Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Few-photon degenerate parametric resonance in a two-tone driven microwave resonator

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that two-tone-driven Kerr parametric oscillators in the few-photon regime cannot be reduced to a single-mode model: when the per-photon Kerr shift exceeds the cavity linewidth, the quantum fluctuations of the pump tones must

desk verdict A clean experimental demonstration that the standard two-tone-to-KPO reduction fails quantitatively at K/κ ≈ 1.6, but the paper's own three-tone quantum explanation is less secure than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03871 v1 pith:NOIYELPL submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Orjan Ameye , Jakob Koenig , Clinton Potts , Oded Zilberberg , Gary Steele This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords Kerrparametricoscillatorfour-wavemixingtwo-tonedrivingfew-photonregimeACStarkshiftharmonicbalancemicrowavesuperconductingcircuitsquantumfluctuations
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

Two microwave tones applied to a Josephson-junction Kerr oscillator can, through four-wave mixing, act as an effective degenerate parametric drive. This paper demonstrates experimentally that in the few-photon regime the standard way of modeling such a system — collapsing the two drives into a single effective parametric oscillator — fails quantitatively. With a single-photon Kerr shift K about 1.6 times the cavity linewidth κ, the measured AC Stark shift is roughly twice what the single-mode model predicts, and the parametric photon number saturates where the reduced model expects continued growth. The authors trace the failure to the discarded quantum fluctuations of the drive tones and show that a full three-tone quantum harmonic-balance description, keeping both pumps and the parametric mid-point mode as quantum modes, reproduces the measured transmission spectra, including the renormalized instability lobe. If correct, this establishes a quantitative boundary for single-mode reductions of multi-tone-driven Kerr devices and positions two-tone driving as a way to study fluctuation-dominated quantum-to-classical crossover in driven-dissipative circuits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the three-tone harmonic-balance model, a projection of the full driven-Duffing master equation onto the three dominant Fourier components: the two drive tones at ω1 and ω2 and the parametric midpoint tone at ω̄. It yields three coupled Kerr modes with cross-Kerr interactions and a four-wave-mixing term 4K(â1†â2† b̂ b̂ + h.c.). The standard single-mode reduction is obtained by displacing the pump modes to their coherent amplitudes α1 and α2, giving an effective KPO with detuning Δeff = Δ̄ − 4K(|α1|² + |α2|²) and two-photon drive strength Geff = 4K α1α2. The paper's key move is to refrain from pinning the pump modes: when the pump-mode quantum fluctuations are retained, s

What would settle it

Measure the transmission spectrum of the same device while tuning K/κ across unity (for example, by changing the Josephson-junction flux bias or fabricating devices with different junctions). If the single-mode reduction becomes quantitatively accurate for K/κ well below 1 and shows the reported enhanced Stark shift and population saturation only for K/κ above 1, the pump-fluctuation explanation is supported. A stronger direct test would be to measure the photon-number distribution of one pump tone; if it is Poissonian with variance equal to its mean, the three-tone quantum-fluctuation picture

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the usual effective single-KPO description of a two-tone-driven Kerr resonator is quantitatively wrong when the per-photon Kerr shift K exceeds the cavity linewidth κ. In the measured device, K/κ ≈ 1.6, and the single-mode reduction predicts a 3 MHz pump-induced AC Stark shift along the chosen trajectory, whereas the measured transmission shows a 6.8 MHz shift; the reduced model also fails to capture the saturation of the parametric-mode photon number. The authors show that the missing physics is the quantum variance of the pump tones: replacing each pump operator by its coherent mean amplitude pins the drive modes and discards single-photon fluctuations, wh

Load-bearing premise

The explanation rests on the assumption that three tones with a shared Kerr nonlinearity K and a shared damping rate κ faithfully represent the full driven resonator, so the observed discrepancy can be blamed entirely on discarded pump quantum fluctuations; if higher harmonics, frequency-dependent K or κ, or higher-order nonlinearities matter in this regime, the attribution would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two-tone driving becomes a practical, flux-line-free route to parametric amplification in superconducting circuits, avoiding flux crosstalk and cryogenic heat load.
  • Single-mode effective-KPO models should not be trusted for quantitative predictions when K/κ ≳ 1; multi-tone quantum treatments are required for AC Stark shifts, photon numbers, and phase-space topology.
  • The ratio K/κ acts as a control parameter separating a semiclassical regime from a fluctuation-dominated one, so devices designed for Kerr-cat or bosonic-code operation must be evaluated against this boundary.
  • The enhanced AC Stark shift and parametric-population saturation constitute a joint experimental signature of few-photon pump-mode quantum fluctuations.
  • The three-tone harmonic-balance hierarchy — mean-field, TWA, and Lindblad — offers a transferable modeling recipe for other strongly nonlinear multimode driven-dissipative systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The pump-fluctuation mechanism implies that engineering non-classical statistics for the drive tones (for example, squeezed or Fock-state pumps) would directly modify the effective parametric drive parameters, a control knob the paper does not explore.
  • Because the discrepancy is attributed to pump-mode quantum variance, a direct measurement of one pump tone's photon-number distribution (e.g., with a dispersively coupled transmon) would constitute a smoking-gun test: a near-coherent Poisson distribution with mean equal to variance would support the three-tone interpretation.
  • The three-tone truncation and the assumption of a common Kerr constant and damping across tones are the main approximations; systematic sweeps to higher drive power or to devices with stronger K/κ would reveal whether higher harmonics or frequency-dependent parameters eventually invalidate the three-tone model.
  • A device sweep that tunes K/κ from well below to well above unity (for example, by flux-biasing the junction) could map out the crossover curve where single-mode reduction starts to fail, turning the paper's single comparison point into a design rule.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports transmission spectroscopy of a Josephson-junction Kerr resonator driven by two coherent microwave tones, whose four-wave mixing produces an effective parametric drive at the midpoint frequency. The authors construct a hierarchy of models: the original single-mode Duffing equation, a three-mode harmonic-balance reduction, an effective single-mode KPO obtained by displacing the pump modes, a truncated Wigner approximation, and a full three-mode Lindblad simulation. The central claim is that the conventional single-mode reduction fails quantitatively (predicted 3 MHz AC Stark shift vs measured 6.8 MHz), while retaining quantum fluctuations of the drive tones in a three-tone description reproduces the data. They also report a dissipative-phase-transition boundary and analyze the parametric-mode Wigner distribution.

Significance. If valid, the result would be an important caution for the Kerr parametric oscillator community: in the few-photon limit with K/κ > 1, multi-tone pumping may invalidate the standard single-mode effective KPO, and drive-tone quantum fluctuations must be retained. The experimental study is relevant, the model hierarchy is well organized, and the paper is transparent about many of its limitations. The availability of data on Zenodo is a plus. However, the central quantitative claim is not yet demonstrated: the positive comparison with the three-tone model lacks a direct quantitative overlay, and the harmonic-balance truncation is unvalidated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4(b), 'To model the discrepancies'] The paper's headline claim that the full three-tone quantum description 'accurately reproduces the experimental observables' is not demonstrated. The only quantitative comparison is the 3 MHz vs 6.8 MHz Stark shift quoted for the single-mode model. Fig. 4(b) shows model curves only; there is no overlay (or residual) of the measured transmission/photon number against the three-mode Lindblad or TWA predictions. The text itself states that the full quantum treatment restricts simulations to small Fock cutoffs and 'prevents quantitative parameter fits.' A statement of this kind directly contradicts the quantitative reproduction claim; either provide a quantitative fit with stated cutoff/errors, or soften the claim to 'qualitatively consistent with.' This is load-bearing because the paper's central contribution is the negative/positive quantitative comparison.
  2. [Eqs. (3)-(4)] The harmonic-balance projection from the single physical Duffing mode of Eq. (1) driven by two tones to three independent modes with identical K and κ (Eqs. (3)-(4)) is never validated against the original single-mode equation. The projection keeps only three Fourier components and treats them as independent modes with independent baths; at K/κ≈1.6, higher harmonics and frequency-dependent K(ω), κ(ω) are not negligible by assumption. Because this projection is the instrument used to attribute the enhanced Stark shift to pump quantum fluctuations, an unvalidated truncation is a serious gap. Please include a direct numerical comparison between the three-mode model and the original Duffing dynamics (or a systematic derivation with error bounds) for the same parameters.
  3. [Eq. (5), Fig. 2(c)] The key discrepancy is the predicted 3 MHz AC Stark shift versus measured 6.8 MHz. However, the drive amplitudes α_1, α_2 entering Δ_eff are not reported with values or uncertainties, nor is the calibration procedure described beyond a reference to the supplemental material. Without knowing how α_j are extracted from the generator power (+12 dBm), and without error bars on the measured shift, the reader cannot assess whether 3 MHz vs 6.8 MHz is a genuine failure of the mean-field model or a parameter-calibration artifact. Please give the extracted α_j, the resulting Δ_eff and G_eff, and the systematic uncertainties.
  4. [Supplemental Material [40]] Many of the quantitative steps (derivation of HHB, the S21 expressions, parameter values, TWA details) are relegated to Supplemental Material, which is not included in the manuscript as submitted. As a consequence, key claims in the main text cannot be independently checked. The Supplemental Material should be made available for review, or the main text should state the essential formulas/parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'AKNOWLEDGMENTS' should be 'ACKNOWLEDGMENTS'; 'Lorenzian' should be 'Lorentzian'; 'TW A' and 'V ool' have unwanted spacing.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'the reported distributions might not be fully physical when K > κ' is vague and not linked to a specific observable; please clarify or remove.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The symbol ¯∆ is used before its definition in the main text; consider defining it in the caption.
  4. [Figs. 3-4] The relationship between generator power (-20, -8, +12 dBm) and the F/2π values used in the simulations should be stated explicitly, including how equal amplitudes at the two tones are ensured.
  5. [Fig. 4(b)] The legend entries 'MF 3-mode', 'Q 1-mode', etc., are not explained in the caption; please define which curves correspond to which formalisms and parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citations only; the central single-mode vs three-tone comparison is a genuine model-vs-experiment test and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the conventional single-mode reduction (Eq. 5) underestimates the measured AC Stark shift (3 MHz predicted vs 6.8 MHz observed), while the three-tone harmonic-balance model (Eqs. 3-4) reproduces the data. This comparison is not circular: the single-mode prediction is computed from Eq. (5) using the measured Kerr K, linewidth κ, and calibrated drive amplitudes, and the experimental shift is an independent observable. The three-tone model is derived from the same Duffing Hamiltonian by a standard harmonic-balance Fourier projection, without fitting to the 6.8 MHz shift; its Lindblad and TWA solutions are genuine numerical outputs. The paper explicitly concedes that the full three-mode quantum solution is limited to small Fock cutoffs and 'prevents quantitative parameter fits', which weakens the quantitative strength of the agreement but does not make the derivation circular. Self-citations appear (e.g., Refs. [26], [29], [30], [58], [59], [60]) and are used for background, software, or prior related KPO results; none is the sole justification for the central conclusion, and the central comparison rests on the paper's own simulations against external experimental data. No quoted equation reduces by construction to a fitted observable, and no load-bearing claim is forced by a self-citation chain. The unvalidated three-tone truncation is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

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

The paper's positive claim rests on two free/calibrated inputs (drive amplitudes and Fock truncation) and on a set of domain assumptions about the validity of the Kerr Hamiltonian, the three-tone harmonic balance truncation, and the TWA/Lindblad treatments. No radically new entities are introduced; the 'parametric tone' b is a Fourier component, not a new physical object.

free parameters (2)
  • Drive-tone coherent amplitudes α_1, α_2 = Not stated; calibrated from input power and cavity response
    The effective KPO parameters Δ_eff and G_eff in Eq. (5) are computed from these amplitudes. The predicted 3 MHz AC Stark shift depends on |α1|^2+|α2|^2; an error in calibrating α_j changes the baseline model, not the measured 6.8 MHz shift.
  • Fock cutoff n for the three-mode Lindblad simulation = Not stated; chosen by hand
    The paper says the full quantum treatment 'restricts simulations to small photon numbers and prevents quantitative parameter fits', so the quantitative agreement reported depends on this truncation parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The device is accurately described by the single-mode Kerr Hamiltonian H0 (Eq. 1) with constant K and a Markovian master equation with total decay κ.
    All subsequent models inherit this starting point; the paper does not test the single-mode approximation or the constancy of K and κ.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-tone driving maps under harmonic balance to exactly three coupled Kerr modes with identical K and κ (Eqs. 3-4).
    This truncation is the key modeling choice. The paper assumes the three dominant Fourier components capture the physics, and it is not justified at K/κ≈1.6.
  • domain assumption The pump modes are approximated as coherent states with amplitudes α_j to derive the effective single-mode KPO (Eq. 5).
    This is the mean-field approximation that the paper tests and rejects; it defines the baseline model.
  • domain assumption The truncated Wigner approximation retains only leading-order Gaussian pump fluctuations and is accurate enough to support the mechanism.
    The paper uses TWA to argue the effect of pump quantum variance; it cross-checks against the truncated Lindblad solution, but both share the same three-tone truncation.
  • domain assumption The weak probe tone does not perturb the stationary state, and S21 is a weighted sum over local responses of the metastable branches (Eq. 6).
    This linear-response assumption underlies the transmission calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Few-photon degenerate parametric resonance in a two-tone driven microwave resonator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NOIYELPL

@misc{pith2026260803871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Few-photon degenerate parametric resonance in a two-tone driven microwave resonator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NOIYELPL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03871}
}
abstract

Multi-tone external driving offers a route to parametric physics without directly modulating the device. However, the validity of the parametric response in the few-photon regime remains underexplored. Here, we apply two coherent microwave tones to a Josephson-junction Kerr oscillator and stimulate degenerate parametric downconversion via four-wave mixing. Using transmission spectroscopy, we observe that the response retains the qualitative semiclassical Kerr parametric oscillator structure, including its instability lobe and bistable phase-space topology. Interestingly, we demonstrate that a conventional single-mode reduction fails to capture the system quantitatively: the predicted AC Stark shift is severely underestimated, and the reported distributions might not be fully physical when the single-photon Kerr shift $K$ exceeds the cavity linewidth $\kappa$. Instead, we show that a full three-tone quantum description accurately reproduces the experimental observables. There, quantum fluctuations of the drive tones become dynamically dominant over dissipation, and all three interacting tones operate in a deep few-photon limit where the expected semiclassical macroscopic lobes undergo fundamental renormalization due to profound mixing with quantum variance. Our results establish two-tone-driven Kerr oscillators as potential parametric amplifiers and open new horizons to explore the quantum-to-classical crossover in driven-dissipative circuits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a), we map the stable phase boundaries. Far from para￾metric resonance (region I), only the vacuum state (β = 0) is stable. In region II, the vacuum undergoes a Z2 sponta￾neous symmetry breaking into bright parametric phase states (|β| > 0) [1]. In regions III and Γ, both vacuum and bright solutions coexist. This closely resembles a conventionally driven KPO [1, 20, 22, 26, 29, 65]. However, as F increases, the par… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (b). Crucially, the bright parametric window simultane￾ously shifts toward lower detunings, successfully recovering the enhanced AC Stark effect, cf. Figs. 2(c) and 4(b). As a next step, we solve the full three-mode model quan￾tum mechanically via a Lindblad master equ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eichler and O

    A. Eichler and O. Zilberberg,Classical and Quantum Paramet- ric Phenomena(Oxford University Press, 2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Photonics7, 613 (2013)

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nat. Photonics7, 613 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    M. E. Marhic, P. A. Andrekson, P. Petropoulos, S. Radic, C. Peucheret, and M. Jazayerifar, Fiber optical parametric am- plifiers in optical communication systems, Laser Photonics Rev. 9, 50 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Pirkkalainen, E

    J.-M. Pirkkalainen, E. Damsk ¨agg, M. Brandt, F. Massel, and M. A. Sillanp¨a¨a, Squeezing of quantum noise of motion in a mi- cromechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 243601 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Marti, U

    S. Marti, U. von L ¨upke, O. Joshi, Y . Yang, M. Bild, A. Oma- hen, Y . Chu, and M. Fadel, Quantum squeezing in a nonlinear mechanical oscillator, Nature Physics20, 1448 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Grimm, N

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Stabilization and operation of a Kerr-cat qubit, Nature584, 205 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    N. E. Frattini, U. V ool, S. Shankar, A. Narla, K. M. Sliwa, and M. H. Devoret, 3-wave mixing Josephson dipole element, Appl. Phys. Lett.110, 222603 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Lescanne, M

    R. Lescanne, M. Villiers, T. Peronnin, A. Sarlette, M. Delbecq, B. Huard, T. Kontos, M. Mirrahimi, and Z. Leghtas, Exponen- tial suppression of bit-flips in a qubit encoded in an oscillator, Nat. Phys.16, 509 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Berdou, A

    C. Berdou, A. Murani, U. R ´eglade, W. C. Smith, M. Villiers, J. Palomo, M. Rosticher, A. Denis, P. Morfin, M. Delbecq, T. Kontos, N. Pankratova, F. Rautschke, T. Peronnin, L.-A. Sellem, P. Rouchon, A. Sarlette, M. Mirrahimi, P. Campagne- Ibarcq, S. Jezouin, R. Lescanne, and Z...

    2023

  2. [10]

    R ´eglade, A

    U. R ´eglade, A. Bocquet, R. Gautier, J. Cohen, A. Marquet, E. Albertinale, N. Pankratova, M. Hall ´en, F. Rautschke, L.-A. Sellem, P. Rouchon, A. Sarlette, M. Mirrahimi, P. Campagne- Ibarcq, R. Lescanne, S. Jezouin, and Z. Leghtas, Quantum con- trol of a cat qubit with bit-fl...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Yurke, P

    B. Yurke, P. G. Kaminsky, R. E. Miller, E. A. Whittaker, A. D. Smith, A. H. Silver, and R. W. Simon, Observation of 4.2-k equilibrium-noise squeezing via a Josephson-parametric ampli- fier, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 764 (1988)

    1988

  4. [12]

    M. A. Castellanos-Beltran, K. D. Irwin, G. C. Hilton, L. R. Vale, and K. W. Lehnert, Amplification and squeezing of quantum noise with a tunable Josephson metamaterial, Nature Physics4, 929 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Aumentado, Superconducting parametric amplifiers: The state of the art in Josephson parametric amplifiers, IEEE Mi- crowave Magazine21, 45 (2020)

    J. Aumentado, Superconducting parametric amplifiers: The state of the art in Josephson parametric amplifiers, IEEE Mi- crowave Magazine21, 45 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Blais, A

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

    2021

  7. [15]

    Fitzpatrick, N

    M. Fitzpatrick, N. M. Sundaresan, A. C. Y . Li, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Observation of a dissipative phase transition in a one-dimensional circuit qed lattice, Phys. Rev. X7, 011016 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Benary, C

    J. Benary, C. Baals, E. Bernhart, J. Jiang, M. R ¨ohrle, and H. Ott, Experimental observation of a dissipative phase transi- tion in a multi-mode many-body quantum system, New Journal of Physics24, 103034 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Q.-M. Chen, M. Fischer, Y . Nojiri, M. Renger, E. Xie, M. Par- tanen, S. Pogorzalek, K. G. Fedorov, A. Marx, F. Deppe, and R. Gross, Quantum behavior of the Duffing oscillator at the dissipative phase transition, Nature Communications14, 2896 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Beaulieu, F

    G. Beaulieu, F. Minganti, S. Frasca, V . Savona, S. Felicetti, R. Di Candia, and P. Scarlino, Observation of first- and second- order dissipative phase transitions in a two-photon driven Kerr resonator, Nature communications16, 1954 (2025)

    1954

  11. [19]

    Papariello, O

    L. Papariello, O. Zilberberg, A. Eichler, and R. Chitra, Ultra- sensitive hysteretic force sensing with parametric nonlinear os- cillators, Physical Review E94, 022201 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Leuch, L

    A. Leuch, L. Papariello, O. Zilberberg, C. L. Degen, R. Chitra, and A. Eichler, Parametric symmetry breaking in a nonlinear resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 214101 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Bartolo, F

    N. Bartolo, F. Minganti, W. Casteels, and C. Ciuti, Exact steady state of a kerr resonator with one- and two-photon driving and dissipation: Controllable wigner-function multimodality and dissipative phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A94, 033841 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    T. L. Heugel, M. Oscity, A. Eichler, O. Zilberberg, and R. Chi- tra, Classical many-body time crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 124301 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Wustmann and V

    W. Wustmann and V . Shumeiko, Parametric effects in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Low Temperature Physics45, 848 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Biella, N. Bartolo, and C. Ciuti, Spectral theory of Liouvillians for dissipative phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042118 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Soriente, T

    M. Soriente, T. L. Heugel, K. Omiya, R. Chitra, and O. Zilber- berg, Distinctive class of dissipation-induced phase transitions and their universal characteristics, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023100 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Ameye, A

    O. Ameye, A. Eichler, and O. Zilberberg, Parametric instabil- ity landscape of coupled Kerr parametric oscillators, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033204 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    S. Puri, S. Boutin, and A. Blais, Engineering the quantum states of light in a Kerr-nonlinear resonator by two-photon driving, npj Quantum Information3, 18 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Z. Wang, M. Pechal, E. A. Wollack, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, M. Gao, N. R. Lee, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Quantum dy- namics of a few-photon parametric oscillator, Phys. Rev. X9, 021049 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    ´Alvarez, D

    P. ´Alvarez, D. Pittilini, F. Miserocchi, S. Raamamurthy, G. Mar- giani, O. Ameye, J. del Pino, O. Zilberberg, and A. Eichler, Bi- ased Ising model using two coupled Kerr parametric oscillators with external force, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 207401 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Margiani, O

    G. Margiani, O. Ameye, O. Zilberberg, and A. Eichler, Three strongly coupled Kerr parametric oscillators forming a Boltz- mann machine, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 097201 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Krantz, M

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

    2019

  24. [32]

    N. M. Hougland, Z. Li, R. Kaufman, B. Mesits, R. S. K. Mong, M. Hatridge, and D. Pekker, Pump-efficient Josephson paramet- ric amplifiers with high saturation power, Phys. Rev. A111, 022611 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    W. Dai, G. Liu, V . Joshi, A. Miano, V . Sivak, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Optimizing the pump coupling for a three-wave- mixing Josephson parametric amplifier, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 054069 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    X. Dai, D. M. Tennant, R. Trappen, A. J. Martinez, D. Melan- son, M. A. Yurtalan, Y . Tang, S. Novikov, J. A. Grover, S. M. Disseler, J. I. Basham, R. Das, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, S. J. Weber, J. L. Yoder, D. A. Lidar, and A. Lu- pascu, Calibration of flu...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Shen,The Principles of Nonlinear Optics(Wiley- Interscience, New York, NY , USA, 1984)

    Y .-R. Shen,The Principles of Nonlinear Optics(Wiley- Interscience, New York, NY , USA, 1984)

    1984

  28. [36]

    R. W. Boyd,Nonlinear Optics, 4th ed. (Academic Press, Lon- don, 2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Kamal, A

    A. Kamal, A. Marblestone, and M. Devoret, Signal-to-pump back action and self-oscillation in double-pump Josephson parametric amplifier, Phys. Rev. B79, 184301 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Boutin, D

    S. Boutin, D. M. Toyli, A. V . Venkatramani, A. W. Eddins, I. Siddiqi, and A. Blais, Effect of higher-order nonlinearities on amplification and squeezing in Josephson parametric ampli- fiers, Phys. Rev. Appl.8, 054030 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Xu, S.-K

    Y .-Q. Xu, S.-K. Ye, R. Wu, Z.-Q. Huang, R.-R. Cai, B.-C. Wang, H.-O. Li, G. Cao, and G.-P. Guo, Parametric amplifi- cation of multimode high-kinetic inductance cavity, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics58, 215101 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    See Supplemental Material for more details, which includes Refs. [83–86]

  33. [41]

    V ool and M

    U. V ool and M. Devoret, Introduction to quantum electromag- netic circuits, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Ap- plications45, 897 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    H. J. Carmichael,An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Op- tics: Lectures Presented at the Universit´ e Libre de Bruxelles, October 28 to November 4, 1991, Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs, V ol. 18 (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993)

    1991

  35. [43]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    T. N. Ikeda and M. Sato, General description for nonequilib- rium steady states in periodically driven dissipative quantum systems, Sci. Adv.6, eabb4019 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    T. N. Ikeda, K. Chinzei, and M. Sato, Nonequilibrium steady states in the Floquet-Lindblad systems: van Vleck’s high- frequency expansion approach, SciPost Phys. Core4, 033 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Mori, Floquet states in open quantum systems, Annu

    T. Mori, Floquet states in open quantum systems, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.14, 35 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differential equations and the master equation, Phys. Rev. A31, 3761 (1985). 7

    1985

  40. [48]

    Lecocq, L

    F. Lecocq, L. Ranzani, G. A. Peterson, K. Cicak, R. W. Sim- monds, J. D. Teufel, and J. Aumentado, Nonreciprocal mi- crowave signal processing with a field-programmable Joseph- son amplifier, Phys. Rev. Appl.7, 024028 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Arfini, A

    M. Arfini, A. Bermejillo-Seco, A. Bondarenko, C. A. Potts, Y . M. Blanter, H. S. J. van der Zant, and G. A. Steele, Magnon- magnon interaction induced by nonlinear spin-wave dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 166703 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    T. L. Heugel, A. Eichler, R. Chitra, and O. Zilberberg, The role of fluctuations in quantum and classical time crystals, SciPost Phys. Core6, 053 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    J. S. Huber, G. Rastelli, M. J. Seitner, J. K¨olbl, W. Belzig, M. I. Dykman, and E. M. Weig, Spectral evidence of squeezing of a weakly damped driven nanomechanical mode, Phys. Rev. X10, 021066 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    M. Fu, O. Ameye, F. Yang, J. Koˇsata, J. del Pino, O. Zilberberg, and E. Scheer, Sideband attraction via internal resonance in a multimode membrane as a mechanism for frequency combs, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033127 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Z. R. Lin, Y . Nakamura, and M. I. Dykman, Critical fluctuations and the rates of interstate switching near the excitation thresh- old of a quantum parametric oscillator, Phys. Rev. E92, 022105 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    S ´epulcre, Analytical phase boundary of a quantum driven- dissipative kerr oscillator from classical stochastic instantons, Phys

    T. S ´epulcre, Analytical phase boundary of a quantum driven- dissipative kerr oscillator from classical stochastic instantons, Phys. Rev. Res.8, L012058 (2026)

    2026

  48. [56]

    J. H. Shirley, Solution of the Schr ¨odinger equation with a Hamiltonian periodic in time, Physical Review138, B979 (1965)

    1965

  49. [57]

    Grifoni and P

    M. Grifoni and P. H ¨anggi, Driven quantum tunneling, Physics Reports304, 229 (1998)

    1998

  50. [58]

    Ko ˇsata, J

    J. Ko ˇsata, J. del Pino, T. L. Heugel, and O. Zilberberg, Har- monicBalance.jl: A Julia suite for nonlinear dynamics using harmonic balance, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 6 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Seibold, O

    K. Seibold, O. Ameye, and O. Zilberberg, Floquet expansion by counting pump photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 060401 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Bestler, O

    M. Bestler, O. Ameye, and O. Zilberberg, Quantum harmonic balance method for multi-mode Floquet systems (2026), in preparation

    2026

  53. [61]

    S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, R. J. Schoelkopf, and S. M. Girvin, Black-box superconducting circuit quantization, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 240502 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    Z. K. Minev, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, L. Christakis, I. M. Pop, and M. H. Devoret, Energy-participation quantization of Josephson circuits, npj Quantum Information7, 131 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Zhang, B

    Y . Zhang, B. J. Lester, Y . Y . Gao, L. Jiang, R. J. Schoelkopf, and S. M. Girvin, Engineering bilinear mode coupling in cir- cuit QED: Theory and experiment, Physical Review A99, 10.1103/physreva.99.012314 (2019)

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    Basilewitsch, Y

    D. Basilewitsch, Y . Zhang, S. M. Girvin, and C. P. Koch, Engi- neering strong beamsplitter interaction between bosonic modes via quantum optimal control theory, Physical Review Research 4, 023054 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    T. L. Heugel, O. Zilberberg, C. Marty, R. Chitra, and A. Eichler, Ising machines with strong bilinear coupling, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013149 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Mercurio, Y .-T

    A. Mercurio, Y .-T. Huang, L.-X. Cai, Y .-N. Chen, V . Savona, and F. Nori, QuantumToolbox.jl: An efficient Julia framework for simulating open quantum systems, Quantum9, 1866 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    T. L. Heugel, M. Biondi, O. Zilberberg, and R. Chitra, Quantum transducer using a parametric driven-dissipative phase transi- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 173601 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    Roberts and A

    D. Roberts and A. A. Clerk, Driven-dissipative quantum Kerr resonators: New exact solutions, photon blockade and quantum bistability, Physical Review X10, 021022 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Roy and M

    A. Roy and M. Devoret, Introduction to parametric amplifica- tion of quantum signals with Josephson circuits, Comptes Ren- dus Physique17, 740 (2016), quantum microwaves/Micro- ondes quantiques

    2016

  62. [70]

    Seibold, G

    K. Seibold, G. Villa, J. del Pino, and O. Zilberberg, Manifesta- tions of flow topology in a quantum driven-dissipative system, Physical Review Research8, 023093 (2026)

    2026

  63. [71]

    D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, A. Wallraff, J. M. Gambetta, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, B. Johnson, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Resolving pho- ton number states in a superconducting circuit, Nature445, 515 (2007)

    2007

  64. [72]

    Gambetta, A

    J. Gambetta, A. Blais, D. I. Schuster, A. Wallraff, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Qubit-photon interactions in a cavity: Measurement-induced dephasing and number splitting, Phys. Rev. A74, 042318 (2006)

    2006

  65. [73]

    Polkovnikov, Phase space representation of quantum dy- namics, Annals of Physics325, 1790 (2010), arXiv:0905.3384 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    A. Polkovnikov, Phase space representation of quantum dy- namics, Annals of Physics325, 1790 (2010), arXiv:0905.3384 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2010 arXiv

  66. [74]

    M. J. Steel, M. K. Olsen, L. I. Plimak, P. D. Drummond, S. M. Tan, M. J. Collett, D. F. Walls, and R. Graham, Dynamical quantum noise in trapped Bose-Einstein condensates, Physical Review A58, 4824 (1998), arXiv:cond-mat/9807349

    1998 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Sinatra, C

    A. Sinatra, C. Lobo, and Y . Castin, The truncated Wigner method for Bose-condensed gases: Limits of validity and appli- cations, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics35, 3599 (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0201217

    2002 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Yoneya, K

    T. Yoneya, K. Fujimoto, and Y . Kawaguchi, Path-integral formulation of truncated Wigner approximation for bosonic Markovian open quantum systems, Annals of Physics479, 170072 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    C. Mink, A. Pelster, J. Benary, H. Ott, and M. Fleischhauer, Variational truncated Wigner approximation for weakly inter- acting Bose fields: Dynamics of coupled condensates, SciPost Physics12, 051 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    Rackauckas and Q

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, Adaptive methods for stochastic dif- ferential equations via natural embeddings and rejection sam- pling with memory, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Sys- tems - B22, 2731 (2017)

    2017

  71. [79]

    Rackauckas and Q

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, DifferentialEquations.jl: A perfor- mant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equa- tions in Julia, The Journal of Open Research Software5, 10.5334/jors.151 (2017)

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    K. V . Kheruntsyan, Wigner function for a driven anharmonic oscillator, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Op- tics1, 225 (1999)

    1999

  73. [81]

    G. Yu. Kryuchkyan and K. V . Kheruntsyan, Exact quantum the- ory of a parametrically driven dissipative anharmonic oscillator, Optics Communications127, 230 (1996)

    1996

  74. [82]

    Ameye, J

    O. Ameye, J. Koenig, C. Potts, O. Zilberberg, and G. Steele, Few-photon degenerate parametric resonance in a two- tone driven microwave resonator (2026), Zenodo, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21792957

    2026 doi

  75. [83]

    A. V . Dodonov, S. S. Mizrahi, and V . V . Dodonov, Quantum master equations from classical Lagrangians with two stochas- tic forces, Phys. Rev. E75, 011132 (2007). 8

    2007

  76. [84]

    M. J. Everitt, W. J. Munro, and T. P. Spiller, Quantum-classical crossover of a field mode, Phys. Rev. A79, 032328 (2009)

    2009

  77. [85]

    S. N. A. Duffus, V . M. Dwyer, and M. J. Everitt, Open quan- tum systems, effective Hamiltonians, and device characteriza- tion, Phys. Rev. B96, 134520 (2017)

    2017

  78. [86]

    D. J. Berkeland, J. D. Miller, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Minimization of ion micromotion in a Paul trap, J. Appl. Phys.83, 5025 (1998)

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.