In-Situ Engineering of the Anisotropic Rabi Model in Circuit QED

Babak Zare Rameshti; Mohsen Akbari; S. Mojtaba Tabatabaei

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

In-Situ Engineering of the Anisotropic Rabi Model in Circuit QED

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A circuit-QED design uses two coupling paths to tune the light-matter interaction from pure Jaynes-Cummings to pure anti-Jaynes-Cummings, statically, without modulation.

desk verdict A promising static circuit proposal for the anisotropic Rabi model, undermined as written by a sign inconsistency between the main text and appendix. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.14276 v2 pith:KNHFXPFF submitted 2025-12-16 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

S. Mojtaba Tabatabaei , Babak Zare Rameshti , Mohsen Akbari This is my paper

classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall

keywords anisotropicRabimodelcircuitQEDJaynes-Cummingsinteractionanti-Jaynes-CummingscapacitivecouplinginductivedispersivereadoutPurcellsuppression

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 argues that the anisotropic Rabi model—whose two interaction channels usually require rotating-wave approximations or external parametric driving—can be realized statically in a single circuit-QED device. The central claim is that when a qubit couples to a resonator both capacitively (at a voltage antinode) and inductively (at the current antinode), the full interaction splits into resonant and counter-rotating parts with strengths g_JC = g_C + g_L and g_AJC = g_C − g_L. Because the relative sign of the two couplings is a geometric choice, one can set g_C = g_L for a pure Jaynes-Cummings interaction or g_L = −g_C for a pure anti-Jaynes-Cummings interaction, with no time-dependent tone. The paper derives transmission spectra, dispersive shifts, and Purcell rates, showing how to cancel the dispersive shift at a special angle and how to read out with strongly suppressed Purcell decay. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a device-level route into interaction physics that previously required driving or extreme coupling regimes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-path coupling Hamiltonian H_int = g_C (a − a†) σ_y + g_L (a + a†) σ_x, which is rewritten into the form g_JC(a†σ− + aσ+) + g_AJC(a†σ+ + aσ−). The work is done by the spatial mode structure of a half-wave coplanar resonator: the charge profile cos(πx/ℓ) sets the sign of the capacitive coupling at the two voltage antinodes, while the flux profile sin(πx/ℓ) sets the inductive coupling at the current antinode, so the relative sign between g_C and g_L is fixed lithographically. A mixing angle θ = arctan(g_AJC/g_JC) parameterizes the full anisotropic Rabi model.

What would settle it

Fabricate a transmon at x_C = ±ℓ/2 and x_M = 0 and measure the resonator transmission versus qubit frequency: if the flux matrix element is negligible, the vacuum Rabi splitting will not collapse as the circuit's inductive coupling is varied, and no angle θ0 with zero dispersive shift will appear—falsifying the pure-AJC and cancellation predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the decomposition H_int = (g_C + g_L)(a†σ− + aσ+) + (g_C − g_L)(a†σ+ + aσ−), obtained by coupling a qubit simultaneously to the resonator's charge antinode and flux antinode. The paper shows that the interference of the capacitive and inductive paths makes the effective Jaynes-Cummings and anti-Jaynes-Cummings strengths tunable in situ; equal couplings give exact JC physics, and opposite couplings give exact AJC physics. In this architecture the AJC channel is no longer a small correction but can become the dominant interaction, and the paper identifies consequences for spectroscopy (vacuum Rabi splitting width varies with mixing angle, vanishing in pure AJC) and for

Load-bearing premise

The entire scheme relies on a single physical qubit simultaneously coupling strongly to both the voltage antinode and the current antinode of the same half-wave resonator, with both its charge and flux transition matrix elements large enough in one device—asserted in the practical-feasibility section but never modeled quantitatively here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Pure AJC interactions become accessible without parametric blue-sideband drives, opening two-photon and squeezed-state physics in a static device.
At θ0 the dispersive shift vanishes, making the resonator frequency insensitive to the qubit state—a potential idle-time protection against photon shot-noise dephasing.
In the AJC regime, a given dispersive shift χ is obtained with a Purcell rate orders of magnitude lower than in JC, decoupling readout contrast from measurement-induced relaxation.
The vacuum Rabi splitting width tracks g cos θ, giving a simple spectroscopic signature that the anisotropy is set by geometry.
The architecture realizes the anisotropic Rabi model's full parameter space in a single chip, enabling studies of symmetry-controlled phases and quantum information protocols.

Reading between the lines

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

The same interference scheme could transfer to other bosonic platforms (phononic, photonic) where a two-level system can couple to both position-like and momentum-like quadratures of a mode.
The dispersive-shift cancellation point suggests a built-in 'invisibility cloak' from measurement: a qubit parked at θ0 would be decoupled from resonator-induced dephasing, though this also hides it from readout—a trade-off the paper does not explore.
Making g_L flux-tunable (e.g., via a SQUID loop) would extend the static design into slow dynamic switching between JC and AJC regimes without microwave modulation.
The Hamiltonian decomposition is exact and independent of coupling strength, so the pure-JC limit should hold even in deep-strong coupling; verifying this would test the absence of RWA assumptions.

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 thing to know: this paper proposes a genuinely useful static circuit for the anisotropic Rabi model—couple a qubit capacitively at a voltage antinode and inductively at a current antinode, and the spatial mode profile gives you a geometric knob for g_JC and g_AJC. Second thing: as submitted, it has a load-bearing sign error. Eq. (3) says H_L = +g_L(a+a†)σ_x, but the appendix derivation, Eq. (A18), gives H_L = −g_L(b+b†)(a+a†). With the appendix sign, the g_JC = g_C + g_L and g_AJC = g_C − g_L decomposition in the main text becomes g_JC = g_C − g_L and g_AJC = −g_C − g_L. That reverses the conditions for pure JC and pure AJC. This is not a typo in a prefactor; it flips the central claim of the paper.

There is also a mismatch between the abstract—which promises a flux-tunable coupler and complete dynamic in-situ control—and the body, which only gives static geometric control shaped at the fabrication stage. The reader should not have to hunt for that.

What the paper does well: the algebraic decomposition is standard, but the device-level idea is the genuine contribution. The transmission spectra in Sec. III are consistent with the intended model, and the dispersive-shift cancellation point is a nice observation. The Purcell comparison is conceptually interesting, but Eqs. (8)–(10) appear without derivation and look like ad hoc interpolations of standard expressions; the factors of 2 in the denominators need justification or a citation.

The other real soft spot is feasibility. The paper asserts that both charge and flux matrix elements can be large in the same qubit, and that one qubit can couple to two spatially separated points of a half-wave resonator without modifying the mode. For a transmon the flux matrix element is exponentially suppressed; for a flux qubit the charge matrix element is small. Section IV hand-waves this. That gap is addressable but is required for the proposal to actually work.

None of these are unfixable. The sign can be absorbed into a signed g_L or fixed in the appendix, the abstract can be toned down to match the static scheme, and a more quantitative feasibility study would strengthen the case. But as written, the paper is internally inconsistent on its central result.

Who gets value: circuit-QED theorists and experimentalists working on coupling engineering, Purcell-suppressed readout, or parametric-free AJC. It deserves a serious referee, because the core idea is worth engaging. I would not cite it in its current form, but I would send it to peer review with a request for major revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a circuit-QED architecture in which a qubit is coupled both capacitively and inductively to a half-wave resonator, giving an interaction Hamiltonian that can be decomposed into Jaynes-Cummings (JC) and anti-Jaynes-Cummings (AJC) channels. The central claim is that by tuning the ratio of capacitive to inductive coupling strengths g_C/g_L, one can statically realize pure JC or pure AJC interactions without parametric modulation. The authors then analyze transmission spectra, dispersive shifts, and Purcell decay in the JC, Rabi, and AJC regimes, and argue that the AJC regime offers suppressed Purcell decay and that the architecture is feasible with existing superconducting circuits.

Significance. If the central construction is correct, the ability to switch between pure JC and pure AJC interactions in a single static device is a valuable contribution: it would provide a direct platform for the anisotropic Rabi model and enable measurement schemes based on dispersive-shift cancellation or Purcell suppression. The paper contains a clear derivation of the Hamiltonian decomposition, and the master-equation simulations are straightforward and reproducible in spirit. However, the headline result is presently undermined by an internal sign inconsistency between the main text and the appendix, and the feasibility discussion leaves the key geometric and matrix-element requirements unmodeled. The underlying idea is promising and the issues appear addressable, but they must be resolved before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II, Eq. (3); Appendix A, Eq. (A18)] There is a direct sign contradiction between the interaction Hamiltonian used in the main text and the one derived in the appendix. In Sec. II, H_L = +g_L(a+a^†)σ_x (Eq. (3)). Using σ_x=σ_++σ_- and σ_y=i(σ_- - σ_+), the capacitive term H_C = i g_C(a-a^†)σ_y expands to g_C(aσ_++a^†σ_-) - g_C(aσ_-+a^†σ_+), i.e., +g_C JC - g_C AJC. The inductive term expands to +g_L JC + g_L AJC. The total is therefore H_int = (g_C+g_L) JC + (g_L-g_C) AJC, giving g_AJC = g_L - g_C, not g_C - g_L as in Eq. (4). More seriously, Eq. (A18) contains -g_L(b+b^†)(a+a^†); after two-level truncation b→σ_-, this contributes -g_L JC - g_L AJC. Combining with the capacitive term in Eq. (A18), which contributes +g_C JC - g_C AJC, yields g_JC = g_C - g_L and g_AJC = -(g_C+g_L). Both differ from the main text. Consequently, the stated pure-JC condition g_C=g_L and pure-AJC condition g_L=-g_C are reversed relative to the a
[Sec. IV and Fig. 1] The architecture requires a single qubit to couple simultaneously and independently to two spatially separated points of a half-wave resonator: the voltage antinode at x_C=±ℓ/2 and the current antinode at x_M=0. The feasibility section merely asserts that both ⟨g|n|e⟩ and ⟨g|φ|e⟩ are 'naturally finite' for transmon, flux, and fluxonium qubits, with no quantitative circuit model or estimate of the achievable ratio g_L/g_C. For a transmon the flux transition matrix element is strongly suppressed in the usual parameter regime, while for fluxonium the charge matrix element can be small; no calculation is provided to show that both couplings can simultaneously reach the tens-of-MHz range needed for the proposed tuning. This is load-bearing because the central tunability and the claimed pure-JC and pure-AJC conditions depend on having comparable, controllable g_C and g_L. The authors should pr
[Sec. III, Eqs. (8)–(10)] The Purcell decay rates are introduced without derivation. The AJC rate in Eq. (9), Γ_AJC = κ g_AJC^2/(Σ^2 + κ^2 + 2g_AJC^2), and the Rabi rate in Eq. (10) as a simple sum Γ_JC+Γ_AJC are not standard Purcell formulas, and the factor 2 in the denominator is unexplained. Since the application claim — that the AJC regime gives orders-of-magnitude Purcell suppression at fixed dispersive shift — rests entirely on these expressions, a derivation using e.g. input-output theory or a Markovian master equation should be provided. If the formulas are approximate, their regime of validity must be stated. The present treatment does not establish the quantitative advantage claimed in Fig. 5.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The abstract mentions 'a flux-tunable coupler that provides complete dynamic control' and 'in-situ tune', but the body of the paper describes a static, lithographically fixed architecture with no flux-tunable coupler and no dynamic control. Please harmonize the abstract with the actual content.
[Sec. III, Fig. 5 caption] The caption says 'the qubit frequency is swiped for setting the value for χ'; should be 'swept'.
[Eq. (5) and surrounding text] The definition θ=arctan(g_AJC/g_JC) gives θ in (−π/2,π/2), but the text uses θ∈[0,π/2]. The correct range and the sign conventions for g_AJC should be clarified, especially after fixing the sign issue.
[References] Some references appear as journal articles with DOI only (e.g., Ref. [44]); if the journal requires page numbers, please complete the bibliographic details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ARM decomposition is derived algebraically from independent circuit inputs, and the later results are analytic consequences rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The capacitive and inductive interaction Hamiltonians, H_C = i g_C(a-a†)σ_y and H_L = g_L(a+a†)σ_x (Eqs. 2-3), are standard circuit-QED couplings, and the decomposition into H_int = g_JC(a†σ- + aσ+) + g_AJC(a†σ+ + aσ-) (Eq. 4) is an algebraic expansion in the Pauli basis, not an input fitted to data. The pure-JC condition g_C = g_L and pure-AJC condition g_L = -g_C follow directly from setting g_AJC = 0 or g_JC = 0; these are derived consequences, not assumptions used to define the model. The dispersive-shift formulas (χ_Rabi, χ_JC, χ_AJC) and Purcell rates (Eqs. 8-10) are obtained from a standard Schrieffer-Wolff transformation and Lindblad master-equation analysis, with no parameter fitted to the quantities being 'predicted.' The transmission spectra are simulations using chosen parameters, not experimental fits. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the cited works are standard external references (e.g., Refs. [14], [47], [48], [52]), and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. I therefore find no circularity. A separate internal sign inconsistency exists between the plus sign of the inductive term in Eq. (3) and the minus sign in the appendix expression H = ... - g_L(b+b†)(a+a†) (Eq. A18); if the appendix sign is used, the decomposition becomes g_JC = g_C - g_L and g_AJC = -(g_C + g_L), reversing the stated pure-JC/AJC conditions. This is a correctness/consistency concern, not a circularity one, and does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism rests on standard circuit-QED assumptions plus two ad hoc feasibility postulates: that both charge and flux matrix elements are large in one qubit, and that two separated coupling points can be integrated without parasitic effects. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

Coupling strengths g_C, g_L (or total g) = g/2π=100 MHz in simulations; 50-150 MHz in feasibility
Chosen by hand as representative circuit-QED parameters; not fitted to a target result.
Resonator frequency ω_r = 2π×5 GHz
Standard CPW resonator frequency; input parameter.
Qubit frequency ω_q = 2π×4–7 GHz
Tunable input; ranges over detunings.
Cavity decay rate κ = 2π×1 MHz
Typical linewidth; input.
Qubit relaxation rate γ = not specified
Mentioned in Eq. (7) but never given a value in the figures.
Probe amplitude E_p = not specified
Assumed small; value not given.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The qubit can be treated as a two-level system with charge operator ∝σ_y and flux operator ∝σ_x
Used in Eqs. (2)–(3); standard for circuit QED but neglects higher transmon levels.
domain assumption The resonator is a single-mode λ/2 CPW with ideal standing-wave profiles f_r(x)∝sin(πx/ℓ), ∂_x f_r∝cos(πx/ℓ)
Used throughout Sec. II; ignores higher modes and boundary-loading effects.
domain assumption The inductive coupling term has the form (M/L_0) I_c sin(2πφ_q/Φ_0) ∂_xΦ(x_M) in the Lagrangian
Appendix A, Eq. (A7); standard perturbative mutual-inductance model.
standard math Schrieffer-Wolff perturbation theory yields the dispersive shifts χ_Rabi = g_JC²/Δ − g_AJC²/Σ
Sec. III; standard second-order perturbation.
standard math Lindblad master equation (7) governs the dissipative dynamics
Sec. III; standard open-quantum-system model.
ad hoc to paper Both ⟨g|n|e⟩ and ⟨g|φ|e⟩ are simultaneously sizeable in transmon, flux, and fluxonium qubits
Sec. IV; asserted without quantitative support; for a transmon the flux matrix element is typically exponentially suppressed.
ad hoc to paper The qubit can couple to two spatially separated points of the resonator with independent strengths g_C and g_L
Required for the geometric control; no circuit-level model of the dual-point coupling is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In-Situ Engineering of the Anisotropic Rabi Model in Circuit QED." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KNHFXPFF

@misc{pith2026251214276,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In-Situ Engineering of the Anisotropic Rabi Model in Circuit QED},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KNHFXPFF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.14276}
}

read the original abstract

The anisotropic Rabi model (ARM), which features tunable Jaynes-Cummings (JC) and anti-Jaynes-Cummings (AJC) interactions, has remained challenging to realize fully. We present a circuit QED architecture featuring a qubit, a resonator, and a flux-tunable coupler that provides complete dynamic control over the ARM Hamiltonian. By leveraging simultaneous capacitive and inductive couplings, we can in-situ tune the interaction from the pure JC to the pure AJC regime without requiring external parametric modulation. This dynamic control enables useful quantum measurement and coherence capabilities, including dispersive shift cancellation for protection against photon shot-noise dephasing, and Purcell-suppressed readout. Our work establishes a versatile platform for exploring the ARM's full parameter space and its broader applications in quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14276 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The resonator transmission is shown as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Evolution of the vacuum Rabi splitting with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of the Purcell decay rate of the qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Programmable spectral symmetries in an anisotropic quantum Rabi simulator
quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

Experimental realization of a tunable anisotropic quantum Rabi simulator on superconducting hardware, demonstrating anisotropy-driven spectral reconstruction and a ground-state parity crossing absent in the isotropic case.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Blais, A

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

2021
[2]

R. J. Schoelkopf and S. M. Girvin, Nature451, 664 (2008)

2008
[3]

Wallraff, D

A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature431, 162 (2004)

2004
[4]

Blais, R.-S

A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A69, 062320 (2004)

2004
[5]

I. I. Rabi, Physical Review51, 652 (1937)

1937
[6]

Jaynes and F

E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Proceedings of the IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

1963
[7]

Hofheinz, E

M. Hofheinz, E. M. Weig, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, H. Wang, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Nature454, 310 (2008)

2008
[8]

Deppe, M

F. Deppe, M. Mariantoni, E. P. Menzel, A. Marx, S. Saito, K. Kakuyanagi, H. Tanaka, T. Meno, K. Semba, H. Takayanagi, E. Solano, and R. Gross, Nature Physics 4, 686 (2008)

2008

Show all 64 references

[9]

Majer, J

J. Majer, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Koch, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Schreier, L. Frunzio, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature449, 443 (2007)

2007
[10]

M. A. Sillanpää, J. I. Park, and R. W. Simmonds, Nature 449, 438 (2007)

2007
[11]

Niemczyk, F

T. Niemczyk, F. Deppe, H. Huebl, E. P. Menzel, F. Hocke, M. J. Schwarz, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, D. Zueco, T. Hümmer, E. Solano, A. Marx, and R. Gross, Nature Physics6, 772 (2010)

2010
[12]

Casanova, G

J. Casanova, G. Romero, I. Lizuain, J. J. García-Ripoll, and E. Solano, Physical Review Letters105, 263603 (2010)

2010
[13]

E.K.TwyeffortIrish,PhysicalReviewLetters99,173601 (2007)

2007
[14]

D.Zueco, G.M.Reuther, S.Kohler,andP.Hänggi,Phys- ical Review A80, 033846 (2009)

2009
[15]

Bloch and A

F. Bloch and A. Siegert, Physical Review57, 522 (1940)

1940
[16]

Tuorila, M

J. Tuorila, M. Silveri, M. Sillanpää, E. Thuneberg, Y. Makhlin, and P. Hakonen, Physical Review Letters 105, 257003 (2010)

2010
[17]

Forn-Díaz, J

P. Forn-Díaz, J. Lisenfeld, D. Marcos, J. J. García-Ripoll, E. Solano, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E.Mooij, Physical Review Letters105, 237001 (2010)

2010
[18]

Solano, G

E. Solano, G. S. Agarwal, and H. Walther, Physical Re- view Letters90, 027903 (2003)

2003
[19]

Beaudoin, J

F. Beaudoin, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. A84, 043832 (2011)

2011
[20]

K. K. W. Ma and C. K. Law, Physical Review A92, 023842 (2015)

2015
[21]

Ridolfo, M

A. Ridolfo, M. Leib, S. Savasta, and M. J. Hartmann, Physical Review Letters109, 193602 (2012)

2012
[22]

Hwang, R

M.-J. Hwang, R. Puebla, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Re- 9 view Letters115, 180404 (2015)

2015
[23]

Hwang, M

M.-J. Hwang, M. Kim, and M.-S. Choi, Physical Review Letters116, 153601 (2016)

2016
[24]

Le Boité, M.-J

A. Le Boité, M.-J. Hwang, H. Nha, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review A94, 033827 (2016)

2016
[25]

Zheng, S

H. Zheng, S. Y. Zhu, and M. S. Zubairy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200404 (2008)

2008
[26]

Ficek and R

Z. Ficek and R. Tanaś, Physics Reports372, 369 (2002)

2002
[27]

Jing, Z.-G

J. Jing, Z.-G. Lü, and Z. Ficek, Physical Review A79, 044305 (2009)

2009
[28]

Lü and H

Z. Lü and H. Zheng, Physical Review A86, 023831 (2012)

2012
[29]

A. L. Grimsmo and S. Parkins, Phys. Rev. A87, 033814 (2013)

2013
[30]

Ashhab, J

S. Ashhab, J. R. Johansson, A. M. Zagoskin, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A75, 063414 (2007)

2007
[31]

Ballester, G

D. Ballester, G. Romero, J. J. García-Ripoll, F. Deppe, and E. Solano, Physical Review X2, 021007 (2012)

2012
[32]

Deng, J.-L

C. Deng, J.-L. Orgiazzi, F. Shen, S. Ashhab, and A. Lu- pascu, Physical Review Letters115, 133601 (2015)

2015
[33]

Yoshihara, T

F. Yoshihara, T. Fuse, S. Ashhab, K. Kakuyanagi, S. Saito, and K. Semba, Nature Physics13, 44 (2017)

2017
[34]

Y.-H. Chen, A. Miranowicz, X. Chen, Y. Xia, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 064059 (2022)

2022
[35]

Beaudoin, M

F. Beaudoin, M. P. da Silva, Z. Dutton, and A. Blais, Physical Review A86, 022305 (2012)

2012
[36]

J. D. Strand, M. Ware, F. Beaudoin, T. A. Ohki, B. R. Johnson, A. Blais, and B. L. T. Plourde, Physical Review B87, 220505 (2013)

2013
[37]

G. Wang, R. Xiao, H. Shen, C. Sun, and K. Xue, Scien- tific reports9, 4569 (2019)

2019
[38]

Wallraff, D

A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, J. M. Gambetta, J. Schreier, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 050501 (2007)

2007
[39]

P. J. Leek, S. Filipp, P. Maurer, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, J. M. Fink, M. Göppl, L. Steffen, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. B79, 180511 (2009)

2009
[40]

Novikov, T

S. Novikov, T. Sweeney, J. E. Robinson, S. P. Pre- maratne, B. Suri, F. C. Wellstood, and B. S. Palmer, Nature Physics12, 75 (2015)

2015
[41]

Y. Lu, S. Chakram, N. Leung, N. Earnest, R. K. Naik, Z. Huang, P. Groszkowski, E. Kapit, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 150502 (2017)

2017
[42]

A. V. Dodonov, A. Napoli, and B. Militello, Physical Review A99, 033823 (2019)

2019
[43]

X. Wang, A. Miranowicz, H.-R. Li, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A96, 063820 (2017)

2017
[44]

Mayero and J

C. Mayero and J. A. Omolo, Quantum Information Pro- cessing23, 10.1007/s11128-024-04390-1 (2024)

2024 doi
[45]

B.M.Rodríguez-Lara, H.Moya-Cessa,andA.B.Klimov, Phys. Rev. A71, 023811 (2005)

2005
[46]

Baksic and C

A. Baksic and C. Ciuti, Physical Review Letters112, 173601 (2014)

2014
[47]

Q.-T. Xie, S. Cui, J.-P. Cao, L. Amico, and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. X4, 021046 (2014)

2014
[48]

Frisk Kockum, A

A. Frisk Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Nature Reviews Physics1, 19 (2019)

2019
[49]

Blais, J

A. Blais, J. Gambetta, A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A75, 032329 (2007)

2007
[50]

J. Fink, M. Göppl, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, P. J. Leek, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Nature454, 315 (2008)

2008
[51]

L. S. Bishop, J. Chow, J. Koch, A. Houck, M. De- voret, E. Thuneberg, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, Na- ture Physics5, 105 (2009)

2009
[52]

E. A. Sete, J. M. Gambetta, and A. N. Korotkov, Phys. Rev. B89, 104516 (2014)

2014
[53]

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, Physical Review A76, 042319 (2007)

2007
[54]

J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. R. Johnson, J.M.Chow, J.M.Gambetta, J.Majer, L.Frun- zio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review B77, 180502 (2008)

2008
[55]

H. Paik, D. I. Schuster, L. S. Bishop, G. Kirchmair, G. Catelani, A. P. Sears, B. R. Johnson, M. J. Reagor, L. Frunzio, L. I. Glazman, S. M. Girvin, M. H. De- voret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review Letters107, 240501 (2011)

2011
[56]

Wallraff, D

A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Ma- jer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review Letters95, 060501 (2005)

2005
[57]

V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Science326, 113 (2009)

2009
[58]

L. B. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, Phys. Rev. X9, 041041 (2019)

2019
[59]

F. Bao, H. Deng, D. Ding, R. Gao, X. Gao, C. Huang, X. Jiang, H.-S. Ku, Z. Li, X. Ma, X. Ni, J. Qin, Z. Song, H. Sun, C. Tang, T. Wang, F. Wu, T. Xia, W. Yu, F. Zhang, G. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Zhou, X. Zhu, Y. Shi, J. Chen, H.-H. Zhao, and C. Deng, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 010502 (2022)

2022
[60]

Forn-Díaz, C

P. Forn-Díaz, C. Warren, C. Chang, A. Vadiraj, and C. Wilson, Physical Review Applied8, 054015 (2017)

2017
[61]

V. E. Manucharyan, N. A. Masluk, A. Kamal, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. B85, 024521 (2012)

2012
[62]

Y. Yan, Z. Lü, J. Luo, and H. Zheng, Phys. Rev. A96, 033802 (2017)

2017
[63]

D. M. Pozar,Microwave engineering: theory and tech- niques(John wiley & sons, 2021)

2021
[64]

C. P. Wen, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques17, 1087 (2003)

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Blais, A

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

2021

[2] [2]

R. J. Schoelkopf and S. M. Girvin, Nature451, 664 (2008)

2008

[3] [3]

Wallraff, D

A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature431, 162 (2004)

2004

[4] [4]

Blais, R.-S

A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A69, 062320 (2004)

2004

[5] [5]

I. I. Rabi, Physical Review51, 652 (1937)

1937

[6] [6]

Jaynes and F

E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Proceedings of the IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

1963

[7] [7]

Hofheinz, E

M. Hofheinz, E. M. Weig, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, H. Wang, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Nature454, 310 (2008)

2008

[8] [8]

Deppe, M

F. Deppe, M. Mariantoni, E. P. Menzel, A. Marx, S. Saito, K. Kakuyanagi, H. Tanaka, T. Meno, K. Semba, H. Takayanagi, E. Solano, and R. Gross, Nature Physics 4, 686 (2008)

2008