Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Analog Quantum Phase Estimation with Single-Mode Readout

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A cavity rotation angle directly encodes Hamiltonian eigenenergies in an analog QPE protocol.

desk verdict A clear and honest aQPE protocol built on standard dispersive readout, but the load-bearing Hamiltonian engineering is deferred to an absent supplement and unverified by simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15668 v1 pith:B5JTXM2D submitted 2025-06-18 quant-ph

Wei-Chen Lin , Chiao-Hsuan Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords analogquantumphaseestimationcavityphase-spacerotationdispersivereadoutHamiltonianengineeringXYmodelcircuitQEDeigenvalueWignertomography
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes an analog quantum phase estimation (aQPE) protocol that replaces the multi-qubit control register and controlled unitary gates of standard QPE with a single cavity mode evolving under the dispersive Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{aQPE}} = \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} \otimes \hat{H}_{\mathrm{target}}$. Under this evolution, each eigenstate $|e_j\rangle$ of the target Hamiltonian rotates a displaced-squeezed cavity state through an angle $\Delta\theta_j = -E_j t/\hbar$, so the eigenenergies and their initial-state populations are imprinted directly on the angular profile of the cavity Wigner function. The paper further shows how to engineer such a Hamiltonian for the XY model, whose ground-state energy problem is QMA-complete, using a circuit-QED architecture of a cavity, target qubits, and auxiliary coupler qubits; a two-qubit numerical simulation keeps fidelity with the ideal aQPE dynamics above 98%. If correct, this provides a resource-efficient route to eigenvalue estimation that avoids Trotterization, deep circuits, and entangling gates, and is compatible with existing circuit-QED technology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photon-number-dependent dispersive Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{aQPE}} = \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} \otimes \hat{H}_{\mathrm{target}}$, which turns the cavity Fock basis into a quantum control register: the $n$-photon component advances the target by $\hat{U}_{\mathrm{target}}^n$, exactly mirroring the sequence of controlled powers in standard QPE. The phase-space rotation of a displaced-squeezed state is what makes the spectrum readable, because the Wigner-function angular profile at fixed radius directly maps rotation angle to eigenenergy. The second piece of machinery is the engineered effective Hamiltonian of Eq. (6), obtained from the full cavity, target, and coupler Hamiltonian under the stated perturbation hierarchy; it provides the exchange couplings $\eta^{\mathrm{eng}}_{kk'}$ and tunable local fields $\lambda^{\mathrm{eng}}_k$ that allow one to approximate $\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}\otimes\hat{H}^{\mathrm{XY}}_{\mathrm{target}}$ in a physical circuit-QED layout.

What would settle it

Derive the effective Hamiltonian from Eq. (5) to next order in the small ratios $g/\Delta$ and $J/\Delta$, and check that the residual local $z$-fields, photon-number-dependent frequency shifts, and higher-order exchange terms are negligible at the paper's quoted parameters; alternatively, build the two-qubit device and compare the measured cavity angular profile with the predicted Wigner peaks at rotation angles $-\eta t$, $0$, $0$, $+\eta t$ — a deviation beyond the claimed roughly 2% would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that eigenvalue estimation can be performed entirely in the continuous-variable phase space of a single cavity: the interaction $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{aQPE}} = \hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a} \otimes \hat{H}_{\mathrm{target}}$ implements a photon-number-controlled power of the target unitary, $\hat{U}_{\mathrm{aQPE}}(t) = \sum_n |n\rangle\langle n| \otimes \hat{U}_{\mathrm{target}}^n$, so a cavity prepared in a coherent or phase-squeezed state accumulates a superposition of rotations whose angles are exactly $-E_j t/\hbar$. Reading out the angle distribution of the cavity field via Wigner tomography therefore yields the eigenenergies of $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{target}}$ together with the weights $p_{jj}$ of the initial target register. The paper's second claim is that this ideal interaction can be physically realized: a specific circuit-QED Hamiltonian, a cavity uniformly coupled to auxiliary coupler qubits that in turn couple to target qubits, reduces under the hierarchy $|\Delta_\mu| \gg |J| \gg |g|$ to an effective dispersive Hamiltonian $\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a} \otimes \hat{H}^{\mathrm{eng}}_{\mathrm{target}}$ with XY exchange couplings $\eta^{\mathrm{eng}}_{kk'}$ and local $z$-fields $\lambda^{\mathrm{eng}}_k$ that can be tuned to zero. Numerical evolution of a minimal two-qubit XY instance under the engineered Hamiltonian matches the ideal aQPE dynamics with fidelity above 98%, supporting the feasibility of the architecture.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol works only if the engineered Hamiltonian of Eq. (6) really is what the full circuit does when the qubit–cavity detunings are large and the couplings are small; the paper defers that derivation to a supplementary document, so the central reduction is still unverified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Eigenvalue estimation no longer requires Trotterization, controlled unitaries, or an inverse quantum Fourier transform; a single dispersive evolution followed by cavity tomography suffices.
  • Any target Hamiltonian for which a dispersive $\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}\otimes\hat{H}$ coupling can be engineered becomes a candidate for aQPE, including hard instances such as the QMA-complete XY-model ground-state problem.
  • The readout naturally exposes degeneracies: in the two-qubit example, the zero-energy doublet appears as a doubled peak amplitude in the angular profile, giving spectral information beyond the nondegenerate case.
  • Because the simulation uses parameters compatible with existing circuit-QED devices, the protocol is a concrete near-term candidate for spectral estimation without deep circuits.
  • Eigenvalue-based subroutines, including order-finding, could in principle be run in analog form once suitable dispersive interactions are engineered for the corresponding unitaries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: postselecting on a measured cavity rotation angle projects the target register onto the corresponding eigenspace, so the same setup could be used for eigenstate filtering or low-energy-state preparation when combined with an adiabatic sweep.
  • The finite $2\pi$ rotation window means spectral crowding is inevitable as system size grows; quantifying the squeezing (negative $\xi$) and number of measurement shots needed to resolve closely spaced eigenvalues would determine whether the scheme scales beyond a few qubits.
  • The fidelity benchmark compares engineered to ideal dynamics, not to a ground-truth spectral estimate; a more decisive test would be an end-to-end simulation that reconstructs eigenenergies from the noisy angular profile and reports estimation error versus shot count.
  • If the perturbative reduction of Eq. (6) is confirmed, the same architecture could be adapted to other spin models by modifying the coupling pattern of the cross-coupler qubits, suggesting a modular route to analog spectral estimation for a family of QMA-hard problems.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an analog quantum phase estimation (aQPE) protocol in which a single cavity mode, evolving under a dispersive Hamiltonian H_aQPE = a^†a ⊗ H_target, imprints the eigenenergies of a target Hamiltonian onto cavity phase-space rotations. After deriving the reduced cavity state for a squeezed coherent input, the authors propose a circuit-QED architecture (Eq. 5) and claim that, under a detuning hierarchy, it realizes an effective engineered Hamiltonian (Eq. 6) that approximates H_aQPE for a generalized XY model. The feasibility is illustrated by a two-qubit XY simulation reporting cavity Wigner functions and fidelity above 98% between the engineered and ideal aQPE dynamics.

Significance. If the claimed Hamiltonian engineering is correct, the protocol offers a potentially resource-efficient alternative to standard QPE, replacing deep circuits, controlled unitaries, and inverse QFT with continuous evolution and single-mode Wigner tomography. The two-qubit demonstration is modest, but the concept is general and the architecture is in principle scalable. The paper's central feasibility claim, however, currently rests on a perturbative reduction whose derivation is deferred to an unavailable supplement, and on simulation parameters that are likewise deferred. The protocol idea itself (Section II) is sound and clearly presented; the engineering claim (Section III) is not yet substantiated to the standard required for publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (6)] The central claim that the physical Hamiltonian H_full of Eq. (5) reduces to the engineered aQPE Hamiltonian of Eq. (6) is not supported in the manuscript. The derivation is deferred to ref. [39], described as 'Supplementary Information (in preparation)'. This is load-bearing: Eq. (6) is the object simulated in Fig. 4, so the reported numerical evidence does not test the reduction H_full → H_eng. Please provide the full Schrieffer-Wolff or equivalent derivation, including all fourth-order terms and the conditions under which the unwanted terms vanish, or alternatively simulate the dynamics generated by Eq. (5) directly for the two-qubit case and show that the cavity dynamics matches the ideal aQPE prediction.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 4 and ref. [59]] The simulation parameters used to reach η = 10 kHz are not given; ref. [59] is 'in preparation'. Without explicit values for g, J_l, J_m, Δ, and qubit frequencies, the claim that the parameters are 'compatible with current circuit QED devices' cannot be verified. In particular, the hierarchy |Δ| ≫ |J| ≫ |g| must be checked numerically, and the resulting effective η and residual λ_eng must be quantified. Please provide a concrete parameter set, state the values in the text or table, and report the resulting hierarchy and effective Hamiltonian parameters.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (6), λ_eng = 0 condition] The manuscript states that λ_eng^k = 0 can be achieved for all k, but does not show a parameter choice satisfying the quadratic condition in the definition of λ_eng^k while maintaining the stated hierarchy. This condition involves sums of J_l and J_m products and may constrain the coupling patterns nontrivially. Please prove existence of such a parameter set or provide an explicit example, and discuss whether the required values are physically realizable within the hierarchy.
  4. [Section III, Fig. 4(c) and ref. [56]] The fidelity F(t) is introduced with a reference note 'Defined as respectively', which is incomplete. Please specify the precise quantity being computed—for example, the state fidelity between the reduced cavity density matrices under the engineered and ideal Hamiltonians, or the fidelity of the joint cavity-qubit state—and state the dependence of F(t) on the simulation parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (3)] The derivation of Eq. (3) is cited to ref. [39] ('in preparation'), but this result follows directly from the structure of Eq. (1) and the diagonal action on the eigenbasis of H_target; a short derivation in the text or a standard reference would be more appropriate than deferring to an unavailable supplement.
  2. [Introduction and Section III] The claim that the XY model's ground-state energy problem is QMA-complete should be qualified: the cited references (e.g., [34], [35], [36]) concern XY-type or related models often with additional local fields or specific lattice geometries. The model written in Eq. (4) is a pure nearest-neighbor XY model; please clarify which known QMA-completeness result applies directly to this class or state the relevant model precisely.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 3] In the schematic of Fig. 3, the labels 'control register' and 'target register' appear twice, which is confusing. Please clarify which elements correspond to the physical qubits versus the effective model.
  4. [Section III, Fig. 4] The horizontal axis in Fig. 4(b) is labeled with angles, but the tick labels appear in radians and the figure caption does not define the normalization of W(β e^{iθ}). Please add axis labels and units for clarity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The aQPE protocol itself is not circular, but the architecture-validation chain is partly self-referential: the key reduction Eq. (5) to Eq. (6) is deferred to an in-preparation self-citation, and the reported 98% fidelity benchmarks the engineered effective Hamiltonian against the ideal Hamiltonian it was deliberately designed to match.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section III, Eq. (6) and reference [39]]
    "Under the assumption |Δμ| ≫ |J_ℓ/m| ≫ |g|, the designed architecture realizes an engineered dispersive interaction ... The engineered interaction takes the form [39]: ... λ_eng_k = ... η_eng_kk′ = ... [39] Detailed derivations will be provided in the Supplementary Information (in preparation)."

    The central physical claim—that the circuit-QED Hamiltonian H_full of Eq. (5) implements aQPE—is carried entirely by the asserted effective Hamiltonian of Eq. (6). The paper does not derive Eq. (6); it cites the authors' own unpublished supplement. No numerical test uses H_full: Fig. 4 is explicitly 'under the engineered aQPE interaction H_XY(2),eng_aQPE'. Thus the chain Eq. (5) → Eq. (6) → ideal aQPE closes on a self-citation rather than on a checkable derivation; the architecture claim is unverified as presented and, to the extent it is accepted, is accepted on the authors' own assertion.

  2. self definitional [Section III, Fig. 4(c) and text near Eq. (6)]
    "By choosing the physical parameters such that λ_eng_k = 0 for all k, one can realize a pure XY target Hamiltonian. ... The fidelity F(t) between the engineered and ideal aQPE dynamics [56], shown in Fig. 4(c), remains above 98% throughout the simulated timescale."

    The 'ideal aQPE Hamiltonian' is a†a ⊗ H_target, the exact operator Eq. (6) was engineered to reproduce; with λ_eng_k = 0 and η_eng_kk′ = η the engineered Hamiltonian equals the ideal one at leading order. The Fig. 4(c) fidelity is therefore a measure of how well the chosen effective parameters reproduce the intended Hamiltonian—a self-consistency check—not a test that the physical Hamiltonian of Eq. (5) reduces to Eq. (6). It does not provide independent evidence for the missing perturbative reduction.

full rationale

The aQPE protocol itself is a constructive scheme, not a prediction, and is not circular: Eq. (3) follows directly from the definition H_aQPE = a†a ⊗ H_target, the rotation angles are −E_j t/ℏ by the Heisenberg evolution of the coherent-state phase, and no fitted parameters are used to produce the eigenenergies. The partial circularity is confined to the architecture-validation chain. The critical effective Hamiltonian Eq. (6) is supported only by reference [39], an in-preparation supplementary document by the same authors, and the numerical fidelity in Fig. 4(c) compares the engineered effective Hamiltonian to the ideal aQPE Hamiltonian that Eq. (6) was deliberately designed to reproduce. Those two issues make the physical-realization claim unverified and partly self-referential, but they do not infect the spectral-encoding protocol itself. The omitted parameter values and malformed fidelity definition are additional correctness/verifiability risks, not circularity, and should be addressed in a revised version.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol itself introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are simulation and design choices: the cavity state parameters beta and xi, the target coupling eta, and the undetermined coupler/detuning values needed to satisfy the perturbative constraints. The main axioms are the unshown perturbative derivation, the parameter hierarchy, and the measurement assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • cavity displacement amplitude beta = 1.8
    Chosen for the simulation in Fig. 4; sets the radius of the Wigner function sampling.
  • squeezing parameter xi = -0.4
    Chosen to reduce angular uncertainty in the simulated cavity state.
  • XY coupling strength eta = 10 kHz
    Sets the energy scale of the target Hamiltonian and hence the rotation angles in the simulation.
  • coupler and detuning parameters g, J, Delta = not specified (deferred to SI)
    Required to enforce the hierarchy |Delta| >> |J| >> |g| and the condition lambda_eng_k = 0 for a pure XY model; concrete values are not given in the main text.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Third-order perturbative reduction of Eq. (5) yields the engineered dispersive interaction Eq. (6)
    The entire feasibility of the architecture rests on this unshown derivation, deferred to ref. [39].
  • domain assumption Parameter hierarchy |Delta_mu| >> |J| >> |g| and uniform detuning Delta_k = Delta for all target qubits
    These conditions are required for the dispersive approximation; no concrete values are given.
  • domain assumption The target register can be prepared in, or as a mixture of, eigenstates of H_target with known populations
    Eq. (3) presumes an initial density matrix diagonal in the eigenbasis with weights p_jj; state preparation is not detailed.
  • domain assumption Cavity phase-space tomography resolves the rotated components with sufficient precision to estimate E_j
    The protocol relies on measuring W(beta e^{i theta}); no readout noise or statistical error model is given.
  • standard math The XY model ground-state energy problem is QMA-complete (cited refs. [34-36])
    Used to motivate computational hardness; external result, not derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analog Quantum Phase Estimation with Single-Mode Readout." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5JTXM2D

@misc{pith2026250615668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analog Quantum Phase Estimation with Single-Mode Readout},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5JTXM2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15668}
}
read the original abstract

Eigenvalue estimation is a central problem for demonstrating quantum advantage, yet its implementation on digital quantum computers remains limited by circuit depth and operational overhead. We present an analog quantum phase estimation (aQPE) protocol that extracts the eigenenergies of a target Hamiltonian via continuous time evolution and single-mode cavity measurement. By encoding eigenvalue information as conditional cavity phase-space rotations, the scheme avoids deep quantum circuits and entangling gates, while enabling readout through established cavity tomography techniques. We further illustrate the feasibility of this approach by engineering a Hamiltonian that implements aQPE of the XY model, whose ground-state energy problem is QMA-complete, within a physical architecture compatible with existing circuit quantum electrodynamics technology. Our results provide a resource-efficient and scalable framework for implementing quantum phase estimation in near-term quantum platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15668 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Correspondence between standard and analog quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Phase-space encoding of eigenenergies in the aQPE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Cavity–multiqubit architecture for implementing ana [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Simulated dynamics of analog QPE for the two-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.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. Oscillator-qubit generalized quantum signal processing for vibronic models: a case study of uracil cation

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A GQSP-based compiler synthesizes arbitrary bosonic phase gates from conditional-displacement gates on hybrid qubit-oscillator processors and applies them to anharmonic vibronic dynamics of the uracil cation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [39]

    Detailed derivations will be provided in the Supplemen- tary Information (in preparation)

    work page

  2. [56]

    Defined as respectively

    work page

  3. [59]

    Comprehensive simulation details will be provided in the Supplementary Information (in preparation)

    work page

  4. [1]

    B. P. Lanyon, J. D. Whitfield, G. G. Gillett, M. E. Goggin, M. P. Almeida, I. Kassal, J. D. Biamonte, M. Mohseni, B. J. Powell, M. Barbieri, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and A. G. White, Nat. Chem. 2, 106 (2010)

    2010

  5. [2]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Chem. Rev. 119, 10856 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [3]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  7. [4]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, N. Wiebe, B. K. Clark, C. Nayak, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062318 (2015)

    2015

  8. [5]

    Babbush, N

    R. Babbush, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, J. McClain, H. Neven, and G. K. L. Chan, Phys. Rev. X 8, 11044 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 60 references
  1. [6]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. Kin-Lic Chan, Chem. Rev. 120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  2. [7]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000)

    2000

  3. [8]

    Roushan, C

    P. Roushan, C. Neill, J. Tangpanitanon, V. M. Bastidas, A. Megrant, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, M. Giustina, E. Jef- frey, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, J. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Quin- tana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. White, H. ...

    2017

  4. [9]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Nature 549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  5. [10]

    A. J. Coleman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 668 (1963)

    1963

  6. [11]

    Y. K. Liu, M. Christandl, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 110503 (2007)

    2007

  7. [12]

    Schuch and F

    N. Schuch and F. Verstraete, Nat. Phys. 5, 732 (2009)

    2009

  8. [13]

    R. O. Jones, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 897 (2015)

    2015

  9. [14]

    W. M. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. J. Needs, and G. Rajagopal, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 33 (2001)

    2001

  10. [15]

    L¨ uchow, Wiley Interdiscip

    A. L¨ uchow, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci.1, 388 (2011)

    2011

  11. [16]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schi- avilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. 6 Phys. 87, 1067 (2015)

    2015

  12. [17]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026

    1995 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Cleve, A

    R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca, Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 454, 339 (1998)

    1998

  14. [19]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5162 (1999)

    1999

  15. [20]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Science 309, 1704 (2005)

    2005

  16. [21]

    P. W. Shor, SIAM J. Comput. 41, 303 (1999)

    1999

  17. [22]

    H. F. Trotter, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 10, 545 (1959)

    1959

  18. [23]

    R. B. Griffiths and C. S. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3228 (1996)

    1996

  19. [24]

    Wiebe and C

    N. Wiebe and C. Granade, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 010503 (2016)

    2016

  20. [25]

    A. E. Russo, K. M. Rudinger, B. C. Morrison, and A. D. Baczewski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 210501 (2021)

    2021

  21. [26]

    H. Ni, H. Li, and L. Ying, Quantum 7, 1165 (2023)

    2023

  22. [27]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M. H. Yung, X. Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  23. [28]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  24. [29]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, Phys. Rep. 986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  25. [30]

    Senko, J

    C. Senko, J. Smith, P. Richerme, A. Lee, W. C. Camp- bell, and C. Monroe, Science 345, 430 (2014)

    2014

  26. [31]

    Hauke, F

    P. Hauke, F. M. Cucchietti, L. Tagliacozzo, I. Deutsch, and M. Lewenstein, Reports Prog. Phys. 75, 082401 (2012)

    2012

  27. [32]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 060501 (2005)

    2005

  28. [33]

    Blais, J

    A. Blais, J. Gambetta, A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 75, 032329 (2007)

    2007

  29. [34]

    Kempe, A

    J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, Siam J. Comput. 35, 1070 (2006)

    2006

  30. [35]

    Cubitt and A

    T. Cubitt and A. Montanaro, SIAM J. Comput. 45, 268 (2016)

    2016

  31. [36]

    Piddock and A

    S. Piddock and A. Montanaro, Quantum Inf. Comput. 17, 636 (2017)

    2017

  32. [37]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010)

    2010

  33. [38]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum optics(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008)

    2008

  34. [40]

    Smithey, D

    A. Smithey, D. T. and Beck, M. and Raymer, M. G. and Faridani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1244 (1993)

    1993

  35. [41]

    L. G. Lutterbach and L. Davidovich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2547 (1997)

    1997

  36. [42]

    Bertet, A

    P. Bertet, A. Auffeves, P. Maioli, S. Osnaghi, T. Meunier, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 20 (2002)

    2002

  37. [43]

    Krisnanda, C

    T. Krisnanda, C. Y. Fontaine, A. Copetudo, P. Song, K. X. Lee, N. N. Huang, F. Valadares, T. C. Liew, and Y. Y. Gao, PRX Quantum 6, 010303 (2025)

    2025

  38. [44]

    K. E. Cahill and R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 177, 1882 (1969)

    1969

  39. [45]

    Haroche and D

    S. Haroche and D. Kleppner, Phys. Today 42, 24 (1989)

    1989

  40. [46]

    J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 565 (2001)

    2001

  41. [47]

    Haroche, M

    S. Haroche, M. Brune, and J. M. Raimond, Nat. Phys. 16, 243 (2020)

    2020

  42. [48]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  43. [49]

    W. L. Ma, S. Puri, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and L. Jiang, Sci. Bull. 66, 1789 (2021)

    2021

  44. [50]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Ann. Phys. (N. Y). 16, 407 (1961)

    1961

  45. [51]

    Barouch, B

    E. Barouch, B. M. McCoy, and M. Dresden, Phys. Rev. A 2, 1075 (1970)

    1970

  46. [52]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C Solid State Phys. 6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  47. [53]

    H. Paik, D. I. Schuster, L. S. Bishop, G. Kirchmair, G. Catelani, A. P. Sears, B. R. Johnson, M. J. Reagor, L. Frunzio, L. I. Glazman, S. M. Girvin, M. H. De- voret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 240501 (2011)

    2011

  48. [54]

    L. B. Nguyen, Y. H. Lin, A. Somoroff, R. Mencia, N. Grabon, and V. E. Manucharyan, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041041 (2019)

    2019

  49. [55]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  50. [57]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  51. [58]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lund- gren, and D. Preda, Science 292, 472 (2001)

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.