Multimode Strong-Coupling Processes in Circuit QED Lattices

Alexandra Behne; Alexey V. Gorshkov; Alicia J. Koll\'ar; Ali Fahimniya; Kellen O'Brien; Maya Amouzegar; Won Chan Lee; Yu-Xin Wang

arxiv: 2605.00983 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🪐 quant-ph

Multimode Strong-Coupling Processes in Circuit QED Lattices

Won Chan Lee , Ali Fahimniya , Kellen O'Brien , Yu-Xin Wang , Alexandra Behne , Maya Amouzegar , Alexey V. Gorshkov , Alicia J. Koll\'ar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords circuit QEDmultimode strong couplingfour-wave mixingflat bandsphotonic latticetransmon qubitwave mixing resonances

0 comments

The pith

A transmon qubit coupled to a photonic lattice exhibits strong four-wave mixing dominated by localized flat-band modes.

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

This work demonstrates that a qubit inside a multimode circuit QED lattice can participate in a four-wave mixing process that simultaneously excites the qubit and converts photon frequencies between different lattice modes. The authors first derive a circuit Lagrangian that includes strong photon-photon interactions beyond the usual tight-binding picture, which produces new spectral features such as band gaps and altered flat bands. They then measure clear resonances in the qubit response that match these predictions and show the mixing is carried primarily by the flat-band modes because those modes couple most strongly to the qubit. If the analysis holds, lattices become practical platforms for generating controllable multiphoton events without needing separate nonlinear elements.

Core claim

Circuit Lagrangian analysis captures beyond tight-binding effects of strong photon-photon coupling, revealing emergent band gaps, lifted degeneracies, broadened flat bands, and frequency-dependent hopping. Within the multimode photon environment, strong qubit-photon coupling gives rise to multiphoton processes involving multiple normal modes, including a strong four-wave-mixing process that excites the qubit while converting frequencies between modes; this process is dominated by localized flat-band modes that exhibit the strongest coupling to the transmon qubit.

What carries the argument

The localized flat-band modes of the photonic lattice, which couple most strongly to the transmon qubit and thereby dominate the observed four-wave mixing.

If this is right

The photonic spectrum develops emergent band gaps and lifted degeneracies from strong photon-photon coupling.
Flat bands broaden and hopping becomes frequency-dependent rather than constant.
Strong wave-mixing resonances appear in the qubit spectrum as a direct signature of multimode coupling.
Multiphoton processes can involve several normal modes at once rather than isolated pairs.
Flat-band localization provides a natural way to select which modes participate in the mixing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Tuning the lattice to strengthen or weaken flat bands could serve as a knob to control the strength of the mixing process without changing the qubit itself.
The same circuit analysis might be applied to larger or differently connected lattices to predict collective multimode effects.
Frequency conversion via this mixing could be used for routing signals in quantum networks if losses remain low.
Similar flat-band dominance may appear in other qubit-lattice systems, suggesting a general design principle for multimode devices.

Load-bearing premise

The circuit Lagrangian fully accounts for all relevant beyond-tight-binding effects and the experiment isolates the multimode strong-coupling regime without decoherence, loss, or calibration errors that could produce similar resonances.

What would settle it

The reported wave-mixing resonances in the qubit response should disappear when the qubit frequency is detuned from the flat-band frequencies or when the lattice geometry is altered to remove flat bands, while remaining modes stay coupled.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00983 by Alexandra Behne, Alexey V. Gorshkov, Alicia J. Koll\'ar, Ali Fahimniya, Kellen O'Brien, Maya Amouzegar, Won Chan Lee, Yu-Xin Wang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Simulated Density of States of the Full-Wave Modes versus Nearest-Neighbor Hopping t. Density of states (DoS) as a function of energy E and hopping t (a) in a fixed energy window for all t on a logarithmic scale and (b) in an energy window that scales linearly with t. The energy range used in (b) is indicated in (a) by dashed black lines. The inset in (a) shows the resonator connectivity of the device. (c)… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Four-Wave Mixing in a Quasi-1D Lattice. (a) Qubit population from continuous-wave measurement exhibits three features: the g − e transition at ωq = 2π × 9.15 GHz, the (g − f)/2 (two-photon) transition at 2π × 9.087 GHz, and an additional spectral response at ω ∗ p = 2π × 9.211 GHz corresponding to the four-wave-mixing process. The inset shows the lowest three transmon energy levels, illustrating the negati… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Four-Wave-Mixing Characterization. (a) Qubit population extracted for different monitor modes as a function of ωp. The monitor mode frequencies are indicated in the legend. The qubit frequencies ωq = 2π × 9.15 GHz and the (g − f)/2 transition remain constant. The pump frequencies ω ∗ p where the wave-mixing process is resonant are marked by colored arrows. (b)–(c) The resonant pump frequencies ω ∗ p and ca… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Circuit QED systems provide an ideal platform for exploring the strong-coupling regime of multimode cavity QED. Here we present two new phenomena from multimode strong coupling: a circuit Lagrangian analysis which captures beyond tight-binding effects of strong photon-photon coupling and experimental observation of strong wave-mixing resonances in the qubit response. Our circuit analysis reveals qualitatively new features such as emergent band gaps, lifted degeneracies, broadened flat bands, and frequency-dependent hopping. Within the multimode photon environment, strong qubit-photon coupling in turn gives rise to multiphoton processes involving multiple normal modes. We demonstrate a strong four-wave-mixing process involving excitation of a qubit and simultaneous frequency conversion between modes. Notably, this wave-mixing process is dominated by localized flat-band modes of the photonic lattice, which exhibit the strongest coupling to the transmon qubit.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a Lagrangian treatment beyond tight-binding for multimode circuit QED lattices plus an experimental look at flat-band-dominated four-wave mixing, but the model-experiment link needs tighter checks.

read the letter

This paper reports two advances in multimode circuit QED: first, a Lagrangian-based circuit analysis that includes strong photon-photon interactions and shows features absent from tight-binding models, such as emergent band gaps, lifted degeneracies, broadened flat bands, and frequency-dependent hopping. Second, an experiment observing strong four-wave-mixing resonances in the transmon qubit response, where the process is dominated by the localized flat-band modes that couple most strongly to the qubit. The strength here is the direct connection between the lattice band structure and the multiphoton dynamics. It gives a clear picture of how flat bands can enhance certain nonlinear processes in these systems, which could help with designing better multimode quantum devices. The weaker parts are the lack of detailed validation for the theoretical claims. The stress-test concern is on point: the paper should show explicitly how the full Lagrangian differs from its tight-binding truncation when applied to the strong-coupling regime, and whether those differences affect the predicted resonances. Experimentally, more information on loss rates, decoherence times, and how the setup avoids artifacts would make the attribution to the specific four-wave-mixing process more convincing. Without that, the results are interesting but not yet definitive. This kind of work is relevant to the circuit QED and quantum optics communities working on lattices and strong coupling. It has enough substance to merit peer review, though I would expect the referees to ask for those additional comparisons and quantitative details.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to introduce a circuit Lagrangian analysis for multimode strong-coupling regimes in circuit QED lattices that captures beyond-tight-binding effects, including emergent band gaps, lifted degeneracies, broadened flat bands, and frequency-dependent hopping. It further reports experimental observation of a strong four-wave-mixing process in the qubit response, involving qubit excitation and simultaneous frequency conversion between modes, with the process dominated by localized flat-band modes that couple most strongly to the transmon qubit.

Significance. If the central claims are substantiated, the work would be significant for advancing multimode cavity QED by providing both a theoretical framework for strong photon-photon interactions beyond standard approximations and experimental evidence of multiphoton processes in lattice systems. The focus on flat-band dominance in wave-mixing could inform designs for quantum simulators or processors exploiting localized modes. The integration of Lagrangian-derived predictions with measured resonances is a positive feature, though independent verification of the isolation from artifacts would strengthen the contribution.

major comments (2)

The circuit Lagrangian analysis is asserted to fully capture beyond-tight-binding corrections (emergent gaps, lifted degeneracies, frequency-dependent hopping), yet no explicit side-by-side comparison of the full model versus its tight-binding truncation is provided in the strong-coupling regime to confirm that these qualitative features are not artifacts of the approximation or parameter choices.
The experimental attribution of qubit-response resonances specifically to a flat-band-dominated four-wave-mixing process requires quantitative exclusion of confounders such as ordinary loss, qubit decoherence, or calibration drifts that could produce spurious peaks at the same frequencies; the manuscript supplies no bounds, control measurements, or error analysis addressing these possibilities.

minor comments (1)

The abstract packs two distinct contributions (Lagrangian analysis and experimental wave-mixing) into a single dense paragraph; separating them would improve clarity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and the opportunity to clarify and strengthen our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The circuit Lagrangian analysis is asserted to fully capture beyond-tight-binding corrections (emergent gaps, lifted degeneracies, frequency-dependent hopping), yet no explicit side-by-side comparison of the full model versus its tight-binding truncation is provided in the strong-coupling regime to confirm that these qualitative features are not artifacts of the approximation or parameter choices.

Authors: We agree that an explicit side-by-side comparison is necessary to substantiate that the reported qualitative features (emergent band gaps, lifted degeneracies, broadened flat bands, and frequency-dependent hopping) originate from the full circuit Lagrangian rather than the tight-binding truncation. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection and accompanying figure that directly compares the dispersion relations obtained from the complete Lagrangian-derived Hamiltonian against its tight-binding approximation, using identical strong-coupling parameters. This comparison will explicitly demonstrate that the new features appear only in the full model. revision: yes
Referee: The experimental attribution of qubit-response resonances specifically to a flat-band-dominated four-wave-mixing process requires quantitative exclusion of confounders such as ordinary loss, qubit decoherence, or calibration drifts that could produce spurious peaks at the same frequencies; the manuscript supplies no bounds, control measurements, or error analysis addressing these possibilities.

Authors: We accept that the current manuscript lacks explicit quantitative bounds, dedicated control measurements, and error analysis to exclude ordinary loss, qubit decoherence, or calibration artifacts. The identification in the paper rests on frequency matching with the multimode model and the calculated stronger coupling of flat-band modes. In revision we will add (i) independent bounds on loss and decoherence rates extracted from separate measurements, (ii) a discussion of calibration stability, and (iii) an error analysis on resonance positions. If additional control datasets are required, we will acquire and report them. This will allow a more rigorous exclusion of alternative explanations. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; theoretical analysis and experimental claims remain independent.

full rationale

The paper separates its circuit-Lagrangian derivation of beyond-tight-binding features (emergent gaps, frequency-dependent hopping) from its experimental demonstration of four-wave-mixing resonances. No equation or result is shown to be obtained by fitting a parameter to the target data and then relabeling that fit as a prediction. No self-citation is invoked as the sole justification for a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that would force the central multimode strong-coupling claim. The derivation chain therefore does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The Lagrangian approach implicitly relies on standard circuit-QED modeling assumptions whose validity cannot be audited from the given text.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Lumped-element circuit model and transmon approximation remain valid in the multimode strong-coupling regime.
Typical for circuit QED Lagrangian derivations; invoked by the choice of analysis method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5469 in / 1328 out tokens · 51212 ms · 2026-05-09T18:58:14.911580+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

[1]

A. J. Kollár, A. T. Papageorge, V. D. Vaidya, Y. Guo, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Nat. Comm.8, 14386 (2017)

work page 2017
[2]

A. J. Kollár, A. T. Papageorge, K. Baumann, M. A. Armen, and B. L. Lev, New J. Phys.17, 1 (2015)

work page 2015
[3]

V. D. Vaidya, Y. Guo, R. M. Kroeze, K. E. Ballantine, A. J. Kollár, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. X8, 011002 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

Y. Guo, V. D. Vaidya, R. M. Kroeze, R. A. Lunney, B. L. Lev, and J. Keeling, Phys. Rev. A99, 1 (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

Y. Guo, R. M. Kroeze, V. D. Vaidya, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 193601 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Gopalakrishnan, B

S. Gopalakrishnan, B. L. Lev, and P. M. Goldbart, Nat. Phys. 5, 845 (2009)

work page 2009
[7]

Gopalakrishnan, B

S. Gopalakrishnan, B. L. Lev, and P. M. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. A 82 (2010)

work page 2010
[8]

Gopalakrishnan, B

S. Gopalakrishnan, B. L. Lev, and P. M. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 277201 (2011)

work page 2011
[9]

Gopalakrishnan, B

S. Gopalakrishnan, B. L. Lev, and P. M. Goldbart, Philos. Mag. 92, 353 (2012)

work page 2012
[10]

J. S. Douglas, H. Habibian, C.-L. Hung, A. V. Gorshkov, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Nat. Phot.9, 326–331 (2015)

work page 2015
[11]

John and J

S. John and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 2418 (1990)

work page 1990
[12]

Calajó, F

G. Calajó, F. Ciccarello, D. Chang, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. A 93 (2016)

work page 2016
[13]

Binder and A

K. Binder and A. P. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys.58, 801 6 (1986)

work page 1986
[14]

Sherrington and S

D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. Lett.35, 1792 (1975)

work page 1975
[15]

B. P. Marsh, D. A. Schuller, Y. Ji, H. S. Hunt, G. Z. Socolof, D. P. Bowman, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 160403 (2025)

work page 2025
[16]

Casanova, G

J. Casanova, G. Romero, I. Lizuain, J. J. García-Ripoll, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 263603 (2010)

work page 2010
[17]

Braak, Phys

D. Braak, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 100401 (2011)

work page 2011
[18]

S. J. Bosman, M. F. Gely, V. Singh, A. Bruno, D. Bothner, and G. A. Steele, npj Quantum Information3 (2017), 10.1038/s41534-017-0046-y

work page doi:10.1038/s41534-017-0046-y 2017
[19]

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)

work page 2010
[20]

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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 237001 (2010)

work page 2010
[21]

Kuzmin, N

R. Kuzmin, N. Mehta, N. Grabon, R. Mencia, and V. E. Manucharyan, npj Quantum Information5, 20 (2019)

work page 2019
[22]

Meiser and P

D. Meiser and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A74, 065801 (2006)

work page 2006
[23]

Semba, Nature Physics13, 44 (2017)

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

work page 2017
[24]

V. S. Ferreira, J. Banker, A. Sipahigil, M. H. Matheny, A. J. Keller, E. Kim, M. Mirhosseini, and O. Painter, Phys. Rev. X11, 041043 (2021)

work page 2021
[25]

A. J. Kollár, M. Fitzpatrick, P. Sarnak, and A. A. Houck, Commun. Math. Phys.376, 1909–1956 (2019)

work page 1909
[26]

Schmidt and J

S. Schmidt and J. Koch, Ann. Phys.525, 395–412 (2013)

work page 2013
[27]

J. Koch, A. A. Houck, K. L. Hur, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. A 82, 043811 (2010)

work page 2010
[28]

A. A. Houck, H. E. Türeci, and J. Koch, Nat. Phys.8, 292–299 (2012)

work page 2012
[29]

Nunnenkamp, J

A. Nunnenkamp, J. Koch, and S. M. Girvin, New J. Phys. 13, 095008 (2011)

work page 2011
[30]

O’Brien, M

K. O’Brien, M. Amouzegar, W. C. Lee, M. Ritter, and A. J. Kollár, PRX Quantum , (2025)

work page 2025
[31]

Jaynes and F

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

work page 1963
[32]

D. A. Steck,Quantum and Atom Optics(2007)

work page 2007
[33]

Carmichael,An Open systems Approach to Quantum Optics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993)

H. Carmichael,An Open systems Approach to Quantum Optics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993)

work page 1993
[34]

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
[35]

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, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

work page 2007
[36]

Vrajitoarea, R

A. Vrajitoarea, R. Belyansky, R. Lundgren, S. Whit- sitt, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. A. Houck, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2209.14972 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[37]

N. M. Sundaresan, R. Lundgren, G. Zhu, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X9, 011 (2019)

work page 2019
[38]

Liu and A

Y. Liu and A. A. Houck, Nat. Phys.13, 48 (2017)

work page 2017
[39]

D. L. Underwood, W. E. Shanks, A. C. Y. Li, L. Ateshian, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X6, 021044 (2016)

work page 2016
[40]

D. L. Underwood, W. E. Shanks, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. A86, 023837 (2012)

work page 2012
[41]

Fitzpatrick, N

M. Fitzpatrick, N. M. Sundaresan, A. C. Y. Li, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X7, 011016 (2017)

work page 2017
[42]

A. J. Kollár, M. Fitzpatrick, and A. A. Houck, Nature 571, 45 (2019)

work page 2019
[43]

Bienias, I

P. Bienias, I. Boettcher, R. Belyansky, A. J. Kollár, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 013601 (2022)

work page 2022
[44]

E. Kim, X. Zhang, V. S. Ferreira, J. Banker, J. K. Iverson, A. Sipahigil, M. Bello, A. González-Tudela, M. Mirhos- seini, and O. Painter, Phys. Rev. X11, 011015 (2021)

work page 2021
[45]

Blais, A

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

work page 2021
[46]

Göppl, A

M. Göppl, A. Fragner, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, S. Fil- ipp, J. M. Fink, P. J. Leek, G. Puebla, L. Steffen, and A. Wallraff, J. Appl. Phys.104 (2008)

work page 2008
[47]

Wallraff, D

A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 060501 (2005)

work page 2005
[48]

Leghtas, S

Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge, M. Reagor, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mir- rahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Science347, 853 (2015)

work page 2015
[49]

Y. Y. Gao,Multi-Cavity Operations in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics, Phd thesis, Yale University (2018)

work page 2018
[50]

Pfaff, C

W. Pfaff, C. J. Axline, L. D. Burkhart, U. Vool, P. Rein- hold, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature Physics13, 882 (2017)

work page 2017
[51]

A. Chen, J. Maciejko, and I. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 066101 (2024)

work page 2024
[52]

J. B. Curtis, P. Narang, and V. Galitski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 076301 (2025)

work page 2025
[53]

M. J. Collins, C. Xiong, I. H. Rey, T. D. Vo, J. He, S. Shahnia, C. Reardon, T. F. Krauss, M. J. Steel, A. S. Clark, and B. J. Eggleton, Nature Communications4, 2582 (2013)

work page 2013
[54]

J. Wang, S. Paesani, Y. Ding, R. Santagati, P. Skrzypczyk, A. Salavrakos, J. Tura, R. Augusiak, L. Mančinska, D. Bacco, D. Bonneau, J. W. Silverstone, Q. Gong, A. Acín, K. Rottwitt, L. K. Oxenløwe, J. L. O’Brien, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Science360, 285 (2018)

work page 2018
[55]

D. E. Chang, J. S. Douglas, A. González-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031002 (2018)

work page 2018
[56]

Krantz, M

P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021318 (2019)

work page 2019
[57]

Cohen-Tannoudji, J

C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Process and Applica- tions, Wiley (Wiley, 1998)

work page 1998
[58]

D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 123602 (2005)

work page 2005
[59]

Gambetta, A

J. Gambetta, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, L. Frun- zio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A74, 042318 (2006). 7 Supplemental Material: Multimode Strong-Coupling Processes in Circuit QED Lattices CONTENTS S1. Quasi-1D CPW Lattice Device 7 S2. Band Calculation for the Lattice Device 8 S3. Four-Wave-Mixing Char...

work page 2006

[1] [1]

A. J. Kollár, A. T. Papageorge, V. D. Vaidya, Y. Guo, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Nat. Comm.8, 14386 (2017)

work page 2017

[2] [2]

A. J. Kollár, A. T. Papageorge, K. Baumann, M. A. Armen, and B. L. Lev, New J. Phys.17, 1 (2015)

work page 2015

[3] [3]

V. D. Vaidya, Y. Guo, R. M. Kroeze, K. E. Ballantine, A. J. Kollár, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. X8, 011002 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Y. Guo, V. D. Vaidya, R. M. Kroeze, R. A. Lunney, B. L. Lev, and J. Keeling, Phys. Rev. A99, 1 (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Y. Guo, R. M. Kroeze, V. D. Vaidya, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 193601 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Gopalakrishnan, B

S. Gopalakrishnan, B. L. Lev, and P. M. Goldbart, Nat. Phys. 5, 845 (2009)

work page 2009

[7] [7]

Gopalakrishnan, B

S. Gopalakrishnan, B. L. Lev, and P. M. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. A 82 (2010)

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Gopalakrishnan, B

S. Gopalakrishnan, B. L. Lev, and P. M. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 277201 (2011)

work page 2011

[9] [9]

Gopalakrishnan, B

S. Gopalakrishnan, B. L. Lev, and P. M. Goldbart, Philos. Mag. 92, 353 (2012)

work page 2012

[10] [10]

J. S. Douglas, H. Habibian, C.-L. Hung, A. V. Gorshkov, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Nat. Phot.9, 326–331 (2015)

work page 2015

[11] [11]

John and J

S. John and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 2418 (1990)

work page 1990

[12] [12]

Calajó, F

G. Calajó, F. Ciccarello, D. Chang, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. A 93 (2016)

work page 2016

[13] [13]

Binder and A

K. Binder and A. P. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys.58, 801 6 (1986)

work page 1986

[14] [14]

Sherrington and S

D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. Lett.35, 1792 (1975)

work page 1975

[15] [15]

B. P. Marsh, D. A. Schuller, Y. Ji, H. S. Hunt, G. Z. Socolof, D. P. Bowman, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 160403 (2025)

work page 2025

[16] [16]

Casanova, G

J. Casanova, G. Romero, I. Lizuain, J. J. García-Ripoll, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 263603 (2010)

work page 2010

[17] [17]

Braak, Phys

D. Braak, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 100401 (2011)

work page 2011

[18] [18]

S. J. Bosman, M. F. Gely, V. Singh, A. Bruno, D. Bothner, and G. A. Steele, npj Quantum Information3 (2017), 10.1038/s41534-017-0046-y

work page doi:10.1038/s41534-017-0046-y 2017

[19] [19]

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)

work page 2010

[20] [20]

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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 237001 (2010)

work page 2010

[21] [21]

Kuzmin, N

R. Kuzmin, N. Mehta, N. Grabon, R. Mencia, and V. E. Manucharyan, npj Quantum Information5, 20 (2019)

work page 2019

[22] [22]

Meiser and P

D. Meiser and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A74, 065801 (2006)

work page 2006

[23] [23]

Semba, Nature Physics13, 44 (2017)

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

work page 2017

[24] [24]

V. S. Ferreira, J. Banker, A. Sipahigil, M. H. Matheny, A. J. Keller, E. Kim, M. Mirhosseini, and O. Painter, Phys. Rev. X11, 041043 (2021)

work page 2021

[25] [25]

A. J. Kollár, M. Fitzpatrick, P. Sarnak, and A. A. Houck, Commun. Math. Phys.376, 1909–1956 (2019)

work page 1909

[26] [26]

Schmidt and J

S. Schmidt and J. Koch, Ann. Phys.525, 395–412 (2013)

work page 2013

[27] [27]

J. Koch, A. A. Houck, K. L. Hur, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. A 82, 043811 (2010)

work page 2010

[28] [28]

A. A. Houck, H. E. Türeci, and J. Koch, Nat. Phys.8, 292–299 (2012)

work page 2012

[29] [29]

Nunnenkamp, J

A. Nunnenkamp, J. Koch, and S. M. Girvin, New J. Phys. 13, 095008 (2011)

work page 2011

[30] [30]

O’Brien, M

K. O’Brien, M. Amouzegar, W. C. Lee, M. Ritter, and A. J. Kollár, PRX Quantum , (2025)

work page 2025

[31] [31]

Jaynes and F

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

work page 1963

[32] [32]

D. A. Steck,Quantum and Atom Optics(2007)

work page 2007

[33] [33]

Carmichael,An Open systems Approach to Quantum Optics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993)

H. Carmichael,An Open systems Approach to Quantum Optics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993)

work page 1993

[34] [34]

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

[35] [35]

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, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

work page 2007

[36] [36]

Vrajitoarea, R

A. Vrajitoarea, R. Belyansky, R. Lundgren, S. Whit- sitt, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. A. Houck, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2209.14972 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024

[37] [37]

N. M. Sundaresan, R. Lundgren, G. Zhu, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X9, 011 (2019)

work page 2019

[38] [38]

Liu and A

Y. Liu and A. A. Houck, Nat. Phys.13, 48 (2017)

work page 2017

[39] [39]

D. L. Underwood, W. E. Shanks, A. C. Y. Li, L. Ateshian, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X6, 021044 (2016)

work page 2016

[40] [40]

D. L. Underwood, W. E. Shanks, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. A86, 023837 (2012)

work page 2012

[41] [41]

Fitzpatrick, N

M. Fitzpatrick, N. M. Sundaresan, A. C. Y. Li, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X7, 011016 (2017)

work page 2017

[42] [42]

A. J. Kollár, M. Fitzpatrick, and A. A. Houck, Nature 571, 45 (2019)

work page 2019

[43] [43]

Bienias, I

P. Bienias, I. Boettcher, R. Belyansky, A. J. Kollár, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 013601 (2022)

work page 2022

[44] [44]

E. Kim, X. Zhang, V. S. Ferreira, J. Banker, J. K. Iverson, A. Sipahigil, M. Bello, A. González-Tudela, M. Mirhos- seini, and O. Painter, Phys. Rev. X11, 011015 (2021)

work page 2021

[45] [45]

Blais, A

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

work page 2021

[46] [46]

Göppl, A

M. Göppl, A. Fragner, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, S. Fil- ipp, J. M. Fink, P. J. Leek, G. Puebla, L. Steffen, and A. Wallraff, J. Appl. Phys.104 (2008)

work page 2008

[47] [47]

Wallraff, D

A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 060501 (2005)

work page 2005

[48] [48]

Leghtas, S

Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge, M. Reagor, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mir- rahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Science347, 853 (2015)

work page 2015

[49] [49]

Y. Y. Gao,Multi-Cavity Operations in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics, Phd thesis, Yale University (2018)

work page 2018

[50] [50]

Pfaff, C

W. Pfaff, C. J. Axline, L. D. Burkhart, U. Vool, P. Rein- hold, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature Physics13, 882 (2017)

work page 2017

[51] [51]

A. Chen, J. Maciejko, and I. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 066101 (2024)

work page 2024

[52] [52]

J. B. Curtis, P. Narang, and V. Galitski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 076301 (2025)

work page 2025

[53] [53]

M. J. Collins, C. Xiong, I. H. Rey, T. D. Vo, J. He, S. Shahnia, C. Reardon, T. F. Krauss, M. J. Steel, A. S. Clark, and B. J. Eggleton, Nature Communications4, 2582 (2013)

work page 2013

[54] [54]

J. Wang, S. Paesani, Y. Ding, R. Santagati, P. Skrzypczyk, A. Salavrakos, J. Tura, R. Augusiak, L. Mančinska, D. Bacco, D. Bonneau, J. W. Silverstone, Q. Gong, A. Acín, K. Rottwitt, L. K. Oxenløwe, J. L. O’Brien, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Science360, 285 (2018)

work page 2018

[55] [55]

D. E. Chang, J. S. Douglas, A. González-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031002 (2018)

work page 2018

[56] [56]

Krantz, M

P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021318 (2019)

work page 2019

[57] [57]

Cohen-Tannoudji, J

C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Process and Applica- tions, Wiley (Wiley, 1998)

work page 1998

[58] [58]

D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 123602 (2005)

work page 2005

[59] [59]

Gambetta, A

J. Gambetta, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, L. Frun- zio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A74, 042318 (2006). 7 Supplemental Material: Multimode Strong-Coupling Processes in Circuit QED Lattices CONTENTS S1. Quasi-1D CPW Lattice Device 7 S2. Band Calculation for the Lattice Device 8 S3. Four-Wave-Mixing Char...

work page 2006