Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Detection with Superconducting Qubits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An 800-qubit entangled register could detect 5 GHz gravitational waves at strain 5.6e-26, about five orders below the standard cavity-power benchmark, if its idealized no-backaction treatment survives a full open-quantum-system analysis.

desk verdict A clearly written, honest proposal for a qubit-based HFGW detector whose headline sensitivity is undermined by the same collective relaxation that gives the enhancement. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02733 v1 pith:RK33FACL submitted 2026-08-03 hep-ph hep-exquant-ph

Heechan Yi , Seong Chan Park , Kyoungchul Kong , Myeonghun Park This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exquant-ph
keywords high-frequencygravitationalwavestransmonqubitssymmetricDickestatesinverseGertsenshteineffectresonantmicrowavecavityTE212modequantumsensingaxionhaloscope
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

The paper proposes a new way to detect gravitational waves in the 1–10 GHz band, a frequency range where known astrophysical sources are absent and traditional interferometers cannot reach. Instead of measuring the total microwave power stored in a resonant cavity, it places superconducting transmon qubits at the electric-field hot spots of a specific cavity mode, the TE212 mode, which the spin-2 nature of a gravitational wave preferentially excites. The central claim is that entangling these qubits in a symmetric Dicke state makes the signal probability grow as the square of the qubit number, so the minimum detectable strain falls as $h_{\min} \propto n_q^{-3/4}$; an idealized 800-qubit register would reach $h_{\min} \simeq 5.6 \times 10^{-26}$ at 5 GHz, about five orders of magnitude better than the standard cavity-power radiometer benchmark. If correct, this would let existing axion-haloscope cavities be repurposed as quantum-enhanced high-frequency gravitational-wave detectors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the symmetric Dicke state $|J,m\rangle$ with $J=n_q/2$ and $m=0$, a permutation-symmetric superposition of the $n_q$ sensor qubits. The signal Hamiltonian acts through the collective spin operators $J_\pm$, and the absorption amplitude to the neighboring Dicke manifolds is enhanced by $n_D = n_q^2/2 + n_q$ relative to a single qubit, so the signal probability scales quadratically with qubit number and the strain sensitivity as $n_q^{-3/4}$. The supporting machinery is the $|m|=2$ azimuthal selection rule of the inverse Gertsenshtein current, which fixes the TE212 mode as the design target, and the local field response $R_q$ that maps the cavity mode amplitude to the drive strength $\delta$ on a transmon at an electric-field hot spot.

What would settle it

A direct master-equation simulation of the driven cavity–qubit system at simultaneous resonance, including one amplitude-damping event per interrogation, would settle whether the parity readout can distinguish a gravitational-wave signal from a single qubit relaxation; if the false-positive rate from $\gamma_1$ is comparable to the Dicke-enhanced signal probability, the claimed five-orders-of-magnitude sensitivity cannot be reached.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the quadrupolar $|m|=2$ azimuthal structure of the gravitational-wave-induced effective current selects cavity modes with azimuthal index $|m|=2$, and that qubits placed at the antinodal hot spots of the TE212 mode directly sample the local GW-induced electric field rather than the volume-averaged stored energy. Reading out an array of such qubits in a symmetric Dicke state (the half-excited permutation-symmetric state with $J=n_q/2$, $m=0$) gives a collective absorption matrix element $n_D = n_q^2/2 + n_q$, which converts into strain sensitivity $h_{\min} \propto n_q^{-3/4}$. At 5 GHz and with 800 qubits the idealized sensitivity is $h_{\min} \simeq 5.6 \times 10^{-26}$, nearly five orders below the cavity-power benchmark; splitting the register into eight local Dicke registers at the eight hot spots costs only a factor of about 2.8 in strain reach. The paper is explicit that these numbers come from a prescribed-field, no-backaction benchmark and that a full master-equation treatment is left to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the qubits are passive sensors driven by the cavity field the gravitational wave creates, with no backaction from the qubits on that field; the paper itself notes this breaks down at exact cavity–qubit–signal resonance, where the combined system forms polaritons, so the bare-qubit transition probability is not self-consistent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing axion-haloscope cavities, benchmarked against the geometries and operating parameters of ADMX, HAYSTAC, CAPP-12TB, QUAX, and ORGAN, could be repurposed as high-frequency gravitational-wave detectors with qubit readout, with the Dicke protocols improving on single-qubit readout in every case.
  • The collective advantage survives, in the paper's idealized treatment, even when the 800-qubit register is split into eight local Dicke registers of 100 qubits each, degrading the strain reach by about 2.8 rather than by the full factor of eight.
  • Because the Dicke-state response is phase-independent and the two adjacent Dicke manifolds add incoherently, the protocol requires only shot-to-shot relative phase control across the register, not a macroscopic phase stable over the full integration time.
  • The orientation dependence of the overlap factor means a single cavity loses sensitivity when the gravitational wave arrives transverse to its axis, so a network of cavities with different orientations would be needed for all-sky searches; the paper notes that cross-correlating such a distributed array could reconstruct polarization and source direction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the no-backaction benchmark survives a master-equation treatment, the same Dicke enhancement could be applied to other weak-signal searches in cavity-QED setups, such as hidden-photon or axion dark matter, wherever the local field profile is known and qubits can be placed at its hot spots.
  • The paper's own parity-mimic caveat suggests a testable design rule: the half-excited Dicke state and parity readout are viable only if the qubit energy-relaxation rate satisfies $\gamma_1 \tau_{\rm eff} \ll n_D \delta^2 \tau_{\rm eff}^2$; otherwise a single amplitude-damping event produces a false signal, a condition that could be checked in a tabletop cavity-QED experiment before any gravitation
  • The $h_{\min} \propto n_q^{-3/4}$ scaling implies diminishing returns beyond a few thousand qubits, so the practical path to better sensitivity is longer coherence time ($h_{\min} \propto \tau_{\rm eff}^{-3/4}$) and lower background probability ($h_{\min} \propto p_{\rm bkg}^{1/4}$), which may matter more than increasing register size.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes detecting high-frequency gravitational waves via the inverse Gertsenshtein effect in a microwave cavity, with transmon qubits placed at the TE212 electric-field hot spots as local field sensors. It derives the GW-induced effective current in the proper-detector frame, establishes the |m|=2 azimuthal selection rule, and compares cavity-power readout with independent-qubit and symmetric-Dicke collective readout. The central quantitative claim is that an 800-qubit global Dicke register reaches an idealized strain sensitivity h_min ≈ 5.6×10^-26 at 5 GHz, scaling as h_min ∝ n_q^-3/4, roughly five orders of magnitude below the cavity-power radiometer benchmark. The authors repeatedly emphasize that all qubit sensitivities are computed in a prescribed-field no-backaction approximation, that the system is in the strong-coupling regime where the bare-qubit treatment is not self-consistent, and that the plotted Dicke curves assume no relaxation within a shot; a master-equation treatment is deferred to future work.

Significance. If the idealized sensitivity were realized, the proposal would represent a substantial step toward GHz-band gravitational-wave detection, and the derivation of the |m|=2 selection rule together with the Dicke matrix-element enhancement is a useful contribution. The manuscript is unusually transparent: it explicitly flags the no-backaction approximation (Sec. IV.B), the strong-coupling inconsistency (Sec. IV.B), and the neglect of amplitude damping in the Dicke curves (App. C.3). However, because the dominant collective relaxation channel is omitted from the background model, the headline numbers are not yet a physically supported sensitivity projection; they are an upper bound whose gap from a realistic calculation is unquantified. The analytical core of the paper is sound and the limitations are stated, but the central quantitative claim as advertised in the abstract and conclusion is not established by a self-consistent calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (40)-(44) and App. C.3] The Dicke background model excludes the dominant physical noise channel. For the m=0 half-excited state with J=n_q/2, the collective amplitude-damping rate for |J,0> -> |J,-1> is Gamma = gamma_1 J(J+1) ~ gamma_1 n_q^2/4, corresponding to the D[J_-] channel noted in App. C.2. With n_q=800 and T_1=100 microseconds, Gamma*tau_eff ~ 1.6e5 per shot, so the state does not survive the assumed 100-microsecond interrogation; suppressing this background to one event per shot would require T_1 >= 16 s, far beyond current transmon capability. Because a single amplitude-damping event changes the same parity bit as the signal (as acknowledged in App. C.3), the per-shot background is not the n_q p_bkg term of Eq. (43) but a collective term that also grows as n_q^2. Including this term removes the n_q^-3/4 advantage at the benchmark parameters and degrades the scaling at large n_q. The central quantitative claim therefore rests on an assumption the authors themselves identify as unrealistic; the paper must either recompute the Dicke curves with collective relaxation in the noise model or explicitly label the plotted curves as a noiseless bound rather than a sensitivity projection.
  2. [Sec. IV.B and App. C.2] The prescribed-field no-backaction approximation is not quantitatively controlled at the claimed operating point. The paper states that for simultaneous cavity, qubit, and signal resonance, the system is in the resolved strong-coupling regime (lambda_c ~ MHz, kappa ~ kHz), so the bare-qubit transition probability used below is not self-consistent. The sensitivity curves in Figs. 6-8 are nevertheless computed with this bare-qubit probability and the bare-cavity steady-state field. A self-consistent treatment must use the polariton eigenstates of Eqs. (C12)-(C14) and must include qubit loading of the cavity, which modifies the effective linewidth and the field amplitude at the qubit; this will generally reduce the qubit excitation probability relative to the prescribed-field result. Because this correction is left to future work, the five-orders-of-magnitude improvement and the n_q^-3/4 scaling are not established for any concrete device; they are properties of an idealized model. The abstract and conclusion should carry this caveat, or the authors should provide at least an order-of-magnitude estimate of the polariton correction.
  3. [App. C.2 and Eq. (44)] A related omitted background is collective thermal absorption. As App. C.2 notes, adiabatic elimination of a thermally occupied cavity mode produces a collective D[J_+] channel whose matrix elements scale with the same n_q^2 factor as the coherent signal. For the half-excited Dicke state, a thermal absorption to |J,+1> also changes the parity and would contribute to the same readout channel as the signal. The background model of Eqs. (43)-(44) contains only a single-qubit thermal term p_th and does not include this collective channel. Even at T_sys=0.1 K and 5 GHz the single-qubit thermal occupation is not negligible, and the n_q^2 collective enhancement makes this channel a dominant background for an 800-qubit register; the authors should either include it in the noise model or state explicitly that the plotted curves assume a zero-temperature cavity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV.B] The sentence 'The qubit reaches quoted below should therefore be interpreted as idealized benchmark targets' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten, for example as 'The qubit-reach curves quoted below...'.
  2. [Sec. V] In the sentence introducing Table I, 'paramters' should be 'parameters'.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and the final numerical statement in Sec. VI report h_min=5.6e-26 and the five-orders-of-magnitude improvement without the caveats that appear in Sec. IV.B and App. C.3; for consistency with the body, these statements should be prefaced with 'in the prescribed-field, no-relaxation idealization'.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption states that the Dicke curves assume a single global register, but it does not state the 'no relaxation within a shot' assumption; adding that caveat would make the figure self-contained.
  5. [Eq. (44)] The collective readout-error factor (1 - p_ro/n_q) is introduced as a bookkeeping convention, but the same symbol p_ro is used in the independent-readout branch with a different meaning; consider using separate symbols or a clarifying note.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the n_q^{-3/4} scaling follows from derived Dicke matrix elements and an explicitly labeled illustrative background model, not from a fitted or self-referential input.

full rationale

The sensitivity chain is self-contained. The GW-induced current (Eq. 3) is computed from the linearized action and PD-frame metric; the cavity response (Eq. 17) follows from the sourced Maxwell equations; the qubit drive delta (Eq. 29) is fixed by the local field and transmon dipole parameters; and the Dicke enhancement n_D = n_q^2/2 + n_q (Eqs. 38-41 and C31-C33) is derived from SU(2) angular-momentum matrix elements, not postulated or fitted. The h_min proportional to n_q^{-3/4} scaling (Eq. 46) is the algebraic consequence of N_sig proportional to n_D and the paper's stated background bookkeeping N_bkg = N_shot n_q p_bkg (Eq. 43), which the paper explicitly labels 'an effective illustrative dark-count bookkeeping model... not intended as a device-level noise model.' The dependence on the assumption that the background scales linearly in n_q is a fragility of the idealized benchmark, not a circularity: the paper repeatedly flags that the plotted Dicke curves 'assume no relaxation within a shot' (Appendix C.3) and that the prescribed-field no-backaction treatment is 'not self-consistent' near simultaneous resonance (Sec. IV.B). These are acknowledged limitations of the idealized projection, and they shift the correctness risk (especially the collective amplitude-damping channel noted in Appendix C.2), but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. The one self-citation (Ref. [46] for the Dicke-state protocol, whose authors overlap with K. Kong and M. Park) is motivational rather than load-bearing: the collective matrix elements and parity-readout probabilities are re-derived in Appendix C.3 from standard angular-momentum algebra. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The benchmark parameters (tau_eff, C, d, p_ro, p_op) are stated inputs, not tuned to force the headline claim. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a set of hand-picked benchmark parameters (tau_eff, C, d, p_ro, p_op, n_q) and on idealized assumptions about the qubit-field interaction. No new particles or forces are introduced. The most consequential assumptions are the no-backaction approximation and the illustrative noise model, both acknowledged by the authors as requiring future work.

free parameters (9)
  • Effective qubit interrogation time tau_eff = 100 microseconds
    Chosen benchmark for qubit coherence and interrogation time in the frequency-scan curves; sets signal accumulation time and enters h_min with exponent -3/4.
  • Transmon capacitance C = 0.1 pF
    Benchmark device parameter from transmon design; enters h_min as C^{-1/2}.
  • Transmon capacitor separation d = 100 micrometers
    Benchmark device parameter; enters h_min as d^{-1}.
  • Readout error probability p_ro = 0.1%
    Illustrative per-shot readout error in the background model Eq. (44); not independently calibrated for this protocol.
  • State preparation/operation error p_op = 0.1%
    Illustrative per-shot operation error for the collective protocol; the paper stresses it is a bookkeeping convention, not a measured error budget.
  • Number of qubits n_q = 800 (headline), 8 for local registers
    Register size for the headline sensitivity; a global 800-qubit Dicke register has no demonstrated preparation circuit.
  • Static magnetic field B0 = 5 T in Figs. 6 and 7; experiment-specific in Fig. 8
    Field strength sets the transduction amplitude; adopted from typical haloscope values, not measured in this work.
  • Cavity quality factor Q = 1e5 in Figs. 6 and 7; experiment-specific in Fig. 8
    Resonant enhancement factor; assumed uniform across modes.
  • System temperature T_sys = 0.1 K in Figs. 6 and 7; experiment-specific in Fig. 8
    Sets thermal noise via n_th and p_th.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Linearized general relativity on Minkowski background with h_mu_nu much less than 1
    Basis for the effective current in Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Inverse Gertsenshtein effective current formula of Eq. (3)
    Adopted from Refs. [32-34]; this is the transduction mechanism that converts GWs into electromagnetic signals.
  • domain assumption Proper-detector frame metric from Riemann tensor multipole expansion
    Used in Sec. II to evaluate the current; follows Refs. [34,48,50].
  • domain assumption Cavity modes satisfy perfect electric conductor boundary conditions and are unperturbed by the GW at leading order
    Sec. III argues the boundary condition is unchanged at O(h); modal corrections enter only at O(h^2).
  • ad hoc to paper Prescribed-field no-backaction approximation for the qubit drive
    Sec. IV.B and Appendix C.2; the GW field is computed for the bare cavity and applied as an external classical drive, ignoring backaction and hybridization.
  • ad hoc to paper Illustrative dark-count noise model for collective readout in Eqs. (43)-(44)
    The paper calls it a bookkeeping model; the collective background is assumed to scale with n_q in the same way as the independent background.
  • ad hoc to paper Amplitude damping during interrogation is negligible for the plotted Dicke curves
    Appendix C.3 states that a single amplitude-damping event is indistinguishable from a signal transition at the parity level; the plotted curves assume no relaxation within a shot.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Detection with Superconducting Qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RK33FACL

@misc{pith2026260802733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Detection with Superconducting Qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RK33FACL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02733}
}
abstract

High-frequency gravitational waves (HFGWs) provide a unique window into high-energy and early-universe physics, yet they evade traditional macroscopic interferometry. To bridge this detection gap, we propose a novel quantum-sensing paradigm utilizing superconducting transmon qubits embedded in resonant microwave cavities. Through the inverse Gertsenshtein effect, HFGWs propagating in a static magnetic field resonantly excite a cavity mode. By leveraging the characteristic spin-2 quadrupolar pattern of the induced electromagnetic field, we position qubits directly at the electric-field hot spots of the $\mathrm{TE}_{212}$ mode to act as localized sensors. Crucially, configuring this array as an entangled quantum register via symmetric Dicke states unlocks a fundamental scaling advantage: the signal probability scales quadratically with the qubit number, translating to a $h_{\min} \propto n_q^{-3/4}$ strain sensitivity scaling. We demonstrate that an idealized global register of 800 qubits reaches a strain sensitivity that surpasses standard macroscopic cavity-power limits by five orders of magnitude. Benchmarked against representative axion-haloscope parameters, this collective quantum enhancement decisively mitigates the profound Planck-scale suppression inherent to gravitational interactions, establishing a transformative framework for next-generation HFGW searches in the GHz band.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: GW-induced effective current in the transverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Geometric configuration for an incoming GW and a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Angular dependence of the GW–cavity overlap factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Spatial profile at hot spots of the induced signal electric field for the TE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Tesseract-like qubit structure for qubit readout. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Detuned response at the fixed TE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Polar-angle dependence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Azimuthal dependence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Quantum circuit implementing the symmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Scalable implementation of the local Dicke-state protocol. Each of the eight sensing sites contains [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    However, once the GW is not incident along the cavity axis, the cylindrical sym- metry breaks and additional azimuthal components become accessible

    Rotational dependence When the GW propagation, cavity axis, and static mag- netic field are co-aligned, this induced current forms a distinct quadrupolar pattern in the transverse plane. However, once the GW is not incident along the cavity axis, the cylindrical sym- metry breaks and additional azimuthal components become accessible. To understand and qua...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The two GW polarizations generate distinct transverse current patterns in the cavity cross section, which in turn lead to different projections onto the TE212 cavity mode

    Electric field signal The polarization dependence of the GW-induced effective current is illustrated in Figure 1. The two GW polarizations generate distinct transverse current patterns in the cavity cross section, which in turn lead to different projections onto the TE212 cavity mode. Figure 4 shows the spatial structure of the induced signal electric fie...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For the following result, we take the effective bandwidth to be Δ𝑓=max 𝑓𝑐 𝑄, 1 𝑡int , 1 𝜏GW ,(24) which accounts for the finite cavity linewidth and the fi- nite integration time [34], and defines our classical compara- tor: an incoherent excess-power (radiometer) analysis with 7 bandwidth bounded by the cavity linewidth. For a suffi- ciently coherent sou...

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    (15) is quoted on res- onance,𝜔 𝑔≃𝜔 𝑐

    Detuned frequency response In the main text the signal field Eq. (15) is quoted on res- onance,𝜔 𝑔≃𝜔 𝑐. Here we record the response for a general detuning, which defines the detector transfer function. Return- ing to the mode equation (14) with a monochromatic source jeff =𝑒 𝑖𝜔𝑔𝑡Jeff, the steady-state field is Esig(x,𝑡)= ∑︁ 𝑐∈M 𝑇𝑐(𝜔𝑔) ∫ 𝑉Cav 𝑑3x E∗ 𝑐·J ef...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Rotational dependence The overlap factor depends on the relative orientation of the incoming GW, the cavity axis, and the static field. We use the two coordinate systems of Figure 2: a global frame(𝑥,𝑦,𝑧)in which the GW propagates along ˆ𝑧withℎ 𝜇𝜈∝𝑒 𝑖𝜔𝑔(𝑡−𝑧) , and a local frame(𝑥 ′,𝑦′,𝑧′)adapted to the cavity, with the cavity axis andB 0 along ˆ𝑧′. The tw...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Signal interaction Hamiltonian The transmon couples to the gravitationally induced sig- nal field through a dipole-type interaction. Restricting to the qubit’s two-level subspace, the Hamiltonian takes the form [43–45] 𝐻=𝜔 𝑞|𝑒⟩⟨𝑒|+2𝛿cos(𝜔 𝑔𝑡−𝛼)(|𝑒⟩⟨𝑔|+|𝑔⟩⟨𝑒|),(C1) where𝜔 𝑞 is the qubit transition frequency,𝜔 𝑔 is the gravitational-wave frequency,𝛿is the c...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Open-system qubit detection near cavity resonance The qubit-readout analysis of Sec. IV B assumes that the GW-induced cavity field is generated independently of the detector qubit, adopting a prescribed-field (no-backaction) benchmark in which the bare-cavity field is applied as an exter- nal drive. Near simultaneous cavity–qubit resonance, however, a cav...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The collective protocol enhances this single-qubit response in physically distinct ways, illustrated by the circuits of Fig- ure 12

    Collective readout and the physical origin of the enhancement. The collective protocol enhances this single-qubit response in physically distinct ways, illustrated by the circuits of Fig- ure 12. For the Dicke-state protocol of Ref. [46], the sensor register is prepared in a symmetric Dicke state. We denote the ground and excited states of each sensor qub...

    work page

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Malcolm S Longair,High energy astrophysics(Cambridge uni- versity press, 2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,

    Pau Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), “Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,” (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Matter-wave Atomic Gra- diometer Interferometric Sensor (MAGIS-100),

    Mahiro Abeet al.(MAGIS-100), “Matter-wave Atomic Gra- diometer Interferometric Sensor (MAGIS-100),” Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 044003 (2021), arXiv:2104.02835 [physics.atom- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    AEDGE: Atomic experiment for dark matter and gravity exploration in space,

    Andrea Bertoldiet al., “AEDGE: Atomic experiment for dark matter and gravity exploration in space,” Exper. Astron.51, 1417–1426 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    AION: An Atom Interferometer Observatory and Network,

    L. Badurinaet al., “AION: An Atom Interferometer Observatory and Network,” JCAP05, 011 (2020), arXiv:1911.11755 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The NANOGrav 12.5 yr Data Set: Search for an Isotropic Stochastic Gravitational- wave Background,

    Zaven Arzoumanianet al.(NANOGrav), “The NANOGrav 12.5 yr Data Set: Search for an Isotropic Stochastic Gravitational- wave Background,” Astrophys. J. Lett.905, L34 (2020), arXiv:2009.04496 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    CMB-S4: Forecasting Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves,

    Kevork Abazajianet al.(CMB-S4), “CMB-S4: Forecasting Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves,” Astrophys. J. 926, 54 (2022), arXiv:2008.12619 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches above 10 kHz,

    Nancy Aggarwalet al., “Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches above 10 kHz,” Living Rev. Rel. 28, 10 (2025), arXiv:2501.11723 [gr-qc]

    2025

  10. [18]

    Hunt for light primordial black hole dark matter with ultrahigh-frequency gravitational waves,

    Gabriele Franciolini, Anshuman Maharana, and Francesco Muia, “Hunt for light primordial black hole dark matter with ultrahigh-frequency gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D106, 103520 (2022), arXiv:2205.02153 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Relic gravitational waves from light primordial black holes,

    Alexander D. Dolgov and Damian Ejlli, “Relic gravitational waves from light primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D84, 024028 (2011), arXiv:1105.2303 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pri- mordial gravitational waves from black hole evaporation in stan- dard and nonstandard cosmologies,

    Aurora Ireland, Stefano Profumo, and Jordan Scharnhorst, “Pri- mordial gravitational waves from black hole evaporation in stan- dard and nonstandard cosmologies,” Phys. Rev. D107, 104021 (2023), arXiv:2302.10188 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Dynamical boson stars,

    Steven L. Liebling and Carlos Palenzuela, “Dynamical boson stars,” Living Rev. Rel.26, 1 (2023), arXiv:1202.5809 [gr-qc]. 20

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Boson stars and oscillatons: A review,

    Luca Visinelli, “Boson stars and oscillatons: A review,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D30, 2130006 (2021), arXiv:2109.05481 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Discovering the QCD Axion with Black Holes and Gravitational Waves,

    Asimina Arvanitaki, Masha Baryakhtar, and Xinlu Huang, “Discovering the QCD Axion with Black Holes and Gravitational Waves,” Phys. Rev. D91, 084011 (2015), arXiv:1411.2263 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Superradiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics,

    Richard Brito, Vitor Cardoso, and Paolo Pani, “Superradiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics,” Lect. Notes Phys.906, pp.1–237 (2015), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gravitational wave searches for ultralight bosons with LIGO and LISA,

    Richard Brito, Shrobana Ghosh, Enrico Barausse, Emanuele Berti, Vitor Cardoso, Irina Dvorkin, Antoine Klein, and Paolo Pani, “Gravitational wave searches for ultralight bosons with LIGO and LISA,” Phys. Rev. D96, 064050 (2017), arXiv:1706.06311 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions,

    Marc Kamionkowski, Arthur Kosowsky, and Michael S. Turner, “Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. D49, 2837–2851 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9310044

    1994 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions,

    Jose R. Espinosa, Thomas Konstandin, Jose M. No, and Geral- dine Servant, “Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions,” JCAP06, 028 (2010), arXiv:1004.4187 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gravitational waves from the sound of a first order phase transition,

    Mark Hindmarsh, Stephan J. Huber, Kari Rummukainen, and David J. Weir, “Gravitational waves from the sound of a first order phase transition,” Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 041301 (2014), arXiv:1304.2433 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Shape of the acoustic gravitational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition,

    Mark Hindmarsh, Stephan J. Huber, Kari Rummukainen, and David J. Weir, “Shape of the acoustic gravitational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition,” Phys. Rev. D96, 103520 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 089902 (2020)], arXiv:1704.05871 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gravitational waves from a first- order phase transition of the inflaton,

    J ¨orn Kersten, Seong Chan Park, Yeji Park, Juhoon Son, and Liliana Velasco-Sevilla, “Gravitational waves from a first- order phase transition of the inflaton,” JCAP04, 053 (2025), arXiv:2412.17278 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Probing low scale lepto- genesis through gravitational wave,

    Anirban Biswas and Sougata Ganguly, “Probing low scale lepto- genesis through gravitational wave,” Phys. Rev. D113, 035028 (2026), arXiv:2505.01820 [hep-ph]

    2026

  24. [32]

    Using gravitational waves to see the first second of the Universe,

    Rishav Roshan and Graham White, “Using gravitational waves to see the first second of the Universe,” Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 015001 (2025), arXiv:2401.04388 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Search for a stochastic background of 100-MHz gravitational waves with laser interferometers,

    Tomotada Akutsuet al., “Search for a stochastic background of 100-MHz gravitational waves with laser interferometers,” Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 101101 (2008), arXiv:0803.4094 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Neutron Star Extreme Matter Observa- tory: A kilohertz-band gravitational-wave detector in the global network,

    K. Ackleyet al., “Neutron Star Extreme Matter Observa- tory: A kilohertz-band gravitational-wave detector in the global network,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e047 (2020), arXiv:2007.03128 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020

  27. [35]

    Searching for New Physics with a Levitated-Sensor- Based Gravitational-Wave Detector,

    Nancy Aggarwal, George P. Winstone, Mae Teo, Masha Baryakhtar, Shane L. Larson, Vicky Kalogera, and Andrew A. Geraci, “Searching for New Physics with a Levitated-Sensor- Based Gravitational-Wave Detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 111101 (2022), arXiv:2010.13157 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Gravitational Wave Detection with High Frequency Phonon Trapping Acoustic Cav- ities,

    Maxim Goryachev and Michael E. Tobar, “Gravitational Wave Detection with High Frequency Phonon Trapping Acoustic Cav- ities,” Phys. Rev. D90, 102005 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 129901 (2023)], arXiv:1410.2334 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Observation of the Fundamen- tal Nyquist Noise Limit in an Ultra-High𝑄-Factor Cryogenic Bulk Acoustic Wave Cavity,

    Maxim Goryachev, Eugene N. Ivanov, Frank van Kann, Serge Galliou, and Michael E. Tobar, “Observation of the Fundamen- tal Nyquist Noise Limit in an Ultra-High𝑄-Factor Cryogenic Bulk Acoustic Wave Cavity,” Appl. Phys. Lett.105, 153505 (2014), arXiv:1410.4293 [physics.ins-det]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sensitivity of the spherical gravitational wave detector Min- iGRAIL operating at 5 K,

    L. Gottardi, A. de Waard, A. Usenko, G. Frossati, M. Podt, J. Flokstra, M. Bassan, V. Fafone, Y. Minenkov, and A. Rocchi, “Sensitivity of the spherical gravitational wave detector Min- iGRAIL operating at 5 K,” Phys. Rev. D76, 102005 (2007), arXiv:0705.0122 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    GRA VITATIONAL RADIATION ANTENNAS USING THE SAGNAC EFFECT,

    J. Anandan and R. Y. Chiao, “GRA VITATIONAL RADIATION ANTENNAS USING THE SAGNAC EFFECT,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 14, 515–521 (1982)

    1982

  32. [40]

    Wave resonance of light and gravitational waves,

    M. E. Gertsenshtein, “Wave resonance of light and gravitational waves,” Soviet Physics JETP14, 84–85 (1962)

    1962

  33. [41]

    Electromagnetic and gravitational waves in a stationary magnetic field,

    Ya. B. Zel’dovich, “Electromagnetic and gravitational waves in a stationary magnetic field,” Soviet Physics JETP38, 652–655 (1974)

    1974

  34. [42]

    Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavities,

    Asher Berlin, Diego Blas, Raffaele Tito D’ Agnolo, Sebastian A. R. Ellis, Roni Harnik, Yonatan Kahn, and Jan Sch¨ utte-Engel, “Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavities,” Phys. Rev. D105, 116011 (2022), arXiv:2112.11465 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    First Results from an Axion Halo- scope at CAPP around 10.7𝜇eV,

    Ohjoon Kwonet al.(CAPP), “First Results from an Axion Halo- scope at CAPP around 10.7𝜇eV,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 191802 (2021), arXiv:2012.10764 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Extensive Search for Axion Dark Matter over 1 GHz with CAPP’S Main Axion Experiment,

    Saebyeok Ahnet al.(CAPP), “Extensive Search for Axion Dark Matter over 1 GHz with CAPP’S Main Axion Experiment,” Phys. Rev. X14, 031023 (2024), arXiv:2402.12892 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Squid-based microwave cavity search for dark-matter axions,

    S. J. Asztaloset al., “Squid-based microwave cavity search for dark-matter axions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 041301 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    A Search for Invisible Axion Dark Matter with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment,

    N. Duet al.(ADMX), “A Search for Invisible Axion Dark Matter with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 151301 (2018), arXiv:1804.05750 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Search for Invisible Axion Dark Matter in the 3.3–4.2𝜇eV Mass Range,

    C. Bartramet al.(ADMX), “Search for Invisible Axion Dark Matter in the 3.3–4.2𝜇eV Mass Range,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 261803 (2021), arXiv:2110.06096 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Search for high-frequency gravitational waves via reanalysis of cavity axion data,

    Younggeun Kimet al., “Search for high-frequency gravitational waves via reanalysis of cavity axion data,” Phys. Rev. D113, 072015 (2026), arXiv:2511.17817 [hep-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Dielectric haloscopes as gravitational wave detectors,

    Valerie Domcke, Sebastian A. R. Ellis, and Joachim Kopp, “Dielectric haloscopes as gravitational wave detectors,” Phys. Rev. D111, 035031 (2025), arXiv:2409.06462 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Con- version of photons into gravitons and vice versa in a static elec- tromagnetic field,

    D. Boccaletti, V. De Sabbata, P. Fortini, and C. Gualdi, “Con- version of photons into gravitons and vice versa in a static elec- tromagnetic field,” Nuovo Cim. B70, 129–146 (1970)

    1970

  43. [51]

    Detecting Hidden Photon Dark Matter Using the Direct Excitation of Transmon Qubits,

    Shion Chen, Hajime Fukuda, Toshiaki Inada, Takeo Moroi, Tat- sumi Nitta, and Thanaporn Sichanugrist, “Detecting Hidden Photon Dark Matter Using the Direct Excitation of Transmon Qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 211001 (2023), arXiv:2212.03884 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Search for QCD axion dark matter with transmon qubits and quantum circuit,

    Shion Chen, Hajime Fukuda, Toshiaki Inada, Takeo Moroi, Tat- sumi Nitta, and Thanaporn Sichanugrist, “Search for QCD axion dark matter with transmon qubits and quantum circuit,” Phys. Rev. D110, 115021 (2024), arXiv:2407.19755 [hep-ph]

    2024

  45. [53]

    Quantum Enhance- ment in Dark Matter Detection with Quantum Computation,

    Shion Chen, Hajime Fukuda, Toshiaki Inada, Takeo Moroi, Tat- sumi Nitta, and Thanaporn Sichanugrist, “Quantum Enhance- ment in Dark Matter Detection with Quantum Computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 021801 (2024), arXiv:2311.10413 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Quantum Sensing Radia- tive Decays of Neutrinos and Dark Matter Particles,

    Zhongtian Dong, Doojin Kim, Kyoungchul Kong, Myeonghun Park, and Miguel A. Soto Alcaraz, “Quantum Sensing Radia- tive Decays of Neutrinos and Dark Matter Particles,” (2025), arXiv:2508.09139 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Fermi normal co-ordinate sys- tem and electromagnetic detectors of gravitational waves: I.—calculation of the metric,

    PL Fortini and C Gualdi, “Fermi normal co-ordinate sys- tem and electromagnetic detectors of gravitational waves: I.—calculation of the metric,” Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996) 71, 37–54 (1982)

    1982

  48. [56]

    Fermi coordinates for weak gravitational fields,

    Karl-Peter Marzlin, “Fermi coordinates for weak gravitational fields,” Phys. Rev. D50, 888–891 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9403044

    1994 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Fermi-normal, optical, and wave- synchronous coordinates for spacetime with a plane grav- itational wave,

    Malik Rakhmanov, “Fermi-normal, optical, and wave- synchronous coordinates for spacetime with a plane grav- itational wave,” Class. Quant. Grav.31, 085006 (2014), 21 arXiv:1409.4648 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Michele Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    Robert E Collin,Field theory of guided waves(John Wiley & Sons, 1990)

    1990

  52. [60]

    John David Jackson and Ronald F Fox,Classical electrodynam- ics(American Association of Physics Teachers, 1999)

    1999

  53. [61]

    David A Hill,Electromagnetic fields in cavities: deterministic and statistical theories(John Wiley & Sons, 2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    Results from phase 1 of the HAYSTAC microwave cavity axion experiment,

    L. Zhonget al.(HAYSTAC), “Results from phase 1 of the HAYSTAC microwave cavity axion experiment,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 092001 (2018), arXiv:1803.03690 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Galactic axions search with a supercon- ducting resonant cavity,

    D. Alesiniet al., “Galactic axions search with a supercon- ducting resonant cavity,” Phys. Rev. D99, 101101 (2019), arXiv:1903.06547 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Search for axion dark matter with the QUAX–LNF tunable haloscope,

    A. Rettaroliet al.(QUAX), “Search for axion dark matter with the QUAX–LNF tunable haloscope,” Phys. Rev. D110, 022008 (2024), arXiv:2402.19063 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    The ORGAN Experiment: An axion halo- scope above 15 GHz,

    Ben T. McAllister, Graeme Flower, Justin Kruger, Eugene N. Ivanov, Maxim Goryachev, Jeremy Bourhill, and Michael E. Tobar (ORGAN), “The ORGAN Experiment: An axion halo- scope above 15 GHz,” Phys. Dark Univ.18, 67–72 (2017), arXiv:1706.00209 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Analytical con- siderations for optimal axion haloscope design,

    Junu Jeong, SungWoo Youn, Sungjae Bae, Dongok Kim, Younggeun Kim, and Yannis K. Semertzidis, “Analytical con- siderations for optimal axion haloscope design,” J. Phys. G49, 055201 (2022), arXiv:2108.00608 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Symmetric Dicke States as Optimal Probes for Wave-Like Dark Matter,

    Ping He, Jing Shu, Bin Xu, and Jincheng Xu, “Symmetric Dicke States as Optimal Probes for Wave-Like Dark Matter,” (2025), arXiv:2512.14821 [hep-ph]

    2025

  60. [68]

    Coherence in Spontaneous Radiation Processes,

    R. H. Dicke, “Coherence in Spontaneous Radiation Processes,” Phys. Rev.93, 99–110 (1954)

    1954

  61. [69]

    Superabsorption of light via quantum engineering,

    K. D. B. Higgins, S. C. Benjamin, T. M. Stace, G. J. Mil- burn, B. W. Lovett, and E. M. Gauger, “Superabsorption of light via quantum engineering,” (2014), 10.1038/ncomms5705, arXiv:1306.1483 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Axion dark matter experiment: Run 1B analysis details,

    C. Bartramet al.(ADMX), “Axion dark matter experiment: Run 1B analysis details,” Phys. Rev. D103, 032002 (2021), arXiv:2010.06183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Direct search for dark matter axions excluding ALP cogenesis in the 63- to 67-𝜇eV range with the ORGAN experiment,

    Aaron P. Quiskamp, Ben T. McAllister, Paul Altin, Eugene N. Ivanov, Maxim Goryachev, and Michael E. Tobar (ORGAN), “Direct search for dark matter axions excluding ALP cogenesis in the 63- to 67-𝜇eV range with the ORGAN experiment,” Sci. Adv.8, eabq3765 (2022), arXiv:2203.12152...

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,

    Youngseok Kimet al., “Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,” Nature618, 500–505 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    IBM Quantum Hardware,

    IBM, “IBM Quantum Hardware,” (2026)

    2026

  66. [74]

    Magnetic Field Resilience of Three-Dimensional Transmons with Thin-Film Al/AlOx/Al Josephson Junctions Approaching 1 T,

    J. Krause, C. Dickel, E. Vaal, M. Vielmetter, J. Feng, R. Bounds, G. Catelani, J. M. Fink, and Yoichi Ando, “Magnetic Field Resilience of Three-Dimensional Transmons with Thin-Film Al/AlOx/Al Josephson Junctions Approaching 1 T,” Phys. Rev. Applied17, 034032 (2022), arXiv:2111...

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Spin environment of a superconducting qubit in high magnetic fields,

    S. G¨ unzleret al., “Spin environment of a superconducting qubit in high magnetic fields,” Nature Commun.16, 9564 (2025), arXiv:2501.03661 [quant-ph]

    2025

  68. [76]

    Magnetic-field-compatible superconducting transmon qubit,

    A. Kringhøj, T. W. Larsen, O. Erlandsson, W. Uilhoorn, J.G. Kroll, M. Hesselberg, R.P.G. McNeil, P. Krogstrup, L. Casparis, C.M. Marcus, and K.D. Petersson, “Magnetic-field-compatible superconducting transmon qubit,” Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 054001 (2021)

    2021

  69. [77]

    Quantum non-demolition detection of an itinerant microwave photon,

    S. Kono, K. Koshino, Y. Tabuchi, A. Noguchi, and Y. Nakamura, “Quantum non-demolition detection of an itinerant microwave photon,” Nature Phys.14, 546–549 (2018), arXiv:1711.05479 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    Alexandre Blais, Arne L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and Andreas Wallraff, “Circuit quantum electrodynamics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021), arXiv:2005.12667 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.