pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.13427 · v3 · submitted 2025-07-17 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.supr-con

Two-photon coupling via Josephson element II: Interaction dressing, cross-Kerr coupling, and limits of low-energy bosonic model

Eugene V. Stolyarov , V. L. Andriichuk , Andrii M. Sokolov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 04:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.supr-con
keywords superconducting qubitstwo-photon couplingcross-Kerr interactionJosephson junctionSQUID couplerinteraction dressingbosonic modelphase qubit
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

In the two-photon regime the cross-Kerr coupling between a phase qubit and resonator never vanishes because dressing from qubit asymmetry and coupler nonlinearity keeps it finite.

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

The paper examines interactions mediated by a symmetric SQUID that can be tuned between single-photon and two-photon coupling to a phase qubit living in its metastable well. It shows that once the system enters the bosonic two-photon regime the cross-Kerr term acquires a nonzero dressed value set by the asymmetry of the qubit potential and the nonlinearity of the coupler. A reader would care because the result supplies concrete measurable rates for two-photon detection and for quantum-nondemolition readout of asymmetric qubits while also fixing the smallest number of energy levels that must be kept for the low-energy bosonic model to remain accurate. Near two-photon resonance the work further calculates the renormalizations produced by all non-resonant virtual processes.

Core claim

In the bosonic two-photon regime the cross-Kerr coupling never vanishes as it dresses due to asymmetry in the qubit potential and nonlinearity of the coupler. Quantitative results depend on the bosonic approximation whose limits are approached by enumerating the minimum number of coherent energy states required to capture dressing virtual processes that climb the qubit ladder. Near two-photon resonance with a coupled resonator all other relevant renormalizations arising from nonresonant interactions are calculated and verifiable predictions for the coupling rates are supplied.

What carries the argument

Dressing of the cross-Kerr interaction by virtual processes that climb the qubit ladder, generated by the combination of qubit-potential asymmetry and SQUID nonlinearity.

If this is right

  • Modified SQUID-qubit circuits can be used for two-photon detection.
  • The same circuits enable quantum-nondemolition readout of a qubit that has an asymmetric potential.
  • Near two-photon resonance the coupling rates receive additional renormalizations that can be calculated from nonresonant interactions.
  • The bosonic approximation requires a minimum number of energy states whose value is set by the highest virtual dressing processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Residual cross-Kerr terms will appear in any two-photon gate that uses an asymmetric Josephson element unless the asymmetry is deliberately cancelled.
  • The ladder-climbing diagram method offers a systematic way to test the validity of bosonic approximations in other driven nonlinear circuits.
  • Engineering the degree of qubit asymmetry could provide an in-situ knob for the strength of unwanted cross-Kerr interactions in larger quantum processors.

Load-bearing premise

The low-energy bosonic model for the qubit stays valid only when enough coherent energy states are retained to include all significant dressing processes that climb the qubit ladder.

What would settle it

Measure the residual cross-Kerr shift in a qubit-resonator circuit tuned exactly to the two-photon resonance and check whether the shift remains finite when the qubit potential is made more symmetric.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13427 by Andrii M. Sokolov, Eugene V. Stolyarov, V. L. Andriichuk.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A resonator and an rf SQUID in the regime of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Some corrections to the bare linear and cross-Kerr couplings. (I) Inductive single-photon corrections arise due to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Some corrections to the two-photon coupling. (a) Virtual transitions 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Top panel) Double-well potential (thick black) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dependence of the resonator and atom frequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dependence of the interaction rates on the coupler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the interactions mediated by a symmetric superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID), their renormalizations, and the applicability of the anharmonic oscillator (bosonic) model for a coupled phase qubit. The latter dwells in its metastable well holding a number of anharmonic energy states. The coupling SQUID can switch between the single- and two-photon interactions in situ. We find that, in the bosonic two-photon regime, the cross-Kerr coupling never vanishes as it dresses due to asymmetry in the qubit potential and nonlinearity of the coupler. Our quantitative results also depend on the bosonic approximation. We approach determining its limits by finding the minimum number of coherent energy states required for a dressing. For that, we lay out diagrams of the dressing virtual processes that climb the qubit ladder as high as possible. Near the two-photon resonance with a coupled resonator, we systematically calculate other relevant renormalizations due to nonresonant interactions. We provide verifiable predictions for the coupling rates. Modified systems can be applied for two-photon detection and for quantum-nondemolition readout of a qubit with an asymmetrical potential.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies interactions mediated by a symmetric SQUID between a phase qubit (with metastable well and anharmonic states) and a resonator. It derives renormalizations of single- and two-photon couplings, shows that the cross-Kerr term remains non-zero in the bosonic two-photon regime due to qubit potential asymmetry and coupler nonlinearity, and determines the validity limits of the low-energy anharmonic-oscillator model by enumerating virtual dressing processes that climb the qubit ladder. Verifiable predictions for coupling rates are given for two-photon detection and QND readout applications.

Significance. If the bosonic truncation holds, the result that cross-Kerr never vanishes under dressing provides a concrete, falsifiable correction to standard low-energy models in circuit QED. The enumeration of virtual processes and the explicit dependence on asymmetry and nonlinearity parameters constitute a strength, as does the provision of verifiable predictions. The work is of moderate significance for experiments aiming to exploit or mitigate dressed two-photon interactions.

major comments (1)
  1. [limits of the low-energy bosonic model] Section on limits of the low-energy bosonic model: the minimum state count for the bosonic approximation is set by enumerating perturbative virtual processes that climb the qubit ladder. This enumeration may omit resonant multi-photon transitions enabled once the SQUID nonlinearity mixes higher levels, potentially allowing a cancellation or sign change in the renormalized cross-Kerr that the truncated model misses. Direct comparison to full numerical diagonalization of the ladder dynamics near two-photon resonance is needed to bound the truncation error and support the central claim that cross-Kerr never vanishes.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that quantitative results depend on the bosonic approximation but does not quantify the sensitivity to the retained state number; adding a brief statement or reference to the enumeration result would improve clarity.
  2. Notation for the asymmetry parameter and coupler nonlinearity strength should be introduced with explicit symbols in the main text before their use in the renormalization formulas.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for their detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the major comment and indicate the revisions we intend to make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section on limits of the low-energy bosonic model: the minimum state count for the bosonic approximation is set by enumerating perturbative virtual processes that climb the qubit ladder. This enumeration may omit resonant multi-photon transitions enabled once the SQUID nonlinearity mixes higher levels, potentially allowing a cancellation or sign change in the renormalized cross-Kerr that the truncated model misses. Direct comparison to full numerical diagonalization of the ladder dynamics near two-photon resonance is needed to bound the truncation error and support the central claim that cross-Kerr never vanishes.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing out this potential limitation in our analysis of the bosonic approximation. The enumeration of virtual processes is derived from the complete circuit model, incorporating both the qubit potential asymmetry and the SQUID nonlinearity. These processes include contributions from higher-level mixing induced by the coupler. Nevertheless, we concur that a numerical validation would enhance the manuscript by providing quantitative bounds on the truncation error. Accordingly, in the revised version of the manuscript, we will add a comparison of our analytical results with full numerical diagonalization of the Hamiltonian in the vicinity of the two-photon resonance. This addition will support our claim that the cross-Kerr term remains non-zero under the relevant conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations self-contained from Hamiltonian

full rationale

The paper derives renormalizations of interactions and the non-vanishing cross-Kerr coupling directly from the circuit Hamiltonian, incorporating explicit asymmetry in the qubit potential and nonlinearity of the SQUID coupler as model inputs. The limits of the low-energy bosonic model are approached via explicit enumeration of dressing virtual processes that climb the qubit ladder, which constitutes a direct perturbative calculation rather than a fitted parameter, self-definition, or reduction to prior outputs. No load-bearing self-citations, ansatzes smuggled via citation, or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work are invoked to force the central claims. The quantitative results and verifiable predictions for coupling rates follow from the stated Hamiltonian parameters without circular reduction to the target quantities by construction. This is the standard case of a self-contained derivation against external circuit benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of the circuit Hamiltonian for a symmetric SQUID, perturbative treatment of virtual processes, and the assumption that asymmetry and nonlinearity are the dominant sources of dressing. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • asymmetry parameter in qubit potential
    Introduced to break perfect symmetry and generate residual cross-Kerr; its value is not derived from first principles within the paper.
  • coupler nonlinearity strength
    Fitted or chosen to produce the observed dressing; affects quantitative coupling rates.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The low-energy dynamics can be captured by a finite number of anharmonic oscillator levels whose minimum count is determined by enumerating virtual dressing processes.
    Invoked when setting the bosonic-model limits.
  • domain assumption Perturbative renormalization near two-photon resonance captures all relevant frequency shifts from non-resonant interactions.
    Used for the systematic calculation of other renormalizations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5746 in / 1525 out tokens · 31616 ms · 2026-05-19T04:18:13.666709+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 108 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Full expres- sions are provided in Appendix A

    as ˜ωr ≈ω p r − K0,X 2 ,˜ω a ≈ω p a −Ξ a − K0,X 2 .(46) Here we omit other interaction-induced shifts that are of order ofg 2 ±/˜ωr,a andΞ ag2 ±/˜ω2 r,a and less. Full expres- sions are provided in Appendix A. We show in Sec. V E thatK 0,X in Eqs. (46) is also the main contribution to the cross-Kerr coupling strength as in Eq. (38). Another frequency shif...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (30), ˜gi 1 vanishes for the bias determined by the condition cotδ= 5 6 µφ2 a,zpf

    As follows from Eq. (30), ˜gi 1 vanishes for the bias determined by the condition cotδ= 5 6 µφ2 a,zpf. This zero-shifting compo- nent is proportional to the bareG 2 interaction (see lower panel) and sinδ. Hence, this component is close to its maximal magnitude right near the zero of the bare cou- plingg i

    work page

  3. [3]

    We mark these values of Φ c in Fig

    Equation (32) suggests an important property: for specific values of the external flux Φ c, the capacitive and inductive couplings cancel each other out, and the single-photon coupling switches off [51, 67]. We mark these values of Φ c in Fig. 6. The middle panelin Fig. 6 demonstrates the cross- Kerr coupling rate ˜Kas in Eq. (38). We also plot the bare r...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    (13) and (14) as a perturbation

    Self-nonlinearities as a perturbation We start with treating the cubic and quartic nonlinear- ities of Eqs. (13) and (14) as a perturbation. We approx- imately diagonalize the atom Hamiltonian ˆHa in Eq. (14) using a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation [11, 62, 89], ˆHa → e−ΛaSa ˆHaeΛaSa, where Λa = Xa ωp a .(A1) The anti-Hermitian operatorS a is given by [61...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (A1), another way to express this small parameter is Λa = 1 12 µφa,zpf ,(A7) where|µ|≲2E a J/ ˜Ea L according to Eq

    Apart from its definition Eq. (A1), another way to express this small parameter is Λa = 1 12 µφa,zpf ,(A7) where|µ|≲2E a J/ ˜Ea L according to Eq. (31) forE c J ≲E a J. In the Hamiltonian in Eq. (A4), we have dropped off-diagonal terms of two kinds: One is proportional to Λ aXa(b†mbn +b †nbm), wherem+nis even and 2≤m+n≤4. Another one is proportional to Λa...

    work page

  6. [6]

    andm̸=n

    For both types,m, n= 0,1,2, . . .andm̸=n. Elimi- nating such terms with a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation yields additional terms in the Hamiltonian with the mag- nitudes about Λ3 aXa/(m−n) andφ a,zpfΛ3 aYa/(m−n) or smaller. Here, we have used thatY a ≲φ a,zpf Xa accord- ing to Eq. (16) forE c J ≪E a J and cotϕ min a <1 as in Sec. V in the atom metastable...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Two-photon regime Withω a ≈2ω r, which is close to the two-photon reso- nance, the interaction Hamiltonian becomes ˆHI ℏ ≈ −g2(a†2b+b †a2)−K 0,X a†a b†b+ δ ˆHI ℏ .(A14) The first two terms here correspond to the resonant in- teractions: the bare two-photon coupling of strengthg 2 and the cross-Kerr coupling of strengthK 0,X as given by Eq. (A13). Below, w...

    work page

  8. [8]

    (20), (23), and (25)

    Thus, 3|g 3 +G 3| ≪ |g i 1|as follows from Eqs. (20), (23), and (25). As for the second term in Eq. (A16), it matters near the pointsδmodπ=π/2 where the bare inductive couplingg i 1 vanishes. Away from there, the entire renormalization of the lin- ear couplingg i 1 often can be negligible. The coupling strengthG 2 is of higher order in the vacuum fluctuat...

    work page

  9. [9]

    In that case, ˜g i 1 ≈g i 1 according to Eq

    Thus, we have that 20Λ a|G2| ≪ |g i 1|as far asµφ 2 a,zpf |tanδ| ≪1. In that case, ˜g i 1 ≈g i 1 according to Eq. (A16). The second and third lines in Eq. (A15) describe non- linear interactions that result in the same transitions as the linear coupling. The number-conserving part of such interactions is known as a nonlinear Jaynes-Cummings interaction (s...

    work page

  10. [10]

    (A2) as Sa =− 2 3(b† −b) 3 + (b† +b) 2(b† −b)−2(b † +b).(B1) We verify this form withpyBoLaNO[95] which is based on Refs

    Calculation Beforehand, it is convenient to rewrite Eq. (A2) as Sa =− 2 3(b† −b) 3 + (b† +b) 2(b† −b)−2(b † +b).(B1) We verify this form withpyBoLaNO[95] which is based on Refs. [96, 97]. With Eq. (B1), the commutators in the BCH formula (A3) are easy to calculate, as our Hamilto- nian in Eqs. (14) and (18) depends on the dimensionless canonical coordinat...

    work page

  11. [11]

    2(II) shows the process as described, among others, by the term :P M M M: similar to the second term in Eq

    Diagrams and the number of energy levels The atom part of the diagram in Fig. 2(II) shows the process as described, among others, by the term :P M M M: similar to the second term in Eq. (B5). Contraction in a term corresponds to a loop in the dia- gram. Note that, when only taking into account the first BCH commutator as in Eq. (B3), the processes from di...

    work page

  12. [12]

    E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, Comparison of quan- tum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Proc. IEEE51, 89 (1963)

    work page 1963

  13. [13]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Camp- bell, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing high-fidelity two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 054062 (2018)

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    E. A. Sete, A. Q. Chen, R. Manenti, S. Kulshreshtha, and S. Poletto, Floating tunable coupler for scalable quantum computing architectures, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 064063 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Marxer, A

    F. Marxer, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, S. W. Jolin, J. Tuorila, A. Landra, C. Ockeloen-Korppi, W. Liu, O. Ahonen, A. Auer, L. Belzane, V. Bergholm, C. F. Chan, K. W. Chan, T. Hiltunen, J. Hotari, E. Hyypp¨ a, J. Ikonen, D. Janzso, M. Koistinen, J. Kotilahti, T. Li, J. Luus, M. Papic, M. Partanen, J. R¨ abin¨ a, J. Rosti, M. Savyt- skyi, M. Sepp¨ al¨ a, V. Sevriuk...

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Technology and perfor- mance benchmarks of iqm’s 20-qubit quan- tum computer

    L. Abdurakhimov, J. Adam, H. Ahmad, O. Aho- nen, M. Algaba, G. Alonso, V. Bergholm, R. Beriwal, M. Beuerle, C. Bockstiegel,et al., Technology and per- formance benchmarks of IQM’s 20-qubit quantum com- puter, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12433 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design de- rived from the Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    work page 2007

  18. [18]

    Solgun and S

    F. Solgun and S. Srinivasan, Direct calculation ofZZ interaction rates in multimode circuit quantum electro- dynamics, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 044025 (2022)

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    R. W. Boyd,Nonlinear Optics, 3rd ed. (Academic Press, 2008)

    work page 2008

  20. [20]

    Haroche, Cavity quantum electrodynamics: a review of Rydberg atom-microwave experiments on entanglement and decoherence (1999) pp

    S. Haroche, Cavity quantum electrodynamics: a review of Rydberg atom-microwave experiments on entanglement and decoherence (1999) pp. 45–66

    work page 1999

  21. [21]

    Carbonaro, G

    P. Carbonaro, G. Compagno, and F. Persico, Canonical dressing of atoms by intense radiation fields, Phys. Lett. A73, 97 (1979)

    work page 1979

  22. [22]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A69, 062320 (2004)

    work page 2004

  23. [23]

    Blais, J

    A. Blais, J. Gambetta, A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Quantum- information processing with circuit quantum electrody- namics, Phys. Rev. A75, 032329 (2007)

    work page 2007

  24. [24]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Nakamura, Y

    Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai, Rabi oscil- lations in a Josephson-junction charge two-level system, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 246601 (2001)

    work page 2001

  26. [26]

    Lisenfeld,Experiments on superconducting Josephson phase quantum bits, Ph.D

    J. Lisenfeld,Experiments on superconducting Josephson phase quantum bits, Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at Erlangen- N¨ urnberg (2007)

    work page 2007

  27. [27]

    Ashhab, J

    S. Ashhab, J. R. Johansson, and F. Nori, Rabi oscillations in a qubit coupled to a quantum two-level system, New Journal of Physics8, 103 (2006)

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    Garziano, R

    L. Garziano, R. Stassi, V. Macr` ı, A. F. Kockum, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Multiphoton quantum Rabi os- cillations in ultrastrong cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A92, 063830 (2015)

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    V¨ alimaa, W

    A. V¨ alimaa, W. Crump, M. Kervinen, and M. A. Sil- lanp¨ a¨ a, Multiphonon transitions in a quantum electrome- chanical system, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 064003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Ayyash, X

    M. Ayyash, X. Xu, S. Ashhab, and M. Mariantoni, Driven multiphoton qubit-resonator interactions, Phys. Rev. A110, 053711 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    E. V. Stolyarov, V. L. Andriichuk, and A. M. Sokolov, Two-photon coupling via Josephson element: Breaking the symmetry with magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B111, 214517 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    W. Qin, A. F. Kockum, C. S. Mu˜ noz, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Quantum amplification and simulation of strong and ultrastrong coupling of light and matter, Physics Re- ports1078, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    A. M. Sokolov and F. K. Wilhelm, Superconducting de- tector that counts microwave photons up to two, Phys. Rev. Applied14, 064063 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    A. M. Sokolov,Photon counting in the microwave do- main and its applications to superconducting qubit read- out, Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at des Saarlandes (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    E. V. Stolyarov and R. A. Baskov, Detector of microwave photon pairs based on a Josephson photomultiplier, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033263 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Felicetti, J

    S. Felicetti, J. S. Pedernales, I. L. Egusquiza, G. Romero, L. Lamata, D. Braak, and E. Solano, Spectral collapse via two-phonon interactions in trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A92, 033817 (2015)

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    A. F. Linskens, I. Holleman, N. Dam, and J. Reuss, Two- photon Rabi oscillations, Phys. Rev. A54, 4854 (1996)

    work page 1996

  38. [38]

    S. P. Fors, J. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, and A. F. Kockum, Comprehensive explanation of zz coupling in supercon- ducting qubits (2024), arXiv:2408.15402 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Chakraborty, B

    A. Chakraborty, B. Bhandari, D. D. Brise˜ no-Colunga, N. Stevenson, Z. Pedramrazi, C.-H. Liu, D. I. Santiago, I. Siddiqi, J. Dressel, and A. N. Jordan, Tunable super- conducting quantum interference device coupler for flux- onium qubits (2025), arXiv:2508.16907 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    R. Khan, F. Massel, and T. T. Heikkil¨ a, Cross-Kerr non- linearity in optomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. A91, 043822 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Esposito, A

    M. Esposito, A. Ranadive, L. Planat, and N. Roch, Per- 25 spective on traveling wave microwave parametric ampli- fiers, Applied Physics Letters119, 120501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Y.-F. Chen, D. Hover, S. Sendelbach, L. Maurer, S. T. Merkel, E. J. Pritchett, F. K. Wilhelm, and R. Mc- Dermott, Microwave photon counter based on Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 217401 (2011)

    work page 2011

  43. [43]

    L. C. G. Govia, E. J. Pritchett, S. T. Merkel, D. Pineau, and F. K. Wilhelm, Theory of Josephson photomultipli- ers: Optimal working conditions and back action, Phys. Rev. A86, 032311 (2012)

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Opremcak, I

    A. Opremcak, I. V. Pechenezhskiy, C. Howington, B. G. Christensen, M. A. Beck, E. Leonard, J. Suttle, C. Wilen, K. N. Nesterov, G. J. Ribeill, T. Thorbeck, F. Schlenker, M. G. Vavilov, B. L. T. Plourde, and R. McDermott, Measurement of a superconducting qubit with a mi- crowave photon counter, Science361, 1239 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Opremcak, C

    A. Opremcak, C. H. Liu, C. Wilen, K. Okubo, B. G. Christensen, D. Sank, T. C. White, A. Vainsencher, M. Giustina, A. Megrant, B. Burkett, B. L. T. Plourde, and R. McDermott, High-fidelity measurement of a su- perconducting qubit using an on-chip microwave photon counter, Phys. Rev. X11, 011027 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    V. I. Shnyrkov, A. P. Shapovalov, V. Y. Lyakhno, A. O. Dumik, A. A. Kalenyuk, and P. Febvre, An RF SQUID readout for a flux qubit-based microwave single pho- ton counter, Superconductor Science and Technology36, 035005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    O. A. Ilinskaya, A. I. Ryzhov, and S. N. Shevchenko, Flux qubit based detector of microwave photons, Phys. Rev. B110, 155414 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Oelsner, C

    G. Oelsner, C. K. Andersen, M. Reh´ ak, M. Schmelz, S. Anders, M. Grajcar, U. H¨ ubner, K. Mølmer, and E. Il’ichev, Detection of weak microwave fields with an underdamped Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. Applied7, 014012 (2017)

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    D’Elia, A

    A. D’Elia, A. Rettaroli, S. Tocci, D. Babusci, C. Barone, M. Beretta, B. Buonomo, F. Chiarello, N. Chikhi, D. Di Gioacchino, G. Felici, G. Filatrella, M. Fistul, L. Foggetta, C. Gatti, E. Il’ichev, C. Ligi, M. Lisit- skiy, G. Maccarrone, F. Mattioli, G. Oelsner, S. Pagano, L. Piersanti, B. Ruggiero, G. Torrioli, and A. Zagoskin, Stepping closer to pulsed ...

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Grimaudo, D

    R. Grimaudo, D. Valenti, B. Spagnolo, G. Filatrella, and C. Guarcello, Josephson-junction-based axion detection through resonant activation, Phys. Rev. D105, 033007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Inomata, Z

    K. Inomata, Z. Lin, K. Koshino, W. D. Oliver, J.-S. Tsai, T. Yamamoto, and Y. Nakamura, Single microwave- photon detector using an artificial Λ-type three-level sys- tem, Nat. Commun.7, 12303 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Lescanne, S

    R. Lescanne, S. Del´ eglise, E. Albertinale, U. R´ eglade, T. Capelle, E. Ivanov, T. Jacqmin, Z. Leghtas, and E. Flurin, Irreversible qubit-photon coupling for the de- tection of itinerant microwave photons, Phys. Rev. X10, 021038 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    Balembois, J

    L. Balembois, J. Travesedo, L. Pallegoix, A. May, E. Bil- laud, M. Villiers, D. Est` eve, D. Vion, P. Bertet, and E. Flurin, Cyclically operated microwave single-photon counter with sensitivity of 10 −22 W/ √ Hz, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 014043 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Guerlin, J

    C. Guerlin, J. Bernu, S. Del´ eglise, C. Sayrin, S. Gleyzes, S. Kuhr, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Pro- gressive field-state collapse and quantum non-demolition photon counting, Nature448, 889 (2007)

    work page 2007

  55. [55]

    B. R. Johnson, M. D. Reed, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, L. S. Bishop, E. Ginossar, J. M. Gambetta, L. DiCarlo, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Quantum non-demolition detection of single microwave photons in a circuit, Nat. Phys.6, 663 (2010)

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    P. J. Leek, M. Baur, J. M. Fink, R. Bianchetti, L. Steffen, S. Filipp, and A. Wallraff, Cavity quantum electrody- namics with separate photon storage and qubit readout modes, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 100504 (2010)

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    S. Kono, K. Koshino, Y. Tabuchi, A. Noguchi, and Y. Nakamura, Quantum non-demolition detection of an itinerant microwave photon, Nature Physics14, 546 (2018)

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    Essig, Q

    A. Essig, Q. Ficheux, T. Peronnin, N. Cottet, R. Les- canne, A. Sarlette, P. Rouchon, Z. Leghtas, and B. Huard, Multiplexed photon number measurement, Phys. Rev. X11, 031045 (2021)

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    Dassonneville, R

    R. Dassonneville, R. Assouly, T. Peronnin, P. Rouchon, and B. Huard, Number-resolved photocounter for propa- gating microwave mode, Phys. Rev. Applied14, 044022 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    J. C. Curtis, C. T. Hann, S. S. Elder, C. S. Wang, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Single-shot number-resolved detection of microwave photons with er- ror mitigation, Phys. Rev. A103, 023705 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Liu, H.-T

    J. Liu, H.-T. Chen, and D. Segal, Quantum nondemo- lition photon counting with a hybrid electromechanical probe, Phys. Rev. A102, 061501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Ciani, B

    A. Ciani, B. M. Terhal, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Hamilto- nian quantum computing with superconducting qubits, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 035002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Shang, H

    C. Shang, H. Z. Shen, and X. X. Yi, Nonreciprocity in a strongly coupled three-mode optomechanical circulatory system, Opt. Express27, 25882 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Sukumar and B

    C. Sukumar and B. Buck, Multi-phonon generalisation of the Jaynes-Cummings model, Physics Letters A83, 211 (1981); S. Singh, Field statistics in some generalized Jaynes-Cummings models, Phys. Rev. A25, 3206 (1982)

    work page 1981

  65. [65]

    C. J. Villas-Boas and D. Z. Rossatto, Multiphoton Jaynes-Cummings model: Arbitrary rotations in Fock space and quantum filters, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 123604 (2019)

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Jeffrey, D

    E. Jeffrey, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White, J. Kelly, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Megrant, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Neill, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Fast accurate state measurement with super- conducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 190504 (2014)

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    Barends, J

    R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, D. Sank, E. Jef- frey, Y. Chen, Y. Yin, B. Chiaro, J. Mutus, C. Neill, P. O’Malley, P. Roushan, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Coherent Josephson qubit suitable for scalable quantum integrated circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 080502 (2013)

    work page 2013

  68. [68]

    Steffen, M

    M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, R. McDermott, N. Katz, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, E. M. Weig, A. N. Cle- land, and J. M. Martinis, State tomography of capaci- tively shunted phase qubits with high fidelity, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 050502 (2006)

    work page 2006

  69. [69]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391 (2014)

    work page 2014

  70. [70]

    Botter, D

    T. Botter, D. W. C. Brooks, N. Brahms, S. Schreppler, 26 and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Linear amplifier model for op- tomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. A85, 013812 (2012)

    work page 2012

  71. [71]

    M. F. Dumas, B. Groleau-Par´ e, A. McDonald, M. H. Mu˜ noz-Arias, C. Lled´ o, B. D’Anjou, and A. Blais, Measurement-induced transmon ionization, Phys. Rev. X14, 041023 (2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    Hillmann and F

    T. Hillmann and F. Quijandr´ ıa, Designing Kerr inter- actions for quantum information processing via counter- rotating terms of asymmetric Josephson-junction loops, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 064018 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. P. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Schrief- fer–Wolff transformation for quantum many-body sys- tems, Annals of Physics326, 2793 (2011)

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    Zueco, G

    D. Zueco, G. M. Reuther, S. Kohler, and P. H¨ anggi, Qubit-oscillator dynamics in the dispersive regime: An- alytical theory beyond the rotating-wave approximation, Phys. Rev. A80, 033846 (2009)

    work page 2009

  75. [75]

    Beaudoin, J

    F. Beaudoin, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Dissipation and ultrastrong coupling in circuit QED, Phys. Rev. A 84, 043832 (2011)

    work page 2011

  76. [76]

    A. M. Sokolov and E. V. Stolyarov, Single-photon limit of dispersive readout of a qubit with a photodetector, Phys. Rev. A101, 042306 (2020)

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    R. Zhao, S. Park, T. Zhao, M. Bal, C. McRae, J. Long, and D. Pappas, Merged-element transmon, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 064006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    Neumeier, M

    L. Neumeier, M. Leib, and M. J. Hartmann, Single- photon transistor in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 063601 (2013)

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    Shillito, A

    R. Shillito, A. Petrescu, J. Cohen, J. Beall, M. Hauru, M. Ganahl, A. G. Lewis, G. Vidal, and A. Blais, Dynam- ics of transmon ionization, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034031 (2022)

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    M. R. Geller, E. Donate, Y. Chen, M. T. Fang, N. Le- ung, C. Neill, P. Roushan, and J. M. Martinis, Tunable coupler for superconducting Xmon qubits: Perturbative nonlinear model, Phys. Rev. A92, 012320 (2015)

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.