchi, Bit storage and bit flip operations in an electromechanical oscillator, Nat. Nano. 3, 275 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    C. M. Wilson, T. Duty, M. Sandberg, F. Persson, V. Shumeiko, and P. Delsing, Photon generation in an electromagnetic cavity with a time-dependent boundary, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 233907 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    S. Puri, S. Boutin, and A. Blais, Engineering the quan- tum states of light in a kerr-nonlinear resonator by two- photon driving, npj Quantum Information 3, 18 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Mahboob, H

    I. Mahboob, H. Okamoto, and H. Yamaguchi, An elec- tromechanical ising hamiltonian, Sci. Adv. 2, e1600236 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    S. E. Nigg, N. L¨ orch, and R. P. Tiwari, Robust quantum optimizer with full connectivity, Sci. Adv. 3, e1602273 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Nosan, P

    ˇZ. Nosan, P. M¨ arki, N. Hauff, C. Knaut, and A. Eichler, Gate-controlled phase switching in a parametron, Phys. Rev. E 99, 062205 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Frimmer, T

    M. Frimmer, T. L. Heugel, Z. Nosan, F. Tebbenjohanns, D. H¨ alg, A. Akin, C. L. Degen, L. Novotny, R. Chitra, O. Zilberberg, and A. Eichler, Rapid flipping of paramet- ric phase states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 254102 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Grimm, N

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Stabilization and operation of a kerr-cat qubit, Nature 584, 205 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Z. Wang, M. Pechal, E. A. Wollack, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, M. Gao, N. R. Lee, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Quantum dynamics of a few-photon parametric oscillator, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021049 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    S. Puri, A. Grimm, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, K. Noh, G. Roberts, L. Jiang, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. De- voret, and S. M. Girvin, Stabilized cat in a driven non- linear cavity: A fault-tolerant error syndrome detector, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041009 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    J. M. Miller, D. D. Shin, H.-K. Kwon, S. W. Shaw, and T. W. Kenny, Phase control of self-excited parametric resonators, Phys. Rev. Applied 12, 044053 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Yamaji, S

    T. Yamaji, S. Masuda, A. Yamaguchi, T. Satoh, A. Morioka, Y. Igarashi, M. Shirane, and T. Yamamoto, Correlated oscillations in kerr parametric oscillators with tunable effective coupling, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 014057 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    N. E. Frattini, R. G. Corti˜ nas, J. Venkatraman, X. Xiao, Q. Su, C. U. Lei, B. J. Chapman, V. R. Joshi, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. Puri, and M. H. Devoret, Ob- servation of pairwise level degeneracies and the quantum regime of the arrhenius law in a double-well parame...

    2024

  25. [33]

    ´Alvarez, D

    P. ´Alvarez, D. Pittilini, F. Miserocchi, S. Raamamurthy, G. Margiani, O. Ameye, J. Del Pino, O. Zilberberg, and A. Eichler, Biased ising model using two coupled kerr parametric oscillators with external force, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 207401 (2024). 11

    2024

  26. [34]

    C. Han, M. Wang, B. Zhang, M. Dykman, and H. Chan, Coupled parametric oscillators: From disorder-induced current to asymmetric ising model, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023162 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Margiani, O

    G. Margiani, O. Ameye, O. Zilberberg, and A. Eichler, Three strongly coupled kerr parametric oscillators form- ing a boltzmann machine, arXiv:2504.04254 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    S. Xue, M. Maghrebi, G. I. Mias, and C. Piermarocchi, Critical dynamics and cyclic memory retrieval in non- reciprocal hopfield networks, arXiv:2501.00983 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Szedlak, G

    A. Szedlak, G. Paternostro, and C. Piermarocchi, Con- trol of asymmetric hopfield networks and application to cancer attractors, PloS one 9, e105842 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    A. J. Mendoza and J. S. Haas, Intrinsic sources and functional impacts of asymmetry at electrical synapses, Eneuro 9 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Goto, Bifurcation-based adiabatic quantum compu- tation with a nonlinear oscillator network, Sci

    H. Goto, Bifurcation-based adiabatic quantum compu- tation with a nonlinear oscillator network, Sci. Rep. 6, 21686 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    M. I. Dykman, C. Bruder, N. L¨ orch, and Y. Zhang, Interaction-induced time-symmetry breaking in driven quantum oscillators, Phys. Rev. B 98, 195444 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Margiani, J

    G. Margiani, J. del Pino, T. L. Heugel, N. E. Bousse, S. Guerrero, T. W. Kenny, O. Zilberberg, D. Sabonis, and A. Eichler, Deterministic and stochastic sampling of two coupled kerr parametric oscillators, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L012029 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    T. L. Heugel, O. Zilberberg, C. Marty, R. Chitra, and A. Eichler, Ising machines with strong bilinear coupling, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 013149 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    T. L. Heugel, R. Chitra, A. Eichler, and O. Zil- berberg, Proliferation of unstable states and their impact on stochastic out-of-equilibrium dynamics, arXiv:2307.13718 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ameye, A

    O. Ameye, A. Eichler, and O. Zilberberg, The parametric instability landscape of coupled kerr parametric oscilla- tors, arXiv:2501.08793 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    H. Goto, Z. Lin, and Y. Nakamura, Boltzmann sampling from the ising model using quantum heating of coupled nonlinear oscillators, Sci. Rep. 8, 7154 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Fruchart, R

    M. Fruchart, R. Hanai, P. B. Littlewood, and V. Vitelli, Non-reciprocal phase transitions, Nature 592, 363 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    X. Zhou, S. Venkatachalam, R. Zhou, H. Xu, A. Pokharel, A. Fefferman, M. Zaknoune, and E. Collin, High-q silicon nitride drum resonators strongly coupled to gates, Nano Lett. 21, 5738 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Schmid, T

    S. Schmid, T. Bagci, E. Zeuthen, J. M. Taylor, P. K. Herring, M. C. Cassidy, C. M. Marcus, L. Guillermo Vil- lanueva, B. Amato, A. Boisen, et al. , Single-layer graphene on silicon nitride micromembrane resonators, J. Appl. Phys. 115 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Bagci, a

    T. Bagci, a. Simonsen, S. Schmid, L. Villanueva, E. Zeuthen, J. Appel, J. Taylor, a. S¸ crensen, K. Us- ami, a. Schliesser, and E. Polzik, Optical detection of radio waves through a nanomechanical transducer., Na- ture 507 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Puglia, R

    D. Puglia, R. Odessey, P. S. Burns, N. Luhmann, S. Schmid, and A. P. Higginbotham, Room temperature, cavity-free capacitive strong coupling to mechanical mo- tion, Nano Lett. 25, 2749 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    M. H. de Jong, M. A. ten Wolde, A. Cupertino, S. Gr¨ oblacher, P. G. Steeneken, and R. A. Norte, Me- chanical dissipation by substrate–mode coupling in sin resonators, Appl. Phys. Lett. 121 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Correia, G

    F. Correia, G. Jara-Schulz, G. Madiot, S. Bar- bay, and R. Braive, Coherent interferometric control of strongly-coupled nano-electromechanical resonators, Comm. Phys. 7, 233 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Madiot, F

    G. Madiot, F. Correia, S. Barbay, and R. Braive, Bichro- matic synchronized chaos in driven coupled electro- optomechanical nanoresonators, Phys. Rev. A 104, 023525 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    T. L. Heugel, A. Eichler, R. Chitra, and O. Zilberberg, The role of fluctuations in quantum and classical time crystals, SciPost Phys. Core 6, 053 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    J. A. Conway, J. V. Osborn, and J. D. Fowler, Stro- boscopic imaging interferometer for mems performance measurement, JMEMS 16, 668 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    Tsaturyan, A

    Y. Tsaturyan, A. Barg, E. Polzik, and A. Schliesser, Ul- tracoherent nanomechanical resonators via soft clamping and dissipation dilution, Nat. Nano. 12, 776 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Mashaal, L

    A. Mashaal, L. Stefan, A. Ranfagni, L. Catalini, I. Cher- nobrovkin, T. Capelle, E. C. Langman, and A. Schliesser, Strong thermomechanical noise squeezing stabilized by feedback, Phys. Rev. Research 7, L012071 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    Smirnova, D

    D. Smirnova, D. Leykam, Y. Chong, and Y. Kivshar, Nonlinear topological photonics, Appl. Phys. Rev. 7 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Ravets, N

    S. Ravets, N. Pernet, N. Mostaan, N. Goldman, and J. Bloch, Thouless pumping in a driven-dissipative kerr resonator array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 093801 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Villa, J

    G. Villa, J. del Pino, V. Dumont, G. Rastelli, M. Micha lek, A. Eichler, and O. Zilberberg, Topologi- cal classification of driven-dissipative nonlinear systems, arXiv:2406.16591 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    (CRC Press, 2007)

    CRC Handbook, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 88th Edition, 88th ed. (CRC Press, 2007)

    2007

  54. [62]

    Hauer, C

    B. Hauer, C. Doolin, K. Beach, and J. Davis, A general procedure for thermomechanical calibration of nano/micro-mechanical resonators, Ann. Phys. 339, 181 (2013)

    2013

  55. [63]

    Schmid, L

    S. Schmid, L. G. Villanueva, and M. L. Roukes, Funda- mentals of nanomechanical resonators, Vol. 49 (Springer, 2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    Eichler, J

    A. Eichler, J. Moser, M. Dykman, and A. Bachtold, Sym- metry breaking in a mechanical resonator made from a carbon nanotube, Nat. Comm. 4, 2843 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    Kozinsky, H

    I. Kozinsky, H. Postma, I. Bargatin, and M. Roukes, Tuning nonlinearity, dynamic range, and frequency of nanomechanical resonators, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88 (2006)

    2006

  58. [66]

    Lifshitz and M

    R. Lifshitz and M. C. Cross, Nonlinear dynamics of nanomechanical and micromechanical resonators, Re- views of nonlinear dynamics and complexity 1 (2008)

    2008

  59. [67]

    Thompson, B

    J. Thompson, B. Zwickl, A. Jayich, F. Marquardt, S. Girvin, and J. Harris, Strong dispersive coupling of a high-finesse cavity to a micromechanical membrane, Na- ture 452, 72 (2008)

    2008

  60. [68]

    Jayich, J

    A. Jayich, J. Sankey, B. Zwickl, C. Yang, J. Thompson, S. Girvin, A. A. Clerk, F. Marquardt, and J. Harris, Dis- persive optomechanics: a membrane inside a cavity, New J. Phys. 10, 095008 (2008)

    2008

  61. [69]

    Dumont, S

    V. Dumont, S. Bernard, C. Reinhardt, A. Kato, M. Ruf, and J. C. Sankey, Flexure-tuned membrane-at-the-edge optomechanical system, Opt. Exp. 27, 25731 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.