Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

This paper shows that a single micromechanical parametric oscillator, when its nonlinear friction is produced by resonant coupling to a faster-decaying mode, can host two distinct pairs of stable period-two oscillations at once, and that th

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:16 UTC pith:BHBPNZPF

load-bearing objection The two-pair period-two multistability is real and well supported; the swallowtail catastrophe label is asserted rather than derived, and the paper needs to fix that gap plus report its parameters and error bars. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27242 v1 pith:BHBPNZPF submitted 2026-07-27 physics.class-ph cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph

Multibranched parametric resonance and swallowtail catastrophe in electromechanical oscillators with nonlinear friction

P. Y. Chan , L. Huang , X. Dong , M. I. Dykman , H. B. Chan This is my paper
classification physics.class-ph cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords parametric resonancenonlinear frictionperiod-two statesmultistabilityswallowtail catastrophebifurcationmicromechanical oscillatortwo-phonon coupling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper establishes that, contrary to the usual expectation of a single pair of phase-opposite period-two states, a micromechanical parametric oscillator can simultaneously support two distinct pairs of stable period-two oscillations. This occurs when the oscillator's nonlinear friction is implemented by a resonant drive that couples the main mode to a faster-decaying auxiliary mode, because the induced friction is non-monotonic in amplitude: it first grows, then falls as amplitude-dependent frequency shifts break the resonance condition. The authors show experimentally and with a two-mode model that the resulting bifurcation diagram contains an isolated branch and, when a third control parameter is varied, a swallowtail catastrophe in which two cusps merge and two pairs of stable states appear. Establishing this matters because multiple coexisting period-two states would extend the canonical picture of parametric resonance and could enable multistate encoding or richer fluctuation physics in parametric-oscillator platforms.

Core claim

On the authors' terms: with conventional nonlinear friction, a parametrically driven oscillator has one pair of stable period-two states and one stable zero-amplitude state; the new claim is that controlled nonlinear friction — two-phonon loss to a faster-decaying mode induced by a sideband pump — changes the bifurcation structure so that two pairs of stable period-two states can coexist, together with two pairs of unstable period-two states and the zero-amplitude state, in a triangular region of the (detuning, parametric-drive) plane. The onset of this multistability is governed by a swallowtail catastrophe: as the sideband-pump amplitude is varied, the two cusp points of the bifurcation di

What carries the argument

The central object is the drive-induced two-phonon coupling between the low-frequency plate mode (mode 1) and a high-frequency, faster-decaying beam mode (mode 2), produced by a sideband pump at ω2 − 2ω1. This realizes controllable nonlinear friction: energy leaves mode 1 two quanta at a time through mode 2. The crucial feature is that the friction is non-monotonic in the vibration amplitude: at small amplitudes it grows quadratically, but once the conservative nonlinearities shift the mode frequencies by an amount comparable to Γ2, the resonance condition breaks and the friction falls back toward its zero-amplitude value. That non-monotonicity creates an isolated branch (isola) of period-tw

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the onset is a swallowtail catastrophe rests on the reduction in Appendix C, where the four-dimensional slow-amplitude dynamics is replaced by the one-dimensional normal form V(z)=z^5/5 + a z^3/3 + b z^2/2 + c z; the coefficients a, b, c are asserted, not computed from the underlying equations, so if higher-order terms break that reduction the swallowtail identification becomes an interpretation rather than a derived result.

What would settle it

Compute the bifurcation set directly from equations (B1)–(B2) and check whether the two cusp ridges actually meet at a single swallowtail point when ε, h and fp are varied; alternatively, measure the stationary probability distribution near the expected swallowtail point: the theory predicts a specific non-Gaussian scaling (log of the distribution proportional to the sixth power of the soft-mode coordinate) and the simultaneous coalescence of four states, so the absence of that scaling or of the predicted merging would disprove the claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A single parametric oscillator can host nine coexisting stationary states: two pairs of stable period-two oscillations, two pairs of unstable period-two oscillations, and the stable zero-amplitude state.
  • The multistability boundary is a swallowtail catastrophe, so reaching it requires tuning three independent control parameters; the system provides a controlled experimental map of a codimension-three catastrophe.
  • Near the critical point where five states merge, the stationary distribution is strongly non-Gaussian, with the logarithm of the distribution behaving as a sixth power of the soft-mode coordinate rather than a parabola.
  • The non-monotonic friction produces an isolated response branch that cannot be reached by sweeping the drive frequency alone; the paper shows a two-step protocol (adjusting the parametric drive strength) that accesses it.
  • The results establish electromechanical oscillators as a platform for quantitatively studying catastrophe theory and multistable nonequilibrium dynamics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the non-monotonic friction mechanism is generic to any driven two-phonon-resonant system, so superconducting cat-qubit setups with engineered two-photon loss should also exhibit multiple period-two manifolds if the auxiliary mode's frequency shifts with amplitude.
  • Editorial inference: the appendices leave the coefficients a, b, c of the swallowtail normal form undetermined; explicitly computing them from equations (B1)-(B2) would convert the structural identification into a quantitative prediction, e.g., of the exact triangular region's boundaries.
  • Editorial inference: near the swallowtail, four stationary states coalesce, so switching rates between the two stable period-two pairs and the zero state should display nontrivial scaling with ε, h, fp; measuring these escape rates would test the normal form beyond static bifurcation topology.
  • Editorial inference: the existence of two stable period-two pairs suggests a natural multistate memory element, but the isolated branch is only reachable by the two-step excitation protocol; a single-parameter read/write scheme would need to be engineered.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports experiments on a micromechanical resonator whose fundamental mode is coupled to a faster-decaying auxiliary mode by a sideband pump, producing nonlinear friction. After characterizing the nonmonotonic amplitude-dependent damping via ringdown measurements, the authors apply parametric modulation and map the stationary response. They observe an isolated branch (isola) for moderate drive and, for another sideband-pump amplitude, a second pair of stable period-two states coexisting with the conventional pair and with the stable zero-amplitude state. Theoretical response curves and bifurcation lines are obtained from a two-mode model, Eqs. (1)-(2)/(B1)-(B2), with parameters stated to be fixed by ringdown data. The paper interprets the merging of cusp points in the three-parameter space (detuning, parametric-drive amplitude, sideband-pump amplitude) as a swallowtail catastrophe and proposes a one-dimensional effective potential of the form z^5/5 + a z^3/3 + b z^2/2 + c z.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper establishes a qualitatively new phenomenon for a single parametric oscillator: coexistence of two distinct pairs of stable period-two states, induced by controlled nonlinear friction. This extends the canonical single-pair picture and is directly relevant to nanomechanics, Ising machines, and cat-qubit implementations. The experimental multistability is supported by direct measurements in Figs. 4(c)-(d) and by full-model calculations, and the use of two devices strengthens the result. However, the identification of the multistability boundary as a swallowtail catastrophe is presently asserted rather than derived in Appendix C, and the quantitative comparison lacks reported parameter values and measurement uncertainties. These issues are fixable but are load-bearing for the paper's central headline claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C1)-(C3)] The swallowtail classification is asserted, not derived. The text states that one must linearize around v_j^sw to identify the soft mode, then writes z = Σ c_i w_i and says that 'after rescaling' V_eff has the swallowtail form. The center-manifold projection is never performed: the soft-mode eigenvector c_i is not given, the coefficient of z^4 is not shown to vanish, and the mapping from (ϵ, f_p, h_d) to (a,b,c) is never computed. The A4 classification therefore rests on an assumed universal unfolding. Please supply this reduction or verify it numerically from Eqs. (B1)-(B2). The experimental multistability by itself does not establish the catastrophe class.
  2. [Figs. 2(c), 3(c), 4(a)-(d)] Measured bifurcation points are plotted without uncertainty intervals, and the text reports no repeated-sweep statistics. Claims of 'quantitatively map[ping]' the bifurcation structure (Abstract; Sec. 4) need at least representative error bars on ϵ, h, and the extracted bifurcation frequencies, as well as a statement of how measurement noise propagates to the displayed theory lines.
  3. [Secs. 2.1-2.2, Eqs. (1)-(4)] The theory lines use nonlinear coefficients γ1, γ2, γ (and hence Λ11, Λ22, Λ12) and effective masses, but Table 1 lists only ω1,2 and Γ1,2. The numerical values of these parameters and their extraction procedure (presumably from ringdown data) are not stated. Without them the comparison in Figs. 2-4 is not reproducible and the parameter-fixing protocol cannot be checked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The fourth equation reads 'ẏ1 = F4'; this should be 'ẏ2 = F4'.
  2. [Ref. 20] Reference 20 appears as 'arXiv:2062.06559v1 (2026)'; this identifier is not in a valid arXiv format and should be corrected or replaced.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 vs. Appendix C] The normal-form potential is written as V = x^5 + a x^3 + b x^2 + c x in Sec. 3.3 but as V_eff = z^5/5 + a z^3/3 + b z^2/2 + c z in Eq. (C3). The coefficient conventions should be unified or the rescaling explained.
  4. [Table 1] The table formatting is garbled; the device labels and units should be typeset cleanly.
  5. [Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 2(d)] The text says the merging at critical point C is 'directly measured,' but Fig. 2(d) is described as a numerical calculation. Please clarify which quantities are experimental and which are simulated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the multistability prediction is emergent from an independently parameterized model; the underived Appendix C normal-form reduction is a rigor gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain starts from the coupled-mode equations (1)-(2), reduces to slow-amplitude equations (B1)-(B2), and computes stationary states via (B3). The model parameters are extracted from ringdown decay measurements (Fig. 1), i.e., from a different observable than the bifurcation data being predicted. The theory lines in Figs. 2-4 are then computed from the full equations, not by fitting the multistability or swallowtail structure. Thus the central claim that two pairs of period-two states coexist is a genuine emergent prediction, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The swallowtail identification in Appendix C is indeed asserted rather than explicitly derived: the paper states that after linearizing about the swallowtail point 'the effective potential V_eff is given by' the fifth-order normal form, without computing the soft-mode coefficients or verifying that the quartic term vanishes. This is a completeness/rigor concern, but it is not circularity: the coefficients a,b,c are not fitted to the bifurcation data, and the normal form is not shown to be equivalent to the input equations by construction. The self-citation to Ref. [15] supplies the two-phonon nonlinear-friction model, but the present ringdown measurements provide independent experimental support for that model, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No step in the paper reduces by definition to its own inputs; the appropriate circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The two-phonon loss mechanism and the non-monotonic friction model were introduced in prior work by the same group (ref. 15). The only abstract objects added are the swallowtail normal-form coefficients, which are asserted but not computed from the physical model.

free parameters (4)
  • Mode frequencies and damping constants (omega1, omega2, Gamma1, Gamma2) = Device A: 43376 Hz, 0.50 Hz, 1580560 Hz, 34.9 Hz; Device B: 47031 Hz, 0.48 Hz, 1130399 Hz, 70.6 Hz
    Measured from spectroscopy and ringdown; used as fixed inputs for all theory curves.
  • Nonlinear coupling coefficients gamma1, gamma2, gamma (or Lambda11, Lambda22, Lambda12) = not tabulated
    Fitted to the ringdown data in Fig. 1(e-f) via equations (3)-(4); the values are not given, so the theory lines cannot be independently reproduced.
  • Effective masses m1, m2 = not stated
    Required to convert physical amplitudes to the slowly-varying variables and to define fp; the paper does not list them.
  • Swallowtail normal-form coefficients a, b, c = unspecified linear combinations of parameter deviations
    Appendix C asserts V_eff = z^5/5 + a z^3/3 + b z^2/2 + c z with a,b,c linear in deviations of eps, fp, hd, but the linear coefficients are never computed from the equations of motion.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Equations (1)-(2) with cubic on-site terms (gamma1 q1^3, gamma2 q2^3) and quartic coupling (gamma q1^2 q2^2) form the minimal model
    The Hamiltonian is truncated to these terms; no explicit justification that higher-order nonlinearities or other modes are negligible over the measured amplitude range.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation is valid in the deep resolved-sideband limit (omega1/Gamma2 >> 1)
    Used to derive equations (3)-(4); the stated ratios are 1242 and 445 for devices A and B.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic elimination of mode 2 for small amplitudes
    Used to obtain the effective nonlinear friction coefficient alpha in Eq. (5); the paper later uses the full equations for larger amplitudes, so this assumption is not load-bearing for the central result.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective potential near the swallowtail has the normal form with a,b,c linear in parameter deviations
    Appendix C asserts this without deriving the coefficients from equations (B1)-(B2); the swallowtail classification depends on this mapping.
  • domain assumption Langevin white noise at T = 50 K models fluctuations
    Appendix D adds noise with T = 50 K for the fluctuation calculation near the critical point; used only for the fluctuation analysis, not for the bifurcation structure.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15810 in / 11155 out tokens · 97834 ms · 2026-07-31T23:16:14.739353+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Parametric resonance underpins the operation of a wide range of physical systems, from nanomechanical resonators to quantum-information systems and Ising machines. As an archetypal class of driven-dissipative systems, parametric oscillators are generally expected to exhibit a single pair of stable period-two states with opposite phases. This bistable behavior enables both the simulation of spin Hamiltonians and the preparation of superconducting cat states. Whether multiple pairs of such states can coexist in a single oscillator, however, remains an open question. Here, we show experimentally and theoretically that conventional controlled nonlinear friction can induce the coexistence of two distinct pairs of period-two states in a micromechanical oscillator. The friction is implemented via a canonical approach, utilizing a drive-induced resonant coupling that transfers two vibrational quanta from the oscillatory mode to a faster decaying mode. We demonstrate that the onset of multistability is governed by a swallowtail catastrophe and quantitatively map the associated bifurcation structure. Our results broaden the understanding of parametric resonance and establish micro- and nano-mechanical oscillators as a versatile platform for studying catastrophe theory and multistable nonequilibrium dynamics.

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

61 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf. Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    A. H. Nayfeh and D. T. Mook. Nonlinear Oscillations (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    relaxation-oscillations

    B. van der Pol, On “relaxation-oscillations”, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 7, 978 (1926)

    1926

  4. [4]

    M. I. Dykman and M. A. Krivoglaz, Spectral Distribution of Nonlinear Oscillators with Nonlinear Friction Due to a Medium, Phys. Status Solidi B 68, 111 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    Atalaya, T

    J. Atalaya, T. W. Kenny, M. L. Roukes and M. I. Dykman, Nonlinear damping and dephasing in nanomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. B 94, 195440 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Keskekler, O

    A. Keskekler, O. Shoshani, M. Lee, H. S. J. van der Zant, P. G. Steeneken and F. Alijani, Tuning nonlinear damping in graphene nanoresonators by parametric- direct internal resonance, Nat. Commun. 12, 1099 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    A. Croy, D. Midtvedt, A. Isacsson and J. M. Kinaret, Nonlinear damping in graphene resonators, Phys. Rev. B 86, 235435 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    Eichler, J

    A. Eichler, J. Moser, J. Chaste, M. Zdrojek, I. Wilson-Rae and A. Bachtold, Nonlinear damping in mechanical resonators made from carbon nanotubes and graphene, Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 339 (2011). 25

    2011

  9. [9]

    Zaitsev, O

    S. Zaitsev, O. Shtempluck, E. Buks and O. Gottlieb, Nonlinear damping in a micromechanical oscillator, Nonlinear Dynam. 67, 859 (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    Imboden, O

    M. Imboden, O. A. Williams and P. Mohanty, Observation of Nonlinear Dissipation in Piezoresistive Diamond Nanomechanical Resonators by Heterodyne Down-Mixing, Nano Lett. 13, 4014 (2013)

    2013

  11. [11]

    T. F. Miao, S. Yeom, P. Wang, B. Standley and M. Bockrath, Graphene Nanoelectromechanical Systems as Stochastic-Frequency Oscillators, Nano Lett. 14, 2982 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    P. M. Polunin, Y. S. Yang, M. I. Dykman, T. W. Kenny and S. W. Shaw, Characterization of MEMS Resonator Nonlinearities Using the Ringdown Response, J. Microelectromech. S. 25, 297 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    Rodenburg, L

    B. Rodenburg, L. P. Neukirch, A. N. Vamivakas and M. Bhattacharya, Quantum model of cooling and force sensing with an optically trapped nanoparticle, Optica 3, 318 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    Singh, O

    V. Singh, O. Shevchuk, Y. M. Blanter and G. A. Steele, Negative nonlinear damping of a multilayer graphene mechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. B 93, 245407 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    X. Dong, M. I. Dykman and H. B. Chan, Strong negative nonlinear friction from induced two-phonon processes in vibrational systems, Nat. Commun. 9, 3241 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Nabholz, W

    U. Nabholz, W. Heinzelmann, J. E. Mehner and P. Degenfeld-Schonburg, Amplitude- and Gas Pressure-Dependent Nonlinear Damping of High-Q Oscillatory MEMS Micro Mirrors, J. Microelectromech. S. 27, 383 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    C. S. Barquist, W. G. Jiang, K. Gunther, N. Eng, Y. Lee and H. B. Chan, Damping of a microelectromechanical oscillator in turbulent superfluid He: A probe of quantized vorticity in the ultralow temperature regime, Phys. Rev. B 101, 174513 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Catalini, M

    L. Catalini, M. Rossi, E. C. Langman and A. Schliesser, Modeling and Observation of Nonlinear Damping in Dissipation-Diluted Nanomechanical Resonators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 174101 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    M. K. Wang, D. J. Perez-Morelo, D. Lopez and V. A. Aksyuk, Persistent Nonlinear Phase-Locking and Nonmonotonic Energy Dissipation in Micromechanical Resonators, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041025 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Arahari, M

    H. Arahari, M. Asano, H. Yamaguchi and H. Okamoto, Optically tunable nonlinear mechanical damping in an optomechanical resonator, arXiv:2062.06559v1 (2026)

    arXiv 2062

  21. [21]

    Eichler and O

    A. Eichler and O. Zilberberg. Classical and Quantum Parametric Phenomena (Oxford University Press, 2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Z. Wang, A. Marandi, K. Wen, R. L. Byer and Y. Yamamoto, Coherent Ising machine based on degenerate optical parametric oscillators, Phys. Rev. A 88, 063853 (2013)

    2013

  23. [23]

    P. L. McMahon, A. Marandi, Y. Haribara, R. Hamerly, C. Langrock, S. Tamate, T. Inagaki, H. Takesue, S. Utsunomiya, K. Aihara, R. L. Byer, M. M. Fejer, H. Mabuchi and Y. Yamamoto, A fully programmable 100-spin coherent Ising machine with all-to-all connections, Science 354, 614 (2016). 26

    2016

  24. [24]

    H. Goto, Z. R. Lin and Y. Nakamura, Boltzmann sampling from the Ising model using quantum heating of coupled nonlinear oscillators, Sci Rep-Uk 8, 7154 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Bello, M

    L. Bello, M. C. Strinati, E. G. Dalla Torre and A. Pe'er, Persistent Coherent Beating in Coupled Parametric Oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 083901 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Yamamoto, T

    Y. Yamamoto, T. Leleu, S. Ganguli and H. Mabuchi, Coherent Ising machines- Quantum optics and neural network Perspectives, Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 160501 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    T. L. Heugel, O. Zilberberg, C. Marth, R. Chitra and A. Eichler, Ising machines with strong bilinear coupling, Physicsal Review Research 4, 013149 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    C. Han, M. K. Wang, B. Zhang, M. I. Dykman and H. B. Chan, Coupled parametric oscillators: From disorder-induced current to asymmetric Ising model, Physical Review Research 6, 023162 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Gilles, B

    L. Gilles, B. M. Garraway and P. L. Knight, Generation of Nonclassical Light by Dissipative 2-Photon Processes, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2785 (1994)

    1994

  30. [30]

    Mirrahimi, Z

    M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang and M. H. Devoret, Dynamically protected cat-qubits: a new paradigm for universal quantum computation, New J. Phys. 16, 045014 (2014)

    2014

  31. [31]

    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. Mirrahimi and M. H. Devoret, Confining the state of light to a quantum manifold by engineered two-photon loss, Science 347, 853 (2015)

    2015

  32. [32]

    Touzard, A

    S. Touzard, A. Grimm, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, P. Reinhold, C. Axline, M. Reagor, K. Chou, J. Blumoff, K. M. Sliwa, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi and M. H. Devoret, Coherent Oscillations inside a Quantum Manifold Stabilized by Dissipation, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021005 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Réglade, A

    U. Réglade, A. Bocquet, R. Gautier, J. Cohen, A. Marquet, E. Albertinale, N. Pankratova, M. Hallén, F. Rautschke, L.-A. Sellem, P. Rouchon, A. Sarlette, M. Mirrahimi, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, R. Lescanne, S. Jezouin and Z. Leghtas, Quantum control of a cat qubit with bit-flip times exceeding ten seconds (vol 629, pg 778, 2024), Nature 630, 778 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Thompson, D

    F. Thompson, D. K. J. Boness, M. Dykman and A. Kamenev, Spectroscopy of quantum phase slips: Visualizing complex real-time instantons, Phys. Rev. A 113, 043712 (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    S. O. Mundhada, A. Grimm, S. Touzard, U. Vool, S. Shankar, M. H. Devoret and M. Mirrahimi, Generating higher-order quantum dissipation from lower-order parametric processes, Quantum Sci Technol 2, 024005 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    R. W. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Implementing a universal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator, Nat. Commun. 8, 94 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz. Mechanics (Elsevier, 1976)

    1976

  38. [38]

    T. J. Kippenberg and K. J. Vahala, Cavity optomechanics: Back-action at the mesoscale, Science 321, 1172 (2008)

    2008

  39. [39]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014). 27

    2014

  40. [40]

    Mahboob, K

    I. Mahboob, K. Nishiguchi, H. Okamoto and H. Yamaguchi, Phonon-cavity electromechanics, Nat. Phys. 8, 387 (2012)

    2012

  41. [41]

    F. Sun, X. Dong, J. Zou, M. I. Dykman and H. B. Chan, Correlated anomalous phase diffusion of coupled phononic modes in a sideband-driven resonator, Nat. Commun. 7, 12694 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    R. J. Dolleman, S. Houri, A. Chandrashekar, F. Alijaniz, H. S. J. van der Zant and P. G. Steeneken, Opto-thermally excited multimode parametric resonance in graphene membranes, Sci Rep-Uk 8, 9366 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    J. M. L. Miller, D. D. Shin, H. K. Kwon, S. W. Shaw and T. W. Kenny, Phase Control of Self-Excited Parametric Resonators, Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 044053 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    Z. R. Lin, Y. Nakamura and M. I. Dykman, Critical fluctuations and the rates of interstate switching near the excitation threshold of a quantum parametric oscillator, Phys. Rev. E 92, 022105 (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    Belardinelli, W

    P. Belardinelli, W. Yang, A. Bachtold, M. I. Dykman and F. Alijani, Hidden Vibrational Bistability Revealed by Intrinsic Fluctuations of a Carbon Nanotube, Nano Lett. 25, 8443 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Dellwo, H

    D. Dellwo, H. B. Keller, B. J. Matkowsky and E. L. Reiss, On the Birth of Isolas, Siam J. Appl. Math. 42, 956 (1982)

    1982

  47. [47]

    R. Thom. Structural Stability and Morphogenesis (CRC Press, 1975)

    1975

  48. [48]

    S. J. Guastello, N. R. Peters and A. F. Peressini, Understanding the Role of Autonomic Synchrony in the Swallowtail Catastrophe Model of Leadership Emergence, Nonlin. Dynam. Psychol. 29, 497 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    M. K. D. K. Piyaratne, H. Y. Zhao and Q. X. Meng, APHIDSim: A population dynamics model for wheat aphids based on swallowtail catastrophe theory, Ecol Model 253, 9 (2013)

    2013

  50. [50]

    C. B. Jiang, G. Z. Yin and J. W. Yao, Swallowtail catastrophe model of tunnel crossing weak rocks, Disaster Adv. 5, 93 (2012)

    2012

  51. [51]

    H. A. Teng, Y. X. Qian, Y. P. Lan and Y. M. Cai, Abruptly autofocusing circular swallowtail beams, Opt. Lett. 46, 270 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Zannotti, F

    A. Zannotti, F. Diebel and C. Denz, Dynamics of the optical swallowtail catastrophe, Optica 4, 1157 (2017)

    2017

  53. [53]

    J. Hu, R. Y. Zhang, Y. X. Wang, X. P. Ouyang, Y. F. Zhu, H. W. Jia and C. T. Chan, Non-Hermitian swallowtail catastrophe revealing transitions among diverse topological singularities, Nat. Phys. 19, 1098 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    J. S. Aldridge and A. N. Cleland, Noise-enabled precision measurements of a duffing nanomechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 156403 (2005)

    2005

  55. [55]

    Defoort, V

    M. Defoort, V. Puller, O. Bourgeois, F. Pistolesi and E. Collin, Scaling laws for the bifurcation escape rate in a nanomechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. E 92, 050903(R) (2015)

    2015

  56. [56]

    R. J. Dolleman, P. Belardinelli, S. Houri, H. S. J. van der Zant, F. Alijani and P. G. Steeneken, High-Frequency Stochastic Switching of Graphene Resonators Near Room Temperature, Nano Lett. 19, 1282 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    W. J. Venstra, H. J. R. Westra and H. S. J. van der Zant, Stochastic switching of cantilever motion, Nat. Commun. 4, 2624 (2013). 28

    2013

  58. [58]

    H. B. Chan and C. Stambaugh, Fluctuation-enhanced frequency mixing in a nonlinear micromechanical oscillator, Phys. Rev. B 73, 172302 (2006)

    2006

  59. [59]

    L. J. Lapidus, D. Enzer and G. Gabrielse, Stochastic phase switching of a parametrically driven electron in a Penning trap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 899 (1999)

    1999

  60. [60]

    K. Kim, M. S. Heo, K. H. Lee, K. Jang, H. R. Noh, D. Kim and W. Jhe, Spontaneous symmetry breaking of population in a nonadiabatically driven atomic trap: An Ising-class phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 150601 (2006)

    2006

  61. [61]

    Siddiqi, R

    I. Siddiqi, R. Vijay, F. Pierre, C. M. Wilson, M. Metcalfe, C. Rigetti, L. Frunzio and M. H. Devoret, RF-driven Josephson bifurcation amplifier for quantum measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207002 (2004). 1 Supplementary Material: Multibranched parametric resonance and swallowtail catastrophe in electromechanical oscillators with nonlinear friction Chan e...

    2004