Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 71 references

Qubit-Boson Hybrid Beam-Splitter Gate with Kerr Nonlinearity in Circuit QED for Many-Body Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid beam-splitter gate couples a dressed two-qubit sector to a microwave cavity mode with Kerr nonlinearity, with an analytical weak-noise fidelity and a carbon-nanotube route.

desk verdict Solid hybrid-gate construction with transparent math, but the quoted F_avg≈0.985 sits outside the spectral-resolution assumptions that justify the master equation and analytic fidelity. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09513 v1 pith:EUWEDFXE submitted 2026-07-10 quant-ph

Andrea Mammola , Giuseppe Di Molfetta , Quentin Schaeverbeke This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords hybridqubit-bosongatebeam-splitterKerrnonlinearitycircuitQEDcarbonnanotubespinqubitaveragefidelityquantumcellularautomatacollisionmodel
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

This paper defines a hybrid gate in which a cavity mode exchanges excitations with the odd-parity sector of two exchange-coupled qubits, then composes that exchange with a Kerr phase. From a standard circuit-QED Hamiltonian the authors derive an effective beam-splitter interaction, write its open-system dynamics under photon and qubit baths, and give a first-order formula for average gate fidelity when dissipation is weak. They argue carbon-nanotube circuit QED can host the ingredients—tunable exchange, longitudinal spin–photon coupling of opposite sign, and a flux-tunable Kerr—and they quote a representative operating point with roughly 98.5 percent average fidelity. Numerical Lindblad simulations of noiseless and noisy dynamics match the analytics at the 10^{-4} residual level. The same primitive is offered as a local update rule for quantum-cellular-automaton and lattice-gauge-style many-body dynamics, and its collision-model form links it to noisy open-system and reservoir processing.

What carries the argument

The hybrid qubit–boson beam-splitter Hamiltonian H_BS ≃ g_eff (a† τ_- e^{iδt} + a τ_+ e^{-iδt}), g_eff = 4 J g / ω_c, acting only on the dressed odd-parity subspace {|AP±⟩} in number-resolved Rabi blocks; sequential composition with Kerr U_K = exp(−i t_K χ (a†a)^2) is the target gate.

What would settle it

In a carbon-nanotube double-dot cQED device at the stated point (g_eff/2π ≈ 3.85 MHz, t_BS ≈ 65 ns, Q_c ≈ 3×10^4, χ/2π ≈ 5 MHz), measure process or average fidelity of the sequential protocol; a clear shortfall below ~0.98 with phonon-dominated error, or failure of the odd-parity Rabi swap, would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A polaron transform of two longitudinally cavity-coupled qubits with exchange J yields an effective Jaynes–Cummings beam-splitter between the cavity and the exchange-dressed antiparallel manifold, with coupling g_eff = 4 J g / ω_c. Composed sequentially with Kerr evolution U_K, this defines a hybrid qubit–boson gate whose weak-dissipation average fidelity is F_avg = 1 − t_g / [4(n_max+1)+1] (Σ_γ + Σ_ν), and a realistic carbon-nanotube cQED point reaches F_avg ≈ 0.985 with cavity loss dominating the error.

Load-bearing premise

The gate and fidelity formula assume the cavity Kerr and hybrid exchange remain unresolved by the baths, and that qubit noise stays negligible while the qubits are parked during the Kerr stage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same local exchange-plus-Kerr block can be tiled into quantum-cellular-automaton or lattice-gauge update rules with a persistent bosonic field mode.
  • Collision-model rewriting of the gate supplies a stroboscopic open-system simulator with interleaved coherent and dissipative slices.
  • Parity-preserving qubit dynamics plus linear bosonic mediation form a structured baseline; Kerr then drives non-Gaussian cavity structure usable for reservoir-style processing.
  • Cavity quality factor and total gate time (via g_eff and t_K) are the primary levers for fidelity; phonon channels are predicted sub-percent of the error budget.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the parked-qubit assumption fails, the analytical fidelity formula would understate phonon error and the sequential protocol would need active dynamical decoupling during the Kerr window.
  • The odd-parity-only action suggests a matchgate-like or fermionic-linear-optics sector that could keep classical simulation easier until Kerr and multi-site updates are stacked.
  • Hybrid syndrome extraction or bosonic-assisted codes could reuse the same longitudinal cavity coupling without leaving the CNT hardware stack.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a hybrid qubit–boson beam-splitter gate obtained by longitudinally coupling a microwave cavity to an exchange-dressed odd-parity two-level subsystem of two interacting qubits, and composing that interaction with a weak Kerr nonlinearity. From a general cQED Hamiltonian the authors derive, via a polaron transformation and RWA near resonance, an effective Jaynes–Cummings-type interaction H_BS ≃ g_eff (a† τ_- e^{iδt} + a τ_+ e^{-iδt}) with g_eff = 4 J g / ω_c, construct a sequential gate U = U_BS U_K, and obtain a Markovian open-system description (Born–Markov–Davies and collision-model) including photon- and qubit-sector baths. In the weak-dissipation regime they give a compact first-order average-fidelity formula, identify a carbon-nanotube cQED implementation route with a representative operating point, and benchmark noiseless/noisy dynamics and the analytic fidelity against QuTiP Lindblad simulations. Broader perspectives toward QCA, lattice-gauge-inspired updates, noisy QCA and reservoir-style processing are discussed.

Significance. If the effective gate, open-system treatment and operating-point claims hold, the work supplies a concrete hybrid primitive that actively uses the cavity Hilbert space rather than only virtual mediation, together with an analytical weak-dissipation fidelity formula and an explicit CNT cQED control route. The dual derivation of the master equation (Davies and collision model), the block structure of U_BS, and the direct QuTiP benchmark of the first-order fidelity expansion are genuine strengths. The many-body and reservoir perspectives are speculative but well motivated as outlook. The result is of clear interest for hybrid cQED gate design and hardware-aware many-body simulation, provided the spectral-resolution assumptions used for the dissipators and fidelity formula are made consistent with the quoted operating regime.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. III.A states the unresolved-Kerr condition 2|χ|n_max ≪ κ and the weak-hybridization condition g_eff √(n_max+1) ≪ bath linewidths as prerequisites for using collapse operators a, a† and for neglecting H_J in the Davies eigenoperator decomposition. Sec. V.C then quotes a representative CNT point with χ/2π = 5.1 MHz, κ/2π ≃ 0.10 MHz, g_eff/2π ≃ 3.85 MHz and n_max = 3, for which 2|χ|n_max ≃ 30.6 MHz ≫ κ and g_eff √(n_max+1) ≃ 7.7 MHz ≫ κ. The same point is used to claim F_avg ≈ 0.985 and that the operating regime is “compatible with the approximations.” These statements are mutually inconsistent: the jump operators and the first-order fidelity formula of Eq. (52) are not justified at the parameters used to advertise performance. Either a revised operating point that restores both hierarchies, or a resolved-Kerr / hybridized eigenoperator treatment with a recomputed fidelity, is required
  2. Sec. III and Appendix B retain H_J in the coherent dynamics but drop it from the dissipative eigenoperator construction, and treat cavity loss with unresolved operators during both sequential stages. At the Sec. V.C parameters the hybridization scale is larger than κ, so the baths resolve the hybridized spectrum during the beam-splitter window; the analytic Σ_γ, Σ_ν and the QuTiP Lindblad model used for |F_num − F_an| therefore share the same uncontrolled approximation. Agreement at the 10^{-4} level only validates the first-order Haar expansion against that Lindblad model, not the physical correctness of the dissipators. The manuscript should either (i) recompute the master equation with hybridized/number-resolved jump operators at the quoted point, or (ii) restrict the fidelity benchmark to a parameter window where the stated spectral-resolution conditions hold and restate the CNT numb
  3. Sec. III.A and V.C assume that during the Kerr stage the qubits can be parked so that phonon-induced channels remain subleading relative to cavity loss. This is used to drop qubit-sector dissipators over t_K when evaluating fidelity. The paper does not quantify residual spin–charge hybridization or the residual matrix elements of S_ν in the parked configuration for the nine-gate CNT layout of Sec. V. Without an estimate (even order-of-magnitude) of residual γ_ν during the Kerr window, the claim that phonon contributions are ~10^{-3}% of the error budget remains an assumption rather than a controlled approximation. A short estimate or a sensitivity scan would make this load-bearing step falsifiable.
minor comments (6)
  1. Eq. (22) / (A41): the operator form of U_BS with a / √N̂ and a† / √(N̂+1) is standard but the removable singularity at N̂ = 0 is only mentioned in the appendix; a one-line clarification in the main text would help readers implementing the gate.
  2. Fig. 3 caption and Sec. VI: residuals |F_num − F_an| are reported at the 10^{-4} level for n_max = 3; it would help to state explicitly that this tests the first-order expansion against the same (unresolved) Lindblad model, not an independent microscopic simulation.
  3. Notation: τ operators are introduced with and without tildes after the odd-parity rotation (Appendix A); dropping tildes is fine but a single sentence in Sec. II.B would avoid confusion when comparing to H′_ap,J.
  4. Table I lists broad ranges; the concrete Sec. V.C point is more useful—consider adding a second column with the representative values used for fidelity and simulations.
  5. Typos / style: “longitudinally coupled” appears twice in Sec. II.A (“two capacitively gate defined… longitudinally coupled”); “to much” → “too much” in Sec. V; “founded from” → “funded by” in Acknowledgements.
  6. Sec. VII outlook on QCA, reservoir computing and bosonic QEC is appropriate as perspective but could be shortened slightly so that the load-bearing technical claims remain the focus of the conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: effective gate, master equation and weak-dissipation fidelity are derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian under explicit approximations; self-citations supply only platform context.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section II starts from the microscopic cQED Hamiltonian (1)–(3), applies the polaron unitary (4), diagonalizes the parity sectors, and obtains the resonant beam-splitter interaction (19) by RWA; the sequential gate (21)–(22) follows by composition with Kerr. Section III constructs the GKLS generators both from Born–Markov–Davies eigenoperators of the same reference Hamiltonian and from a collision-model continuum limit, with rates identified to bath spectral densities; no quantity is defined in terms of the fidelity it later “predicts.” Section IV expands the average fidelity to first order in the rates, yielding the compact expression (52) whose only inputs are the already-derived Lindblad operators and the truncated dimension. The CNT operating point of Sec. V.C is a representative parameter choice used to evaluate that formula and to benchmark it numerically; it is not a fit that is then re-labeled a prediction. Self-citations ([9], [10], [17]) motivate the platform and the broader QCA perspective but do not enter the algebraic steps that produce H_BS, the jump operators or F_avg. Minor self-reference therefore exists but is not load-bearing, justifying a score of 1 rather than 0. The skeptic’s observation that the chosen numbers violate the unresolved-Kerr / weak-hybridization assumptions is a correctness issue, not a circularity reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard open-system and circuit-QED machinery plus a handful of domain-specific approximations and a representative (not fitted) parameter set. No new particles or forces are postulated; the hybrid gate is an effective description of existing interactions.

free parameters (2)
  • representative CNT operating point (ω1/2π=4 GHz, ω2/2π=7 GHz, g/2π=J/2π=170 MHz, χ/2π=5.1 MHz, Qc=3e4, nmax=3)
    Chosen by hand inside experimentally motivated ranges (Table I) to illustrate a self-consistent regime; not fitted to data but the reported 98.5 % fidelity is specific to this choice.
  • phonon rates γν ~ 10^1–10^2 s^{-1}
    Order-of-magnitude estimate consistent with MHz vibrational frequencies and Qν~1e5; enters the claim that phonon contributions are sub-leading.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born–Markov–secular (Davies) weak-coupling limit for both photon and phonon baths
    Invoked throughout Sec. III and Appendix B to obtain the GKLS master equation.
  • domain assumption Polaron transformation truncated at leading order in λ = g/ωc ≪ 1, with HJ retained only in coherent dynamics
    Sec. II.B and Appendix A; higher-order polaron corrections and resolved hybridization are neglected.
  • domain assumption Unresolved-Kerr regime 2|χ|nmax ≪ κ so that cavity jump operators remain a and a†
    Stated in Sec. III; required for the simple dissipators used in the fidelity formula.
  • ad hoc to paper Sequential control windows in which beam-splitter and Kerr stages can be activated independently and qubit-sector decoherence is suppressed during the Kerr stage
    Assumed in Sec. II.C and V.C to justify U = U_BS U_K and the simplified dissipator during Kerr evolution.
  • standard math Haar-average first-order expansion of average gate fidelity for traceless Lindblad operators
    Appendix C, standard Nielsen formula specialized to the weak-dissipation regime.
invented entities (1)
  • hybrid qubit-boson beam-splitter gate (exchange-dressed odd-parity subsystem coupled to cavity)
    purpose: Provides the central primitive whose coherent and open-system dynamics are analyzed and proposed for many-body updates.
    Effective description obtained by dressing and RWA; not a new physical particle but a new composite gate object.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Qubit-Boson Hybrid Beam-Splitter Gate with Kerr Nonlinearity in Circuit QED for Many-Body Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUWEDFXE

@misc{pith2026260709513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Qubit-Boson Hybrid Beam-Splitter Gate with Kerr Nonlinearity in Circuit QED for Many-Body Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUWEDFXE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09513}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a hybrid qubit-boson beam-splitter gate in which a microwave cavity mode couples to an exchange-dressed two-level subsystem of an interacting two-qubit system in the presence of Kerr nonlinearity. Starting from a general circuit quantum electrodynamics (cQED) model, we derive the corresponding hybrid qubit-cavity interaction, develop its open-system description including photon- and qubit-sector-bath-induced dissipation and obtain in the weak-dissipation regime an analytical expression for the average gate fidelity. We further identify carbon-nanotube circuit QED as a concrete platform for implementing and controlling the gate, provide a representative operating regime and perform noiseless and noisy numerical simulations to study the gate dynamics and benchmark the analytical results. Beyond this implementation route, the proposed hybrid primitive provides a natural building block for many-body dynamics, including quantum-cellular-automaton (QCA) and lattice-gauge-inspired architectures and, through its collision-model reformulation, also suggests connections to noisy QCA, non-Markovian extensions and reservoir-style quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Pseudo-3D schematic of a carbon-nanotube circuit-QED realization of the hybrid gate. Top left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Schematic representation of the CNT spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Numerical benchmark of the effective open-system gate dynamics for the representative CNT cQED [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Reduced cavity-state structure generated by the effective gate dynamics, for the initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Photon-induced channels After the polaron transformation, the photon coupling becomes SP γ :=U † P SγUP =a+a † −2λZ,(35) whereZ=σ (1) z −σ(2) z . In the unresolved-Kerr regime, the cavity contribution is described by the standard collapse operators La = √κ↓ a, L a† = √κ↑ a†,(36) whereκ ↓ =γ γ(ωc) andκ ↑ =γ γ(−ωc) are the pho- ton emission and absorption r...

  2. [2]

    Qubit-sector bath-induced channels In the polaron frame, the qubit-sector bath coupling operator to leading order inλreads SP ν :=U † P SνUP =S ν +λS (1) ν +O(λ 2),(38) with Sν = 2X i=1 αiσ(i) x +β iσ(i) z ,(39) S(1) ν = 2i(a† −a) α1σ(1) y −α 2σ(2) y .(40) DecomposingS ν in the dressed eigenbasis produces three classes of channels. a. Even-parity sector. ...

  3. [3]

    The orbital degree of freedom of this DQD forms a charge qubit

    between source and drain contacts above five elec- trostatic gates, which define a single-electron DQD. The orbital degree of freedom of this DQD forms a charge qubit. A magnetic texture, generated either by a micro- magnet [31] or by ferromagnetic contacts [11], induces an artificial spin-orbit interaction together with a Zee- man splitting, thereby enab...

  4. [4]

    The time evolution of ∆G(t) shows that the dominant departures from Gaus- sian closure already arise under the hybrid beam-splitter dynamics alone

    We compare pure beam- splitter evolution with the repeated sequential protocol UKUBS, in which each cycle consists of a beam-splitter stage followed by a Kerr stage. The time evolution of ∆G(t) shows that the dominant departures from Gaus- sian closure already arise under the hybrid beam-splitter dynamics alone. This indicates that the exchange stage is t...

  5. [5]

    antiparallel

    Microscopic model and notation We consider two qubits longitudinally coupled to a mi- crowave cavity mode, with a transverse inter-qubit ex- change interaction and a weak Kerr nonlinearity, HS =H Q +H c HQ := 2X i=1 ωi 2 σ(i) z +g(σ (1) z −σ (2) z )(a+a †) +J σ(1) x σ(2) x , Hc :=ω ca†a+χ(a †a)2. (A1) We define the differential operator Z:=σ (1) z −σ (2) ...

  6. [6]

    Polaron transformation We apply the polaron unitary to the system Hamilto- nian of Eq. A1 UP =e S, S=λZ(a † −a), λ= g ωc ,(A5) Using BCH, UP OU † P =O+ [S, O] + 1 2[S,[S, O]] +· · ·.(A6) Choosingλ=g/ω c cancels the linear cavity term in HC|χ=0 +H I and generates HZZ = 2g2 ωc σ(1) z σ(2) z (up to an irrelevant constant). (A7) Using the decomposition of the...

  7. [7]

    Diagonalization in the even and odd parity manifolds Since the exchange termσ (1) x σ(2) x couples separately even and odd parity sectors andH J only has support on the odd parity sector, it is convenient to diagonalize the two sectors separately. a. Even (parallel) manifold Let Σ :=ω 1 +ω 2. Up to a constant shift, the block is diagonalized by an angleθ ...

  8. [8]

    Effective Hamiltonian in the dressed interaction picture We now move to the interaction picture with respect to H0 :=ω ca†a+H ′ ap,(A25) where the parallel sector Hamiltonian was omitted since it commutes throughH J trivially. The cavity operators evolve as aI(t) =ae −iωct, a † I(t) =a †eiωct, and, using [τz, τ±] =±2τ ±, the dressed ladder operators evolv...

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    (A29) The resulting gate is a composition of beam-splitter and Kerr evolutions, which in general do not factorize into two separate gate operations because [H BS(t), HK]̸= 0

    Bosonic beam-splitter gate and phase engineering We work with the effective Hamiltonian (interaction picture ofH 0) H(t) =H BS(t) +H K, H BS =g eff τ+a+τ −a† , HK =χ(a †a)2. (A29) The resulting gate is a composition of beam-splitter and Kerr evolutions, which in general do not...

  2. [10]

    the Born–Markov and secular approximations [23, 24]

    Total Hamiltonian, baths, and approximation scheme We start from Htot =H S +H γ +H γS +H ν +H νS ,(B1) with the system Hamiltonian split as HS =H Q +H C +H I ,(B2) where HQ = 2X i=1 ωi 2 σ(i) z +J σ (1) x σ(2) x ,(B3) HC =ω ca†a+χ(a †a)2,(B4) HI =g Z(a+a †), Z:=σ (1) z −σ (2) ...

  3. [11]

    Photon Lindblad operators In the polaron frame, the photon coupling operator reads SP γ =U P (a+a †)U † P = (a+a †)−2λZ.(B14) a

    Born-Markov secular derivation a. Photon Lindblad operators In the polaron frame, the photon coupling operator reads SP γ =U P (a+a †)U † P = (a+a †)−2λZ.(B14) a. Cavity channelsIn the unresolved-Kerr regime, where the bath cannot resolve Kerr-split cavity transi- tions over t...

  4. [12]

    Collision-model derivation In this subsection we show that the same effective Lindblad dynamics derived above from the Davies weak- coupling limit also arises from a collision-model construc- tion [19, 20]. a. Weak-collision scaling We model the environment as a sequence of in...

  5. [13]

    unitarity

    Truncated Hilbert space and projected operators All Haar averages and traces are evaluated on the same finite-dimensional Hilbert space used in the numerics, Hd =H qb ⊗ H(nmax) cav ,H (nmax) cav = span{|n⟩}nmax n=0 , d= dimH d = 4(nmax + 1). (C1) a. Remark (truncation and “uni...

  6. [14]

    General weak-dissipation formula forF avg We start from the Lindblad equation ˙ρ(t) =L0[ρ(t)] +L D[ρ(t)],L 0[ρ] =−i[H(t), ρ], LD[ρ] = X k D[Lk]ρ, (C3) withD[L]ρ=LρL † − 1 2 {L†L, ρ}. To first order in the rates, we evaluateL D along the ideal unitary trajectoryρ 0(t) =U(t)ρ(0)...

  7. [15]

    Photon contribution a. (i) Cavity loss/absorption.UsingL a =p γγ(ωc)a P andL a† = p γγ(−ωc)a † P , Tr(L† aLa) =γ γ(ωc) Trq(Iq)Trc(a† P aP ) =γ γ(ωc)·4 nmaxX n=0 n= 2γ γ(ωc)n max(nmax + 1), Tr(L† a† La†) =γ γ(−ωc)·4 nmax−1X n=0 (n+ 1) = 2γ γ(−ωc)n max(nmax + 1). (C13) 22 b. (ii...

  8. [16]

    Qubit-sector bath contributionF ν (block-internal + cross-manifold channels) The qubit-sector bath is coupled through HνS =S ν ⊗B ν, S ν = 2X i=1 αiσ(i) x +β iσ(i) z .(C16) a. (i) Block-internalβ-channels.Using the dressed- basis qubit-sector bath Lindbladians from the previou...

  9. [17]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Schuch and J

    N. Schuch and J. Siewert, Phys. Rev. A67, 032301 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Monbroussou, E

    L. Monbroussou, E. Z. Mamon, J. Landman, A. B. Grilo, R. Kukla, and E. Kashefi, Quantum9, 1745 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Shaydulin, P

    R. Shaydulin, P. C. Lotshaw, J. Larson, J. Ostrowski, T. S. Humble, and A. J. McCaskey, npj Quantum Infor- mation9, 103 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Eickbusch, M

    A. Eickbusch, M. McEwen, V. Sivak,et al., Nat. Phys. 21, 1994 (2025)

    1994

  15. [23]

    D. M. Abrams, N. Didier, B. R. Johnson, M. P. da Silva, and C. A. Ryan, Nature Electronics3, 744 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Dijkema, X

    J. Dijkema, X. Xue, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Rimbach- Russ, S. L. de Snoo, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature Physics21, 168 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Neukelmance, B

    B. Neukelmance, B. Hue, Q. Schaeverbeke, L. Jarjat, A. Th´ ery, J. Craquelin, W. Legrand, T. Cubaynes, G. Abulizi, J. Becdelievre,et al., Nature Communica- tions16, 5636 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Mammola, M

    A. Mammola, M. M. Desjardins, and Q. Schaeverbeke, Phys. Rev. A111, 042621 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Cottet and T

    A. Cottet and T. Kontos, Physical Review Letters105, 160502 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    Penfold-Fitch, F

    Z. Penfold-Fitch, F. Sfigakis, and M. Buitelaar, Physical Review Applied7, 054017 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Delbecq,Spin quantum dynamics in hybrid circuits, Habilitation ` a diriger des recherches, Sorbonne Universit´ e (2020)

    M. Delbecq,Spin quantum dynamics in hybrid circuits, Habilitation ` a diriger des recherches, Sorbonne Universit´ e (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Khivrich and S

    I. Khivrich and S. Ilani, Nature communications11, 2299 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    J.-S. Chen, K. J. Trerayapiwat, L. Sun, M. D. Krzyaniak, M. R. Wasielewski, T. Rajh, S. Sharifzadeh, and X. Ma, Nature communications14, 848 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Arrighi, Natural Computing18, 885 (2019)

    P. Arrighi, Natural Computing18, 885 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Mammola, Q

    A. Mammola, Q. Schaeverbeke, and G. Di Molfetta, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013117 (2026)

    2026

  26. [34]

    Sellapillay, P

    K. Sellapillay, P. Arrighi, and G. Di Molfetta, Scientific Reports12, 2198 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Ciccarello, S

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V. Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Physics Reports954, 1 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Cusumano, Entropy24, 1258 (2022)

    S. Cusumano, Entropy24, 1258 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Avalle and A

    M. Avalle and A. Serafini, Physical Review Letters112, 170403 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Sannia, M

    A. Sannia, M. A. C. Rossi, A. M. Timpanaro, M. Pino, G. M. Palma, and F. Ciccarello, Quantum8, 1481 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    E. B. Davies, Communications in Mathematical Physics 39, 91 (1974)

    1974

  33. [41]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Casas, A

    F. Casas, A. Murua, and M. Nadinic, Computer Physics Communications183, 2386 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Attal and Y

    S. Attal and Y. Pautrat, Annales Henri Poincar´ e7, 59 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    M. A. Nielsen, Physics Letters A303, 249 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    Cubaynes, M

    T. Cubaynes, M. R. Delbecq, M. Dartiailh, R. Assouly, M. M. Desjardins, L. Contamin, L. Bruhat, Z. Leghtas, F. Mallet, A. Cottet,et al., npj Quantum Information5, 47 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Legrand, S

    W. Legrand, S. Lopes, Q. Schaeverbeke, F. Montaigne, and M. M. Desjardins, Physical Review Applied20, 044062 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Benito, J

    M. Benito, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Physical Review B100, 081412 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Physical Review A57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    Craquelin, L

    J. Craquelin, L. Jarjat, B. Hue, A. Th´ ery, C. Fruy, N. Struchkov, D. Stefani, M. Desjardins, A. Cottet, M. Delbecq,et al., Nature Communications (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    Cottet, T

    A. Cottet, T. Kontos, and B. Dou¸ cot, Physical Review B 91, 205417 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Bourassa, F

    J. Bourassa, F. Beaudoin, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Physical Review A86, 013814 (2012), arXiv:1204.2237 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y. Lu, A. Eriksson, T. S´ epulcre, T. Hillmann, M. Kervi- nen, M. Kudra, S. Dupouy, J. Yang, M. Khanahmadi, P. Delsing, and S. Gasparinetti, Nature Communications 14, 6323 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Joshi, W

    C. Joshi, W. Chen, H. G. LeDuc, P. K. Day, and M. Mirhosseini, Physical Review Applied18, 064088 (2022), arXiv:2208.00317 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Khalifa and J

    M. Khalifa and J. Salfi, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 034024 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Jozsa and A

    R. Jozsa and A. Miyake, Proceedings of the Royal Society A464, 3089 (2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    D. J. Brod, Physical Review A93, 062332 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    M. K. Olsen and J. F. Corney, Physical Review A87, 033839 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Yanagimoto, T

    R. Yanagimoto, T. Onodera, E. Ng, L. G. Wright, P. L. McMahon, and H. Mabuchi, Physical Review Letters 124, 240503 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Spagnolo, D

    N. Spagnolo, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galv˜ ao, A. Crespi, R. Osellame, and F. Sciarrino, npj Quantum Information 9, 3 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Dias and R

    B. Dias and R. K¨ onig, Physical Review A110, 042402 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Gonz´ alez-Garc´ ıa, A

    G. Gonz´ alez-Garc´ ıa, A. V. Gorshkov, J. I. Cirac, and R. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 190401 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    Ghosh, A

    S. Ghosh, A. Opala, M. Matuszewski, T. Paterek, and T. C. H. Liew, npj Quantum Information5, 35 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Araiza Bravo, K

    R. Araiza Bravo, K. Najafi, X. Gao, and S. F. Yelin, PRX Quantum3, 030325 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Q. Li, C. Mukhopadhyay, A. Bayat, and A. Habibnia, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13933 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13933 (2025)

    2025 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    Vitali, C

    G. Vitali, C. Vercellino, P. Viviani, O. Terzo, B. Montruc- chio, V. Zaffaroni, F. Cibrario, C. Mattia, G. Ranieri, A. Sabatino, F. Bonazzi, and D. Corbelletto, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04747 10.48550/arXiv.2510.04747 (2025)

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    S. Puri, A. Grimm, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, A. Eickbusch, K. Noh, G. Roberts, L. Jiang, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. De- 25 voret, and S. M. Girvin, Physical Review X9, 041009 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    J. M. Gertler, B. Baker, J. Li, S. Shirol, J. Koch, and C. Wang, Nature590, 243 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Tsunoda, J

    T. Tsunoda, J. D. Teoh, W. D. Kalfus, S. J. de Graaf, B. J. Chapman, J. C. Curtis, N. Thakur, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, PRX Quantum4, 020354 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Q. Xu, P. Zeng, D. Xu, and L. Jiang, Physical Review X 14, 031016 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.