Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Selective Excitation of Coupled Resonators via Complex Frequency Driving: Enhanced Efficiency and Crosstalk Suppression

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Driving at a complex reflection zero with an exponentially growing waveform stores nearly all input energy in the target resonator, reaching 100% in a single resonator and 92–95% in a coupled three-resonator network, while cutting…

desk verdict The three-resonator efficiency comparison is the paper's load-bearing claim, and it is unverifiable because the evaluation time T is never reported and appears to be much longer than the Gaussian pulse widths. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02207 v1 pith:H4ENNBGX submitted 2025-06-02 physics.optics

Deepanshu Trivedi , Laraib Niaz , Andrea Alù , Alex Krasnok This is my paper
classification physics.optics
keywords complexfrequencyexcitationscoupledresonatorsreflectionzerosdynamiccriticalcouplingcrosstalksuppressionexcitationefficiencymicrowavecircuitssuperconducting
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 argues that conventional real-frequency pulses, such as Gaussian pulses, are fundamentally limited when exciting resonators: impedance mismatch reflects part of the input, and finite spectral width spills energy into neighboring modes. It proposes instead to drive the port with a complex-frequency signal, meaning an oscillation whose amplitude grows exponentially at a rate matched to the resonator's decay. The waveform is tailored to the complex reflection zero of the system, the frequency at which the reflection coefficient vanishes, so the port stays impedance-matched while energy accumulates; the paper calls this dynamic critical coupling. Temporal coupled-mode theory gives $\eta(t)=1-e^{-2\gamma t}$ for a single lossless resonator, approaching 100%, compared with about 80% for optimized Gaussian pulses. In a three-resonator system sharing a feedline, the same scheme stores 92–95% of the energy in the chosen resonator with selectivity above 0.9 and crosstalk suppression near 20, against 54–61% and suppression near 2–3 for Gaussian pulses, which matters for dense arrays used in sensing and quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the complex reflection zero $\omega_z$ of the port scattering parameter $\Gamma(\omega)$, computed from the cascaded ABCD matrix of the coupled network. In the lossless single-resonator case it lies at $\omega_z=\omega_r-j\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}$, and the matching drive is the exponentially growing waveform $e^{j\omega_z t}=e^{j\omega_r t}e^{\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}t}$. That exponential factor is the time-reversed impulse response of the mode: it replenishes the energy being lost through the port, keeps the input impedance matched while the stored amplitude rises, and thereby converts what would otherwise be reflected power into stored energy. The analytical result $\eta(t)=1-e^{-2\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}t}$ makes the mechanism quantitative, and the multi-resonator generalization is the set of zeros of the reflection coefficient, one per mode, each giving the frequency and growth rate needed to address that resonator selectively.

What would settle it

On a single overcoupled resonator, drive with an envelope $e^{\gamma t}$ using the $\gamma$ read from the measured reflection zero and monitor reflected power and stored energy; the claim predicts reflection tends to zero and $\eta(t)$ follows $1-e^{-2\gamma t}$. If reflected power stays finite or efficiency saturates below that curve, the lossless linear assumption has broken; with known internal loss, the predicted saturated efficiency is $\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}/(\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}+\gamma_{\mathrm{int}})$, not unity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the complex zeros of a coupled resonator network's reflection coefficient are the right targets for selective excitation, not the real resonance frequencies. For a resonator coupled to a waveguide the reflection coefficient $\Gamma(\omega)$ has a zero at $\omega_z=\omega_r-j\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}$ in the lossless limit, and feeding the port with $s_{ex}(t)=A e^{j\omega_z t}=A e^{j\omega_r t} e^{\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}} t}$ cancels reflection in real time. The paper derives, from temporal coupled-mode theory, that the excitation efficiency $\eta(t)=|a(t)|^2/\int_0^t |s_{ex}(\tau)|^2 d\tau$ follows $1-e^{-2\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}t}$ under this drive, while a Gaussian pulse of any width tops out near 80%. For the full three-resonator network, the zeros computed from the cascaded ABCD matrix are used to set each drive; time-domain simulations then show 92–95% storage in the target, target selectivity of 0.91–0.95, and crosstalk-suppression ratios near 20, compared with 54–61% efficiency, selectivity 0.51–0.77, and suppression near 2–3 for Gaussian pulses centered on the same real frequencies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the resonator network stays linear and lossless during the pulse, so the complex reflection zeros computed at zero power remain the correct drive parameters as energy accumulates; the paper explicitly flags that intrinsic loss shifts the zeros and Kerr nonlinearity makes them intensity-dependent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-resonator energy storage can approach 100% in the lossless limit, so the problem of maximizing transfer reduces to setting one growth rate rather than searching over pulse widths.
  • Coupled networks with spectrally close modes can be addressed individually: complex-frequency drives give 92–95% target efficiency and crosstalk-suppression ratios around 20, where Gaussian pulses give 54–61% and ratios near 2–3.
  • The middle resonator, the hardest case for Gaussian driving, reaches about 92% efficiency and 0.915 target selectivity under complex-frequency excitation.
  • With intrinsic loss present, perfect absorption is still possible in principle, but stored-energy efficiency saturates at $\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}/(\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}+\gamma_{\mathrm{int}})$, so high internal quality factors are required.
  • Practical use depends on measuring the complex zeros of the fabricated device and generating high-dynamic-range exponential waveforms; the paper notes that nonlinear effects such as the Kerr shift would require adaptive tracking of the moving zero.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the residual 4–5% leakage suggests adding corrective tones or optimal-control shaping on top of the complex-frequency drive to cancel the non-orthogonal-mode overlap that the paper identifies as its source.
  • Beyond the paper, the same zero-targeting principle could transfer to photonic integrated circuits or to multi-port networks in which several zeros are driven coherently, though that extension is untested here.
  • Beyond the paper, the derived loss ceiling $\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}/(\gamma_{\mathrm{ext}}+\gamma_{\mathrm{int}})$ gives a direct experimental benchmark: degrade internal quality factor and compare the saturated efficiency with that formula.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using complex-frequency excitations, matched to the complex reflection zeros of a coupled-resonator network, to achieve efficient and selective energy storage in individual resonators. The authors develop a temporal coupled-mode theory for a single resonator, validate it with ADS simulations, and then study a three-resonator system coupled to a common feedline. They report near-unity (100%) single-resonator efficiency, 92–95% target-resonator efficiencies in the three-resonator system, and substantially improved selectivity and crosstalk suppression relative to Gaussian pulses.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the method would provide an analytic, physically intuitive approach for selective driving of coupled resonators, relevant to circuit QED and microwave quantum control. The paper's single-resonator TCMT derivation is internally consistent, and the single-resonator ADS/TCMT agreement is a useful validation. However, the headline three-resonator results rest on a comparison protocol with two serious issues: the evaluation time T for complex-frequency runs is never stated, and the Gaussian baseline is not optimized. The single-resonator 100% result is essentially definitional. These issues do not invalidate the core physics but do undermine the quantitative superiority claims as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1) and Tables S5–S6] The paper defines efficiency in Eq. (1) as a function of the integration time t and evaluates selectivity metrics "at the end of the excitation pulse (time T)", but T is never specified for the complex-frequency runs. Equation (S9) gives η(T)=1−exp(−2γ_ext T), so with the stated coupling capacitances (10–12.1 fF) and the single-resonator scaling of Fig. 2 (γ_ext/2π ≈ 1.0–1.6 MHz), the reported 94% target efficiency requires T ≈ 220–300 ns. The Gaussian baseline uses σ = 22–30 ns (effective width ≈ 36–49 ns). The abstract's "same duration" comparison is therefore unverified and, as stated, appears to be an unequal comparison. Please report T for every complex-frequency simulation and compare against a Gaussian pulse of the same total duration.
  2. [Section 2, Gaussian pulse durations paragraph] The Gaussian baseline in the three-resonator study is not the optimized Gaussian the paper itself identifies. The text states that "with an optimally chosen pulse i.e., a long duration pulse (σ_opt ≈ 2.5 σ_i), the same system can achieve efficiency as high as 86%", yet the comparison uses σ_1 = 30 ns, σ_2 = 22 ns, σ_3 = 22 ns, resulting in the 54–61% efficiencies listed in Tables S6. The abstract's margin (92–95% vs 54–61%) conflates the driving method with a deliberately suboptimal baseline. Please include the optimized Gaussian as a comparison point, or explicitly justify the chosen σ as the appropriate reference for the claimed "same duration" comparison.
  3. [Tables S5 and S6 and Section 2] The two protocols are evaluated at different instants, which biases the comparison in favor of complex-frequency driving. Table S6 evaluates Gaussian efficiency "at the point of maximum total stored energy", while Table S5 evaluates complex-frequency efficiency "at the end of the pulse" (time T). Because η_cf(t) monotonically increases with time (Eq. S9) while the Gaussian efficiency η_G(t) peaks and then decays (Eq. S13), this inconsistent choice of evaluation time overstates the advantage. Please use a common, clearly stated evaluation criterion (e.g., the end of the input waveform) for both protocols.
  4. [Section 2, single-resonator result, Fig. 2] The near-100% single-resonator efficiency is essentially definitional: the complex-frequency envelope is chosen to be the time-reversed impulse response of the lossless single-port resonator, so the reflection-zero condition forces all incident energy into the resonator. This result is a useful consistency check of the TCMT and the simulation setup, but it is not a physically surprising finding. The paper should present it as such and place the novelty of the work on the multi-resonator selectivity claims, which are the result that actually requires the coupled-resonator analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [After Fig. 5(d)] There is a typo: "Thee performance metric" should read "The performance metric".
  2. [Section 2, complex-frequency waveform] The expression for S_ex(t) is garbled; please clarify the sign of the imaginary unit and write the exponential as a product of a real exponential growth factor and a phase factor, e.g., A exp[−i Re(ω_z) t] exp[Im(ω_z) t].
  3. [Supplementary, Table S2] Table S2 appears to be missing its header row; the column labels for "Resonator 1", "Resonator 2", and "Resonator 3" should be included for readability.
  4. [Abstract] The percentages in the abstract are formatted incompletely (e.g., "100η ≈ %" and "max 80η ≈ %"); please correct the typography so the numerical values are clearly readable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main derivations are self-contained TCMT/ABCD calculations, and the self-citations are background rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The single-resonator efficiency is obtained by solving the TCMT equation (Eq. S1) with the explicitly stated exponential drive s_in(t)=A_C e^{γt}Θ(t) (Eqs. S5–S9) and with a Gaussian drive (Eqs. S10–S13); the three-resonator efficiencies and selectivities come from complex zeros computed with the ABCD method and then used as drive parameters in PathWave ADS transient simulations. There is no parameter fitted to the target efficiency or selectivity, so the pattern 'fitted input called prediction' does not occur. The near-unity single-resonator limit is a derived consequence of driving at the reflection zero, not an assumption of the result; the waveform is constructed from the system decay rate, and η(t)=1−e^{−2γt} follows from the model. Self-citations are present ([14] Kim–Krasnok–Alù, [21] Ra'di–Krasnok–Alù, [23] Hinney–Alù), but they are used as background references for complex-frequency excitation and virtual critical coupling, and they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole support for the central quantitative claims. The Discussion explicitly discloses the lossless/linear assumption and the Kerr-induced zero shift, so the main idealizations are not hidden. The one substantive reporting gap is quantitative rather than circular: the Gaussian pulse widths are given (σ1=30, σ2=22, σ3=22 ns) but the complex-frequency pulse duration T is never specified, and Table S6 evaluates Gaussian efficiencies at 'the point of maximum total stored energy' while Table S5 uses 'at the end of the pulse,' so the abstract's 'same duration' comparison cannot be fully verified; this affects the comparison but is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a lossless, linear, single-port TCMT model for the single resonator and on an ABCD matrix model of the three-resonator network. No new physical entity is introduced; all parameters are specific circuit values. The main hidden inputs are the pulse evaluation time T and the particular Gaussian baseline widths chosen for comparison.

free parameters (2)
  • end-of-pulse evaluation time T
    Not specified in the main text; complex-frequency efficiency eta(T)=1-e^{-2*gamma*T} increases with T, so the reported 92-100% values depend on this choice.
  • Gaussian baseline pulse widths sigma_1, sigma_2, sigma_3 = 30, 22, 22 ns
    Hand-chosen for the headline comparison; the optimized long Gaussian, stated to reach 86%, is mentioned but not included in the selectivity metrics.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Single-port TCMT model with gamma_int = 0
    Supplement S.1.1, Eq. S1 assumes a single lossless coupling channel; this is what makes 100% efficiency possible.
  • standard math Reflection coefficient can be analytically continued and zeros locate perfect absorption
    Section 2, complex poles and zeros; standard microwave network theory (refs 17, 18).
  • domain assumption ABCD matrix lumped-element model fully represents the three-resonator feedline network
    Section 2, poles and zeros via ABCD method; the model omits distributed, lossy, and nonlinear effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Selective Excitation of Coupled Resonators via Complex Frequency Driving: Enhanced Efficiency and Crosstalk Suppression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H4ENNBGX

@misc{pith2026250602207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Selective Excitation of Coupled Resonators via Complex Frequency Driving: Enhanced Efficiency and Crosstalk Suppression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H4ENNBGX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02207}
}
read the original abstract

Controlling individual elements of coupled resonator systems poses a significant challenge, as conventional real-frequency pulses suffer from inefficiency and crosstalk, limiting fidelity and scalability. To address this challenge, we propose and explore the use of complex frequency excitations, tailoring the driving signal waveform to match the target complex reflection zeros. We demonstrate that complex frequency driving can achieve near-unity selected energy storage efficiency (100%) in a single resonator, substantially exceeding the performance of optimized Gaussian pulses (~80%). In a coupled three-resonator system, our method yields significantly higher efficiency (92-95%) along with vastly improved selectivity and crosstalk suppression compared to conventional Gaussian pulse excitations of the same duration. Our technique achieves dynamic critical coupling, providing a powerful paradigm for high-fidelity, selective control, crucial for advancing scalable complex systems for sensing and computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of multiple resonators coupled to a common microwave waveguide. This shared communication line facilitates interactions but also allows for crosstalk, complicating the selective control of individual resonators. Complex-frequency excitation offers a pathway to address a target resonator (e.g., the central one) with high fidelity while minimizing unwanted excitation (disturbance) of neighboring… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic representation of a resonant cavity with eigenfrequency r coupled via ext  to a feeding waveguide. (b) Equivalent lumped-element circuit model. The waveguide is modeled by the input port with impedance Z0 , coupled capacitively ( C ) to a parallel LC resonator. (c) Simulated excitation efficiency  versus time for a single resonator using: a long Gaussian pulse (  = 15 ns, blue), a short Gaussian p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a): Schematic of the three-resonator system. Each LC resonator is coupled ( Cc1 , Cc2 , Cc3 ) to a common control line, which couples ( C ) to the external port ( Z0 ). (b): Eigenfrequency dispersion calculated using QuCAT, showing the real parts of the three system eigenmodes versus C1 . Avoided crossings indicate interactions. (c): Complex poles and zeros of the reflection coefficient ()  calculated via ABCD m… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Transient analysis of the three-resonator system under Gaussian pulse excitation (  1,2,3 = 30,22,22 ns) (a, c, e): Incident pulse (red, scaled) and reflected signal (blue) when targeting (a) resonator 1 ( Re( ) z1 ), (c) resonator 2 ( Re( ) z2 ), and (e) resonator …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Transient analysis of the three-resonator system under complex frequency excitation. (a, c, e): Incident complex frequency signal (red, exponentially growing) and reflected signal (blue) when exciting at (a) z1 , (c) z2 , and (e) z3 . Note the near-zero reflection d…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. E. Little, S. T. Chu, H. A. Haus, J. Foresi, J.-P. Laine, Microring resonator channel dropping filters. J. Light. Technol. 15, 998–1005 (1997)

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Yariv, Universal relations for coupling of optical powerbetweenmicroresonators and dielectric waveguides

    A. Yariv, Universal relations for coupling of optical powerbetweenmicroresonators and dielectric waveguides. Electron. Lett. 36, 321–322 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    J. Hong, M. J. Lancaster, Microstrip Filters for RF/Microwave Applications (Wiley, 2001; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0471221619)

    work page doi:10.1002/0471221619 2001

  4. [4]

    K. J. Vahala, Optical microcavities. Nature 424, 839–846 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Blais, R.-S

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

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R. S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics. Nature 431 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits. Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Göppl, A

    M. Göppl, A. Fragner, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, S. Filipp, J. M. Fink, P. J. Leek, G. Puebla, L. Steffen, A. Wallraff, Coplanar waveguide resonators for circuit quantum electrodynamics. J. Appl. Phys. 104 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, F. K. Wilhelm, Simple Pulses for Elimination of Leakage in Weakly Nonlinear Qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 110501 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Steffen, M

    M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, N. Katz, E. Lucero, R. McDermott, M. Neeley, E. M. Weig, A. N. Cleland, J. M. Martinis, Measurement of the Entanglement of Two Superconducting Qubits via State Tomography. Science (80-. ). 313, 1423–1425 (2006). 20

    2006

  3. [11]

    D. M. Pozar, Microwave Engineering, 4th Edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    D. Sank, Z. Chen, M. Khezri, J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, T. White, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, J. M....

    2016

  5. [13]

    J. M. Gambetta, F. Motzoi, S. T. Merkel, F. K. Wilhelm, Analytic control methods for high- fidelity unitary operations in a weakly nonlinear oscillator. Phys. Rev. A 83, 012308 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    S. Kim, A. Krasnok, A. Alù, Complex-frequency excitations in photonics and wave physics. Science (80-. ). 387 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    D. G. Baranov, A. Krasnok, T. Shegai, A. Alù, Y. Chong, Coherent perfect absorbers: linear control of light with light. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2, 17064 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Pichler, S

    H. Pichler, S. Choi, P. Zoller, M. D. Lukin, Universal photonic quantum computation via time-delayed feedback. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 11362–11367 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    R. E. Collin, Foundations for Microwave Engineering (Wiley-IEEE Press, ed. 2nd, 2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    W. Suh, Z. Wang, S. Fan, Temporal coupled-mode theory and the presence of non- orthogonal modes in lossless multimode cavities. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40, 1511– 1518 (2004)

    2004

  11. [19]

    Manolatou, M

    C. Manolatou, M. J. Khan, S. Fan, P. R. Villeneuve, H. A. Haus, J. D. Joannopoulos, Coupling of modes analysis of resonant channel add-drop filters. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 35, 1322–1331 (1999)

    1999

  12. [20]

    Xiong, J

    W. Xiong, J. Chen, B. Fang, C.-H. Lam, J. Q. You, Coherent perfect absorption in a weakly coupled atom-cavity system. Phys. Rev. A 101, 063822 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Ra’di, A

    Y. Ra’di, A. Krasnok, A. Alù, Virtual Critical Coupling. ACS Photonics 7, 1468–1475 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Delage, O

    T. Delage, O. Pascal, J. Sokoloff, V. Mazières, Experimental demonstration of virtual critical coupling to a single-mode microwave cavity. J. Appl. Phys. 132, 153105 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Hinney, S

    J. Hinney, S. Kim, G. J. K. Flatt, I. Datta, A. Alù, M. Lipson, Efficient excitation and control of integrated photonic circuits with virtual critical coupling. Nat. Commun. 15, 2741 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    W. Wan, Y. Chong, L. Ge, H. Noh, A. D. Stone, H. Cao, Time-Reversed Lasing and Interferometric Control of Absorption. Science (80-. ). 331, 889–892 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    H. A. Haus, Waves and Fields in Optoelectronics (Prentice-H, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 21 Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-H., 1984)

    1984

  18. [26]

    T. Wu, P. Lalanne, Exact Maxwell evolution equation of resonator dynamics: temporal coupled-mode theory revisited. Opt. Express 32, 20904 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M. Girvin, Black-Box Superconducting Circuit Quantization. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 240502 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    M. F. Gely, G. A. Steele, QuCAT: quantum circuit analyzer tool in Python. New J. Phys. 22, 013025 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    S. Fan, W. Suh, J. D. Joannopoulos, Temporal coupled-mode theory for the Fano resonance in optical resonators. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 20, 569 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Hazra, A

    S. Hazra, A. Bhattacharjee, M. Chand, K. V. Salunkhe, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. P. Patankar, R. Vijay, Ring-Resonator-Based Coupling Architecture for Enhanced Connectivity in a Superconducting Multiqubit Network. Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 024018 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Kirchmair, B

    G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, E. Ginossar, M. Mirrahimi, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, Observation of quantum state collapse and revival due to the single-photon Kerr effect. Nature 495, 205–209 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Kelly, R

    J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, I.-C. Hoi, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Mutus, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, J. M. Martinis, Optima...

    2014

  25. [33]

    Detailed Efficiency and Selectivity Results Table S1: Target Selectivity under Gaussian Pulse Excitation. Values indicate the fraction of total stored energy residing in each resonator (columns) when the system is excited with a Gaussian pulse centered at the real part of the ...

Pith tools

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