Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

High dynamic-range quantum sensing of magnons and their dynamics using a superconducting qubit

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superconducting qubit weakly coupled to a ferrimagnetic sphere can count magnons from a few to about 2000 excitations at a sensitivity of a few magnon/√Hz, and resolve their decay by two independent methods.

desk verdict A careful experimental demonstration of high dynamic-range magnon sensing; the absolute number calibration is the main soft spot, but it is addressable and the three consistent decay measurements give confidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11859 v1 pith:3ALT6JEJ submitted 2024-12-16 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sonia Rani , Xi Cao , Alejandro E. Baptista , Axel Hoffmann , Wolfgang Pfaff This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords magnonsensingsuperconductingqubitdispersivereadoutYIGsphereKittelmodeparametriccouplingdecayquantum
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

Using a superconducting qubit weakly coupled to a yttrium-iron-garnet sphere through a microwave cavity, the authors show that a single quantum circuit can sense magnons across a wide range: from a few to about 2000 collective excitations, with a sensitivity of a few magnon/√Hz. They detect the average occupation through two calibrated dispersive effects—the qubit's Stark shift and its dephasing from magnon shot noise—and then resolve Kittel-mode decay by two independent methods: time-resolved dispersive shifts and parametrically activated resonant coupling. All three extracted decay rates agree near 34–40 ns. The result matters because it turns superconducting qubits into high-dynamic-range probes for magnetic excitations, without requiring magnetic-field-compatible qubits or elaborate shielding.

What carries the argument

The central object is the weak dispersive coupling between the qubit and the Kittel mode (the uniform spin-wave mode of the YIG sphere), characterized by the shift $\chi_{qm}$ of the qubit frequency per magnon excitation. This coupling produces two readout channels: a Stark shift of the qubit line and a dephasing rate proportional to the magnon number fluctuations, both calibrated with Eqs. (B1)–(B2). The second mechanism is parametric four-wave mixing: pumping at the half-difference frequency activates a beam-splitter interaction with tunable strength $\Omega_{qm}$, converting the magnon mode into a controllable bath so that the qubit relaxation rate becomes $\kappa = \Omega_{qm}^2/\kappa_m$. That maps the magnon decay rate onto an easily measured qubit decay.

What would settle it

Measure the qubit's Stark shift and dephasing while sweeping pump power, and simultaneously record the cavity's transmission or another independent magnon probe; if the inferred occupation deviates from a straight line before the claimed 2000-magnon point, the linear calibration and the sensitivity and dynamic-range numbers derived from it are wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a superconducting transmon qubit, operated in the dispersive regime with respect to a magnon mode of a ferrimagnet, can quantify magnon population and dynamics over roughly three orders of magnitude of excitation number. The authors calibrate the per-magnon dispersive shift $\chi_{qm}$ and the magnon occupation by fitting the qubit's frequency shift $\Delta f_q = \chi_{qm}\langle n_m\rangle$ and its shot-noise dephasing rate to the model of measurement-induced dephasing, leaving only two free parameters. With this calibration they report counting up to $\sim 2000$ magnons at a sensitivity of a few magnon per $\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, and they resolve the Kittel-mode decay through time-dependent phase accumulation and time-dependent qubit spectroscopy, yielding $1/\kappa_m = 34(2)$ ns and $40(4)$ ns, respectively. A third, independent route uses parametric pumping at $|\omega_q - \omega_m|/2$ to activate a tunable qubit-magnon coupling; the resultant Purcell-like qubit decay gives $1/\kappa_m = 39(4)$ ns, consistent with the dispersive method.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute magnon-number scale rests on the assumption that the average magnon occupation is exactly proportional to pump power and that the standard dephasing model holds at every occupation; if either fails at high powers, the reported few-magnon sensitivity and 2000-magnon dynamic range would be rescaled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Steady-state magnon population can be read out from a few to ~2000 excitations with a single qubit and without retuning the coupling, because sensitivity and range are set by the same dispersive parameter.
  • Magnon lifetimes can be measured by two independent signatures (phase and frequency shift) that agree, providing an internal consistency check.
  • Parametric pumping enables measuring magnon decay even when the decay is too fast for direct qubit control, because the rate is mapped onto qubit relaxation.
  • Because the method requires only weak dispersive coupling and a local magnetic bias, it transfers straightforwardly to other collective excitations, such as phonons or other spin ensembles.
  • The measured 34–40 ns lifetime, roughly 3× shorter than typical YIG sphere values, is attributed to field inhomogeneity and identifies a clear path to improvement via magnet geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step would be to cross-check the linear occupation calibration against direct cavity transmission or a second sensor at high pump powers; if the linear model bends at large $\langle n_m\rangle$, the dynamic-range claim needs rescaling.
  • The parametric technique could be extended to steady-state out-of-equilibrium magnon populations by adding a resonant drive on the magnon mode, allowing qubit-based measurement of nonlinear magnon dynamics at large occupations.
  • By tuning $\chi_{qm}$ in situ (e.g., through flux or parametric control), one could trade sensitivity for range dynamically within a single experiment, covering both single-magnon and large-number regimes with the same device.
  • The same dispersive-and-dephasing readout should work for spin-ensemble or dark-matter searches where a broad dynamic range and fast decay resolution are needed, since only weak coupling and local bias are required.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a hybrid quantum magnonic device in which a superconducting transmon qubit, dispersively coupled through a cavity to a YIG magnon mode, is used to sense magnon population and dynamics. The authors demonstrate that the qubit's Stark shift and dephasing allow detection of up to about 2000 magnons with a sensitivity of a few magnons per square-root hertz, and they measure the Kittel-mode decay via time-dependent dispersive shifts (34(2) ns), time-dependent qubit spectroscopy (40(4) ns), and a parametrically activated resonant interaction (39(4) ns). The three decay rates agree within uncertainties. The paper concludes that superconducting qubits can serve as high-dynamic-range quantum probes for magnons.

Significance. If the absolute magnon-number calibration is sound, the demonstration of few-magnon sensitivity over a dynamic range of about 2000 excitations is a valuable step beyond single-magnon experiments and opens the way to probing nonlinear magnon dynamics. The three independent decay measurements, especially the parametric-pumping method that maps magnon decay onto qubit relaxation, are significant and internally consistent. The device design with local permanent magnets and a spatially separated cavity mode is practical and avoids the need for magnetic-field-compatible qubits. However, the headline sensitivity and dynamic-range claims rest on a two-parameter calibration (Appendix B) that is not independently verified, so the quantitative sensor claims are not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B1)-(B2) and Fig. 2(d)] The absolute magnon-number scale—and hence the headline sensitivity of a few magnons per sqrt(Hz) and the ~2000-magnon dynamic range—is fixed by fitting two free parameters (chi_qm and c_pump) to the Stark shift and dephasing rate under the assumptions that <n_m> = c_pump P exactly and that the Gambetta dephasing model holds over the full range. The dephasing data in Fig. 2(d) visibly depart from the linear model at high pump power, and the manuscript does not specify the fit range or provide a cross-check of the absolute occupation. Because the three decay measurements are time constants and do not constrain the occupation scale, the sensitivity claim lacks an independent anchor. I request either (i) an independent verification of chi_qm, e.g., from the measured chi_qc and independently estimated g_mc/Delta_mc, or (ii) a demonstration that the extracted chi_qm and c_pump are stable when the fit is restricted to the low-power linear region, together with an explicit statement of the fitting range and residuals.
  2. [Fig. 2(e) and Appendix B.2] The sensitivity S(n_m) is obtained by interpolating Gaussian-fit parameters and noise levels with second-order polynomials, and the resulting curve is presented without error bars or a propagation of uncertainties from the underlying fits. Since the few-magnons-per-sqrt(Hz) value is a central quantitative claim, the report should provide confidence intervals on S(n_m), or at least show the raw data points and fit residuals, and state how the interpolation order was chosen.
  3. [Appendix B and the 'Limitations on sensitivity and dynamic range' paragraph] The calibration assumes a harmonic Kittel mode and a single Lorentzian spectral density for magnon noise. At occupations up to ~2000, magnon nonlinearities (Refs. [21-23] in the manuscript) could modify both the dispersive shift per magnon and the dephasing rate. The manuscript should justify that the linear regime extends to the maximum reported occupation, or set the dynamic-range claim to the range where linearity is explicitly verified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Main text, 'Magnon counting' section] The sentence 'The shift in measured qubit frequency is given by Delta f_q = (chi_qc/2pi) n_m' should read chi_qm, not chi_qc, to match Eq. (B1) in the Appendix.
  2. [Appendix A, first sentence] The word 'Hamilton' should be 'Hamiltonian'.
  3. [Appendix B.2] The phrase 'Theses values' should be 'These values'.
  4. [Abstract and summary] The word 'instrinsic' should be 'intrinsic'.
  5. [Fig. 2(d) caption] The statement 'Dephasing at large powers deviates from linear as discussed in [33]' is insufficient; the Supplement should quantify the deviation and explain whether the calibration fit excludes the nonlinear region.
  6. [Main text, 'Detecting magnon decay' section] The phrase 'The decay of n_m excitations occurs with rate n_m kappa_m' is ambiguous; the magnon number decays with rate kappa_m, while the dispersive shift changes at a rate proportional to n_m kappa_m. Please rephrase for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are measurements with a standard two-parameter calibration; the only self-citations ([37], [39]) support a parametric model that is independently cross-validated.

full rationale

The paper is a sensor characterization, not a derivation of a predicted physical law from fitted inputs. The absolute magnon-number scale is calibrated in Appendix B by combining two independent functional dependences of the qubit on occupation: the Stark shift (Eq. B1) and the dephasing rate (Eq. B2), which depend on chi_qm and n_m in different ways. Solving the two equations for the two unknowns (chi_qm and c_pump) is standard calibration; the sensitivity curve in Fig. 2(e) is then computed from measured spectroscopy peak heights, linewidths, readout noise, and timing (Eqs. B3-B5), not from the calibration equations themselves. The decay results are mutually cross-validating: dispersive Ramsey phase gives 1/kappa_m = 34(2) ns, dispersive spectroscopy gives 40(4) ns, and the parametrically activated Purcell measurement gives 39(4) ns. The parametric model is cited to prior work [37] and [39] that includes co-authors, but it is standard theory and the result is independently confirmed by the two dispersive methods, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The main weakness flagged by the skeptic, namely reliance on Eq. B2 and the exact proportionality n_m = c_pump P for the absolute occupation scale, is an assumption and calibration risk, explicitly acknowledged by the paper's note that dephasing deviates from linear at large powers; this is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled by citation, or redefinition of a known result forces the central claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the standard dispersive circuit-QED model, the harmonic-oscillator treatment of the Kittel mode, a two-parameter calibration of the magnon number scale, and the parametric conversion model. No new physical entities are introduced, and the only fitted numbers are the calibration constants and empirical interpolation coefficients.

free parameters (3)
  • χqm (qubit-magnon dispersive shift per magnon) = 67(1) kHz
    Extracted from Stark shift and dephasing data using Eqs. B1 and B2. This sets the frequency shift per magnon and therefore the magnon-number scale for all reported sensitivities.
  • c_pump (pump power to magnon occupancy conversion) = not given (fit parameter)
    Introduced as <n_m> = c_pump P in Appendix B. It is fit together with χqm from the same calibration data; its value is not reported.
  • Sensitivity interpolation coefficients = not given
    Second-order polynomial fits to P_e and Σ vs magnon number, and Gaussian fits to noise σ_Pe, used in Appendix B to evaluate SNR at arbitrary n_m. These empirical coefficients shape the reported sensitivity curve.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Kittel mode is approximated as a harmonic oscillator, valid in the low-excitation limit.
    Invoked in Appendix A, Section A.1 immediately after Eq. A1. The experiment reaches up to about 2000 magnons, which is low relative to the total spin number in a 1 mm YIG sphere, but the approximation underpins the dispersive model used for calibration and sensitivity.
  • standard math The dispersive Hamiltonian Eq. A2 and the relation χqm = (gmc/∆mc)^2 χqc are valid.
    Taken from standard circuit QED (Blais et al. [32]). Requires gqc << Δqc and gmc << Δmc, which the paper states are satisfied. This is the backbone of the qubit-as-sensor model.
  • domain assumption The measurement-induced qubit dephasing rate follows Eq. B2 from Gambetta et al. [33].
    Used in Appendix B to calibrate magnon number together with the Stark shift. If the dephasing model is inaccurate at high occupation, the inferred χqm and n_m shift.
  • domain assumption The magnon occupation is strictly proportional to applied pump power, <n_m> = c_pump P.
    Stated in Appendix B, Section B.1. The paper fits linear lines to Stark shift and dephasing data, but notes dephasing deviates from linear at large powers, so the calibration may be less reliable at the top of the dynamic range.
  • domain assumption The parametric pump at |ωq−ωm|/2 realizes the conversion interaction Eq. C1 with rate Ωqm.
    Follows from degenerate four-wave mixing; derivation cited to [39], which shares an author with the present paper. The model is used to extract κm from qubit decay lineshape.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High dynamic-range quantum sensing of magnons and their dynamics using a superconducting qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3ALT6JEJ

@misc{pith2026241211859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High dynamic-range quantum sensing of magnons and their dynamics using a superconducting qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3ALT6JEJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11859}
}
read the original abstract

Magnons can endow quantum devices with new functionalities. Assessing their potential requires precise characterization of magnon properties. Here, we use a superconducting qubit to probe magnons in a ferrimagnet over a range of about 2000 excitations. Using qubit control and parametrically induced qubit-magnon interactions we demonstrate few-excitation sensitive detection of magnons and are able to accurately resolve their decay. These results introduce quantum circuits as high-dynamic range probes for magnons and provide an avenue toward sensitive detection of nontrivial magnon dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11859 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (c). The permanent magnets near the YIG sphere introduce a slight inhomogeneity in the magnetic field across the 1 mm range, with a simulated center-to-edge inhomogeneity of about 1 mT ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MOSAIC: Magnonic Observations of Spin-dependent Axion-like InteraCtions

    hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MOSAIC is a proposed scalable array of YIG magnon spheres coupled to electron-on-neon qubits that could search for electron-coupled axion dark matter with projected sensitivity beyond current ferromagnetic haloscopes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The Kittel mode and the cavity are magnetic-dipole coupled with strength gmc, while the qubit and the cavity are electric- dipole coupled with strength gqc

    Theoretical system description The Hamilton of the system (with ℏ = 1) is given by H = ωcˆc†ˆc + ωm ˆm† ˆm + ωq ˆq† ˆq + α 2 (ˆq† + ˆq)2 +gmc( ˆm†ˆc + ˆmˆc†) + gqc(ˆq†ˆc + ˆqˆc†), (A1) where ωc, ωm, ωq represent the frequencies and ˆc, ˆm, ˆq represent the annihilation operators of the cavity, Kit- tel (magnon) mode and qubit, respectively. The Kittel mod...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Device design Finite element simulations (obtained from Ansys HFSS) of the lumped-element cavity are shown in Fig- ure 5(a). The spatially separated cavity field compo- nents enable coupling to qubit and magnon at different locations, minimizing the effect of stray field from the permanent magnet on the qubit. The qubit-cavity cou- pling strength and the ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    A schematic of the measurement setup is shown in Fig

    Cryogenic setup The setup is assembled and cooled down to 10 mK in an Oxford Instruments Triton 500dilution refrigerator. A schematic of the measurement setup is shown in Fig. 6

    work page

  4. [4]

    Qubit and cavity characterization was performed with standard spectroscopic and pulsed relaxation/dephasing measure- ments

    Device characterization Device parameters are summarized in Table I. Qubit and cavity characterization was performed with standard spectroscopic and pulsed relaxation/dephasing measure- ments. Kittel mode frequency and linewidth were measured directly using a vector network analyzer (VNA) (Fig. 7). 300 K 4 K HEMT 0.1 K pump qubit control and readout 20 20...

    work page

  5. [5]

    We determine χqm and ⟨nm⟩ using Stark shift and dephasing of the qubit

    Magnon number calibration To calibrate the magnon number in our setup, we use two measurements as discussed in the main text. We determine χqm and ⟨nm⟩ using Stark shift and dephasing of the qubit. The Stark shift is ∆fq = χqm⟨nm⟩. (B1) For the qubit dephasing, we can write the total de- phasing rate as [33] Γq = γ0 2 + 2⟨nm⟩κm χ2 qm (κ2m + χ2qm) . (B2) H...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Experimentally obtained sensitivity To evaluate the sensitivity S(nm) of our setup as de- scribed in the main text, we express SNR based on signal and noise (Fig. 2(c) in the main text) as: SNR = |Pe − P ′ e |q σ2 Pe + σ2 P ′ e (B3) Here, σPe , σP ′ e are the standard deviations of the mean when evaluating Pe and P ′ e , with uncertainty arising from nois...

    work page

  7. [7]

    We match the readout to the experimen- tally obtained parameters (Fig

    Theoretical limits of sensitivity To determine the theoretical limits on sensitivity, we perform numerical simulations of the system in the time- domain, accounting for measured coherence times and magnon number dependent dephasing rates of the qubit following [33]. We match the readout to the experimen- tally obtained parameters (Fig. 8(c)). This provide...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Quantum magnon- ics: The magnon meets the superconducting qubit, Comptes Rendus Physique 17, 729 (2016)

    2016

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    H. Yuan, Y. Cao, A. Kamra, R. A. Duine, and P. Yan, Quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science, Physics Reports 965, 1 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Coherent coupling between a ferromagnetic magnon and a superconducting qubit, Science 349, 405 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, and Y. Nakamura, Resolving quanta of collective spin excitations in a millimeter-sized ferromagnet, Science Advances 3, e1603150 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Lachance-Quirion, S

    D. Lachance-Quirion, S. P. Wolski, Y. Tabuchi, S. Kono, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Entanglement-based single- shot detection of a single magnon with a superconducting qubit, Science 367, 425 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Xu, X.-K

    D. Xu, X.-K. Gu, H.-K. Li, Y.-C. Weng, Y.-P. Wang, J. Li, H. Wang, S.-Y. Zhu, and J. Q. You, Quantum Con- trol of a Single Magnon in a Macroscopic Spin System, Physical Review Letters 130, 193603 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Y.-Y. Wang, S. Van Geldern, T. Connolly, Y.-X. Wang, A. Shilcusky, A. McDonald, A. A. Clerk, and C. Wang, Low-Loss Ferrite Circulator as a Tunable Chiral Quan- tum System, Physical Review Applied 16, 064066 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    J. C. Owens, M. G. Panetta, B. Saxberg, G. Roberts, S. Chakram, R. Ma, A. Vrajitoarea, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Chiral cavity quantum electrodynamics, Nature Physics 18, 1048 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Wang, Y.-X

    Y.-Y. Wang, Y.-X. Wang, S. Van Geldern, T. Con- nolly, A. A. Clerk, and C. Wang, Dispersive nonreciproc- ity between a qubit and a cavity, Science Advances 10, eadj8796 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Zhang, A

    X. Zhang, A. Galda, X. Han, D. Jin, and V. M. Vinokur, Broadband Nonreciprocity Enabled by Strong Coupling of Magnons and Microwave Photons, Physical Review Applied 13, 044039 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. Kim, B. Kim, B. Kim, H. Jeon, and S.-K. Kim, Magnetic-field controlled on-off switchable non-reciprocal negative refractive index in non-Hermitian photon- magnon hybrid systems, Nature Communications 15, 9014 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Y. Han, C. Meng, H. Pan, J. Qian, Z. Rao, L. Zhu, Y. Gui, C.-M. Hu, and Z. An, Bound chiral magnonic polariton states for ideal microwave isolation, Science Ad- vances 9, eadg4730 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Hisatomi, A

    R. Hisatomi, A. Osada, Y. Tabuchi, T. Ishikawa, A. Noguchi, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Bidirectional conversion between microwave and light via ferromagnetic magnons, Physical Review B 93, 174427 (2016). 10

    2016

  13. [21]

    Osada, R

    A. Osada, R. Hisatomi, A. Noguchi, Y. Tabuchi, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, M. Sadgrove, R. Yalla, M. Nomura, and Y. Nakamura, Cavity Optomagnonics with Spin- Orbit Coupled Photons, Physical Review Letters 116, 223601 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Zhang, N

    X. Zhang, N. Zhu, C.-L. Zou, and H. X. Tang, Opto- magnonic Whispering Gallery Microresonators, Physical Review Letters 117, 123605 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    S. P. Wolski, D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Kono, A. Noguchi, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Dissipation- Based Quantum Sensing of Magnons with a Supercon- ducting Qubit, Physical Review Letters 125, 117701 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Bajpai and B

    U. Bajpai and B. K. Nikoli´ c, Time-retarded damping and magnetic inertia in the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation self-consistently coupled to electronic time-dependent nonequilibrium Green functions, Physical Review B 99, 134409 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    A. M. Lomonosov, V. V. Temnov, and J.-E. Wegrowe, Anatomy of inertial magnons in ferromagnetic nanostruc- tures, Physical Review B 104, 054425 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Unikandanunni, R

    V. Unikandanunni, R. Medapalli, M. Asa, E. Albisetti, D. Petti, R. Bertacco, E. E. Fullerton, and S. Bonetti, In- ertial Spin Dynamics in Epitaxial Cobalt Films, Physical Review Letters 129, 237201 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    H. Y. Yuan, W. P. Sterk, A. Kamra, and R. A. Duine, Pure dephasing of magnonic quantum states, Physical Review B 106, L100403 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Zheng, Z

    S. Zheng, Z. Wang, Y. Wang, F. Sun, Q. He, P. Yan, and H. Y. Yuan, Tutorial: Nonlinear magnonics, Journal of Applied Physics 134, 151101 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Wang, G.-Q

    Y.-P. Wang, G.-Q. Zhang, D. Zhang, T.-F. Li, C.-M. Hu, and J. Q. You, Bistability of Cavity Magnon Polaritons, Physical Review Letters 120, 057202 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    O. Lee, K. Yamamoto, M. Umeda, C. W. Zollitsch, M. Elyasi, T. Kikkawa, E. Saitoh, G. E. W. Bauer, and H. Kurebayashi, Nonlinear Magnon Polaritons, Physical Review Letters 130, 046703 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Huebl, C

    H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, F. Hocke, M. Greifen- stein, A. Marx, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, High Cooperativity in Coupled Microwave Resonator Ferrimagnetic Insulator Hybrids, Physical Review Let- ters 111, 127003 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Y. Li, T. Polakovic, Y.-L. Wang, J. Xu, S. Lendinez, Z. Zhang, J. Ding, T. Khaire, H. Saglam, R. Di- van, J. Pearson, W.-K. Kwok, Z. Xiao, V. Novosad, A. Hoffmann, and W. Zhang, Strong Coupling be- tween Magnons and Microwave Photons in On-Chip Ferromagnet-Superconductor Thin-...

    2019

  25. [33]

    J. T. Hou and L. Liu, Strong Coupling between Mi- crowave Photons and Nanomagnet Magnons, Physical Review Letters 123, 107702 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Xiong, A

    Y. Xiong, A. Christy, Y. Dong, A. H. Comstock, D. Sun, Y. Li, J. F. Cahoon, B. Yang, and W. Zhang, Combi- natorial split-ring and spiral metaresonator for efficient magnon-photon coupling, Physical Review Applied 21, 034034 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Schneider, T

    A. Schneider, T. Wolz, M. Pfirrmann, M. Spiecker, H. Rotzinger, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Weides, Transmon qubit in a magnetic field: Evolution of coherence and transition frequency, Physical Review Research1, 023003 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Krause, C

    J. Krause, C. Dickel, E. Vaal, M. Vielmetter, J. Feng, R. Bounds, G. Catelani, J. M. Fink, and Y. Ando, Mag- netic Field Resilience of Three-Dimensional Transmons with Thin-Film Al/AlO x / Al Josephson Junctions Approaching 1 T, Physical Review Applied 17, 034032 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Angerer, T

    A. Angerer, T. Astner, D. Wirtitsch, H. Sumiya, S. On- oda, J. Isoya, S. Putz, and J. Majer, Collective strong coupling with homogeneous Rabi frequencies using a 3D lumped element microwave resonator, Applied Physics Letters 109, 033508 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Cherepanov, I

    V. Cherepanov, I. Kolokolov, and V. L’vov, The saga of YIG: Spectra, thermodynamics, interaction and relax- ation of magnons in a complex magnet, Physics Reports 229, 81 (1993)

    1993

  31. [39]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Gambetta, A

    J. Gambetta, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Qubit-photon interactions in a cavity: Measurement induced dephasing and number splitting, Physical Review A 74, 042318 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Geerlings, Z

    K. Geerlings, Z. Leghtas, I. M. Pop, S. Shankar, L. Frun- zio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Demonstrating a Driven Reset Protocol for a Super- conducting Qubit, Physical Review Letters 110, 120501 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Stefanazzi, K

    L. Stefanazzi, K. Treptow, N. Wilcer, C. Stoughton, C. Bradford, S. Uemura, S. Zorzetti, S. Montella, G. Can- celo, S. Sussman, A. Houck, S. Saxena, H. Arnaldi, A. Agrawal, H. Zhang, C. Ding, and D. I. Schuster, The QICK (Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit): Read- out and con...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Pfaff, C

    W. Pfaff, C. J. Axline, L. D. Burkhart, U. Vool, P. Rein- hold, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Controlled release of multiphoton quantum states from a microwave cavity memory, Nature Physics 13, 882 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Kolkowitz, A

    S. Kolkowitz, A. Safira, A. A. High, R. C. Devlin, S. Choi, Q. P. Unterreithmeier, D. Patterson, A. S. Zibrov, V. E. Manucharyan, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Probing John- son noise and ballistic transport in normal metals with a single-spin qubit, Science 347, 1129 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Mollenhauer, A

    M. Mollenhauer, A. Irfan, X. Cao, S. Mandal, and W. Pfaff, A high-efficiency plug-and-play superconduct- ing qubit network (2024), arXiv:2407.16743 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Halbach, Design of permanent multipole magnets with oriented rare earth cobalt material, Nuclear Instruments and Methods 169, 1 (1980)

    K. Halbach, Design of permanent multipole magnets with oriented rare earth cobalt material, Nuclear Instruments and Methods 169, 1 (1980)

    1980

  40. [48]

    Y. Li, V. G. Yefremenko, M. Lisovenko, C. Trevillian, T. Polakovic, T. W. Cecil, P. S. Barry, J. Pearson, R. Di- van, V. Tyberkevych, C. L. Chang, U. Welp, W.-K. Kwok, and V. Novosad, Coherent Coupling of Two Re- mote Magnonic Resonators Mediated by Superconduct- ing Circuits,...

    2022

  41. [49]

    Leghtas, S

    Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlas- takis, 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...

    2015

  42. [50]

    Q. Guo, J. Cheng, H. Tan, and J. Li, Magnon squeezing by two-tone driving of a qubit in cavity-magnon-qubit systems, Physical Review A 108, 063703 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    K. W. Murch, S. J. Weber, K. M. Beck, E. Ginossar, and I. Siddiqi, Reduction of the radiative decay of atomic coherence in squeezed vacuum, Nature 499, 62 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    J. M. Kitzman, J. R. Lane, C. Undershute, P. M. Harring- ton, N. R. Beysengulov, C. A. Mikolas, K. W. Murch, and J. Pollanen, Phononic bath engineering of a supercon- ducting qubit, Nature Communications 14, 3910 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, A. Gloppe, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics, Applied Physics Express 12, 070101 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Z. K. Minev, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, L. Chris- takis, I. M. Pop, and M. H. Devoret, Energy-participation quantization of Josephson circuits, npj Quantum Infor- mation 7, 1 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.