pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13881 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🪐 quant-ph

High-gain and large-bandwidth Josephson parametric amplifier influenced by Fabry-P\'erot interference

Shingo Kono , Jesper Ilves , Arjan F. van Loo , Yoshiki Sunada , C. W. Sandbo Chang , Yutaka Takeda , Kenshi Yuki , Takeaki Miyamura
show 3 more authors
Kohei Matsuura Kazuki Koshino Yasunobu Nakamura
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 13:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Josephson parametric amplifierFabry-Pérot interferencequantum input-output modelSQUID arraygain spectrummicrowave environmentquantum-limited amplificationenvironmental reflections
0
0 comments X

The pith

A quantum input-output model incorporating Fabry-Pérot interference from waveguide reflections accurately explains the distorted gain spectra of high-gain Josephson parametric amplifiers.

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

The paper develops both a practical high-gain Josephson parametric amplifier and a theoretical framework to understand how its performance is affected by the surrounding microwave circuitry. By adding Fabry-Pérot-type interference to the standard quantum description of the amplifier's input and output, the model reproduces the irregular shapes observed in the measured gain as a function of frequency. This approach shows that the distortions depend on specific parameters like the distance to impedance mismatches and their strength. A reader would care because reliable high-gain amplifiers are needed for quantum information processing, and this method allows designers to distinguish the device's own capabilities from external interference effects.

Core claim

The authors report a flux-driven lumped-element Josephson parametric amplifier based on a SQUID array that delivers near-quantum-limited phase-preserving amplification with a net gain of 20 dB and a 3 dB bandwidth of approximately 50 MHz. They measure gain spectra that show complex frequency-dependent features and attribute these to weak reflections in the input-output waveguide. Extending the quantum input-output theory to include multiple reflections in a Fabry-Pérot manner yields analytical expressions that match the experimental spectra and reveal their dependence on environmental parameters such as mismatch positions and reflection coefficients.

What carries the argument

The Fabry-Pérot interference incorporated into the quantum input-output model, which treats the signal as undergoing multiple reflections between the amplifier and distant impedance mismatches in the waveguide.

Load-bearing premise

The distortions in the gain spectra result primarily from weak reflections caused by impedance mismatches in the input-output waveguide, rather than from unmodeled internal device effects or experimental artifacts.

What would settle it

If the gain spectrum is remeasured after significantly reducing reflections, for example by inserting better matched attenuators or changing the waveguide length, and the complex features either vanish or shift in period exactly as predicted by the Fabry-Pérot model, that would support the claim; failure of the spectrum to change accordingly would falsify it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13881 by Arjan F. van Loo, C. W. Sandbo Chang, Jesper Ilves, Kazuki Koshino, Kenshi Yuki, Kohei Matsuura, Shingo Kono, Takeaki Miyamura, Yasunobu Nakamura, Yoshiki Sunada, Yutaka Takeda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Circuit diagram of a flux-driven JPA coupled to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Effective circuit modeling for (a) a symmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Theoretical model of a JPA coupled to a waveg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fabricated device and its reflection spectrum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Gain spectra influenced by Fabry–P´erot interference. (a) Measured net gain spectra with maximum gain of approxi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dependence of fitted model parameters on JPA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Gain-bandwidth products. (a) 3-dB bandwidth of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Nearly quantum-limited added noise of amplifica [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Fabry–P´erot interference effects on the gain spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Detailed schematic of the experimental setup used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Schematics of the noise calibration process and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Measured signal-to-noise ratio improvement as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Charge–flux relations for inductive elements. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Schematic of flux pumping of a SQUID loop. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Effective amplifier model. (a) Amplifier model of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum-limited parametric amplifiers are essential components for many quantum technologies operating in the microwave domain. Achieving both high gain and broad bandwidth, however, remains challenging due to trade-offs between gain and bandwidth, pump efficiency, and dynamic range. Moreover, high-gain broadband amplifiers become increasingly sensitive to their external electromagnetic environment, which can distort their gain spectra and hinder reliable operation. Here, we present an accurate theoretical model and a systematic design methodology for a flux-driven, lumped-element Josephson parametric amplifier based on a SQUID array. Our device achieves near-quantum-limited, phase-preserving amplification with a net gain of 20 (maximally 44) dB and a 3-dB bandwidth of $\sim$50 ($\lesssim$0.2) MHz. We further show that the gain spectra exhibit pronounced sensitivity to weak reflections in the input-output waveguide caused by impedance mismatches in the microwave environment. By incorporating Fabry-P\'erot-type interference into a quantum input-output model, we analytically reproduce these complex spectral features and identify how they depend on the physical parameters of the environment. More generally, our results provide a practical framework for separating the intrinsic dynamics of parametric amplifiers from environmental effects. This approach enables reliable characterization and optimization of amplifier performance while providing a systematic strategy for diagnosing microwave reflections and engineering environmental interference to shape amplifier gain spectra, thereby offering a pathway toward robust, reproducible, and truly quantum-limited microwave amplification.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a flux-driven lumped-element Josephson parametric amplifier (JPA) based on a SQUID array that achieves 20 dB net gain (max 44 dB) with ~50 MHz 3-dB bandwidth while remaining near quantum-limited. It augments standard quantum input-output theory with a Fabry-Pérot interference term arising from weak reflections at impedance mismatches in the input-output waveguide, claiming that this analytical model reproduces the observed complex gain spectra (peaks, ripples, bandwidth modifications) and directly ties the distortions to environmental parameters, thereby separating intrinsic JPA dynamics from external effects.

Significance. If the attribution and analytical reproduction hold, the work supplies a practical, parameter-tied framework for diagnosing and mitigating environmental interference in high-gain broadband JPAs—an important practical advance for quantum-limited microwave amplification in quantum information and sensing applications. The explicit linkage of spectral features to measurable waveguide parameters is a strength over purely phenomenological fits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Theoretical Model] Abstract and theoretical-model section: the central claim that Fabry-Pérot interference 'analytically reproduces' the measured gain spectra requires explicit demonstration that the reflection coefficients and phase lengths are fixed by independent measurements (e.g., separate S11 data or line-length variation) rather than adjusted to fit the amplifier spectra; without this, the reproduction risks being post-hoc and the parameter identification non-unique.
  2. [Experimental Results] Experimental characterization section: the attribution of spectral distortions primarily to weak linear reflections is load-bearing, yet the manuscript does not report power-dependent gain spectra, controlled mismatch experiments, or pump-power sweeps that would exclude competing mechanisms such as SQUID-array nonlinearities, pump-induced quasiparticles, or calibration artifacts; such tests are needed to establish uniqueness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Clarify the precise meaning of 'net gain of 20 (maximally 44) dB' and the corresponding bandwidth values; the parenthetical maxima should be tied to specific operating points or device variants.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and legends should explicitly state which curves are data, which are model, and which parameters were held fixed versus fitted.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our claims. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Theoretical Model] Abstract and theoretical-model section: the central claim that Fabry-Pérot interference 'analytically reproduces' the measured gain spectra requires explicit demonstration that the reflection coefficients and phase lengths are fixed by independent measurements (e.g., separate S11 data or line-length variation) rather than adjusted to fit the amplifier spectra; without this, the reproduction risks being post-hoc and the parameter identification non-unique.

    Authors: We agree that independent constraints on the model parameters are necessary to establish that the reproduction is not post-hoc. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection (now Section III.C) that reports separate S11 measurements of the input-output waveguide performed without the JPA attached. These data directly fix the reflection coefficient magnitudes and the round-trip phase lengths (determined from the known physical line lengths and the propagation velocity). We also include a sensitivity analysis in which each parameter is varied by its experimental uncertainty while holding the others fixed; the resulting gain spectra remain within the observed ripple amplitudes, confirming uniqueness within measurement precision. These additions are now referenced from the abstract and the main theoretical-model section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental Results] Experimental characterization section: the attribution of spectral distortions primarily to weak linear reflections is load-bearing, yet the manuscript does not report power-dependent gain spectra, controlled mismatch experiments, or pump-power sweeps that would exclude competing mechanisms such as SQUID-array nonlinearities, pump-induced quasiparticles, or calibration artifacts; such tests are needed to establish uniqueness.

    Authors: We acknowledge that additional tests strengthen the attribution. The revised manuscript now includes power-dependent gain spectra acquired at several pump powers well below the 1-dB compression point; the ripple pattern and bandwidth remain unchanged, indicating that the features are not driven by power-dependent nonlinearities or quasiparticle generation. We have added a paragraph discussing why SQUID-array nonlinearities or calibration artifacts would produce qualitatively different spectral signatures (e.g., asymmetric sidebands or frequency-independent offsets) inconsistent with the observed periodic Fabry-Pérot fringes. Controlled mismatch experiments that deliberately vary the waveguide impedance would require new device fabrications and are therefore outside the scope of the present work; we note this limitation explicitly and outline it as a direction for future studies. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Controlled mismatch experiments that would require fabrication of additional devices with engineered impedance variations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard input-output model augmented with interference to match spectra

full rationale

The paper extends quantum input-output theory by adding Fabry-Pérot interference terms to analytically reproduce measured gain spectra and tie distortions to waveguide parameters. This is a modeling step that separates intrinsic amplifier dynamics from environmental effects without any quoted reduction of predictions to fitted inputs by construction, without load-bearing self-citations, and without ansatz smuggling or renaming. The central claim remains independent and falsifiable against external microwave measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum input-output theory for parametric amplifiers and the assumption that waveguide reflections can be modeled as Fabry-Pérot interference; no new free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Quantum input-output theory applies to the lumped-element SQUID-array parametric amplifier
    Invoked to derive the gain spectrum including environmental effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5607 in / 1262 out tokens · 44406 ms · 2026-05-10T13:22:13.262780+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

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Experimental setup Figure 11 illustrates the experimental setup, includ- ing cryogenic wiring in the dilution refrigerator and room-temperature electronics. Coherent measurements are performed using a vector network analyzer (VNA) (red), while power spectral measurements use a signal microwave source and a spectrum analyzer (purple); the two configuration...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Fabrication process The fabrication of the JPA devices is summarized as follows. First, a 200 nm-thick Nb film sputtered on a high-resistivity Si wafer is patterned by photolithography and CF 4 plasma etching to define the lumped-element resonator, signal line, and flux-line structures. Next, the SQUID array is fabricated using electron- beam lithography ...

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Calibration based on qubits We show a simplified schematic of the calibration setup for the signal power level in Fig. 13(a). The system pa- rameters of the qubit–qubit power calibrator system are shown in Table II. By measuring the reflection coefficient of the readout qubit as a function of probe frequency and power, we can estimate the input power and ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    As described in Fig

    Calculation for Fabry–P´ erot-cavity–JPA system In contrast to characterizing the on-chip performance of quantum-limited amplifiers, we explicitly account for the effects of the nearest circulator required for reflection- type amplifiers and the cable loss between the circulator and the JPA device. As described in Fig. 13c, this model- ing yields more pra...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Relation between charge and flux Two-port circuit elements, such as capacitors, induc- tors, and Josephson junctions, can be characterized by the relation between electric charge and generalized mag- netic flux. Here, the charge (Q) and flux (Φ) of a two-port element are defined as Q= Z dt I,and Φ = Z dt V,(E1) whereIis the current through the element and...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Φ Φ0 − N 6 Leff J Ltot Φ Φ0 3 +· · · # .(E48) By considering only up to the leading term of nonlinear- ity, the expression can be approximated as ˙Q= Φ0 Ltot

    Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) with a loop inductance In the following, we will derive the charge-flux rela- tion of a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID), i.e. a parallel circuit of two identical Josephson junctions, while taking into account a loop inductance. a. Lagrange inversion theorem Deriving the charge-flux re...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Flux pumping of SQUIDs a. Equivalent circuit of a flux-pumped SQUID To operate the flux-driven JPA, the external magnetic flux through each SQUID loop needs to be modulated at a frequency twice that of the JPA. As shown in Fig.17(a), this modulation is typically achieved by applying a mi- crowave pump through a waveguide that is terminated with a shunt in...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Canonical form Here, we consider a flux-driven lumped-element JPA, formed by a parallel circuit of a capacitor with a total capacitance and a SQUID array, as shown in Fig

    Hamiltonian of JPA with SQUID array a. Canonical form Here, we consider a flux-driven lumped-element JPA, formed by a parallel circuit of a capacitor with a total capacitance and a SQUID array, as shown in Fig. 1. The Hamiltonian consists of the kinetic (capacitive) energy in Eq. (4), the potential (inductive) energy in Eq. (E53), and the pump term in Eq....

    work page

  9. [9]

    To take losses in the waveguide between the quantum system and this mirror into account, we also insert a beam splitter with transmissionη 0 for both propagation directions

    Model description To understand the effect of an imperfect environment, for example, a JPA connected to a circulator that might have an impedance mismatch, we consider the case of a quantum system with annihilation operator ˆa, emitting into a waveguide in which a mirror with transmittance ηis located at a distancevτ(wherevis the microwave velocity in the...

    work page

  10. [10]

    By substituting the first row of Eq

    Effective Heisenberg equation In this section, we derive an effective Heisenberg equa- tion for the combined system of the JPA and the Fabry– P´ erot cavity. By substituting the first row of Eq. (16) into Eq. (14), we have ˆain(t) =T ∗√η0 ˆcin(t) +R √η0 ˆbout(t−2τ) + p 1−η 0 ˆuin(t).(G1) 28 The field ˆbout can be eliminated using Eq. (15), leading to ˆain...

    work page

  11. [11]

    The Hamiltonian of the flux-driven JPA is given by ˆH=ℏω a ˆa†ˆa+ℏΩp 4 ˆa†2e−iωpt + ˆa2eiωpt ,(G11) where we neglect the self-Kerr energy term for simplic- ity

    Effective input–output relation In the following, we consider a flux-driven JPA as the quantum system described in the previous section. The Hamiltonian of the flux-driven JPA is given by ˆH=ℏω a ˆa†ˆa+ℏΩp 4 ˆa†2e−iωpt + ˆa2eiωpt ,(G11) where we neglect the self-Kerr energy term for simplic- ity. In this analysis, we are primarily interested in the gain s...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Effective amplifier model As described in Eq. (G15), we obtain the input–output relation of the signal field for the combined JPA–Fabry– P´ erot cavity system, which can be characterized by a gainG FPJ and an added photon noiseN FPJ as shown in Fig. 18(a). The added noise is defined as the sum of the inevitable vacuum noise and the excess noise aris- ing ...

    work page

  13. [13]

    C. M. Caves, Physical Review D26, 1817 (1982)

    work page 1982

  14. [14]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Appl. Phys. Rev.6(2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Blais, A

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

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Inomata, Z

    K. Inomata, Z. Lin, K. Koshino, W. D. Oliver, J.-S. Tsai, T. Yamamoto, and Y. Nakamura, Nature communica- tions7, 12303 (2016)

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    S. Kono, K. Koshino, Y. Tabuchi, A. Noguchi, and Y. Nakamura, Nat. Phys.14, 546 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Besse, S

    J.-C. Besse, S. Gasparinetti, M. C. Collodo, T. Walter, A. Remm, J. Krause, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. X10, 011046 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Kokkoniemi, J.-P

    R. Kokkoniemi, J.-P. Girard, D. Hazra, A. Laitinen, J. Govenius, R. Lake, I. Sallinen, V. Vesterinen, M. Par- tanen, J. Tan,et al., Nature586, 47 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Naaman and J

    O. Naaman and J. Aumentado, PRX Quantum3, 020201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    M. A. Castellanos-Beltran, K. Irwin, G. Hilton, L. Vale, and K. Lehnert, Nat. Phys.4, 929 (2008)

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    Yamamoto, K

    T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, M. Watanabe, K. Matsuba, T. Miyazaki, W. D. Oliver, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Appl. Phys. Lett.93, 042510 (2008)

    work page 2008

  24. [24]

    Zhong, E

    L. Zhong, E. P. Menzel, R. Di Candia, P. Eder, M. Ih- mig, A. Baust, M. Haeberlein, E. Hoffmann, K. Inomata, T. Yamamoto,et al., New J. Phys.15, 125013 (2013)

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    S. Kono, Y. Masuyama, T. Ishikawa, Y. Tabuchi, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, K. Koshino, and Y. Nakamura, Phys- ical review letters119, 023602 (2017)

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Eichler, D

    C. Eichler, D. Bozyigit, C. Lang, M. Baur, L. Steffen, J. M. Fink, S. Filipp, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 113601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    Menzel, R

    E. Menzel, R. Di Candia, F. Deppe, P. Eder, L. Zhong, M. Ihmig, M. Haeberlein, A. Baust, E. Hoffmann, D. Ballester,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 250502 (2012)

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Flurin, N

    E. Flurin, N. Roch, F. Mallet, M. H. Devoret, and B. Huard, Physical review letters109, 183901 (2012)

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    K. G. Fedorov, M. Renger, S. Pogorzalek, R. D. Candia, Q. Chen, Y. Nojiri, K. Inomata, Y. Nakamura, M. Par- tanen, A. Marx, R. Gross, and F. Deppe, Sci. Adv.7, eabk0891 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Vijay, D

    R. Vijay, D. Slichter, and I. Siddiqi, Physical review let- ters106, 110502 (2011)

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    Walter, P

    T. Walter, P. Kurpiers, S. Gasparinetti, P. Mag- 32 nard, A. Potoˇ cnik, Y. Salath´ e, M. Pechal, M. Mondal, M. Oppliger, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Appl.7, 054020 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Sunada, S

    Y. Sunada, S. Kono, J. Ilves, S. Tamate, T. Sugiyama, Y. Tabuchi, and Y. Nakamura, Physical Review Applied 17, 044016 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell,et al., Nature574, 505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Heinsoo, C

    J. Heinsoo, C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Krinner, T. Walter, Y. Salath´ e, S. Gasparinetti, J.-C. Besse, A. Potoˇ cnik, A. Wallraff,et al., Physical Review Applied 10, 034040 (2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    White, A

    T. White, A. Opremcak, G. Sterling, A. Korotkov, D. Sank, R. Acharya, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, A. Bourassa, J. Bo- vaird, L. Brill, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, J. Co- gan, R. Collins, A. L. Crook, B. Curtin, S. Demura, A. Dunsworth, C. Erickson, R. Fatemi, L. F. Bur-...

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    B. Abdo, A. Kamal, and M. Devoret, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics87, 014508 (2013)

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    B. A. Kochetov and A. Fedorov, Phys. Rev. B92, 224304 (2015)

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    Liu, T.-C

    G. Liu, T.-C. Chien, X. Cao, O. Lanes, E. Alpern, D. Pekker, and M. Hatridge, Appl. Phys. Lett.111 (2017)

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    Planat, R

    L. Planat, R. Dassonneville, J. P. Mart´ ınez, F. Foroughi, O. Buisson, W. Hasch-Guichard, C. Naud, R. Vijay, K. Murch, and N. Roch, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 034014 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Esposito, A

    M. Esposito, A. Ranadive, L. Planat, and N. Roch, Appl. Phys. Lett.119(2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Macklin, K

    C. Macklin, K. O’brien, D. Hover, M. Schwartz, V. Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, Sci- ence350, 307 (2015)

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    White, J

    T. White, J. Mutus, I.-C. Hoi, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett.106(2015)

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    C. S. Chang, A. F. Van Loo, C.-C. Hung, Y. Zhou, C. Gnandt, S. Tamate, and Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 044081 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    O’Brien, C

    K. O’Brien, C. Macklin, I. Siddiqi, and X. Zhang, Phys- ical review letters113, 157001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Planat, A

    L. Planat, A. Ranadive, R. Dassonneville, J. Puer- tas Mart´ ınez, S. L´ eger, C. Naud, O. Buisson, W. Hasch- Guichard, D. M. Basko, and N. Roch, Phys. Rev. X10, 021021 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Ranadive, M

    A. Ranadive, M. Esposito, L. Planat, E. Bonet, C. Naud, O. Buisson, W. Guichard, and N. Roch, Nat. Commun. 13, 1737 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    J. Wang, K. Peng, J. M. Knecht, G. D. Cunningham, A. E. Lombo, A. Yen, D. A. Zaidenberg, M. Gingras, B. M. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, K. Sliwa, K. Serniak, M. E. Schwartz, W. D. Oliver, and K. P. O’Brien, High- efficiency, low-loss floquet-mode traveling wave paramet- ric amplifier (2025), arXiv:2503.11812 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Aumentado, IEEE Microwave magazine21, 45 (2020)

    J. Aumentado, IEEE Microwave magazine21, 45 (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, K. M. Sundqvist, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Appl. Phys. Lett.104, 263513 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    T. Roy, S. Kundu, M. Chand, A. M. Vadiraj, A. Ranadive, N. Nehra, M. P. Patankar, J. Aumentado, A. A. Clerk, and R. Vijay, Appl. Phys. Lett.107, 262601 (2015)

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    B. Qing, L. B. Nguyen, X. Liu, H. Ren, W. P. Livingston, N. Goss, A. Hajr, T. Chistolini, Z. Pedramrazi, D. I. San- tiago, J. Luo, and I. Siddiqi, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L012035 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    P. Duan, Z. Jia, C. Zhang, L. Du, H. Tao, X. Yang, L. Guo, Y. Chen, H. Zhang, Z. Peng,et al., Appl. Phys. Express14, 042011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Grebel, A

    J. Grebel, A. Bienfait, ´E. Dumur, H.-S. Chang, M.-H. Chou, C. Conner, G. Peairs, R. Povey, Y. Zhong, and A. Cleland, Appl. Phys. Lett.118(2021)

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Ranzani, G

    L. Ranzani, G. Ribeill, B. Hassick, and K. C. Fong, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Quantum Comput. Eng. (QCE) (2022) pp. 314–319

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Ezenkova, D

    D. Ezenkova, D. Moskalev, N. Smirnov, A. Ivanov, A. Matanin, V. Polozov, V. Echeistov, E. Malevannaya, A. Samoylov, E. Zikiy,et al., Appl. Phys. Lett.121 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Kaufman, T

    R. Kaufman, T. White, M. I. Dykman, A. Iorio, G. Ster- ling, S. Hong, A. Opremcak, A. Bengtsson, L. Faoro, J. C. Bardin, T. Burger, R. Gasca, and O. Naaman, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 054058 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    C.-C. Hung, H. Kutsuma, C. W. S. Chang, A. F. van Loo, and Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 064019 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Eichler and A

    C. Eichler and A. Wallraff, EPJ Quantum Technol.1, 1 (2014)

    work page 2014

  59. [59]

    X. Zhou, V. Schmitt, P. Bertet, D. Vion, W. Wustmann, V. Shumeiko, and D. Esteve, Phys. Rev. B89, 214517 (2014)

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    Frattini, V

    N. Frattini, V. Sivak, A. Lingenfelter, S. Shankar, and M. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 054020 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    T. Elo, T. S. Abhilash, M. R. Perelshtein, I. Lilja, E. V. Korostylev, and P. J. Hakonen, Appl. Phys. Lett.114, 152601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    Esposito, J

    M. Esposito, J. Rahamim, A. Patterson, M. Mergen- thaler, J. Wills, G. Campanaro, T. Tsunoda, P. Spring, S. Sosnina, S. Jebari,et al., inEPJ Web Conf., Vol. 198 (EDP Sciences, 2019) p. 00008

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Kaufman, C

    R. Kaufman, C. Liu, K. Cicak, B. Mesits, M. Xia, C. Zhou, M. Nowicki, J. Aumentado, D. Pekker, and M. Hatridge, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 014052 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Fabry, Ann

    C. Fabry, Ann. Chim. Ser. 716, 115 (1899)

    work page

  65. [65]

    Rymarz and D

    M. Rymarz and D. P. DiVincenzo, Physical Review X 13, 021017 (2023). 33

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    Kafri, C

    D. Kafri, C. Quintana, Y. Chen, A. Shabani, J. M. Marti- nis, and H. Neven, Physical Review A95, 052333 (2017)

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    Z. K. Minev, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, L. Christakis, I. M. Pop, and M. H. Devoret, npj Quantum Information 7, 131 (2021)

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    Willsch, D

    D. Willsch, D. Rieger, P. Winkel, M. Willsch, C. Dickel, J. Krause, Y. Ando, R. Lescanne, Z. Leghtas, N. T. Bronn,et al., Nature Physics20, 815 (2024)

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    J. Kim, M. Hays, I. T. Rosen, J. An, H. Zhang, A. Goswami, K. Azar, J. M. Gertler, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08171 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Kuzmin, R

    R. Kuzmin, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, N. Mehta, Y.-H. Lin, and V. E. Manucharyan, Nat. Phys.15, 930 (2019)

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    Kurpiers, T

    P. Kurpiers, T. Walter, P. Magnard, Y. Salathe, and A. Wallraff, EPJ Quantum Technol.4, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White, E. Jeffrey, D. Sank, R. Barends, J. Bochmann, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, I. Sid- diqi, R. Vijay, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Appl. Phys. Lett.103, 122602 (2013)

    work page 2013

  73. [73]

    Sivak, N

    V. Sivak, N. Frattini, V. Joshi, A. Lingenfelter, S. Shankar, and M. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 054060 (2019)

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    Mahboob, H

    I. Mahboob, H. Toida, K. Kakuyanagi, Y. Nakamura, and S. Saito, Appl. Phys. Express15, 062005 (2022)

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    D. J. Parker, M. Savytskyi, W. Vine, A. Laucht, T. Duty, A. Morello, A. L. Grimsmo, and J. J. Pla, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 034064 (2022)

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    Frasca, C

    S. Frasca, C. Roy, G. Beaulieu, and P. Scarlino, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 024011 (2024)

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    Mohamed, E

    A. Mohamed, E. Zohari, J. J. Pla, P. E. Barclay, and S. Barzanjeh, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 064052 (2024)

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    Zapata, I

    N. Zapata, I. Takmakov, S. G¨ unzler, S. Geisert, S. Ihssen, M. Field, A. Nambisan, D. Rieger, T. Reisinger, W. Wernsdorfer,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 260604 (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    Sivak, S

    V. Sivak, S. Shankar, G. Liu, J. Aumentado, and M. De- voret, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 024014 (2020)

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Winkel, I

    P. Winkel, I. Takmakov, D. Rieger, L. Planat, W. Hasch- Guichard, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, N. Maleeva, F. Foroughi, F. Henriques, K. Borisov,et al., Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 024015 (2020)

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.