Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Temporal Diffraction Grating for Engineered Superconducting Qubit Dissipation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pulsing a qubit's engineered loss channel on and off reorganizes its dissipation spectrum into interference dips, not a time-averaged decay.

desk verdict Pulsed Purcell modulation produces a real, cleanly modeled temporal interference pattern with a parameter-free spacing law; the abstract overstates how completely the model reproduces the measured spectra. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17562 v1 pith:J7MG2CSS submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph

Pratik J. Barge , Kater W. Murch This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords PurcelldecaysuperconductingtransmonqubitparametricfrequencymodulationtemporaldiffractiongratingengineereddissipationChebyshevpropagatorinterferencespectrumswitching-edgemodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to establish that a qubit decay channel switched on and off by an external gate is not a weaker version of a continuously open channel; the periodic interruption itself shapes the dissipation spectrum through interference. Each on-window acts as a temporal slit in which the qubit exchanges an excitation with a lossy resonator, while each off-window lets phase accumulate without transfer. The authors derive a repeated-block propagator for the two-state qubit-resonator manifold and show the resulting excited-state probability matches their measured spectra, factoring into a single-window envelope and an N-window interference term, with central dips spaced by the inverse block time. This matters because it makes the timing of loss a programmable control parameter: pulse duration and duty cycle set the spacing, contrast, and envelope of dissipation without changing any hardware.

What carries the argument

The object doing the work is the single-block propagator M = U_off U_on on the two-state basis, where U_on is the non-Hermitian evolution during an interaction window (coupling g, detuning δ_on, loss κ) and U_off is pure phase accumulation with g_off = 0. Powers of M, which give the effect of N repeated windows, are evaluated with Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind: M^N = D^{(N−1)/2} U_{N−1}(x) M − D^{N/2} U_{N−2}(x) I. In the transfer channel this factorization yields the temporal grating equation: sinc²(Ωτ_on/2) as the single-slit envelope, |sin(Nα)/sinα|² as the interference comb, and |D|^{N−1} as a loss-induced attenuation. The dip spacing 1/(2t_c) comes directly from the per-cycle

What would settle it

Sweep the square-wave gate's rise/fall time at fixed τ_on and τ_off while monitoring qubit survival: if the outer off-resonant dips are true switching artifacts, they should weaken monotonically as edges are smoothed, while the central 1/(2t_c) comb should remain. Simultaneously monitor leakage into the transmon |f> level or multi-photon resonator states; an observable buildup would directly violate the single-excitation truncation that produces Eq. (6).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central experimental finding is that pulsed parametric Purcell decay reorganizes the qubit's frequency response into interference rather than simple time-averaged decay. With sideband modulation tuned to the n=2 resonance, the authors pulse the interaction with period t_c = τ_on + τ_off and observe, in the qubit survival probability, a symmetric family of dips separated by 1/(2t_c) instead of the single broad Purcell dip of continuous modulation. They model the system on the single-excitation manifold {|e,0>, |g,1>} with piecewise-constant on/off Hamiltonians and an instantaneous switch, obtaining the N-block survival probability P_e(N) = |D^{(N-1)/2} U_{N-1}(x) u11 − D^{N/2} U_{N-2}(x)|

Load-bearing premise

The central prediction rests on treating each gate transition as an instantaneous switch between two fixed Hamiltonians, with no qubit-resonator coupling in the off window and no amplitude leaving the {|e,0>, |g,1>} manifold; if switching transients inject extra coupling or if higher transmon and multi-photon states participate, the interference spacing and line shapes will differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pulse timing becomes a design parameter: the same device can produce dissipation combs with different spacings, contrast, and spectral envelopes by changing τ_on, τ_off, and the number of blocks.
  • The pulsed spectrum is not a duty-cycle average; repeated blocks build up multiple interference dips, so dissipation can be sculpted spectrally without changing static circuit parameters.
  • The single-window sinc envelope sets the overall bandwidth, so shorter on-windows give a broader envelope while longer on-windows give narrower, stronger dips within the same comb.
  • Switching edges add weak extra resonances at comb harmonics of the switching frequency; smoothing the pulse edges should suppress these off-resonant dips and sharpen the central pattern.
  • The temporal-slit picture suggests a direct extension to many qubits coupled to a shared reservoir: independently programmed on/off gates would form a spatiotemporal dissipation grating with both temporal and spatial interference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same interference mechanism should appear in any platform where a decay channel can be switched faster than its inverse bandwidth, including atomic ensembles or solid-state emitters with controllable broadening, not just superconducting circuits.
  • Editorial extension: because the central spacing depends only on the gate cycle time and not on coupling or loss, the comb could serve as a self-calibrating frequency reference for the modulation tone, a use the paper does not discuss.
  • Editorial extension: a direct test of the switching-edge model is to sweep the gate's rise/fall time; if the outer dips vanish as edges smooth, edge shaping becomes an additional control handle.
  • Editorial extension: implementing the scheme in a two-qubit array with a common lossy resonator would produce correlated temporal interference fingerprints at each site, connecting to superradiant phenomena; the paper flags this direction, but the exact line shapes for detuned sites remain to be worked out.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment on a flux-tunable transmon qubit in which a Purcell decay channel is switched on and off by gating a parametric sideband drive. The central observation is that pulsing the interaction does not merely reduce the time-averaged decay rate but creates an interference pattern in the qubit's excited-state probability as a function of modulation detuning. The authors derive a repeated-block propagator for the on/off sequence, express the final excited-state amplitude in terms of Chebyshev polynomials (Eq. 3), and show that the resulting spectrum has the structure of an N-slit diffraction grating, with a single-window envelope and a grating interference factor (Appendix B). They also introduce a phenomenological switching-edge model (Sec. III.C) to describe weaker off-resonant features. The central spacing prediction is δ(Δ_m/2π)=1/(2t_c) (Eq. 6), and the paper demonstrates control of the pattern via pulse duration and duty cycle.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides a conceptually clean and experimentally accessible method for shaping engineered dissipation in circuit QED: the temporal structure of the loss channel becomes a control parameter. The spacing formula in Eq. (6) is a parameter-free prediction derived from the pulse-train periodicity, and the Chebyshev block-power expression in Eq. (3) is a closed-form, analytic result that can be checked directly. The analogy to multi-slit diffraction is instructive and gives the experiment a simple physical picture. The paper also includes an actual hardware demonstration with continuous-wave and pulsed spectra, which is a strength. The main weaknesses are (i) the paper's central model in Eq. (3) does not by itself reproduce the full measured spectrum — the outer dips require a fitted, phenomenological edge model — and (ii) some load-bearing assumptions (single-excitation truncation, RWA, instantaneous switching) are asserted rather than quantitatively bounded.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III.A / III.C] The abstract and Sec. III.A state that a Chebyshev-propagator model 'reproduces the measured spectra.' In fact, the piecewise-constant model of Eq. (3) reproduces only the central interference dips; the weaker outer dips in Fig. 3(c) are reproduced only after adding the switching-edge model of Eqs. (7)–(9), whose parameters g_b and A_off are adjusted to match the data. The text itself concedes this in Sec. III.C. This overstatement should be corrected: Eq. (3) is the model for the dominant repeated-block interference, while the off-resonant features require a phenomenological edge correction. The abstract and Sec. III.A should be reworded accordingly.
  2. [Sec. III.C, Eqs. (7)–(9)] The switching-edge model is a fit, not a prediction of the central theory. Since g_b and A_off (including its relative phase) are adjusted to reproduce the overall depth of the outer dips, the agreement in Fig. 3(c) does not independently validate the Chebyshev model. Moreover, the k=0 term in Γ_sw(Δ_m) in Eq. (8) contributes a Lorentzian centered at Δ_m=0, so the edge correction also modifies the central dip. The paper should quantify the effect of the edge model on the central feature (e.g., by plotting P_e,smooth and the full P_e together) and state whether the k=0 contribution is significant or is cancelled by choosing A_off appropriately.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (1)] The analytical framework rests on truncation to the single-excitation manifold {|e,0>,|g,1>} and on the rotating-wave approximation, but the validity of these assumptions is asserted rather than demonstrated. With g_eff/2π=0.14 MHz and κ/2π=0.375 MHz, single-photon resonator truncation is plausible, but the parametric drive (n=2 sideband) can in principle couple to the transmon |f> level or to multi-photon resonator states. A quantitative check — for example, a numerical master-equation or three-level simulation showing that leakage is negligible for the parameters used, and in particular does not shift the central dip positions — would make the central claim much more robust.
  4. [Sec. III.B and Figs. 1(c), 4] The central spacing prediction in Eq. (6) would be greatly strengthened by a direct quantitative comparison. The paper currently states that the spacing changes with t_c and remains the same when t_c is held fixed, but no extracted dip positions or fit to 1/(2t_c) is presented. I recommend adding a plot of the fitted central-dip spacing versus 1/t_c over the measured range, with the prediction of Eq. (6) and the numerical result from Eq. (3) shown as lines. This would also address the small-g corrections to the simplified phase argument in Eq. (4), since the full Chebyshev expression includes the g-dependent complex eigenvalue evolution during the on-window.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The Fourier coefficient c_k is written as A_on - A_off exp(-ikω_c τ_on), which is missing the 1/t_c normalization of the Fourier series of a periodic impulse train. If this normalization is absorbed into g_b, that should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Sec. III.B] The symbol d is defined as δ_off - δ_on = ω_q,off - ω_q,on. The sign should be checked carefully in Eq. (4), since the final spacing result is independent of d but the intermediate phase expression depends on the convention.
  3. [Fig. 1(b)] The axis labels showing '1/tc' and '1/2tc' are not fully clear. In the main text Eq. (6) gives δ(Δ_m/2π)=1/(2t_c), so the labeling should be consistent with the equation or explained in the caption.
  4. [Appendix B] In Eq. (B5), the proportionality suppresses the |η u21|^2 prefactor and the g^2 τ_on^2 factor. Since the dashed envelope in Fig. 3(d) is called the single-window envelope, it should be clear that the envelope plotted is sinc^2(Ωτ_on/2) only, and that the constant prefactors are omitted.
  5. [General] The paper would benefit from error bars on the P_e data and a goodness-of-fit or residual comparison between the piecewise model and the switching-edge model, especially in Figs. 3 and 4, to support the 'reproduces' language.
  6. [References] A few references have unusual DOI strings (e.g., Ref. [14] and Ref. [13]). Please check that the bibliographic details are correct.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central dip-spacing prediction is independent; only the auxiliary switching-edge reproduction of outer dips is fit-backed.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III.C (Eqs. (7)–(9)); Fig. 3(c); Abstract]
    "Although this model captures the central interference dips, it does not reproduce the weaker outer dips observed at larger modulation detuning. ... Values of g_b and A_off are adjusted to reproduce the overall depth of the outer dips. The switching-edge model is therefore not intended as a microscopic description of the pulse electronics, but as a phenomenological description of the observed weaker, off-resonant resonances."

    Eq. (7) multiplies the piecewise-constant Chebyshev result P_e,smooth by exp[-Gamma_sw T_seq], and Eq. (8) defines Gamma_sw using g_b and A_off, which the text says are adjusted to reproduce the outer dips. The agreement for those dips is therefore a fit renamed as a model prediction: the 'switching-edge model' reproduces the outer dips because its parameters were tuned to those same data. The outer-dip positions are fixed by the pulse-train periodicity (k omega_c) and so are not themselves fitted, but the depths, contrast, and the causal attribution to sharp switching edges rest on fitted parameters. The abstract's statement that 'a Chebyshev-propagator model ... reproduces the measured spectra' is thus only true after a fitted phenomenological correction is added; the central dip-spacing

full rationale

The paper's central result - that pulsed Purcell dissipation produces a comb of interference dips with spacing delta(Delta_m/2pi)=1/(2t_c) - is a genuine derivation from the stated block Hamiltonian, not a fit. The derivation in Sec. III.B follows from the phase accumulation Phi = delta_on tau_on + delta_off tau_off and is parameter-free with respect to the measured spectra; tau_on, tau_off, g_eff, and kappa are independently set or measured. The Chebyshev expression in Eq. (3) is derived from the explicit 2x2 block propagator, and the Fraunhofer correspondence in Appendix B is an explicit mathematical analogy, not a circular reduction. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no imported uniqueness theorem. The only genuine circularity is the switching-edge model for the weaker outer dips: g_b and A_off are explicitly adjusted to reproduce those dips, and the model is then presented as explaining them. Because this affects a secondary spectral feature, the paper labels the model phenomenological, and the central spacing and line-shape claims remain independently supported, the overall circularity burden is low-to-moderate rather than severe. A score of 4 reflects one bounded fitted-input-as-prediction step while the core result retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central repeated-block model (Eq. (3)) takes all inputs (g_eff, κ, ω_r, ω_q,on/off, τ_on/off, N) from measurement or experimental control; the fitting is confined to the switching-edge model (g_b, A_off) that describes the weaker outer dips and is explicitly labeled phenomenological by the authors. No invented physical entities are introduced; the 'temporal slit' is an interpretive analogy. The axioms are standard circuit-QED approximations (RWA, sideband truncation, single-excitation manifold) plus the ideal-switching idealization.

free parameters (2)
  • g_b (switching-edge coupling) = not stated (adjusted to fit outer-dip depth)
    Effective coupling of the switching-induced loss channel in Eq. (8); the paper states 'Values of g_b and A_off are adjusted to reproduce the overall depth of the outer dips' (Sec. III.C).
  • A_off (off-edge transient amplitude and phase) = not stated (relative amplitude and phase fitted)
    Complex amplitude of the falling-edge transient in the impulse model s_edge(t) = A_on δ(t) − A_off δ(t − τ_on), Eq. (9); fitted to the outer dips. Not a microscopic description of the electronics, by the authors' own statement.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption RWA + Jacobi-Anger sideband treatment reduces the modulated qubit-resonator system to H_eff = g_eff(σ⁺a + σ⁻a†)
    Invoked in Sec. II.A; standard in circuit QED but valid only for the chosen n=2 sideband and small modulation index; fast-oscillating terms are dropped without explicit validity bounds.
  • domain assumption Dynamics restricted to the single-excitation manifold {|e,0⟩, |g,1⟩}
    Sec. III.A; ignores multi-photon resonator states and the transmon |f⟩ level; no quantitative justification that multi-excitation leakage is negligible.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous switching and piecewise-constant Hamiltonians with g_off = 0
    Eq. (1) and Sec. III.A treat the switch as ideal; the paper's own switching-edge model (Sec. III.C) shows boundaries contribute additional dynamics, so this is the most fragile premise.
  • ad hoc to paper Impulse approximation for the switching-edge response s_edge(t) = A_on δ(t) − A_off δ(t − τ_on)
    Sec. III.C, Eq. (9); phenomenological model, explicitly 'not intended as a microscopic description of the pulse electronics.'
  • standard math Finite κ affects contrast and width but not dip spacing
    Sec. III.B; justified because the real parts of the detunings set the phase Φ = nΔ_m t_c + dτ_off, while κ enters only through the non-Hermitian decay.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temporal Diffraction Grating for Engineered Superconducting Qubit Dissipation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7MG2CSS

@misc{pith2026260717562,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temporal Diffraction Grating for Engineered Superconducting Qubit Dissipation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7MG2CSS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17562}
}
read the original abstract

Parametric frequency modulation is a standard tool in superconducting circuits for activating tunable interactions and implementing quantum gates. Here, we engineer dissipation in a flux-tunable transmon qubit by using sideband modulation to bring it into resonance with a lossy resonator, opening an on-demand Purcell decay channel. We find that pulsing this channel on and off does not simply lower the time-averaged decay rate; instead, it reorganizes the dissipation spectrum into a structured interference pattern. A Chebyshev-propagator model for the repeated on/off block reproduces the measured spectra and reveals a close structural correspondence to N-slit Fraunhofer diffraction, with each on-window acting as a temporal aperture. By varying the pulse duration and duty cycle, we demonstrate control over the spacing, contrast, and envelope of the dissipation spectrum. These results establish pulsed parametric modulation as a direct method for shaping engineered dissipation in superconducting circuits and provide a new control knob for open quantum system dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17562 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Qubit-resonator dynamics is governed by two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (c) compares the experimental data with the simulated Pe(∆m/2π) obtained from the piecewise-constant model and the switching-edge model (Eq. (7)). The piecewise-constant model reproduces the central interference dips but does not capture the weaker dips at larger detuning. Including the switching-induced loss channels re￾produces the positions of both the central and outer dips. In the numerical simulations based on… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum reservoir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions, Physical Review Letters77, 4728–4731 (1996)

    1996

  2. [2]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quantum computation and quantum-state engi- neering driven by dissipation, Nature Physics5, 633–636 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    Leghtas, S

    Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, A. Kou, B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, S. Shankar, M. J. Hatridge, M. Reagor, L. Frun- zio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Confining the state of light to a quan- tum manifold by engineered two-photon loss, Sci- ence347, 853–857 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch, Engineered dissipation for quantum in- formation science, Nature Reviews Physics4, 660–671 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    E. M. Purcell, Spontaneous emission probabili- ties at radio frequencies, Physical Review69, 681 (1946)

    1946

  6. [6]

    M. D. Reed, B. R. Johnson, A. A. Houck, L. Di- Carlo, J. M. Chow, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Fast reset and suppressing spontaneous emission of a superconducting qubit, Applied Physics Letters96, 10.1063/1.3435463 (2010)

    doi:10.1063/1.3435463 2010

  7. [8]

    Swiadek, R

    F. Swiadek, R. Shillito, P. Magnard, A. Remm, C. Hellings, N. Lacroix, Q. Ficheux, D. C. Zanuz, G. J. Norris, A. Blais, S. Krinner, and A. Wallraff, Enhancing dispersive readout of superconducting qubits through dynamic control of the dispersive shift: Experiment and theory, PRX Quantum5, 10.1103/prxquantum.5.040326 (2024)

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.040326 2024

  8. [9]

    J. Ding, Y. Li, H. Wang, G. Xue, T. Su, C. Wang, W. Sun, F. Li, Y. Zhang, Y. Gao, J. Peng, Z. H. Jiang, Y. Yu, H. Yu, and F. Yan, Multipurpose ar- chitecture for fast reset and protective readout of superconducting qubits, Physical Review Applied 23, 10.1103/physrevapplied.23.014012 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.23.014012 2025

Show all 50 references
  1. [10]

    P. M. Harrington, M. Naghiloo, D. Tan, and K. W. Murch, Bath engineering of a fluorescing artificial atom with a photonic crystal, Physical Review A99, 10.1103/physreva.99.052126 (2019)

    2019 doi

  2. [11]

    Carusotto, A

    I. Carusotto, A. A. Houck, A. J. Koll´ ar, P. Roushan, D. I. Schuster, and J. Simon, Pho- tonic materials in circuit quantum electrodynam- ics, Nature Physics16, 268–279 (2020)

    2020

  3. [12]

    J. M. Kitzman, J. R. Lane, C. Undershute, P. M. Harrington, N. R. Beysengulov, C. A. Mikolas, K. W. Murch, and J. Pollanen, Phononic bath engineering of a superconducting qubit, Nature Communications14, 10.1038/s41467-023-39682-0 (2023)

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    G. Kim, A. Butler, V. S. Ferreira, X. S. Zhang, A. Hadley, E. Kim, and O. Painter, Fast uncondi- tional reset and leakage reduction of a tunable su- perconducting qubit via an engineered dissipative bath, Physical Review Applied24, 10.1103/6wc6- 78y3 (2025)

    2025 doi

  5. [14]

    X.-Y. Gu, D. Feng, Z.-Y. Peng, G.-H. Liang, Y. He, Y. Xiao, M.-C. Wang, Y. Yan, B.-J. Chen, Z.-Y. Mei, et al., Multimode purcell filter for superconducting-qubit reset and readout with in- trinsic purcell protection, Physical Review Ap- plied25, 044003 (2026)

    2026

  6. [15]

    Diedrich, J

    F. Diedrich, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Laser cooling to the zero-point energy of motion, Physical Review Letters62, 403–406 (1989)

    1989

  7. [16]

    S. O. Valenzuela, W. D. Oliver, D. M. Berns, K. K. Berggren, L. S. Levitov, and T. P. Orlando, Microwave-induced cooling of a superconducting qubit, Science314, 1589–1592 (2006)

    2006

  8. [17]

    K. W. Murch, U. Vool, D. Zhou, S. J. Weber, S. M. Girvin, and I. Siddiqi, Cavity-assisted quan- tum bath engineering, Physical Review Letters 109, 10.1103/physrevlett.109.183602 (2012)

    2012 doi

  9. [18]

    Geerlings, Z

    K. Geerlings, Z. Leghtas, I. M. Pop, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Demonstrating a driven reset pro- tocol for a superconducting qubit, Physical Re- view Letters110, 10.1103/physrevlett.110.120501 (2013)

    2013 doi

  10. [20]

    Magnard, P

    P. Magnard, P. Kurpiers, B. Royer, T. Walter, J.-C. Besse, S. Gasparinetti, M. Pechal, J. Hein- soo, S. Storz, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Fast and unconditional all-microwave reset of a super- conducting qubit, Physical Review Letters121, 10.1103/physrevlett.121.060502 (2018). 8

    2018 doi

  11. [21]

    Shankar, M

    S. Shankar, M. Hatridge, Z. Leghtas, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, U. Vool, S. M. Girvin, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Autonomously stabilized entanglement between two supercon- ducting quantum bits, Nature504, 419–422 (2013)

    2013

  12. [22]

    Y. Lin, J. P. Gaebler, F. Reiter, T. R. Tan, R. Bowler, A. S. Sørensen, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Dissipative production of a maximally entangled steady state of two quantum bits, Na- ture504, 415–418 (2013)

    2013

  13. [24]

    Y. Liu, S. Shankar, N. Ofek, M. Hatridge, A. Narla, K. Sliwa, L. Frunzio, R. Schoelkopf, and M. Devoret, Comparing and combining measurement-based and driven-dissipative en- tanglement stabilization, Physical Review X6, 10.1103/physrevx.6.011022 (2016)

    2016 doi

  14. [25]

    C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Lazar, S. Krinner, J. Heinsoo, J.-C. Besse, M. Gabureac, A. Wallraff, and C. Eichler, Entanglement stabilization using ancilla-based parity detection and real-time feed- back in superconducting circuits, npj Quantum Information5, 10.1038/s41534-019-...

    2019 doi

  15. [26]

    Brown, E

    T. Brown, E. Doucet, D. Rist` e, G. Ribeill, K. Ci- cak, J. Aumentado, R. Simmonds, L. Govia, A. Kamal, and L. Ranzani, Trade off-free en- tanglement stabilization in a superconducting qutrit-qubit system, Nature Communications13, 10.1038/s41467-022-31638-0 (2022)

    2022 doi

  16. [27]

    C. Chen, K. Tang, Y. Zhou, K. Yi, X. Zhang, X. Zhang, H. Guo, S. Liu, Y. Chen, T. Yan, and D. Yu, Hardware-efficient stabilization of en- tanglement via engineered dissipation in super- conducting circuits, Physical Review Research7, 10.1103/physrevresearch.7.l022018 (2025)

    2025 doi

  17. [29]

    Bretheau, P

    L. Bretheau, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, E. Flurin, F. Mallet, and B. Huard, Quantum dynamics of an electromagnetic mode that cannot contain n photons, Science348, 776–779 (2015)

    2015

  18. [30]

    Hacohen-Gourgy, V

    S. Hacohen-Gourgy, V. Ramasesh, C. De Grandi, I. Siddiqi, and S. Girvin, Cooling and autonomous feedback in a bose-hubbard chain with attrac- tive interactions, Physical Review Letters115, 10.1103/physrevlett.115.240501 (2015)

    2015 doi

  19. [31]

    R. Ma, B. Saxberg, C. Owens, N. Leung, Y. Lu, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, A dissipatively sta- bilized mott insulator of photons, Nature566, 51–57 (2019)

    2019

  20. [33]

    X. Mi, A. Michailidis, S. Shabani, K. Miao, P. Klimov, J. Lloyd, E. Rosenberg, R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, T. Andersen, et al., Stable quantum- correlated many-body states through engineered dissipation, Science383, 1332 (2024)

    2024

  21. [34]

    Pocklington, Y.-X

    A. Pocklington, Y.-X. Wang, Y. Yanay, and A. A. Clerk, Stabilizing volume-law entangled states of fermions and qubits using local dissipation, Phys- ical Review B105, 10.1103/physrevb.105.l140301 (2022)

    2022 doi

  22. [35]

    Z. Li, T. Roy, D. Rodr ´ ıguez P´ erez, K.-H. Lee, E. Kapit, and D. I. Schuster, Autonomous error correction of a single logical qubit us- ing two transmons, Nature Communications15, 10.1038/s41467-024-45858-z (2024)

    2024 doi

  23. [36]

    Z. Li, T. Roy, D. R. P´ erez, D. I. Schuster, and E. Kapit, Hardware-efficient autonomous er- ror correction with linear couplers in supercon- ducting circuits, Physical Review Research6, 10.1103/physrevresearch.6.013171 (2024)

    2024 doi

  24. [37]

    Z. Li, T. Roy, Y. Lu, E. Kapit, and D. I. Schuster, Autonomous stabilization with pro- grammable stabilized state, Nature Communica- tions15, 10.1038/s41467-024-51262-4 (2024)

    2024 doi

  25. [38]

    Q. Guo, B. Du, and R. Ma, Entangling super- conducting qubits via energy-selective local reser- voirs, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.12429 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  26. [39]

    Beaudoin, M

    F. Beaudoin, M. P. da Silva, Z. Dutton, and A. Blais, First-order sidebands in circuit qed us- ing qubit frequency modulation, Physical Review A86, 10.1103/physreva.86.022305 (2012)

    2012 doi

  27. [40]

    J. D. Strand, M. Ware, F. Beaudoin, T. A. Ohki, B. R. Johnson, A. Blais, and B. L. T. Plourde, First-order sideband transitions with flux-driven asymmetric transmon qubits, Physical Review B 87, 10.1103/physrevb.87.220505 (2013)

    2013 doi

  28. [42]

    Caldwell, N

    S. Caldwell, N. Didier, C. Ryan, E. Sete, A. Hud- son, P. Karalekas, R. Manenti, M. da Silva, R. Sin- clair, E. e. Acala, et al., Parametrically activated entangling gates using transmon qubits, Physical Review Applied10, 034050 (2018)

    2018

  29. [43]

    Reagor, C

    M. Reagor, C. B. Osborn, N. Tezak, A. Staley, G. Prawiroatmodjo, M. Scheer, N. Alidoust, E. A. Sete, N. Didier, M. P. da Silva, et al., Demonstra- tion of universal parametric entangling gates on a multi-qubit lattice, Science advances4, eaao3603 (2018)

    2018

  30. [44]

    S. S. Hong, A. T. Papageorge, P. Sivarajah, G. Crossman, N. Didier, A. M. Polloreno, E. A. Sete, S. W. Turkowski, M. P. da Silva, and B. R. Johnson, Demonstration of a parametri- cally activated entangling gate protected from flux noise, Physical Review A101, 10.1103/phys- rev...

    2020 doi

  31. [45]

    Ganzhorn, G

    M. Ganzhorn, G. Salis, D. J. Egger, A. Fuhrer, M. Mergenthaler, C. M¨ uller, P. M¨ uller, S. Pare- des, M. Pechal, M. Werninghaus, and S. Fil- ipp, Benchmarking the noise sensitivity of dif- ferent parametric two-qubit gates in a single superconducting quantum computing platfo...

    2020 doi

  32. [46]

    J. Chu, D. Li, X. Yang, S. Song, Z. Han, 9 Z. Yang, Y. Dong, W. Zheng, Z. Wang, X. Yu, D. Lan, X. Tan, and Y. Yu, Realiza- tion of superadiabatic two-qubit gates using para- metric modulation in superconducting circuits, Physical Review Applied13, 10.1103/physrevap- plied.13.0...

    2020 doi

  33. [47]

    E. A. Sete, N. Didier, A. Q. Chen, S. Kul- shreshtha, R. Manenti, and S. Poletto, Parametric-resonance entangling gates with a tunable coupler, Physical Review Applied16, 024050 (2021)

    2021

  34. [48]

    D. Li, W. Zheng, J. Chu, X. Yang, S. Song, Z. Han, Y. Dong, Z. Wang, X. Yu, D. Lan, J. Zhao, S. Li, X. Tan, and Y. Yu, Coherent state transfer between superconducting qubits via stim- ulated raman adiabatic passage, Applied Physics Letters118, 10.1063/5.0040079 (2021)

    2021 doi

  35. [49]

    Y. Zhou, Z. Zhang, Z. Yin, S. Huai, X. Gu, X. Xu, J. Allcock, F. Liu, G. Xi, Q. Yu, H. Zhang, M. Zhang, H. Li, X. Song, Z. Wang, D. Zheng, S. An, Y. Zheng, and S. Zhang, Rapid and un- conditional parametric reset protocol for tunable superconducting qubits, Nature Communicatio...

    2021 doi

  36. [50]

    L. Chen, S. P. Fors, Z. Yan, A. Ali, T. Abad, A. Osman, E. Moschandreou, B. Lienhard, S. Kosen, H.-X. Li, et al., Fast unconditional reset and leakage reduction in fixed-frequency transmon qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16748 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [51]

    Maurya, H

    V. Maurya, H. Zhang, D. Kowsari, A. Kuo, D. M. Hartsell, C. Miyamoto, J. Liu, S. Shanto, E. Vlachos, A. Zarassi, K. W. Murch, and E. M. Levenson-Falk, On-demand driven dissipa- tion for cavity reset and cooling, PRX Quantum 5, 10.1103/prxquantum.5.020321 (2024)

    2024 doi

  38. [52]

    Huber, F

    G. Huber, F. Roy, L. Koch, I. Tsitsilin, J. Schirk, N. Glaser, N. Bruckmoser, C. Schweizer, J. Romeiro, G. Krylov, M. Singh, F. Haslbeck, M. Knudsen, A. Marx, F. Pfeiffer, C. Schneider, F. Wallner, D. Bunch, L. Richard, L. S¨ odergren, K. Liegener, M. Werninghaus, and S. Filip...

    2025 doi

  39. [53]

    A. F. Van Loo, A. Fedorov, K. Lalumiere, B. C. Sanders, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Photon- mediated interactions between distant artificial atoms, Science342, 1494 (2013)

    2013

  40. [54]

    Kannan, M

    B. Kannan, M. J. Ruckriegel, D. L. Campbell, A. Frisk Kockum, J. Braum¨ uller, D. K. Kim, M. Kjaergaard, P. Krantz, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, et al., Waveguide quantum electro- dynamics with superconducting artificial giant atoms, Nature583, 775 (2020)

    2020

  41. [55]

    B. Du, Q. Guo, and R. Ma, Programmable su- perradiance in an interacting qubit array, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.12442 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  42. [56]

    Gunderson, J

    J. Gunderson, J. Muldoon, K. W. Murch, and Y. N. Joglekar, Floquet exceptional contours in lindblad dynamics with time-periodic drive and dissipation, Physical Review A103, 023718 (2021). Appendix A: Derivation of the excited-state probability(P e) This appendix provides the a...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.