pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11722 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.mes-hall

First-principles study of dispersive readout in circuit QED

Angela Riva , Prakritish Gogoi , Nicolas Gheeraert , Serge Florens , Alex W. Chin , Alain Sarlette , Alexandru Petrescu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords dispersive readoutcircuit QEDqubit T1Purcell filterbath spectrummaster equationfirst-principles simulationsuperconducting qubits
0
0 comments X

The pith

Microscopic simulation of the transmission line bath explains why qubit T1 falls at high readout drive amplitudes in circuit QED.

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

This paper develops a first-principles approach to simulate the complete dynamics of dispersive readout in superconducting qubits by including a detailed model of the measurement line's bath. It demonstrates that the qubit's energy relaxation time T1 depends on the readout drive strength in ways that depend on the exact shape of the bath spectrum, such as the presence of a notch filter. Simple models like the Lindblad master equation miss these effects and show qualitative mismatches with the detailed simulation. Readers should care because experiments routinely see fidelity saturation or T1 drops at high drives, limiting how fast and accurate qubit measurements can be. The work provides a way to predict and potentially mitigate these issues by designing the bath spectrum appropriately.

Core claim

By coupling the circuit QED Hamiltonian to a microscopic model of the measurement transmission line that can have arbitrary spectrum including filters, the full unitary dynamics of dispersive readout can be simulated from first principles. Access to the bath degrees of freedom shows that qubit T1 decreases with increasing readout drive amplitude specifically when a Purcell notch filter is placed at the qubit frequency. In contrast, the Lindblad master equation exhibits general qualitative defects and fails to capture this behavior.

What carries the argument

Microscopic model of the measurement transmission line bath coupled to the circuit QED system, enabling simulation of unitary dynamics and direct access to emission spectra and bath evolution.

If this is right

  • The qubit relaxation time T1 becomes drive-amplitude dependent based on bath details like filters.
  • A Purcell notch at qubit frequency causes T1 to drop as drive increases.
  • The Lindblad master equation has qualitative shortcomings for this system.
  • The emission spectrum of the system can be studied versus drive power.
  • This explains observed saturation in readout fidelity at high amplitudes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Designing transmission line filters to avoid notches at qubit frequencies could allow higher drive powers without T1 loss.
  • Similar first-principles methods might apply to other decoherence channels or readout schemes in quantum circuits.
  • Experimental measurement of the predicted power-dependent emission spectrum would test the model's accuracy.
  • Accounting for bath spectrum details may be necessary for accurate modeling of high-power operations in superconducting quantum processors.

Load-bearing premise

The model of the measurement transmission line correctly represents the actual bath spectrum, couplings, and filter effects present in the physical device.

What would settle it

Observe whether qubit T1 decreases with readout drive amplitude only when a notch filter is tuned to the qubit frequency, and check if Lindblad predictions match or deviate from the observed dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11722 by Alain Sarlette, Alexandru Petrescu, Alex W. Chin, Angela Riva, Nicolas Gheeraert, Prakritish Gogoi, Serge Florens.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Inverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Time evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Frequency resolved occupancies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison between Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig. 4, for a flat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The speed and fidelity of dispersive readout of superconducting qubits should improve by increasing the amplitude of the measurement drive. Experiments show, however, that beyond some drive amplitude there is always a saturation or drop in fidelity, often associated with a decrease in qubit energy relaxation time $T_1$. A simple Lindblad master equation does not capture the latter effect. More involved approaches based on effective master equations rely on strong assumptions about the spectra of the system and the bath and only partially agree with observations. Here, we perform a first-principles simulation of the full unitary dynamics of dispersive readout by considering the circuit QED Hamiltonian coupled to a microscopic model for the measurement transmission line, allowing for its arbitrary spectrum, including filters. Our access to the dynamics of the bath degrees of freedom allows us to investigate the emission spectrum of the system as a function of drive power. We show how the dependence of qubit $T_1$ on readout drive amplitude is sensitive to the details of the bath spectrum. In particular, we find that $T_1$ drops with increasing drive amplitude when a Purcell notch filter is placed at the qubit frequency, and that the Lindblad master equation shows general qualitative defects compared to the first-principles model.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops a first-principles simulation of dispersive readout by evolving the full unitary circuit-QED Hamiltonian coupled to a microscopic model of the measurement transmission line that permits arbitrary bath spectra, including Purcell filters. It reports that qubit T1 depends sensitively on readout drive amplitude and on the details of the bath spectrum; specifically, T1 decreases with increasing drive when a notch filter is placed at the qubit frequency. The work also finds qualitative discrepancies between these dynamics and predictions from the standard Lindblad master equation, and uses access to bath degrees of freedom to examine the emitted spectrum versus drive power.

Significance. If the microscopic bath model is representative of real devices, the results would clarify drive-induced decoherence mechanisms that limit readout fidelity and would demonstrate concrete limitations of Lindblad treatments for strong-drive dispersive readout. The approach of retaining the full unitary dynamics plus an explicit bath is a strength, as is the ability to vary the bath spectrum arbitrarily and to inspect emission spectra directly.

major comments (2)
  1. [Bath model and numerical results sections] The central claims—that T1 drops with drive amplitude under a Purcell notch at the qubit frequency and that Lindblad shows qualitative defects—rest on the specific form chosen for the microscopic transmission-line bath spectral density and system-bath coupling. The manuscript does not demonstrate that this bath reproduces the known weak-drive Purcell relaxation rate or matches measured transmission data, leaving open the possibility that the reported high-drive T1 degradation and Lindblad discrepancies are artifacts of the bath choice rather than generic features. (Bath model and numerical results sections)
  2. [Comparison to Lindblad subsection] The comparison between the first-principles evolution and the Lindblad master equation is described as showing 'general qualitative defects,' yet the manuscript provides only qualitative statements without quantitative metrics (e.g., relative error in predicted T1 versus drive amplitude or fidelity) that would allow a reader to assess the practical importance of the discrepancies. (Comparison to Lindblad subsection)
minor comments (1)
  1. [Methods] Notation for the bath spectral density and the precise definition of the notch-filter transmission function should be stated explicitly in an equation rather than only in prose, to facilitate reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments highlight important points for strengthening the manuscript, and we address each major comment below. We will incorporate revisions to address the concerns.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Bath model and numerical results sections] The central claims—that T1 drops with drive amplitude under a Purcell notch at the qubit frequency and that Lindblad shows qualitative defects—rest on the specific form chosen for the microscopic transmission-line bath spectral density and system-bath coupling. The manuscript does not demonstrate that this bath reproduces the known weak-drive Purcell relaxation rate or matches measured transmission data, leaving open the possibility that the reported high-drive T1 degradation and Lindblad discrepancies are artifacts of the bath choice rather than generic features. (Bath model and numerical results sections)

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of the weak-drive limit is essential to establish that the observed high-drive effects are not artifacts. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection (or extended discussion) in the Bath model section, including a figure or calculation, demonstrating that for low readout drive amplitudes the qubit T1 extracted from the first-principles unitary evolution matches the analytical Purcell relaxation rate computed from the bath spectral density evaluated at the qubit frequency. This will confirm consistency with known linear-response physics. Regarding matching measured transmission data, our microscopic transmission-line model follows the standard derivation used in circuit QED literature and reproduces the expected linear transmission spectrum (including notch-filter features) when the system is in the ground state; we will add a short clarifying paragraph with a reference to this property. These additions should address the concern that the high-drive T1 degradation and Lindblad discrepancies could be bath-specific artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Comparison to Lindblad subsection] The comparison between the first-principles evolution and the Lindblad master equation is described as showing 'general qualitative defects,' yet the manuscript provides only qualitative statements without quantitative metrics (e.g., relative error in predicted T1 versus drive amplitude or fidelity) that would allow a reader to assess the practical importance of the discrepancies. (Comparison to Lindblad subsection)

    Authors: We concur that quantitative metrics would make the comparison more rigorous and allow readers to judge the practical relevance of the discrepancies. In the revised manuscript, we will augment the Comparison to Lindblad subsection with quantitative measures, including plots or tables of the relative error in T1 between the first-principles simulation and the Lindblad prediction as a function of drive amplitude. We will also include additional quantitative comparisons, such as differences in the emitted spectrum or estimated readout fidelity, to better quantify the impact of the qualitative defects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in first-principles unitary simulation

full rationale

The paper performs a direct numerical simulation of the full unitary dynamics starting from the standard circuit-QED Hamiltonian coupled to an explicit microscopic model of the transmission-line bath whose spectrum can be chosen arbitrarily (including filters). The reported drive-amplitude dependence of T1 and the qualitative differences from the Lindblad equation are obtained by evolving this model under different bath spectra; they are not obtained by fitting parameters to a subset of data and then relabeling the fit as a prediction, nor by any self-definitional closure or load-bearing self-citation chain. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained and independent of the target observables.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard quantum optics assumptions and a detailed but standard microscopic bath model; no new entities introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5537 in / 1215 out tokens · 59435 ms · 2026-05-10T14:55:06.343191+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This captures behaviors that are beyond the reach of previous models in the presence of complex filtered baths [1, 17, 37–44]

    inside of a multi-level system representing the qubit, we consider atwo-level system coupled to a driven harmonic readout resonator [3, 4], and we extract the drive power dependence of the relaxation rate of the qubit, for arbitrary spectral distributions of the bath. This captures behaviors that are beyond the reach of previous models in the presence of ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Walter, P

    T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Mag- nard, A. Potoˇ cnik, Y. Salath´ e, M. Pechal, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied7, 054020 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [4]

    Blais, R.-S

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

    work page 2004

  4. [5]

    Blais, A

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

    work page 2021

  5. [6]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, oth- ers, Google Quantum AI, and Collaborators, Nature638, 920–926 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [7]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Her- rmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. M¨ uller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Nature605, 669 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [8]

    M¨ uller and T

    C. M¨ uller and T. M. Stace, Phys. Rev. A95, 013847 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [9]

    Champain, S

    V. Champain, S. Zihlmann, A. Chessari, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojewski, ´E. Dumur, X. Jehl, V. Schmitt, B. Brun, C. Winkelmann, Y. M. Niquet, M. Filippone, S. De Franceschi, and R. Maurand, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 034067 (2025)

    work page 2025

  9. [10]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [11]

    V. B. Braginsky, Y. I. Vorontsov, and K. S. Thorne, Sci- ence209, 547 (1980)

    work page 1980

  11. [12]

    D. Sank, Z. Chen, M. Khezri, J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, and et al., Physical Review Letters117, 10.1103/physrevlett.117.190503 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.190503 2016

  12. [13]

    Khezri, A

    M. Khezri, A. Opremcak, Z. Chen, K. C. Miao, M. McEwen, A. Bengtsson, T. White, O. Naaman, D. Sank, A. N. Korotkov, Y. Chen, and V. Smelyanskiy, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 054008 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [14]

    W. Dai, S. Hazra, D. K. Weiss, P. D. Kurilovich, T. Con- nolly, H. K. Babla, S. Singh, V. R. Joshi, A. Z. Ding, P. D. Parakh, J. Venkatraman, X. Xiao, L. Frunzio, and 6 M. H. Devoret, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2506.24070 (2025), 2506.24070

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.24070 2025

  14. [15]

    D. H. Slichter, R. Vijay, S. J. Weber, S. Boutin, M. Bois- sonneault, J. M. Gambetta, A. Blais, and I. Siddiqi, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 153601 (2012)

    work page 2012

  15. [16]

    S. O. Mundhada, Bulletin of the American Physical So- ciety61, Number 2(2016)

    work page 2016

  16. [17]

    Gusenkova , author M

    D. Gusenkova, M. Spiecker, R. Gebauer, M. Willsch, F. Valenti, N. Karcher, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, I. Takmakov, P. Winkel, D. Rieger, A. V. Ustinov, N. Roch, W. Werns- dorfer, K. Michielsen, O. Sander, and I. M. Pop, arXiv 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.15.064030 (2020), 2009.14785

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.15.064030 2020

  17. [18]

    Hutin, A

    H. Hutin, A. Essig, R. Assouly, P. Rouchon, A. Bienfait, and B. Huard, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 153602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [19]

    Bista, M

    A. Bista, M. Thibodeau, K. Nie, K. Chow, B. K. Clark, and A. Kou, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17807 (2025), 2501.17807

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.17807 2025

  19. [20]

    A. S. May, L. Sutevski, J. Solard, G. Cardoso, L. Carde, L. Pallegoix, R. Lescanne, D. Vion, P. Bertet, and E. Flurin, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2502.14804 (2025), 2502.14804

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14804 2025

  20. [21]

    Boissonneault, J

    M. Boissonneault, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. A79, 013819 (2009)

    work page 2009

  21. [22]

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

    work page 2014

  22. [23]

    Petrescu, M

    A. Petrescu, M. Malekakhlagh, and H. E. T¨ ureci, Phys. Rev. B101, 134510 (2020)

    work page 2020

  23. [24]

    Hanai, A

    R. Hanai, A. McDonald, and A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043228 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [25]

    Lescanne, L

    R. Lescanne, L. Verney, Q. Ficheux, M. H. Devoret, B. Huard, M. Mirrahimi, and Z. Leghtas, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied11, 014030 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [26]

    Verney, R

    L. Verney, R. Lescanne, M. H. Devoret, Z. Leghtas, and M. Mirrahimi, Phys. Rev. Applied11, 024003 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [27]

    Shillito, A

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

    work page 2022

  27. [28]

    Cohen, A

    J. Cohen, A. Petrescu, R. Shillito, and A. Blais, PRX Quantum4, 020312 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [29]

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

    work page 2024

  29. [30]

    Thorbeck, Z

    T. Thorbeck, Z. Xiao, A. Kamal, and L. C. G. Govia, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 090602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [31]

    H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, 2002)

    work page 2002

  31. [32]

    Bl¨ umel and U

    R. Bl¨ umel and U. Smilansky, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 2531 (1987)

    work page 1987

  32. [33]

    Grifoni and P

    M. Grifoni and P. H¨ anggi, Physics Reports304, 229–354 (1998)

    work page 1998

  33. [34]

    H. P. Breuer and M. Holthaus, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters11, 1–14 (1989)

    work page 1989

  34. [35]

    A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Ann. Phys.149, 374 (1983)

    work page 1983

  35. [36]

    Haegeman, J

    J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Piˇ zorn, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 070601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  36. [37]

    A. W. Chin, A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Journal of Mathematical Physics51, 092109 (2010)

    work page 2010

  37. [38]

    Foxen, J

    B. Foxen, J. Y. Mutus, E. Lucero, R. Graff, A. Megrant, Y. Chen, C. Quintana, B. Burkett, J. Kelly, E. Jeffrey, Y. Yang, A. Yu, K. Arya, R. Barends, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, T. Huang, P. Klimov, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, and J. M. Martinis, Quantum Science ...

    work page 2017

  38. [39]

    Mirhosseini, E

    M. Mirhosseini, E. Kim, V. S. Ferreira, M. Kalaee, A. Sipahigil, A. J. Keller, and O. Painter, Nature Com- munications9, 3706 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [40]

    Putterman, K

    H. Putterman, K. Noh, R. N. Patel, G. A. Peairs, G. S. MacCabe, M. Lee, S. Aghaeimeibodi, C. T. Hann, I. Jar- rige, G. Marcaud, Y. He, H. Moradinejad, J. C. Owens, T. Scaffidi, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, J. Iverson, H. Levine, F. G. Brand˜ ao, M. H. Matheny, and O. Painter, Physical Review X15, 10.1103/physrevx.15.011070 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.15.011070 2025

  40. [41]

    Putterman, K

    H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. MacCabe, et al., Nature638, 927–934 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [42]

    Sunada, S

    Y. Sunada, S. Kono, J. Ilves, S. Tamate, T. Sugiyama, Y. Tabuchi, and Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 044016 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [43]

    Y.-X. Xiao, D. Feng, X.-Y. Gu, G.-H. Liang, M.-C. Wang, Z.-Y. Peng, B.-J. Chen, Y. Yan, Z.-Y. Mei, S.-L. Zhao, Y.-Z. Bu, C.-L. Deng, K. Yang, Y. Tian, X. Song, D. Zheng, Y.-X. Zhang, Y.-H. Shi, Z. Xiang, K. Xu, and H. Fan, Flexible readout and unconditional reset for su- perconducting multi-qubit processors with tunable pur- cell filters (2025), arXiv:250...

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [44]

    M. D. Reed, B. R. Johnson, A. A. Houck, L. Di- Carlo, J. M. Chow, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Applied Physics Letters96, 10.1063/1.3435463 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3435463 2010

  44. [45]

    H. Yan, X. Wu, A. Lingenfelter, Y. J. Joshi, G. Anders- son, C. R. Conner, M.-H. Chou, J. Grebel, J. M. Miller, R. G. Povey, H. Qiao, A. A. Clerk, and A. N. Cleland, Applied Physics Letters123, 10.1063/5.0161893 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0161893 2023

  45. [46]

    Cattaneo and G

    M. Cattaneo and G. S. Paraoanu, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 2100054 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [47]

    Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    work page 2011

  47. [48]

    Weisskopf and E

    V. Weisskopf and E. Wigner, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik63, 54–73 (1930)

    work page 1930

  48. [49]

    Sharafiev, M

    A. Sharafiev, M. L. Juan, O. Gargiulo, M. Zanner, S. W¨ ogerer, J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, and G. Kirchmair, Quan- tum5, 474 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [50]

    Huang, J

    Z. Huang, J. S.-C. Hung, M. Raha, M.-H. Chou, H. Levine, A. Retzker, C. T. Hann, D. Hover, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, A. A. Clerk, A. Haim, and O. Painter, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2603.13857 (2026), 2603.13857

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.13857 2026

  50. [51]

    (5), where the drive frequencyω d is set according to the calibrated value ¯ωabove, andω a is replaced byω a1, the resonator frequency as pulled by the qubit excited state

    For consistency across the different simulations, we la- bel thex-axis with ¯naccording to the expression under Eq. (5), where the drive frequencyω d is set according to the calibrated value ¯ωabove, andω a is replaced byω a1, the resonator frequency as pulled by the qubit excited state

    work page

  51. [52]

    Keeling, B

    ´Emile Cochin, J. Keeling, B. W. Lovett, and A. W. Chin, Efficient construction of time-invariant process ten- sors for simulating high-dimensional non-markovian open quantum systems (2026), arXiv:2603.06840 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  52. [53]

    Lacroix, B

    T. Lacroix, B. Le D´ e, A. Riva, A. J. Dunnett, and A. W. Chin, The Journal of Chemical Physics161, 084116 (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [54]

    Dunnett, T

    A. Dunnett, T. Lacroix, B. Le D´ e, and A. Riva, sharelo- qs/MPSDynamics (2021)

    work page 2021

  54. [55]

    Caldeira and A

    A. Caldeira and A. Leggett, Annals of Physics149, 374 (1983)

    work page 1983

  55. [56]

    A. Riva, D. Tamascelli, A. J. Dunnett, and A. W. Chin, Phys. Rev. B108, 195138 (2023). 7

    work page 2023

  56. [57]

    Beaudoin , author J

    F. Beaudoin, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Physical Review A84, 10.1103/physreva.84.043832 (2011). 8 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL This Supplemental Material is organized as follows. Sec. A outlines how the initial model (Eq. (1)) is transformed into the equations actually simulated using the chain mapping [36], including the methodology for reconstructing the sp...

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.84.043832 2011

  57. [58]

    (2), obtaining the eigenvalues {ωk}and corresponding eigenvectors{v (k)}

    Diagonalize theN×NJacobi matrix of the chain coefficients, the second line of Eq. (2), obtaining the eigenvalues {ωk}and corresponding eigenvectors{v (k)}

    work page

  58. [59]

    (9), we compute the weights (withg k ≡ √wk) as wk =k 2 0 v(k) 1 2 ,(11) wherev (k) 1 is the first element of thek−th eigenvector

    Givenk 2 0 defined in Eq. (9), we compute the weights (withg k ≡ √wk) as wk =k 2 0 v(k) 1 2 ,(11) wherev (k) 1 is the first element of thek−th eigenvector

    work page

  59. [60]

    To obtain a smoother function, we convolve the discretized spectral density of Eq. (10) with a Gaussian or Lorentzian kernelf η, whereηgives the broadening, Jsmooth(ω) = (J∗f η)(ω) = X k wkfη(ω−ω k).(12) The broadening parameterηhas to be chosen to be slightly larger than the interval between the sampled frequenciesω k to ensure a smooth profile without w...

    work page