Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Engineering Quantum-Enhanced Transport by Supertransfer

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper predicts that a three-transmon superconducting circuit can switch energy transfer between a normal rate and a doubled supertransfer rate, giving the first direct on/off test of a collective effect long suspected in…

desk verdict Concrete, well-scoped proposal to observe supertransfer in a superconducting circuit; the idealized model is the only real soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05045 v1 pith:CKINXYJK submitted 2025-06-05 quant-ph

Adesh Kushwaha , Ivan Kassal This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords supertransferenergytransfersuperconductingcircuitstransmonqubitsdelocalizedexcitationscollectiveeffectslightharvesting
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

Supertransfer is the collective speed-up of energy transfer that happens when an excitation is delocalised over several donor or acceptor sites rather than sitting on one site, but it has never been directly observed because in natural systems delocalisation cannot be switched off. This paper predicts that a small superconducting circuit—two flux-tunable transmon donors and one acceptor, or a bus-mediated version of the same—can provide that on/off switch. With the parameters in Table 1, the delocalised donor state transfers at $\gamma_{\rm deloc}=2\gamma_{\rm loc}$, exactly the enhancement expected for $N_D=2,N_A=1$, and the simulated acceptor populations confirm it while remaining exponential in time. The paper also derives two design rules: donor–acceptor coupling must be weak enough for the golden-rule rate equation to hold, and intra-donor coupling must be strong enough to delocalise the donor eigenstates despite static and dynamic disorder. A successful experiment would be the first direct detection of supertransfer and would give concrete engineering guidelines for quantum-enhanced light harvesters.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the rate identity $\gamma_{\rm deloc}^{\max}=N_D N_A\gamma_{\rm loc}$ (Eq. 8) and the two time-scale rules that make it physically realisable. The identity follows from Fermi's golden rule: the donor–acceptor coupling matrix element for fully delocalised eigenstates is a sum of $N_D N_A$ equal single-site terms, so its modulus squared yields the $N_D N_A$ enhancement. Rule 1, $|V^{DA}|\ll\lambda_D+\lambda_A$, keeps the dynamics in the exponential rate-equation regime; Rule 2, $V^D\gtrsim\delta_D,\lambda_D$, guarantees the donor eigenstates are actually delocalised. In the superconducting implementation these rules become circuit-design targets: the capacitive or bus-mediated coupling $C_D$ must dominate the static energy spread $\delta_D$ and the engineered dephasing strength $\lambda_D$, while the donor–acceptor coupling $C_{DA}$ stays small. Here $\lambda$ is the reorganisation energy of the bath, $\delta$ the static disorder, and $V$ the intra-aggregate coupling.

What would settle it

Take the two-donor, one-acceptor circuit with the Table 1 couplings, prepare the circuit once with the excitation localised on a single donor and once in the $|+\rangle=(|D_1\rangle+|D_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ state, and fit the acceptor population to $P_A^\infty(1-e^{-\gamma t})$. The central claim fails if the delocalised rate is not twice the localised rate (or, in the enlarged circuit, if the rate does not scale as $N_D N_A$). A cheaper calculation with the same parameters but including the transmon's higher levels and a non-Markovian noise spectrum would show whether the ideal two-level model is robust enough for the prediction to survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that supertransfer is an engineered, observable resource rather than a phenomenon confined to photosynthetic complexes. In the smallest case, the golden-rule rate between a fully delocalised two-donor state $|D_\alpha\rangle=(|D_1\rangle+|D_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ and a localised acceptor is $\gamma_{\rm deloc}=2\gamma_{\rm loc}$, because the two donor–acceptor matrix elements add constructively. The paper's numerical simulations of the two circuits with the Table 1 parameters show exactly this doubling, and the general identity $\gamma_{\rm deloc}^{\max}=N_D N_A\gamma_{\rm loc}$ is confirmed by simulations of enlarged donor and acceptor banks, in which unwanted qubits can be detuned out of the dynamics. The enhancement is robust: it degrades smoothly to $\gamma_{\rm loc}$ as static disorder or reorganisation energy grows, rather than vanishing abruptly, so the experiment does not require fine-tuned parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the engineered current noise on flux-tunable transmons faithfully reproducing the model's independent, memoryless baths, and on the delocalised donor state being preparable and measurable without significant error; if transmon leakage, non-Markovian noise, or state-preparation errors are large, the clean 2x enhancement will not appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A three-transmon device with Table 1 parameters should show $\gamma_{\rm deloc}=2\gamma_{\rm loc}$, giving the first on/off demonstration of supertransfer in one system.
  • By detuning qubits in and out of an enlarged bus-coupled circuit, the same device can test the $N_D N_A$ scaling law of Eq. (8).
  • Because the enhancement survives small disorder, implementing the proposal does not require precise parameter engineering.
  • Applications to light harvesting follow directly: for a fixed loss rate $\gamma_{\rm loss}$, raising $\gamma$ through supertransfer raises the efficiency $\eta=\gamma/(\gamma+\gamma_{\rm loss})$.
  • Both proposed circuits use components that have already been demonstrated experimentally, so the experiment is within reach of current cQED engineering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two design rules are stated in terms of energy scales rather than hardware, so the same recipe should be portable to other coherent platforms, though the paper does not demonstrate this.
  • The paper's single-excitation assumption leaves the multi-excitation regime unexplored; a circuit experiment with two initial excitations could test the faster $O(N_D^2 N_A)$ scaling mentioned in the text.
  • A real device would need to characterise how much of the engineered noise is truly Markovian, since the golden-rule rate picture assumes a memoryless bath; the paper does not quantify this sensitivity.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a superconducting-circuit experiment to observe supertransfer, the collective enhancement of excitation-transfer rates due to delocalized donor and acceptor eigenstates. The authors derive the golden-rule rate scaling gamma_deloc = N_D N_A gamma_loc (Eq. 8), formulate two design rules (weak donor-acceptor coupling for exponential dynamics, and strong intra-aggregate coupling relative to static and dynamic disorder for delocalization), and simulate the dynamics of a two-donor, one-acceptor model using QuTiP. They then describe two cQED implementations, one with direct capacitive couplings and one with bus-mediated couplings, give a sample parameter set in Table 1, and report simulation results showing an enhancement of approximately 2 gamma_0 for the minimal case and a rate that grows as O(N_D N_A) in larger circuits. The central claim is that such a device could provide the first direct, tunable observation of supertransfer.

Significance. If the proposed experiment works as simulated, it would be a valuable first direct observation of supertransfer, a collective effect that is often invoked in photosynthetic light harvesting but has not been cleanly isolated in molecular systems. The paper's analytical derivation of the N_D N_A scaling from Fermi's golden rule is standard and clearly presented, and the two design rules provide useful, falsifiable guidance for future engineered light-harvesting devices. The use of established cQED components (flux-tunable transmons, capacitive couplings, buses, and injected current noise) makes the proposal plausible in principle, and the simulation results at least demonstrate the idealized model's behavior. The main weaknesses are that the key observable (the transfer rate) is extracted from an exponential fit whose accuracy at the proposed working point is not quantified, and that the state-preparation protocol for the required delocalized initial state is not fully specified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II–III, Eq. (20), Fig. 2, Table 1] The claimed 2× enhancement is obtained by fitting simulated acceptor populations to the exponential in Eq. (20). The paper's own Fig. 2 shows that this exponential description begins to break down at V_DA = 30 MHz and is 'completely inaccurate' at 90 MHz, but no goodness-of-fit or systematic-error analysis is reported at the proposed working point (V_DA = 10 MHz, lambda_D + lambda_A = 90 MHz). Because Eq. (21) is only an order-of-magnitude condition, and because P_A^∞ and the finite simulation window both enter the fit, the extracted 'rate' could mix coherent oscillations with the true golden-rule rate. Please report residuals, confidence intervals, and a comparison against a model with an oscillatory component at the working point; this is load-bearing for the headline enhancement and for the scaling shown in Fig. 5b.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (23), Fig. 4] The proposal does not specify the sign of the intra-donor coupling V_D (or C_D in Circuit 1). For a positive coupling, as is typical for capacitive coupling, the symmetric state |D_+> = (|D_1> + |D_2>)/√2, which gives the enhanced matrix element in Eq. (7), is the higher-energy eigenstate, whereas the text states that the initial state is the 'lowest-energy state of the donor aggregate.' Clarify how the required |D_alpha> is prepared—for instance, by a resonant microwave pulse—or choose a coupling sign that makes the bright state the lowest-energy state. Without this, the simulated initial condition may not match the physical state that the device would produce in the nominal protocol.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (25)–(27), Fig. 3] The device-level claim requires that the classical current noise on each transmon produces the independent, Markovian Drude-Lorentz dephasing assumed in the model, with the reorganisation energies of Table 1. The paper cites prior work on noise injection but does not give the calibration factor in Eq. (25) or a concrete noise spectrum and cutoff frequency omega_c that would yield lambda_D = 10 MHz and lambda_A = 80 MHz simultaneously with the static disorder delta_D = 5 MHz. Without a quantitative feasibility argument or a sensitivity analysis around the assumed noise properties, the simulations solve an idealized model and the 'directly observed' claim remains an extrapolation. Please include a parameter budget or a robustness study for the engineered environment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] References [14] and [24] are the same paper (Tomasi and Kassal, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 2348 (2020)) and should be consolidated or renumbered.
  2. [Eq. (23)] The term sigma_x^1 sigma_x^2 is already Hermitian, so writing '+ h.c.' is redundant; remove it or clarify that a different coupling term is intended.
  3. [Fig. 5b] The statement that the rate is 'slightly smaller' than N_D N_A gamma_0 for large aggregates is not quantitative; please report the numerical deviations, the fit uncertainties, and the simulation duration used for the fits.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (19)] The cutoff frequency omega_c used in the Drude-Lorentz spectrum is not specified in Table 1 or the text; since the Markovian approximation depends on omega_c being large, the value used in the simulations should be stated and justified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the N_D N_A supertransfer scaling is a direct golden-rule derivation, the design rules and cQED mapping rest on in-paper reasoning and external experimental citations, and the simulations' acknowledged deviations make the checks non-tautological.

full rationale

The central prediction, γ_deloc = N_D N_A γ_loc (Eq. 8), is derived in-paper from the textbook golden-rule expression (Eq. 2, cited to May and Kühn [23]) by inserting the fully delocalized donor and acceptor states (Eqs. 5-7). The enhancement factor arises from the coherent sum of donor-acceptor matrix elements and is not an input assumption; the paper verifies the golden-rule regime by numerical simulation rather than assuming it. The design rules (Eqs. 21-22) are stated and justified within the paper from the model Hamiltonian (Eqs. 10-19), and the cQED mapping (Section IV) relies on external experimental demonstrations (Potočnik et al. [20], Blais et al. [21], Koch et al. [28], DiCarlo et al. [29], Majer et al. [38]), not on the authors' prior work. The QuTiP simulations are genuine tests of the golden-rule approximation: they integrate the open-system dynamics, and the paper shows the exponential fit (Eq. 20) fails at V_DA = 30 and 90 MHz and that the scaling in Fig. 5b deviates slightly below N_D N_A γ_0 for large aggregates because eigenstate energies shift. These deviations demonstrate that the confirmation at the Table 1 working point is non-tautological. The authors' self-citations (refs 11, 12, 14, 17-19) support only motivational background claims about photosynthesis and the classification of coherent light-harvesting enhancements; they are not load-bearing for the device proposal, the design rules, or the scaling law. The skeptic's concern that Rule 1 is checked only order-of-magnitude and that no goodness-of-fit is reported is a legitimate correctness/robustness question about whether the real device will reproduce the simulated ratio, but it does not identify any equation or fit in which the prediction reduces to its own input. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the central claim has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities. The free parameters are experimental control knobs (couplings, energies, disorders) chosen to satisfy the two design rules, not fitted to data. The axioms are standard quantum mechanics and the modeling assumptions of the proposal. The main burden is the assumption that a real cQED device can realize the idealized model.

free parameters (6)
  • V_D = 10 MHz
    Intra-donor coupling, chosen to exceed δ_D and λ_D (Rule 2).
  • V_DA = 10 MHz
    Donor-acceptor coupling, chosen well below λ_D+λ_A=90 MHz (Rule 1).
  • E_D - E_A = 148 MHz
    Site detuning, chosen so acceptor is lower in energy; value sets the transfer resonance.
  • δ_D = 5 MHz
    Static disorder, chosen below V_D to allow donor delocalization.
  • λ_D = 10 MHz
    Donor reorganisation energy, chosen below V_D.
  • λ_A = 80 MHz
    Acceptor reorganisation energy, chosen large relative to V_DA to ensure golden-rule regime.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Fermi's golden rule applies to donor-acceptor transfer in the weak-coupling limit
    Used to derive Eq. (2) and the scaling γ_deloc = N_D N_A γ_loc in Eq. (8). This is standard perturbation theory.
  • domain assumption The system contains exactly one excitation and each site is a two-level system
    Section II states this explicitly, excluding multi-exciton effects and higher transmon levels.
  • domain assumption The environment is a set of independent harmonic oscillator baths with Drude-Lorentz spectral density, and dephasing is Markovian
    Eqs. (14)-(19) define this environment; the large-cutoff limit is assumed to justify Markovian dephasing.
  • domain assumption Classical current noise through solenoids produces the desired site-energy fluctuations and dephasing
    Section IV introduces this as the mechanism to realize the baths; the calibration in Eq. (25) is assumed.
  • domain assumption Transmon qubits can be approximated as two-level systems with tunable energies and controllable couplings
    Section IV maps the model onto cQED; transmon anharmonicity and leakage are neglected.
  • standard math The Fröhlich-Nakajima transformation is valid for Circuit 2 in the dispersive regime
    Eqs. (28)-(33) use this standard transformation under large detunings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Engineering Quantum-Enhanced Transport by Supertransfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKINXYJK

@misc{pith2026250605045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Engineering Quantum-Enhanced Transport by Supertransfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKINXYJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05045}
}
read the original abstract

Collective behaviour of the components of a quantum system can significantly alter the rates of dynamical processes within the system. A paradigmatic collective effect is superradiance, the enhancement in the rate that radiation is emitted by a group of emitters relative to that emitted by independent emitters. Less studied are collective effects in energy transport, notably supertransfer, the enhancement of the rate of energy transfer from donors to acceptors due to delocalised excitations. Despite its proposed significance in photosynthesis, there has been no direct experimental detection of supertransfer because, in biological or molecular systems, delocalisation cannot be turned on and off to evaluate its effect on energy transfer. Here, we show that supertransfer could be directly observed using a quantum device based on a superconducting circuit. The programmability and control offered by an engineered device would allow controllable delocalisation of quantum states, giving full tunability over supertransfer. Our guidelines for engineering supertransfer could inform the design of future quantum-enhanced light harvesters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05045 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simplest example of supertransfer. Two degenerate donor sites (blue) interact through a dipole-dipole interaction (purple) with each other and with an acceptor site (red). a) Normal transfer. An excitation transfers from weakly coupled donor sites to the acceptor. Because of their weak coupling, the donors are in a mixed state of |D1⟩ and |D2⟩, and transfer to |A⟩ occurs at a rate of γloc. b) The energy diagram corr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evaluating the transfer rate γ from pop￾ulation dynamics. Population transfer to acceptor plot￾ted for three values of donor-acceptor coupling V DA with λ A = 80 MHz and λ D = 10 MHz. The solid lines are the numerically exact calculations of the acceptor populations, which are fitted to eq. (20) (dashed lines) to find the values of γ. The transfer is described by a rate equation when Rule 1 (V DA ≪ λ D + λ A) is met… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proposed superconducting circuit quantum electrodynamics (cQED) devices demonstrating con￾trollable supertransfer. Both circuits realise the model of fig. 1 using flux-tunable transmon qubits. a) In Circuit 1, the donors (blue) are coupled to each other directly through capacitors. b) In Circuit 2, the coupling between sites is mediated by two buses (purple). c) In both circuits, noise can be introduced using an ind… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Donor parameters in Circuit 1 can be tuned to switch the dynamics from normal transfer at rate γ0 to supertransfer at rate 2γ0. Supertransfer is achieved when Rule 2 is met, i.e., the reorganisation energy λ D and the site detuning δDD are both smaller than the intra-a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Supertransfer scaling with the number of donors and acceptors. a) Expansion of Circuit 2 for demonstrating the scaling of the transfer rate. The donors are connected through a bus and the acceptors are connected through a second bus capacitively coupled to the first. T…

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. Molecular triplets and other metastable states for excitonic quantum batteries

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Metastable dark states (triplets, fission pairs, charge-separated states) can extend excitonic quantum battery storage lifetimes by orders of magnitude, at the cost of efficiency and scalability trade-offs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  2. [2]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission, Phys. Rep. 93, 301–396 (1982)

    1982

  3. [3]

    K. D. B. Higgins, S. C. Benjamin, T. M. Stace, G. J. Milburn, B. W. Lovett, and E. M. Gauger, Superabsorp- tion of light via quantum engineering, Nat. Commun.5, 4705 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    J. Q. Quach, K. E. McGhee, L. Ganzer, D. M. Rouse, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger, J. Keeling, G. Cerullo, D. G. Lidzey, and T. Virgili, Superabsorption in an organic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery, Sci. Adv. 8, eabk3160 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    J. Q. Quach and W. J. Munro, Using Dark States to Charge and Stabilize Open Quantum Batteries, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 024092 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Quach, G

    J. Quach, G. Cerullo, and T. Virgili, Quantum batteries: The future of energy storage?, Joule7, 2195–2200 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Str¸ ek, Cooperative energy transfer, Phys

    W. Str¸ ek, Cooperative energy transfer, Phys. Lett. A 62, 315 (1977)

    work page 1977

  8. [8]

    H. Sumi, Theory on Rates of Excitation-Energy Trans- fer between Molecular Aggregates through Distributed Transition Dipoles with Application to the Antenna Sys- tem in Bacterial Photosynthesis, J. Phys. Chem. B103, 252–260 (1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Lloyd and M

    S. Lloyd and M. Mohseni, Symmetry-enhanced super- transfer of delocalized quantum states, New J. Phys.12, 075020 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Merkli, G

    M. Merkli, G. P. Berman, and R. Sayre, Electron transfer reactions: generalized spin-boson approach, J. Math Chem. 51, 890 (2012). 7

    2012

  3. [11]

    Baghbanzadeh and I

    S. Baghbanzadeh and I. Kassal, Geometry, supertransfer, and optimality in the light harvesting of purple bacteria, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.7, 3804–3811 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    N. B. Taylor and I. Kassal, Generalised marcus theory for multi-molecular delocalised charge transfer, Chem. Sci. 9, 2942 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Mukai, S

    K. Mukai, S. Abe, and H. Sumi, Theory of Rapid Excitation-Energy Transfer from B800 to Optically- Forbidden Exciton States of B850 in the Antenna Sys- tem LH2 of Photosynthetic Purple Bacteria, J. Phys. Chem. B 103, 6096–6102 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Tomasi and I

    S. Tomasi and I. Kassal, Classification of Coherent Enhancements of Light-Harvesting Processes, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 2348 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    G. D. Scholes and G. R. Fleming, On the Mechanism of Light Harvesting in Photosynthetic Purple Bacteria: B800 to B850 Energy Transfer, J. Phys. Chem. B104, 1854–1868 (2000)

    2000

  8. [16]

    G. D. Scholes, Long-Range Resonance Energy Transfer in Molecular Systems, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 54, 57–87 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Baghbanzadeh and I

    S. Baghbanzadeh and I. Kassal, Distinguishing the roles of energy funnelling and delocalization in photosyn- thetic light harvesting, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.18, 7459–7467 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Tomasi, D

    S. Tomasi, D. M. Rouse, E. M. Gauger, B. W. Lovett, and I. Kassal, Environmentally Improved Coherent Light Harvesting, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.12, 6143 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    D. M. Rouse, A. Kushwaha, S. Tomasi, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger, and I. Kassal, Light-Harvesting Efficiency Cannot Depend on Optical Coherence in the Absence of Orientational Order, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.15, 254–261 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Potočnik, A

    A. Potočnik, A. Bargerbos, F. A. Y. N. Schröder, S. A. Khan, M. C. Collodo, S. Gasparinetti, Y. Salathé, C. Creatore, C. Eichler, H. E. Türeci, A. W. Chin, and A. Wallraff, Studying light-harvesting models with superconducting circuits, Nat. Commun.9, 904 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Blais, A

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

    2021

  14. [22]

    C. W. Kim, J. M. Nichol, A. N. Jordan, and I. Franco, Analog quantum simulation of the dynamics of open quantum systems with quantum dots and microelec- tronic circuits, PRX Quantum3, 040308 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    May and O

    V. May and O. Kühn, Charge and Energy Transfer Dynamics in Molecular Systems (Wiley, 2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Tomasi and I

    S. Tomasi and I. Kassal, Classification of coherent en- hancements of light-harvesting processes, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 2348 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    K. D. B. Higgins, B. W. Lovett, and E. M. Gauger, Quantum-Enhanced Capture of Photons Using Optical Ratchet States, J. Phys. Chem. C121, 20714–20719 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Huang and M

    Q. Huang and M. Merkli, Qubit dynamics with classical noise, Phys. Open5, 100043 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A Py- thon framework for the dynamics of open quantum sys- tems, Comput. Phys. Commun.184, 1234–1240 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J.Majer, A.Blais, M.H.Devoret, S.M.Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    DiCarlo, J

    L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. S. Bishop, B.R.Johnson, D.I.Schuster, J.Majer, A.Blais, L.Frun- zio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Demonstration of two-qubit algorithms with a superconducting quantum processor, Nature 460, 240–244 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engin- eer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Majer, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Suppressing charge noise decoherence in superconducting charge qubits, Phys. Rev. B77, 180502 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    M. A. Rol, L. Ciorciaro, F. K. Malinowski, B. M. Taras- inski, R. E. Sagastizabal, C. C. Bultink, Y. Salathe, N. Haandbaek, J. Sedivy, and L. DiCarlo, Time-domain characterization and correction of on-chip distortion of control pulses in a quantum processor, Appl. Phys. Lett. ...

    2020

  25. [33]

    Y. A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, O. Astafiev, Y. Nakamura, D. V. Averin, and J. S. Tsai, Quantum oscillations in two coupled charge qubits, Nature421, 823–826 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    A. J. Berkley, H. Xu, R. C. Ramos, M. A. Gubrud, F. W. Strauch, P. R. Johnson, J. R. Anderson, A. J. Dragt, C. J. Lobb, and F. C. Wellstood, Entangled Macroscopic Quantum States in Two Superconducting Qubits, Science 300, 1548–1550 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    R. C. Bialczak, M. Ansmann, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, J. Wen- ner, M. Steffen, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Quantum process tomography of a universal entangling gate implemented with Josephson phase qubits, Nat. Phys. 6, 409–413 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Wu, L.-P

    Y. Wu, L.-P. Yang, M. Gong, Y. Zheng, H. Deng, Z. Yan, Y. Zhao, K. Huang, A. D. Castellano, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, D.-N. Zheng, C. P. Sun, Y. xi Liu, X. Zhu, and L. Lu, An efficient and compact switch for quantum circuits, npj Quantum Inf.4, 50 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Majer, J

    J. Majer, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Koch, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Schreier, L. Frunzio, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Coupling Superconducting Qubits via a Cavity Bus, Nature449, 443 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    M. Tao, M. Hua, N. Zhang, W. He, Q. Ai, and F. Deng, Quantum simulation of clustered photosyn- thetic light harvesting in a superconducting quantum circuit, Quantum Eng.2, e53 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Blais, J

    A. Blais, J. Gambetta, A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Quantum- information processing with circuit quantum electro- dynamics, Phys. Rev. A75, 032329 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    C. Song, K. Xu, W. Liu, C.-p. Yang, S.-B. Zheng, H. Deng, Q. Xie, K. Huang, Q. Guo, L. Zhang, P. Zhang, D. Xu, D. Zheng, X. Zhu, H. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, C.- Y. Lu, S. Han, and J.-W. Pan, 10-qubit Entanglement and Parallel Logic Operations with a Superconducting Circuit, Phys. Rev...

    2017

  34. [42]

    Solinas, M

    P. Solinas, M. Möttönen, J. Salmilehto, and J. P. Pekola, Cooper-pair current in the presence of flux noise, Phys. Rev. B 85, 024527 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Y. Sung, A. Vepsäläinen, J. Braumüller, F. Yan, J. I.-J. Wang, M. Kjaergaard, R. Winik, P. Krantz, A. Bengts- son, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, M. E. Schwartz, D. K. Kim, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Multi-level quantum noise spectro- scop...

    2021

Pith tools

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