Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 48 references

This paper reports the first direct observation of a topological photon pump: a transmon qubit coupled to a microwave cavity adds one photon to the cavity per drive cycle, at a rate fixed by the cycle period and insensitive to control-field

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 ↗

A driven transmon-cavity system pumps photons into a microwave cavity at a topologically quantized rate, reaching ~7 photons with sub-Poissonian statistics.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection First convincing quantum-regime topological photon pump, but the P/Pq≈1 headline rests on a numerically calibrated χ1 and fit error bars; still deserves refereeing. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00162 v1 pith:QJFCIIVO submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Realization of a Quantum Topological Photon Pump

Qianao Yue , Bernardo Barrera , Martin Ritter , David M. Long , David A. Lane , Anushya Chandran , Alicia J. Koll\'ar This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords topological photon pumpspectral flowThouless pumpcavity QEDsuperconducting qubitFock statequantized pumpingcircuit QED
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 reading

Topological pumps should move charge or energy at rates fixed by a band invariant, unaffected by the shape of the drive. This paper reports the first direct observation of such a pump acting on photons: a transmon qubit coupled to a microwave cavity is driven through a semicircular cycle, and each period adiabatically moves the system from |n,g⟩ to |n+1,g⟩, so one photon enters the cavity per cycle. Starting from vacuum, the authors observe up to ≈7 photons, an extracted pump rate P matching the quantized value Pq=1/T across the topological regime for different field amplitudes and detunings, and sub-Poissonian (Fock-like) cavity statistics for the first few cycles. The result matters because it offers a robust, calibration-insensitive way to prepare non-classical photon states and to reset cavities, in contrast to fine-tuned control protocols.

Core claim

The central claim is that in a circuit-QED system described by H_pump(t)=Δ a†a + g(a†σ−+aσ+)+ (1/2) B(t)·σ, with B(t) tracing a semicircle in the (Bx,Bz) plane, the instantaneous spectrum of the coupled qubit-cavity system winds by exactly one photon rung per drive period in the regime κ≪ω<g≪Δ,B. Because of the spectral flow, the state |n,g⟩ adiabatically connects to |n+1,g⟩ over each cycle, so starting from vacuum the cavity gains one photon per cycle with quantized rate Pq=1/T. The paper reports the first experimental observation of this: photon numbers growing from vacuum to ≈7, an extracted P/Pq ≈ 1 independent of Δ and B in the topological regime, near-zero pumping in the trivial regime

What carries the argument

The central object is the spectral flow of the instantaneous eigenstates of the driven Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian. During the vertical portion of the drive, polariton number is conserved, protecting exact level crossings between pumping (|n,g⟩→|n+1,g⟩) and depumping (|n,e⟩→|n−1,e⟩) branches; during the semicircular portion, the qubit changes state while the photon number stays fixed. This one-rung-up-per-cycle winding is equivalent to a nonzero Chern number of the dressed Floquet states on the (θ1,θ2) torus, and it fixes the pump rate regardless of the details of B(t) so long as the vertical stroke is ungapped. An analytic phase diagram gives the boundary B_min(Δ)=(Δ²−g²)/Δ, resonance detun

Load-bearing premise

The absolute photon numbers and extracted pump rate assume the numerically computed single-photon AC Stark shift χ1 = −1.74 MHz and the measured cavity decay rate κ are correct; if either calibration is off, all quoted n and P/Pq values scale and the P≈Pq conclusion is weakened.

What would settle it

Measure the cavity photon number after m cycles with a technique independent of the qubit's dispersive shift—for example, direct heterodyne detection of the cavity field or Wigner tomography—at the same Δ=101 MHz, B=120 MHz, ω=5 MHz settings; if the inferred photon numbers and P/Pq differ from 1 beyond the error bars, the quantized-rate claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, a single drive period transfers exactly one photon into the cavity from vacuum, so the pump can serve as a calibration-free photon source: the rate is set by the clock period T, not by pulse shapes.
  • The same robustness means the pump can prepare approximate Fock states from vacuum; the observed sub-Poissonian statistics to ⟨n⟩≈3 are limited by cavity loss, and millisecond-lifetime cavities should reach much larger Fock states.
  • Reversing the drive direction reverses the photon current, depumping the cavity; this gives an on-demand reset to vacuum that is independent of the initial cavity state.
  • The pump remains quantized under deformations of the semicircular segment of the protocol, while transverse fields during the vertical stroke destroy pumping—identifying exactly which control imperfections matter.
  • The pump fails in the small-detuning regime due to qubit backaction on the cavity photon number, so the large-Δ regime, not the previously proposed small-Δ regime, is the practical one for preparing non-classical states from vacuum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the protection mechanism: deliberately distort the semicircular segment by adding a random or offset shape while keeping the vertical stroke intact and check P/Pq remains 1; the paper's symmetry argument predicts stability, and its offset simulations predict degradation when the vertical stroke itself is offset.
  • Because the quantized rate is a property of the spectral flow rather than of the specific transmon nonlinearity, the same protocol should transfer to other cavity-QED platforms (optical cavities coupled to atoms or Rydberg ensembles) whenever the effective field geometry can be engineered; the paper's outlook gestures this way but does not demonstrate it.
  • The superposition statement in the outlook—qubit in |g⟩+|e⟩ producing superpositions of Fock states with very different photon numbers—suggests the pump could be used to synthesize approximate cat states; a concrete next experiment would be to initialize the qubit in an equal superposition and perform Wigner tomography after a few cycles.
  • The paper's P/Pq fit assumes a simple exponential saturation n(mT)=(P/κ)(1−e^{−κmT}); at low ω the discrete photon-arrival timing causes deviations from this form. A more refined model that accounts for stroboscopic injection could yield an even cleaner quantization test and would be worth checking against the ω=1–10 MHz data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a circuit-QED realization of a topological photon pump. A transmon qubit coupled to a microwave cavity is driven by a semicircular effective field B(t) synthesized from flux and microwave control. Starting from vacuum, the authors observe a linear-to-saturating increase of the qubit AC Stark shift with number of drive cycles, interpret this as n(mT) photons in the cavity, map a phase diagram in (B, Δ) whose resonance dips match an analytic formula, extract a pump rate P from a loss-model fit, and find P/Pq ≈ 1 in the topological regime. They also present photon-number-resolved spectroscopy showing sub-Poissonian states after the first few cycles, and a bidirectional drive experiment. Supplemental material derives the semiclassical Floquet quasi-energy spectrum, the phase boundaries, the Chern-number picture, and the maximum photon number.

Significance. If the calibration concern is resolved, these data constitute the first direct observation of a topological photon pump in the quantum regime and a meaningful step toward robust Fock-state preparation. The analytic phase diagram (Eq. S27), the Floquet/Chern classification in Sec. S2, and the extensive parameter sweeps are substantial contributions. The experiment is an external test of the authors' earlier theoretical proposal (Ref. 26), which counts as independent support rather than circularity. The main caveat is that the absolute photon-number scale, and hence the quantized-rate claim, rests on a numerically computed χ1 without independent experimental calibration.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. S5D / Fig. 3] The absolute scale of n(mT) is set by χ1 = −1.74 MHz, obtained from a QuTiP calculation with the Table S1 parameters, with no independent experimental calibration at the −140 MHz operating point. Since P is extracted by fitting Eq. S32 to the first five cycles, a multiplicative error in χ1 enters P/Pq almost directly. The error bars in Fig. 3 are only fit uncertainties. Please add an independent χ1 measurement (e.g., a displacement-induced shift) or propagate the uncertainty in g, α, Δ_qc and show that the resulting P/Pq interval contains unity. Without this, the headline 'P ≈ Pq' cannot be distinguished from a miscalibrated scale.
  2. [Fig. 4 / Abstract] The claim that the produced states are 'demonstrably non-classical' is supported visually by comparison with Fock and coherent distributions, but no quantitative nonclassicality witness is given. Reporting a Mandel Q parameter, g^(2)(0), Wigner negativity, or a Fock-state fidelity with uncertainty would make the claim precise. If a witness is not available, the wording should be weakened.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References [25] and [30]] References [25] and [30] are the same paper (Nathan, Martin, and Refael, Phys. Rev. B 99, 094311 (2019)). Consolidate to avoid duplicate citation.
  2. [Main text, 'P≈Pq everywhere else'] The sentence 'We observe P≈Pq everywhere else in the topological regime' is stronger than the data shown in Fig. 3, which covers three values of Δ and a limited window of B. Qualify the claim to 'for all measured configurations' or show the full dataset.
  3. [Fig. 4 axes] The upper and lower horizontal axes in Fig. 4 are not clearly distinguished in the figure as printed. A legend explaining the relationship between 'Frequency shift (χ1)' and 'exact qubit frequency shifts' would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. S5D] The sentence 'χ1 is smaller than the linewidth of the qubit' is ambiguous; the relevant linewidth is the measured spectroscopy linewidth, not the qubit decay rate. Please specify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction found; P/Pq is a fitted observable, and the numeric χ1 calibration is a risk rather than a circular input.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained. The theory in Sec. S2 builds a semiclassical Floquet model for the qubit, solves the vertical-stroke quasi-energies exactly in Eq. (S13), and derives the phase boundaries (Eqs. (S20)-(S27)) and Chern-number classification without assuming the measured pump rate. The experimental claim P/Pq ≈ 1 is obtained by fitting the independently measured photon numbers to n(mT) = (P/κ)(1−e^{−κmT}) (Eq. S32), where P is a free fit parameter; comparing the fitted P to 1/T is a genuine empirical test, not an identity. Self-citations to Refs. [26,29,46] are to the prior proposal and device-characterization work; the load-bearing quantization logic does not rest on those citations alone. The one legitimate concern is the photon-number scale: Sec. S5D states that χ1 = −1.74 MHz is 'determined from numerical calculation with QuTip and the chip parameters in Table S1', and n(mT) is obtained as the measured Stark shift divided by χ1. A multiplicative error in χ1 would rescale all n(mT) and hence P/Pq. However, χ1 is not fitted to the P/Pq data, and no equation in the paper reduces P/Pq to χ1 by construction. This is a systematic calibration uncertainty (correctness risk), not a circular derivation step. Overall, the paper does not exhibit self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-load-bearing circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated; the effective magnetic field is a synthesized control field. The paper's derivation rests on the Jaynes-Cummings/RWA description, adiabatic following, exact-crossing protection along the vertical stroke, and the semiclassical coherent-state treatment of the cavity. The only explicit data-fit parameter is the pump rate P used to demonstrate quantization.

free parameters (1)
  • P (pump rate) = P/Pq ≈ 1 in the topological regime; P ≈ 0 when B < Bmin(Δ)
    P is an unconstrained fit of n(mT) to (P/κ)(1−e^{−κmT}) using the known κ; the central quantization claim is a comparison of this fitted parameter to the topological rate 1/T (Fig. 3 and Sec. S4).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The driven system is described by the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian Eq. S33 within the rotating-wave approximation and using only the two lowest transmon levels; counter-rotating terms and higher levels are neglected.
    Used in Sec. S5B to justify that the implemented flux and microwave controls realize Hpump(t) of Eq. 1.
  • domain assumption The hierarchy κ ≪ ω < g ≪ Δ, B (Eq. 3) ensures the system remains adiabatic in the instantaneous eigenstate and follows the spectral-flow path |n,g⟩ → |n+1,g⟩.
    This is the mechanism converting level crossings into one-photon-per-cycle pumping; stated after Eq. 3 in the main text.
  • domain assumption Along the vertical stroke of the protocol, polariton number is conserved in the Jaynes-Cummings model, making crossings between different polariton sectors exact; only the semicircular stroke is deformable without destroying the spectral flow.
    Assumed in Sec. S2B to classify pumping versus trivial regimes and in the main-text robustness discussion.
  • domain assumption The cavity can be approximated by a coherent-state field of magnitude Bcav = 2g√n in the semiclassical Floquet analysis (Eqs. S8-S13), with quantum corrections controlled by g/Δ ≪ 1.
    This underlies the semiclassical phase diagram and the analytic nmax formula Eq. S27.
  • standard math Quantized energy transfer is determined by Floquet quasi-energy spectral flow or, equivalently, by the Chern number of the dressed adiabatic qubit state over the (θ1, θ2) torus.
    Standard theory of adiabatic topological pumping, invoked in Sec. S2C to identify the pumping, period-doubled, and trivial regimes.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Realization of a Quantum Topological Photon Pump." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QJFCIIVO

@misc{pith2026260800162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Realization of a Quantum Topological Photon Pump},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QJFCIIVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00162}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Topological pumps transfer charge or energy at quantized rates determined solely by band topology, independent of the details of the control fields. Photon pumps operating on this principle could enable the robust preparation of non-classical states in a quantum cavity, even in the presence of control imperfections, but have not been directly observed. We present the first experimental observation of a topological photon pump, using a transmon qubit coupled to a microwave cavity. The pump operates in the quantum regime, pumping up from the vacuum state up to $\approx 7$ photons, and produces demonstrably non-classical cavity states for the first few cycles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00162 by Alicia J. Koll\'ar, Anushya Chandran, Bernardo Barrera, David A. Lane, David M. Long, Martin Ritter, Qianao Yue.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Topological Photon Pump. (a) A coupled qubit￾cavity system is periodically driven by a slow external drive with period T. One photon enters the cavity per cycle, so that the average pump rate Pq = 1/T. (b) The instantaneous spectrum vs time, showing spectral flow. Along each colored line, an n-photon state |n, g⟩ is adiabatically transported one rung up the eigenstate ladder to an (n + 1)-photon state … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Phase Diagram of the Topological Pump. (a) Schematic of the effective time-dependent field B⃗ (t) (blue) relative to the ring |B⃗ (t)| = ∆. (b) The analytically computed maximum photon number nmax (color) as a function of B and ∆ for g = 13 MHz, neglecting cavity loss. The resonances at ∆ℓ, where nmax = 0 separate large regions of robust pumping, with the largest values of nmax ≈ 20 found in the range ∆2 <… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quantization of Pump Rate. Photon pump rate P/Pq extracted from the first five cycles versus B for ∆ = 101, 90, 80 MHz and ω = 5 MHz. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the fit to n(mT) = (P/κ) × (1 − e −κmT ). We observe P ≈ 0 for B < Bmin(∆) (gray shaded region) in the trivial regime, and P/Pq ≈ 1 deep in the topological regime B > Bmin(∆) + 10 MHz. Insets show the drive protocols in the two regimes.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fock-State Pumping. (a-d) Photon-number-resolved qubit spectroscopy after m = 0-3 pump cycles, showing exper￾imental data (white circles), coherent-state distributions with |α| 2 = m (red), and ideal m-photon Fock states (blue). The upper (lower) axis indicates integer multiples of the single￾photon shift χ1 (the exact qubit frequency shifts corresponding to m photons). Despite cavity decay, the measured p… view at source ↗

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

48 extracted references

  1. [1]

    M. S. Rudner, N. H. Lindner, E. Berg, and M. Levin, Phys. Rev. X3, 031005 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    Nathan and M

    F. Nathan and M. S. Rudner, New Journal of Physics17, 125014 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    H. C. Po, L. Fidkowski, T. Morimoto, A. C. Potter, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. X6, 041070 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Roy and F

    R. Roy and F. Harper, Phys. Rev. B96, 155118 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. B27, 6083 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    Cheng, E

    W. Cheng, E. Prodan, and C. Prodan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 224301 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Y. E. Kraus, Y. Lahini, Z. Ringel, M. Verbin, and O. Zil- berberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 106402 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    Nakajima, T

    S. Nakajima, T. Tomita, S. Taie, T. Ichinose, H. Ozawa, L. Wang, M. Troyer, and Y. Takahashi, Nature Physics 12, 296 (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    Lohse, C

    M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, H. M. Price, O. Zilberberg, and I. Bloch, Nature (London)553, 55 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Lohse, C

    M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, O. Zilberberg, M. Aidelsburger, and I. Bloch, Nature Physics12, 350 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    Cerjan, M

    A. Cerjan, M. Wang, S. Huang, K. P. Chen, and M. C. Rechtsman, Light: Science & Applications9, 178 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Jürgensen, S

    M. Jürgensen, S. Mukherjee, and M. C. Rechtsman, Nature596, 63 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Mostaan, F

    N. Mostaan, F. Grusdt, and N. Goldman, Nature Com- munications13, 5997 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    I. H. Grinberg, M. Lin, C. Harris, W. A. Benalcazar, C. W. Peterson, T. L. Hughes, and G. Bahl, Nature Communications11, 974 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    Walter, Z

    A.-S. Walter, Z. Zhu, M. Gächter, J. Minguzzi, S. Roschin- ski, K. Sandholzer, K. Viebahn, and T. Esslinger, Nature Physics19, 1471 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Nakajima, N

    S. Nakajima, N. Takei, K. Sakuma, Y. Kuno, P. Marra, and Y. Takahashi, Nature Physics17, 844 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Jürgensen, S

    M. Jürgensen, S. Mukherjee, C. Jörg, and M. C. Rechts- man, Nature Physics19, 420 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Liu, Y.-R

    Y. Liu, Y.-R. Zhang, Y.-H. Shi, T. Liu, C. Lu, Y.-Y. Wang, H. Li, T.-M. Li, C.-L. Deng, S.-Y. Zhou,et al., Nature Communications16, 108 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Wintersperger, C

    K. Wintersperger, C. Braun, F. N. Ünal, A. Eckardt, M. D. Liberto, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Nature Physics16, 1058 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Pho- tonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  21. [21]

    X. Deng, S. Li, Z.-J. Chen, Z. Ni, Y. Cai, J. Mai, L. Zhang, P. Zheng, H. Yu, C.-L. Zou,et al., Nature Physics20, 1874 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Joshi, K

    A. Joshi, K. Noh, and Y. Y. Gao, Quantum Science & Technology6, 033001 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Martin, G

    I. Martin, G. Refael, and B. Halperin, Phys. Rev. X7, 041008 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    P. J. D. Crowley, I. Martin, and A. Chandran, Phys. Rev. B99, 064306 (2019)

    2019

  25. [26]

    D. M. Long, P. J. D. Crowley, A. J. Kollár, and A. Chan- dran, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 183602 (2022)

    2022

  26. [27]

    Malz and A

    D. Malz and A. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 163602 (2021)

    2021

  27. [28]

    Boyers, P

    E. Boyers, P. J. D. Crowley, A. Chandran, and A. O. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 160505 (2020)

    2020

  28. [29]

    Ritter, D

    M. Ritter, D. M. Long, Q. Yue, M. Amouzegar, A. Chan- dran, and A. J. Kollár, Phys. Rev. A112, 042605 (2025)

    2025

  29. [30]

    Nathan, I

    F. Nathan, I. Martin, and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. B99, 094311 (2019)

    2019

  30. [31]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Reviews of Modern Physics93(2021)

    2021

  31. [32]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Applied Physics Reviews6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  32. [33]

    L. Yuan, M. Xiao, Q. Lin, and S. Fan, Phys. Rev. B97, 104105 (2018)

    2018

  33. [34]

    Nathan, I

    F. Nathan, I. Martin, and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043060 (2022)

    2022

  34. [35]

    Lantagne-Hurtubise, I

    E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, I. Esin, G. Refael, and F. Nathan, Phys. Rev. B110, L100305 (2024)

    2024

  35. [36]

    Luneau, C

    J. Luneau, C. Dutreix, Q. Ficheux, P. Delplace, B. Douçot, B. Huard, and D. Carpentier, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013169 (2022)

    2022

  36. [37]

    D. M. Long, P. J. D. Crowley, and A. Chandran, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 106805 (2021)

    2021

  37. [38]

    Nathan, R

    F. Nathan, R. Ge, S. Gazit, M. Rudner, and M. Kolo- drubetz, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 166804 (2021)

    2021

  38. [39]

    Schwennicke and J

    K. Schwennicke and J. Yuen-Zhou, The Journal of Physi- cal Chemistry Letters13, 2434 (2022)

    2022

  39. [40]

    Tominaga, S

    Y. Tominaga, S. Shirai, Y. Hishida, H. Terai, and A. Noguchi, EPJ Quantum Technology12, 60 (2025)

    2025

  40. [41]

    Ganjam, Y

    S. Ganjam, Y. Wang, Y. Lu, A. Banerjee, C. U. Lei, L. Krayzman, K. Kisslinger, C. Zhou, R. Li, Y. Jia, M. Liu, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature Communications 15, 3687 (2024)

    2024

  41. [42]

    Milul, B

    O. Milul, B. Guttel, U. Goldblatt, S. Hazanov, L. M. Joshi, D. Chausovsky, N. Kahn, E. Çiftyürek, F. Lafont, and S. Rosenblum, PRX Quantum4, 030336 (2023)

    2023

  42. [43]

    R. W. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature Communi- cations8, 94 (2017)

    2017

  43. [44]

    Hofheinz, E

    M. Hofheinz, E. M. Weig, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, H. Wang, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Nature454, 310 (2008)

    2008

  44. [45]

    R. W. Heeres, B. Vlastakis, E. Holland, S. Krastanov, V. V. Albert, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 137002 (2015)

    2015

  45. [46]

    Ritter, D

    M. Ritter, D. M. Long, Q. Yue, A. Chandran, and A. J. Kollár, Phys. Rev. X15, 031028 (2025)

    2025

  46. [47]

    M. H. Kolodrubetz, F. Nathan, S. Gazit, T. Morimoto, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 150601 (2018). 7

    2018

  47. [48]

    Vuina, D

    D. Vuina, D. M. Long, P. J. D. Crowley, and A. Chandran, Phys. Rev. B108, 134303 (2023)

    2023

  48. [49]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications184, 1234 (2013). 8 Supplemental Materials: Realization of a Quantum Topological Photon Pump Contents S1. Bidirectionality of the Photon Pump 9 S2. Theoretical Model for the Large-∆Pump 10 A. Semi-Classical Model 10 B. Phase Diagram 11 C. Chern Numbers 16 S3. Processes that degrade or de...

    2013

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.