Joint Communication and Indoor Positioning Based on Visible Light in the Presence of Dimming

A. Tarik Leblebici; Erdal Panayirci; H. Vincent Poor; Sumeyra Hassan

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Joint Communication and Indoor Positioning Based on Visible Light in the Presence of Dimming

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that dual (quantum) and classical Shapiro steps in small Josephson junctions are understood through one kinetic equation, with a single environmental relaxation time deciding which type appears.

desk verdict A plausible hybrid kinetic equation for Josephson Shapiro steps, but the quantitative validation runs outside the paper's own validity bounds—and the submission package has the wrong paper ID. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04570 v1 pith:BRY7LK75 submitted 2025-08-06 eess.SP

A. Tarik Leblebici , Sumeyra Hassan , Erdal Panayirci , H. Vincent Poor This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords JosephsonjunctionsdualShapirostepsquantumP(E)theoryBlochoscillationsZenertunnelingkineticequationenvironmentrelaxationtime

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

The paper's central claim is that dual (quantum) Shapiro steps and classical Shapiro steps in small Josephson junctions are not separate effects: both are described by one hybrid kinetic equation for the charge distribution on the junction, a generalization of standard $P(E)$ theory. Which type of step appears is set by a single parameter, the effective relaxation time of the electromagnetic environment. The equation includes the large inductor used in recent experiments to screen the junction from high-frequency noise, and Zener tunnelling to higher Bloch bands enters through the switching current. If the claim holds, experimental I-V curves with either step type can be fitted quantitatively from circuit parameters alone, and both step types should be observable in one sample by changing drive frequency and power.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (16), a time-local evolution equation for the charge distribution $W(t,Q)$ on the junction capacitor. Its first line is a Smoluchowski drift-diffusion term with effective bias $I^*(t)$ and effective temperature $T^*$; its second and third lines add gain and loss terms describing Cooper pairs tunnelling in units of $2e$, with a time-dependent golden-rule rate $\Gamma(t,Q)$ computed to second order in the critical current. The environment enters through a single parameter, the relaxation time $\tau_0$ from Eq. (18), built from $R$, $C$, $L$, $E_C$, and $T$; the dimensionless conductance $g=4R_Q/R$ and the inductance parameter $\delta=4L/(R^2C)$ place the model in

What would settle it

A decisive test is to fabricate a junction with $E_J/E_C$ varied across the claimed boundary $E_J \approx 2E_C$ while keeping the other circuit parameters fixed, and to check whether Eq. (16) still predicts the measured step patterns. More directly, for the parameters of Refs. [7,8] one can compute $\Gamma(t,Q)$ from Eq. (17): if the rate turns negative for an appreciable fraction of the drive cycle, the stochastic interpretation used to generate the simulated I-V curves is not well-defined, and the agreement cannot be attributed to Eq. (16) as derived.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors propose a model in which the formation of both dual and classical Shapiro steps in small Josephson junctions follows from one time-local kinetic equation, Eq. (16), for the charge distribution $W(t,Q)$. The equation combines overdamped charge diffusion with Cooper-pair tunnelling rates computed to second order in the Josephson energy, and it reduces to known results in the appropriate limits: the adiabatic Averin-Likharev rate for the dual steps, the Tien-Gordon formula for classical steps in the small-critical-current limit, and the $P(E)$-theory expression for the dc Josephson current. The crossover between the two step types is controlled by a single parameter, the effective r

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the junction's tunneling energy is small compared with its charging energy and that the microwave is slow on the environment's relaxation timescale; in the two experimental samples the model is compared with, both assumptions are exceeded by a factor of several, so the claimed accuracy leans on the equation staying valid outside the region where it was derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same junction should be able to show both dual and classical Shapiro steps; changing microwave frequency, power, and dc bias moves the system across the crossover set by $\tau_0$.
The large protecting inductor is absorbed into $\tau_0$, so its noise-filtering role can be treated without a separate high-frequency cutoff prescription.
I-V curves can be fitted quantitatively from circuit parameters alone, including step widths, differential resistances, and switching currents.
In appropriate limits the model reproduces the Tien-Gordon formula, the $P(E)$-theory current, and the adiabatic dual-step rate, making it a common generalization rather than a competing picture.
For samples with large critical current, the model predicts larger dual steps than observed, indicating where additional environment-induced smearing must be included.

Reading between the lines

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

One could treat $\tau_0$ as a design knob: a junction switchable between quantized-current and quantized-voltage operation would be a reconfigurable metrological element.
The hybrid structure—diffusion plus discrete $\pm 2e$ jumps—may carry over to other driven quantum devices with a periodic band structure coupled to a dissipative environment, such as Bloch transistors or quantum phase-slip circuits.
A direct test of the unification would be to vary only the inductance $L$ while keeping $E_J$, $E_C$, $R$, and $T$ fixed, and to check whether the measured dual-to-classical crossover shifts exactly as Eq. (18) predicts.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, an editorial flag: the arXiv ID you gave (2508.04570, eess.SP, the VLC-positioning paper) does not match the manuscript text that came along, which is 2508.04574: 'Quantum and classical Shapiro steps in small Josephson junctions' by Resch, Ankerhold, Donvil, Muratore-Ginanneschi, and Golubev. The package needs to be straightened out before anyone goes further. I'm writing about the text as provided.

The paper's core contribution is the hybrid kinetic equation (16) for the quasicharge distribution of a small Josephson junction: an overdamped drift-diffusion term plus Cooper-pair tunneling rates that include the bias-circuit inductor explicitly. That is a genuine extension of standard P(E) theory, and it gives a single equation that formally contains both the dual (current-locked) and classical (voltage-locked) Shapiro steps, with the environment relaxation time tau0 as the crossover parameter. The authors show that the equation reduces to Tien-Gordon and P(E) in the appropriate limits, which is a real consistency check, and the manuscript is refreshingly open about the formal caveats (negative rates, validity bounds). Simulation code is referenced on GitHub.

The main weakness is exactly what the stress-test note says: the quantitative comparisons with the experiments in Refs. [7] and [8] run outside the regime where Eq. (16) is derived. The weak-coupling expansion is valid for E_J ≲ 2E_C (condition (30) allows a stretch to about 5E_C), yet Fig. 5 uses E_J/E_C ≈ 7.7. The adiabatic approximation requires φ_ac(ω0τ0)^2 ≪ 1, but the two driven curves in Figs. 5 and 6 sit at 7 and 9.3. The authors concede this ('does not hold,' 'hope to get qualitatively correct results'), so they are not hiding it, but the claimed 'reasonable accuracy' against experiment cannot be validated by those points. The step widths and switching currents also show factor-of-two discrepancies. In addition, the stochastic interpretation (36)-(37) requires positive rates, and the paper's workaround—time-averaging and setting T* = 0—is declared but its effect on the comparison is left unquantified. These are fixable weaknesses: a validation run inside the validity bounds, a systematic error estimate for the extrapolation, or a derivation that extends the bounds, would do a lot.

Who is this for: anyone working on Bloch oscillations, dual Shapiro steps, or dissipative quantum circuits. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk rejection. If the identity confusion is resolved, I would send it to review—major revision more likely than acceptance—and I'd probably bring the physics to a reading group in the meantime.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The full text of the manuscript (arXiv:2508.04574) proposes a hybrid kinetic equation for the charge distribution in a small Josephson junction subject to microwave irradiation, Eq. (16). The equation combines a Smoluchowski-type diffusion term with Cooper-pair tunneling rates, and is presented as a generalization of standard P(E)-theory that describes both dual (quantum) and classical Shapiro steps. The environment is characterized by a single effective relaxation time tau0, Eq. (18), computed from circuit parameters. The authors derive the equation via a system+bath path-integral approach, give a numerical implementation as a jump-diffusion stochastic differential equation, and compare with experiments [7] and [8]. The paper claims that the model describes experimental I-V curves with reasonable accuracy and constitutes a step toward quantitative fitting. However, the manuscript as submitted carries a title and abstract for a different paper ('Joint Communication and Indoor Positioning Based on Visible Light in the Presence of Dimming'), which makes the submission internally inconsistent. The scientific assessment below refers to the Josephson-junction content in the full text.

Significance. If the central claim is valid, the model would be a valuable unifying framework: one master equation, with no fitted parameters in tau0, reproduces both dual and classical Shapiro steps, includes Zener tunneling and the protecting inductor, and reduces analytically to Tien-Gordon and P(E) limits. The authors provide a public simulation code and give explicit validity bounds, which is commendable. The main concern is that the quantitative comparison with experiment [7] is made well outside the stated validity bounds of the derivation, so the significance is currently conditional: the model is plausible and internally consistent within its nominal regime, but the article as written does not establish the quantitative claims advertised in the abstract.

major comments (5)

[Title/Abstract vs. Full Text] The manuscript is submitted under the title 'Joint Communication and Indoor Positioning Based on Visible Light in the Presence of Dimming' with an abstract describing a VLC positioning system, but the entire technical content is 'Quantum and classical Shapiro steps in small Josephson junctions' (arXiv:2508.04574). The abstract references LEDs, RSS positioning, and spatial modulation, none of which appear in the body. This is not a minor editorial slip; the submission is self-inconsistent and cannot be evaluated as a single paper. The authors must correct the title/abstract mismatch before any further review.
[Sec. II.C, Eq. (30)] The derivation of the kinetic equation (16) is explicitly restricted to E_J ≲ 2E_C, with the text permitting a stretched limit of E_J ≈ 5E_C. The comparison with experiment [7] in Fig. 5 uses E_J = 347 µeV and E_C = 45 µeV, giving E_J/E_C ≈ 7.7, which violates even the stretched bound. The paper only acknowledges the violation of the adiabaticity condition in Sec. III.A, not this one. Consequently the 'reasonable accuracy' statement about the I-V curves in Figs. 5 and 6 is not supported within the model's own stated range of validity.
[Sec. III.A, Eq. (38)] The simulations in Figs. 5 and 6 are performed using the adiabatic rate (40), which relies on φ_ac(ω0 τ0)^2 ≪ 1. The text reports φ_ac(ω0 τ0)^2 = 7 and 9.3 for the two drive amplitudes, and explicitly states that 'the condition (38) does not hold.' No error estimate, convergence check, or systematic comparison of the adiabatic approximation with the full time-dependent rate is provided for this parameter regime. Thus the simulations cannot be taken as a quantitative validation of Eq. (16) against experiment [7]; at best they are qualitative.
[Sec. II.C and Eqs. (23)-(25)] Equation (16) is derived under the assumption δ≪1, but the experimental setup of Ref. [7] has δ=169. The extension to strongly resonant systems is made by replacing the bias current I(t) with the effective current I*(t), Eqs. (23)-(25). This replacement is an ad hoc modification introduced without a controlled derivation; the text says only that one 'can even be used' in this regime, and the appendix excerpt provided does not show the derivation for δ≫1. Since this extension is load-bearing for the main experimental comparison, it should be either derived rigorously or clearly labeled as an uncontrolled approximation.
[Sec. II.D and Sec. IV] The stochastic differential equation (36)-(37), used for all numerical results, requires positive tunneling rates Γ(t,Q). The paper acknowledges in Sec. IV that the rates (17) can become negative, and that positivity is restored only by 'averaging over oscillations' as in Eq. (51). No argument is given that this time-averaging preserves the solution of the original kinetic equation (16) in the regimes simulated. Because every simulated I-V curve depends on this procedure, the numerical evidence for the model's quantitative claims rests on an unproven step.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. II.B] Typo: 'wihtin' should be 'within'.
[Fig. 5 caption] 'substracted' should be 'subtracted'.
[Fig. 6 caption] 'The with of the step' should be 'The width of the step'.
[Fig. 3 caption] The phrase 'I_ac = 0.56nA, corresponding to I_ac = 0.56nA' is redundant and confusing; presumably one is the bare and the other the effective amplitude but the notation is identical.
[Sec. II.C, Eq. (18)] The expression for τ0 mixes several dimensionless ratios; a brief derivation or at least a reference to where Eq. (18) comes from would help the reader assess the parameter-free claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (16) is derived from a Hamiltonian and benchmarked against independent experiments; the stated limitations are validity concerns, not circular definitions.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain of the kinetic equation (16) and the experiment comparisons and found no step where a claimed prediction reduces by construction to an input. Equation (16) is derived from the total Hamiltonian (12) via the path integral (A1), with the nonlinear action expanded in lowest order in E_J (Sec. II.B); the Cooper-pair rate (17) is expressed in terms of the classical phase and circuit parameters. The Shapiro-step positions emerge from the resonance structure of the rates — the classical voltages (1) and dual currents (2) are not fitted targets inserted into the model. The effective relaxation time tau0 in Eq. (18) is a function of circuit parameters (g, delta, E_C, T) and is not tuned to the measured step widths or voltages, so it is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The model also reproduces two independent known limits, the Tien-Gordon formula (60) and P(E) theory (61), which anchor the calculation externally. The comparisons with experiments [7,8] use independently reported circuit parameters (Figs. 5 and 6), and even though refs. [6,7,15] involve overlapping authorship with D. Golubev, those experimental and earlier theoretical results are external and are not invoked to force the present claim; the Zener-switching formula (45) is taken from established prior work [15] rather than from a uniqueness theorem of the present authors. The passages acknowledging that the stochastic rates (17) may become negative (Sec. IV) and that the adiabaticity condition (38) is violated for the parameters of Figs. 5 and 6 are genuine validity and extrapolation limitations, but they do not make the derivation circular: the equation is still not defined in terms of the quantities it is used to predict. In short, I cannot exhibit any Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or any load-bearing self-citation chain. The paper's central derivation is self-contained, and the benchmark comparisons are external; the legitimate concerns are about the range of validity, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities (particles, forces, symmetries) are postulated. Equation (16) is a new modeling equation, not an invented entity. The circuit parameters (R, L, C, I_C, E_J, E_C, T) are taken from the cited experiments [7, 8], and tau0 is nominally derived from them; the one quantity whose status is genuinely ambiguous is tau0, listed above as a free parameter.

free parameters (1)

environment relaxation time tau0 = not fitted to step data; computed per sample from R, L, C, E_C, T via Eq. (18)
The claim that one parameter controls the dual/classical crossover makes tau0 the load-bearing control knob. Its closed form (18) mixes g, delta, T and E_C, is asserted rather than derived in the main text, and determines whether the simulations sit inside or outside the adiabatic regime. It is not a tuned fit to the step data, but its status as a derived quantity is the paper's least-checked inpu

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Perturbative expansion of the junction action to lowest order in E_J; validity requires E_J less than or about 2E_C (Eq. 30, Sec. II.C)
Used to derive Eq. (16); then applied to experiment [7] with E_J/E_C about 7.7, beyond even the paper's stretched limit of 5.
domain assumption Adiabatic approximation phi_ac(omega0 tau0)^2 much less than 1 (Eq. 38), reducing the rate to Gamma_ad(Q) (Eq. 40)
Sec. III.A: invoked for the dual-step simulations; violated in Figs. 5-6 by values 7 and 9.3.
standard math Standard system-bath path-integral (Feynman-Vernon) and P(E)-theory machinery
Appendix A, Sec. II.B; standard methods with cited derivations [18, 21, 27, 28, 32].
domain assumption Cosine (tight-binding) dispersion of the lowest Bloch band, Eq. (8), with Zener tunneling entering only via the switching probability P_Z (Eq. 43)
Sec. II.A: band structure from prior theory [3, 4, 18]; Zener estimate from [15].
ad hoc to paper Replacement of the bias current by the resonant effective current I*(t), Eqs. (23)-(25), to extend the model to delta much greater than 1
Sec. II.C: 'With such modifications, Eq. (16) can even be used for the analysis of strongly resonant systems with delta much greater than 1.' This enables treating experiment [7] (delta = 169) though the formal limit is delta much less than 1.
domain assumption Non-negativity of the tunneling rate Gamma(t,Q) for the stochastic simulation, Eqs. (36)-(37)
Sec. IV acknowledges Gamma can oscillate and become negative; the paper averages over oscillations, which restricts the range of admissible solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint Communication and Indoor Positioning Based on Visible Light in the Presence of Dimming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BRY7LK75

@misc{pith2026250804570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint Communication and Indoor Positioning Based on Visible Light in the Presence of Dimming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BRY7LK75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04570}
}

read the original abstract

This paper proposes a joint communication and indoor positioning (JCP) system based on visible light communication (VLC) designed for high-precision indoor environments. The framework supports 2D and 3D positioning using received signal strength (RSS) from pilot transmissions, enhanced by the radical axis theorem to improve accuracy under measurement uncertainties. Communication is achieved using spatial modulation (SM) with M-ary pulse amplitude modulation (PAM), where data is conveyed through the modulation symbol and the active light-emitting diode (LED) index, improving spectral efficiency while maintaining low complexity. A pilot-aided least squares (LS) estimator is employed for joint channel and dimming coefficient estimation, enabling robust symbol detection in multipath environments characterized by both line-of-sight (LOS) and diffuse non-line-of-sight (NLOS) components, modeled using Rician fading. The proposed system incorporates a dimming control mechanism to meet lighting requirements while maintaining reliable communication and positioning performance. Simulation results demonstrate sub-centimeter localization accuracy at high signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and bit error rates (BERs) below 10^{-6} for low-order PAM schemes. Additionally, comparative analysis across user locations reveals that positioning and communication performance improve significantly near the geometric center of the LED layout. These findings validate the effectiveness of the proposed system for future 6G indoor networks requiring integrated localization and communication under practical channel conditions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[7]

Kuzmin and D

L. Kuzmin and D. B. Haviland, Observation of the Bloch oscillations in an ultrasmall Josephson junction, Physical Review Letters67, 2890 (1991)

work page 1991
[8]

R. S. Shaikhaidarov, K. H. Kim, J. W. Dunstan, I. V. Antonov, S. Linzen, M. Ziegler, D. S. Golubev, V. N. Antonov, E. V. Il’ichev, and O. V. Astafiev, Quantized current steps due to the a.c. coherent quantum phase-slip effect, Nature608, 45 (2022), arXiv:2208.05811

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[1]

Hereη >0 is an infinitesimal positive time shift which ensures thatZ −1(t1 −t 2)≡0 fort 1 < t2 and the causality condition is satisfied

the limitL→0andk BT≫ℏ/RC In this case, we make the approximations Z −1(t1 −t 2) = δ(t1 −t 2 −η) R , G(t1 −t 2) = 2kBT ℏR δ(t1 −t 2), (A2) and the action in the path integral (A1) becomes local in time. Hereη >0 is an infinitesimal positive time shift which ensures thatZ −1(t1 −t 2)≡0 fort 1 < t2 and the causality condition is satisfied. It is important to...

work page
[2]

The latter circuit has been used in the experiments [6–9]. In both circuits the inductor plays a crucial role of cutting off the high frequency noise, and it has been experimentally established that sharp dual Shapiro steps cannot be observed without it. A. Duality between classical and quantum Shapiro steps In this section we briefly explain the origin o...

work page
[3]

Shapiro, Josephson Currents in Superconducting Tun- neling: The Effect of Microwaves and Other Observa- tions, Physical Review Letters11, 80–82 (1963)

S. Shapiro, Josephson Currents in Superconducting Tun- neling: The Effect of Microwaves and Other Observa- tions, Physical Review Letters11, 80–82 (1963)

work page 1963
[4]

K. K. Likharev and A. B. Zorin, Theory of the Bloch- wave oscillations in small Josephson junctions, Journal of Low Temperature Physics59, 347–382 (1985)

work page 1985
[5]

D. V. Averin, A. B. Zorin, and K. K. Likharev, Bloch oscillations in small Josephson junction, Journal of Ex- perimental and Theoretical Physics61, 407 (1985)

work page 1985
[6]

D. V. Averin and K. K. Likharev, Single Electronics: A Correlated Transfer of Single Electrons and Cooper Pairs in Systems of Small Tunnel Junctions, inMeso- scopic Phenomena in Solids, Vol. 30 (Elsevier Science Publishers, 1991) Chap. 6, pp. 173–271

work page 1991

Show all 36 references

[9]

R. S. Shaikhaidarov, K. H. Kim, J. Dunstan, I. Antonov, D. Golubev, V. N. Antonov, and O. V. Astafiev, Quan- tized current steps due to the synchronization of mi- crowaves with Bloch oscillations in small Josephson junctions, Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-024- 53600-y (...

2024 arXiv
[10]

F. Kaap, C. Kissling, V. Gaydamachenko, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, and S. Lotkhov, Demonstration of dual Shapiro steps in small Josephson junctions, Nature Communications15, 10.1038/s41467-024-53011-z (2024)

2024 doi
[11]

Antonov, R

I. Antonov, R. Shaikhaidarov, K. H. Kim, D. Gol- ubev, S. Linzen, E. V. Il’ichev, V. N. Antonov, and O. V. Astafiev, Bloch transistor for cryogenic quantum electronics, eprint 10.48550/ARXIV.2504.08692 (2025), arXiv:2504.08692 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

2025 doi
[12]

Di Marco, F

A. Di Marco, F. W. J. Hekking, and G. Rastelli, Quantum phase-slip junction under microwave irradia- tion, Physical Review B91, 10.1103/physrevb.91.184512 (2015), arXiv:1502.04878

2015 arXiv
[13]

V. D. Kurilovich, B. Remez, and L. I. Glazman, Quan- tum theory of Bloch oscillations in a resistively shunted transmon, Nature Communications16, 10.1038/s41467- 025-56411-x (2025), arXiv:2403.04624

2025 arXiv
[14]

D. S. Golubev and A. D. Zaikin, Quantum dynamics of ultrasmall tunnel junctions: Real-time analysis, Physical Review B46, 10903–10916 (1992)

1992
[15]

Arndt, A

L. Arndt, A. Roy, and F. Hassler, Dual Shapiro steps of a phase-slip junction in the presence of a para- sitic capacitance, Physical Review B98, 10.1103/phys- revb.98.014525 (2018), arXiv:1802.08123

2018 arXiv
[16]

A. D. Zaikin and I. N. Kosarev, Quantum coherent effects and Zener tunneling in superconducting tunnel junctions, Physics Letters A131, 125–130 (1988)

1988
[17]

D. S. Golubev and A. D. Zaikin, Charge fluctuations in systems of mesoscopic tunnel junctions, Physics Letters A169, 475–482 (1992)

1992
[18]

H. Vora, R. L. Kautz, S. W. Nam, and J. Aumen- tado, Modeling Bloch oscillations in nanoscale Joseph- son junctions, Physical Review B96, 10.1103/phys- revb.96.054505 (2017), arXiv:1703.06996

2017 arXiv
[19]

Krantz, M

P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Reviews6, 10.1063/1.5089550 (2019), 1904.06560

2019 arXiv
[20]

Sch¨ on and A

G. Sch¨ on and A. D. Zaikin, Quantum coherent effects, phase transitions, and the dissipative dynamics of ultra small tunnel junctions, Physics Reports198, 237 (1990)

1990
[21]

J. M. Kivioja, T. E. Nieminen, J. Claudon, O. Buis- son, F. W. J. Hekking, and J. P. Pekola, Observation of Transition from Escape Dynamics to Underdamped Phase Diffusion in a Josephson Junction, Physical Re- view Letters94, 10.1103/physrevlett.94.247002 (2005), cond-mat/0501383

2005 arXiv
[22]

Shapiro, A

S. Shapiro, A. R. Janus, and S. Holly, Effect of Mi- crowaves on Josephson Currents in Superconducting Tunneling, Reviews of Modern Physics36, 223–225 (1964)

1964
[23]

Eckern, G

U. Eckern, G. Sch¨ on, and V. Ambegaokar, Quantum dy- namics of a superconducting tunnel junction, Physical Review B30, 6419–6431 (1984)

1984
[24]

C. W. Gardiner,Stochastic Methods: an Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences, 4th ed., Springer series in synergetics, Vol. 13 (Springer, 2009) pp. XVIII, 447

2009
[25]

Schmid, Diffusion and Localization in a Dissipa- tive Quantum System, Physical Review Letters51, 1506–1509 (1983)

A. Schmid, Diffusion and Localization in a Dissipa- tive Quantum System, Physical Review Letters51, 1506–1509 (1983)

1983
[26]

P. K. Tien and J. P. Gordon, Multiphoton Process Ob- served in the Interaction of Microwave Fields with the Tunneling between Superconductor Films, Physical Re- view129, 647–651 (1963)

1963
[27]

Roychowdhury, M

A. Roychowdhury, M. Dreyer, J. R. Anderson, C. Lobb, and F. Wellstood, Microwave Photon-Assisted Incoher- ent Cooper-Pair Tunneling in a Josephson STM, Phys- ical Review Applied4, 10.1103/physrevapplied.4.034011 (2015), arXiv:1510.06440

2015 arXiv
[28]

P. Kot, R. Drost, M. Uhl, J. Ankerhold, J. C. Cuevas, and C. R. Ast, Microwave-assisted tunneling and inter- ference effects in superconducting junctions under fast driving signals, Physical Review B101, 10.1103/phys- revb.101.134507 (2020), arXiv:2001.08228

2020 arXiv
[29]

M. H. Devoret, D. Esteve, H. Grabert, G.-L. Ingold, H. Pothier, and C. Urbina, Effect of the electromag- netic environment on the Coulomb blockade in ultrasmall tunnel junctions, Physical Review Letters64, 1824–1827 (1990). 18

1990
[30]

Ingold and Y

G.-L. Ingold and Y. V. Nazarov, Charge Tunneling Rates in Ultrasmall Junctions, inSingle Charge Tunneling, NATO ASI Series B, Vol. 294, edited by H. Grabert and M. H. Devoret (Plenum Press, New York, 1992) pp. 21– 107, cond-mat/0508728

1992 arXiv
[31]

M. J. W. Hall, J. D. Cresser, L. Li, and E. Andersson, Canonical form of master equations and characteriza- tion of non-Markovianity, Physical Review A89, 042120 (2014), 1009.0845

2014 arXiv
[32]

Donvil and P

B. Donvil and P. Muratore-Ginanneschi, Quantum trajectory framework for general time-local master equations, Nature Communications13, 4140 (2022), arXiv:2102.10355 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[33]

Shen and D

T. Shen and D. A. Lidar, Real-time sign- problem-suppressed quantum monte carlo algo- rithm for noisy quantum circuit simulations, eprint 10.48550/ARXIV.2502.18929 (2025), 2502.18929

2025 doi arXiv
[34]

Grabert, P

H. Grabert, P. Schramm, and G.-L. Ingold, Quantum Brownian motion: The functional integral approach, Physics Reports168, 115 (1988)

1988
[35]

A. D. Zaikin and D. S. Golubev,Dissipative quantum mechanics of nanostructures : electron transport, fluc- tuations, and interactions(Jenny Stanford Publishing, Singapore, 2019)

2019
[36]

Resch, https://github.com/miriamresch/quantum- and-classical-shapiro-steps-in-small-josephson-junctions

M. Resch, https://github.com/miriamresch/quantum- and-classical-shapiro-steps-in-small-josephson-junctions

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

Kuzmin and D

L. Kuzmin and D. B. Haviland, Observation of the Bloch oscillations in an ultrasmall Josephson junction, Physical Review Letters67, 2890 (1991)

work page 1991

[2] [8]

R. S. Shaikhaidarov, K. H. Kim, J. W. Dunstan, I. V. Antonov, S. Linzen, M. Ziegler, D. S. Golubev, V. N. Antonov, E. V. Il’ichev, and O. V. Astafiev, Quantized current steps due to the a.c. coherent quantum phase-slip effect, Nature608, 45 (2022), arXiv:2208.05811

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[3] [1]

Hereη >0 is an infinitesimal positive time shift which ensures thatZ −1(t1 −t 2)≡0 fort 1 < t2 and the causality condition is satisfied

the limitL→0andk BT≫ℏ/RC In this case, we make the approximations Z −1(t1 −t 2) = δ(t1 −t 2 −η) R , G(t1 −t 2) = 2kBT ℏR δ(t1 −t 2), (A2) and the action in the path integral (A1) becomes local in time. Hereη >0 is an infinitesimal positive time shift which ensures thatZ −1(t1 −t 2)≡0 fort 1 < t2 and the causality condition is satisfied. It is important to...

work page

[4] [2]

The latter circuit has been used in the experiments [6–9]. In both circuits the inductor plays a crucial role of cutting off the high frequency noise, and it has been experimentally established that sharp dual Shapiro steps cannot be observed without it. A. Duality between classical and quantum Shapiro steps In this section we briefly explain the origin o...

work page

[5] [3]

Shapiro, Josephson Currents in Superconducting Tun- neling: The Effect of Microwaves and Other Observa- tions, Physical Review Letters11, 80–82 (1963)

S. Shapiro, Josephson Currents in Superconducting Tun- neling: The Effect of Microwaves and Other Observa- tions, Physical Review Letters11, 80–82 (1963)

work page 1963

[6] [4]

K. K. Likharev and A. B. Zorin, Theory of the Bloch- wave oscillations in small Josephson junctions, Journal of Low Temperature Physics59, 347–382 (1985)

work page 1985

[7] [5]

D. V. Averin, A. B. Zorin, and K. K. Likharev, Bloch oscillations in small Josephson junction, Journal of Ex- perimental and Theoretical Physics61, 407 (1985)

work page 1985

[8] [6]

D. V. Averin and K. K. Likharev, Single Electronics: A Correlated Transfer of Single Electrons and Cooper Pairs in Systems of Small Tunnel Junctions, inMeso- scopic Phenomena in Solids, Vol. 30 (Elsevier Science Publishers, 1991) Chap. 6, pp. 173–271

work page 1991