Superconducting Josephson-based metamaterials for quantum-limited parametric amplification: a review

Angelo Greco; Emanuele Enrico; Luca Fasolo

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Superconducting Josephson-based metamaterials for quantum-limited parametric amplification: a review

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under the degenerate undepleted pump assumption, three distinct theoretical treatments of a Josephson traveling-wave parametric amplifier yield comparable output-field gain predictions.

desk verdict A useful review that compares three TWJPA models, but the time-to-space bridge (Eq. 63) is asserted, not derived, and should be fully justified before the comparison is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06889 v1 pith:XVOFYSX5 submitted 2019-08-19 cond-mat.supr-con quant-ph

Luca Fasolo , Angelo Greco , Emanuele Enrico This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

keywords parametricamplificationJosephsonjunctionstraveling-waveamplifiersfour-wavemixingquantum-limitedsuperconductingmetamaterialscoupled-modeequationsphasematching

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

Parametric amplifiers built from Josephson junctions embedded in a transmission line can amplify microwave signals at the quantum limit, but they have been described by several different theoretical tools. This review asks whether those tools actually describe the same device. Its central claim is that for four-wave mixing with a degenerate pump that remains strong and undepleted, the classical coupled-mode approach, the continuous-mode quantum treatment, and the discrete-mode quantum treatment all lead to the same coupled-mode structure and to numerically similar gain factors and phase mismatches. The practical consequence is that, in this regime, the three models can be used interchangeably to predict output-field amplification. A sympathetic reader would take this as a unification claim: the apparent diversity of formalisms is a matter of language, not physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coupled-mode equation set for the pump, signal, and idler amplitudes in the co-rotating frame, together with the exponential gain factor that follows from it. Each treatment produces a solution of the form $A_{\mathrm{out}} = [\cosh(g z) - i(\Psi/2g)\sinh(g z)] A_{\mathrm{in}} + \dots$, with $g = \sqrt{|\chi|^2 |A_p|^4 - (\Psi/2)^2}$, where $\Psi$ is the total phase mismatch combining chromatic dispersion with self- and cross-phase modulation. The discrete-mode quantum model is brought into the comparison by Eq. (63), which rescales its time-evolution via $\omega_n/|k_n|$, the phase velocity of each tone, so that its $\Psi_3$ and $g_3$ can be compared directly with the classical and continuous-mode results.

What would settle it

Recompute the gain factors and phase mismatches for frequencies within one gigahertz of the plasma frequency, or for pump currents approaching the critical current, and check whether the differences between the three models stay as small as in Fig. 3; if any pair of predictions diverges sharply, the claimed comparability fails outside the narrow tested window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working under the degenerate undepleted pump approximation, the paper derives and compares the signal evolution in three treatments: a classical model based on current conservation, a quantum model built from continuous-mode field operators, and a quantum model built from discrete-mode operators. In each case the signal amplitude (or the annihilation operator) obeys a coupled-mode equation with the same form, solved in a co-rotating frame. The paper's demonstration is that the three exponential gain factors $g_1,g_2,g_3$ and total phase mismatches $\Psi_1,\Psi_2,\Psi_3$ are analytically different but numerically comparable, as plotted in its Fig. 3 for typical circuit parameters ($a=50\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, $I_c=5\,\mu\mathrm{A}$, $C_J=300\,\mathrm{fF}$, $C_0=35\,\mathrm{fF}$, $\omega_p/2\pi=6\,\mathrm{GHz}$, $I_p=I_c/2$). The equality of structure is made explicit by Eq. (63), which converts the discrete-mode model's time evolution into spatial propagation through the phase velocity $\omega_n/|k_n|$ of each tone.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on assuming that the three models describe the same device and that converting the discrete-mode model's time evolution into spatial propagation using each tone's phase velocity is an exact correspondence; if that conversion is only approximate, the numerical agreement between the models could be specific to the parameter values chosen for the figure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the degenerate undepleted pump regime, the three formalisms give interchangeable predictions for signal gain, so a designer can choose the simplest model for a given calculation.
The quantum models reduce to the classical coupled-mode structure in this limit, which means classical gain estimates are not invalidated by the choice of quantization method.
The analytical formulas for the gain factor and phase mismatch still differ between models; the agreement is numerical, not exact, and is shown for a particular set of device parameters.
When the initial idler amplitude is zero and phase matching is perfect ($\Psi_i=0$), all three models predict exponential gain with line length; with nonzero phase mismatch, the gain factor becomes imaginary and the gain grows only quadratically.

Reading between the lines

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

Near the junction plasma frequency, where the dispersion relation bends sharply, the phase-velocity mapping in Eq. (63) is the least secure; the three gain predictions would likely diverge there. That is a testable consequence not explored in the review.
The same comparison could be extended to three-wave mixing, where pump, signal, and idler are more separated in frequency; nothing in the review guarantees that the equivalence carries over.
Experimental validation would be direct: fabricate a single traveling-wave Josephson parametric amplifier and compare its measured gain curve against the three predictions over frequency and pump power. If one model tracks the data and the others do not, the claimed equivalence holds only where all three happen to coincide.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This review actually does work: it rewrites three published TWJPA models in one notation and shows by direct calculation that, in the degenerate undepleted pump regime, the gain formulas are numerically close. That is genuinely useful for people entering the area, and the historical overview is competent. The paper is also honest that the three expressions are analytically different and only numerically similar, and there is no parameter fitting behind Figure 3.

The main soft spot is Eq. (63), the bridge that converts the van der Reep time-domain result into spatial form so it can be compared with the other two models. It is introduced with 'It turns out that' and simply rescales the coupling by omega_p/|k_p|, with no derivation. For a traveling-wave reduction, the natural conversion is via group velocity, not phase velocity, and in this dispersive line they differ. I would not press the stress-test's exact 3–11% numbers; the dispersion relation in Eq. (10) appears to have the sqrt in the wrong place relative to Eq. (9), so the precise ratio is ambiguous. But the core concern stands: the equivalence claim rests on an unstated velocity choice, and that is not acceptable in a review that promises a demonstration.

Other issues are minor in proportion. Figure 3 uses only one set of device parameters, though the similarity of the hyperbolic forms makes me think the result is not a numerical coincidence. There are also typos and a few mistaken attributions, which a careful copyedit should fix.

All in all, I would send this to peer review. The central claim is plausible and probably right, but the paper needs a real derivation for Eq. (63) (or an explicit argument for why phase velocity is the correct conversion), a correction to the dispersion relation if it is indeed wrong, and ideally a second parameter set. The right reader is an experimentalist or graduate student in quantum microwave engineering who wants a side-by-side comparison. I would not cite this version, but I would read a revised one.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of three theoretical models for Josephson traveling-wave parametric amplifiers in the four-wave-mixing regime, all considered under the degenerate undepleted pump approximation. It presents the classical coupled-mode model of Yaakobi and O'Brien, the continuous-mode quantum treatment of Grimsmo and Blais, and the discrete-mode quantum model of van der Reep. The central claim is that, under the stated assumptions, the three gain formulas and phase-mismatch expressions are comparable and give numerically similar amplification predictions; the supporting evidence is the structurally identical hyperbolic solutions in Eqs. (17), (41), and (61), together with the numerical comparison in Fig. 3.

Significance. If the equivalence claim is correct, the review is a useful dictionary between a spatial classical formulation, a spatial continuous-mode quantum formulation, and a temporal discrete-mode quantum formulation, and it would let practitioners use any of the three models for gain predictions in the degenerate-pump regime. The paper does not introduce new theory or new experimental data, but for a review this is acceptable. The authors should be credited for using three external benchmark models without fitting parameters; the only free parameters are the illustrative device parameters of Fig. 3. The main weakness is that the conversion making the temporal model comparable to the spatial models is asserted rather than derived, so the central claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)

[§3.3, Eq. (63)] The bridge between the temporal van der Reep equations and the spatial models is introduced with "It turns out that" and is not derived. The conversion divides frequency-domain quantities by the phase velocity, i.e. it rescales by $\omega_n/|k_n|$. For a traveling-wave interaction the relevant transit time through the amplifier is $L/v_g$, not $L/v_p$. A standard reduction of Eqs. (57)–(58) with right-moving envelopes $\hat a_n(x,t)=\tilde a_n(x,t)e^{i(k_n x-\omega_n t)}$ produces factors $1/v_{g,n}=dk/d\omega$, not $k/\omega$. With the dispersion law of Eq. (10), $v_g/v_p = 1-\omega^2/\omega_J^2$, which for the parameters of Fig. 3 is about 0.97 at 6 GHz and about 0.89 at 12 GHz, so the conversion can introduce a frequency-dependent error of order 10% in the converted coefficients. The additive $\Delta k$ term in Eq. (63) is also not derived from the discrete-mode phase-matching factors in Eq. (52). The authors should either derive the mapping from Eqs. (57)–(58) explicitly or weaken the central claim; the numerical similarity in Fig. 3 is not yet evidence for the abstract's assertion.
[Fig. 3] The numerical comparison is performed for a single, hand-picked parameter set ($a=50\,\mu\text{m}$, $I_c=5\,\mu\text{A}$, $C_J=300\,\text{fF}$, $C_0=35\,\text{fF}$, $\omega_p/2\pi=6\,\text{GHz}$, $I_p=I_c/2$). No sensitivity analysis is given. If the purpose is to demonstrate that the three models are comparable in general, the authors should show that the agreement persists over a relevant range of device parameters or provide an analytic argument that the effective coupling constants and phase mismatches coincide after the correct variable change. As it stands, the agreement in Fig. 3 could be coincidental.
[§3.1–§3.3, Eqs. (17), (41), (61)] The statement that the three gain expressions are "formally identical" is true but weak: any solution of a two-mode coupled-mode system with a hyperbolic ansatz has this form. The substantive content of the comparison lies in the coefficient mapping $(\vartheta_p, X_{s,i}) \leftrightarrow (\beta_p, k_\omega, \Psi_2) \leftrightarrow (\xi_n, \chi, \Psi_3)$. The authors should state this explicitly and present the coefficient mapping in a table or in an equation block, rather than leaving the reader to infer it from Fig. 3.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] There are several typos: "stat-of-the-art" in the Introduction, "reppresente" in the Fig. 2 caption, "TJWPA" in Section 4, and "Samilov" for "Samolov" in Ref. [26] and the surrounding text.
[Eq. (24)] The Hamiltonian contains $(\partial \Phi/\partial \Phi_t)^2$, which should presumably be $(\partial \Phi/\partial t)^2$; please correct this typo.
[§3.3, after Eq. (58)] In the sentence introducing the co-rotating frame, the authors write $\hat a_{s(i)} \to \hat a_{s(i)} e^{i\xi_{s(i)}|A_{p0}|^2 z}$; since the Heisenberg equations of this subsection are in the time domain, the variable should be $t$, not $z$.
[Eqs. (61)–(63)] The gain factor is denoted $g'_3$ in Eqs. (61)–(62) and $g_3$ in Eq. (63); the notation should be made consistent.
[§3.3, Eq. (52)] The attribution of the discrete-mode operator adaptation may be inaccurate: the text credits Ref. [34] (Loudon), but the discrete-mode Hamiltonian appears to be from Ref. [32] (van der Reep). Please verify and cite the more direct source.
[Fig. 3] The insets are small and the logarithmic scale can obscure the size of the deviations; consider plotting relative differences or differences in dB for the gain and phase mismatch.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the three compared models are external benchmarks, and the Eq. (63) time-to-space bridge is an unproven modeling assumption, not a redefinition that forces agreement.

full rationale

This paper is a review whose load-bearing claim is that three independently published theories give comparable gain and phase-mismatch predictions under the degenerate undepleted-pump assumption. The three models are external benchmarks (Yaakobi/O'Brien, Grimsmo/Blais, van der Reep), not results fitted in this paper, and the authors introduce no free parameters calibrated to data. Each model is derived from circuit equations or Hamiltonians, and the comparison is made by rewriting the van der Reep temporal equations with Eq. (63). Eq. (63) is introduced by assertion ('It turns out that'), and the use of phase velocity rather than group velocity is a legitimate physical-correctness concern; however, it is not circular, because the conversion does not rebuild the classical or Grimsmo results from Eq. (63), and the numerical similarity in Fig. 3 is not forced by any fitted parameter. There is no self-citation chain: references [11], [24], [31], and [32] are external, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked. The paper also states its own limitation that the undepleted-pump approximation is difficult to realize experimentally, which shows that it does not overstate the regime of validity. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained for the comparison it claims, and the circularity score is 0. The skeptical objection about Eq. (63) should be handled as a correctness or derivation-completeness issue, not as circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, mediators, or conserved quantities are introduced. The paper reuses established circuit elements and published models. The only hand-chosen inputs are the illustrative device parameters used for Fig. 3.

free parameters (1)

Illustrative device parameters for Fig. 3 = a=50 µm, Ic=5 µA, CJ=300 fF, C0=35 fF, ωp/2π=6 GHz, Ip=Ic/2
Chosen as 'typical constructive parameters' in the Fig. 3 caption; not fitted to data, but the numerical comparison and the claim of comparability are shown only for this set.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Lossless transmission line with identical Josephson junctions and coupling capacitances.
Assumed in all three models (Sec. 3, Fig. 2); ignores dissipation, which affects real gain.
domain assumption Continuous limit a/λ << 1 replacing discrete indices with a continuous position.
Used to obtain Eq. (9) and Eq. (21); standard long-wavelength approximation.
domain assumption Undepleted degenerate classical pump, |Ap| >> |As,i|.
Central simplifying assumption stated in Sec. 3 and required for Eqs. (17), (41), and (61); the paper notes depletion is hardly realized in practice.
domain assumption Slowly varying envelope approximation |∂²A/∂x²| << k|∂A/∂x| << k²|A|.
Used to derive the coupled-mode Eqs. (12) and (13).
domain assumption First-order weak nonlinear expansion of the Josephson energy keeping only the quartic term.
Used in Eqs. (5), (20), and (52); neglects higher-order nonlinearities and 3WM effects.
domain assumption For quantum models, quantization via continuous- or discrete-mode operators and a classical treatment of the pump.
Grimsmo/Blais and van der Reep treatments rely on this; the review adopts it without new justification.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superconducting Josephson-based metamaterials for quantum-limited parametric amplification: a review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XVOFYSX5

@misc{pith2026190806889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superconducting Josephson-based metamaterials for quantum-limited parametric amplification: a review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XVOFYSX5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06889}
}

read the original abstract

In the last few years, several groups have proposed and developed their own platforms demonstrating quantum-limited linear parametric amplification, with evident applications in quantum information and computation, electrical and optical metrology, radio astronomy and basic physics concerning axion detection. Here we propose a short review on the physics behind parametric amplification via metamaterials composed by coplanar wave-guides embedding several Josephson junctions. We present and compare different schemes that exploit the nonlinearity of the Josephson current-phase relation to mix the so-called signal, idler and pump tones. The chapter then presents and compares three different theoretical models, developed in the last few years, to predict the dynamics of these nonlinear systems in the particular case of a 4-Wave Mixing process and under the degenerate undepleted pump assumption. We will demonstrate that, under the same assumption, all the results are comparable in terms of amplification of the output fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06889 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Electrical equivalent representation of a repetition of Josephson junctions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of total phase mismatches (Ψi) and exponential complex gain factors (gi) predicted by the three treatments presented in section 3. For these calculations typical constructive parameters have been assumed: a = 50 µm, Ic = 5 µA, CJ = 300 fF andC0 = 35 fF, in such a way that the characteristic impedance is Z ≈ 50 Ω. Furthermore ωp/2π = 6 GHz and Ip = Ic/2. In the insets, the differences between the quantum … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Superconducting Circuits for Quantum Information: An Outlook

Devoret MH, Schoelkopf RJ. Superconducting Circuits for Quantum Information: An Outlook. Science 2013:339,1169. DOI: 10.1126/science.1231930

doi:10.1126/science.1231930 2013
[2]

Possible new Effects in Superconductive Tunneling

Josephson BD. Possible new Effects in Superconductive Tunneling. Physics Let- ters. 1962;1,7:251-253. DOI: 10.1016/0031-9163(62)91369-0

doi:10.1016/0031-9163(62)91369-0 1962
[3]

Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime

Niemczyk T, et al. Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime. Nat. Phys. 2010:6,772776. DOI: 10.1038/NPHYS1730

doi:10.1038/nphys1730 2010
[4]

Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom by a Mi- crowave Method

Lamb WE, and Retherford RC. Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom by a Mi- crowave Method. Phys. Rev. 1947:72,241. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.72.241

doi:10.1103/physrev.72.241 1947
[5]

Resolving Vacuum Fluctuations in an Electrical Circuit by Measuring the Lamb Shift

Fragner A, Goppl M, Fink JM, Baur M, Bianchetti R, Leek PJ, Blais A, and Wallraff A. Resolving Vacuum Fluctuations in an Electrical Circuit by Measuring the Lamb Shift. Science 2008:322, 1357. DOI: 10.1126/science.1164482

work page doi:10.1126/science.1164482 2008
[6]

Quantum theory of the electromagnetic ﬁeld in a variable-length one- dimensional cavity

Moore GT. Quantum theory of the electromagnetic ﬁeld in a variable-length one- dimensional cavity. J. Math. Phys. 1970:11,2679. DOI: 10.1063/1.1665432 17

doi:10.1063/1.1665432 1970
[7]

Radiation from a Moving Mirror in Two Dimen- sional Space-Time: Conformal Anomaly

Fulling SA, Davies PCW. Radiation from a Moving Mirror in Two Dimen- sional Space-Time: Conformal Anomaly. Proc. R. Soc. A 1976:348,393. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1976.0045

arXiv 1976
[8]

Observation of the dynamical casimir effect in a superconducting circuit

Wilson C, et al. Observation of the dynamical casimir effect in a superconducting circuit. Nature 2011:479,376379. DOI: 10.1038/nature10561

doi:10.1038/nature10561 2011

Show all 35 references

[9]

Subm, planarized, NbAlOxNb Josephson process for 125 mm wafers developed in partnership with Si technology

Ketchen MB, et al. Subm, planarized, NbAlOxNb Josephson process for 125 mm wafers developed in partnership with Si technology. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1991;59,2609. DOI: 10.1063/1.106405

1991 doi
[10]

White TC, et. al. Traveling wave parametric ampliﬁer with Josephson junctions using minimal resonator phase matching. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2015;106,242601. DOI: 10.1063/1.4922348

2015 doi
[11]

Resonant Phase Matching of Josephson Junction Traveling Wave Parametric Ampliﬁers

O’Brien K, Macklin C, Siddiqi I, Zhang X. Resonant Phase Matching of Josephson Junction Traveling Wave Parametric Ampliﬁers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014;113,157001. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.157001

2014 doi
[12]

Theory of the Travelling-Wave Parametric Ampliﬁer

Cullen AL. Theory of the Travelling-Wave Parametric Ampliﬁer. In: Proceed- ing of the IEE - Part B: Electronic and Communication Engineering; Aug. 1959;32,107, p. 101-107. DOI: 10.1049/pi-b-2.1960.0085

1959
[13]

A travelling-wave parametric ampliﬁer utilizing Joseph- son junctions

Sweeny M, Mahler R. A travelling-wave parametric ampliﬁer utilizing Joseph- son junctions. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. 1985;21,2:654-655. DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.1985.1063777

1985
[14]

A nearquantum-limited Josephson traveling-wave parametric am- pliﬁer

Macklin C, OBrien K, Hover D, Schwartz ME, Bolkhovsky V , Zhang X, Oliver WD, Siddiqi I. A nearquantum-limited Josephson traveling-wave parametric am- pliﬁer. Science. 2015;350,6258:307-310. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa8525

2015 doi
[15]

Quantum Optics, 2nd ed

Walls DF, and Milburn GJ. Quantum Optics, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2008)

2008
[16]

Can Quantum- Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys

Einstein A, Podolsky B, and Rosen N. Can Quantum- Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 1935:47,777. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

1935 doi
[18]

Parametric resonance in a linear oscillator at square-wave mod- ulation

Eugene I Butikov. Parametric resonance in a linear oscillator at square-wave mod- ulation. Eur. J. Phys. 26 (2005) 157174, DOI:10.1088/0143-0807/26/1/016

2005 doi
[19]

Investigation of an Experimental Travelling-Wave Para- metric Ampliﬁer

Mavaddat R, Hyde FJ. Investigation of an Experimental Travelling-Wave Para- metric Ampliﬁer. Proceedings of the IEE Part B: Electronic and Communication Engineering; Sept. 1962; 109,(47):405 DOI: 10.1049/pi-b-2.1962.0225

1962
[20]

A lownoise seriesarray Josephson junction parametric ampliﬁer

Yurke B, Roukes ML, Movshovich R, Pargellis AN. A lownoise seriesarray Josephson junction parametric ampliﬁer. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1996;69,3078. DOI: 10.1063/1.116845 18

1996 doi
[22]

Fluxon dynamics in discrete Josephson transmission lines with stacked junctions

Caputo P, Darula M, Ustinov A V , and Kohlstedt H. Fluxon dynamics in discrete Josephson transmission lines with stacked junctions. J. Appl. Phys. 1997;81,309 DOI: 10.1063/1.364110

1997 doi
[23]

Analysis of Series-Connected Dis- crete Josephson Transmission Line

Hamid Reza Mohebbi, Hamed Majedi A. Analysis of Series-Connected Dis- crete Josephson Transmission Line. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 2009;57,8. DOI: 10.1109/TMTT.2009.2025413

2009
[24]

Parametric ampliﬁcation in Joseph- son junction embedded transmission lines

Yaakobi O, Friedland L, Macklin C, Siddiqi I. Parametric ampliﬁcation in Joseph- son junction embedded transmission lines. Phys. Rev. B. 2013;87,144301. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.144301

2013 doi
[25]

Design of a Uniplanar Resonance Phase-Matched Josephson Travelling-Wave Parametric Ampliﬁer

Tan BK, Yassin G. Design of a Uniplanar Resonance Phase-Matched Josephson Travelling-Wave Parametric Ampliﬁer. In: 10th UK-Europe-China Workshop on Millimetre Waves and Terahertz Technologies (UCMMT); 11-13 Sept. 2017; Liv- erpool. New York: IEEE; 2017. p. 1-4

2017
[26]

Traveling-Wave Parametric Ampliﬁer Based on a Chain of Coupled Asymmetric SQUIDs

Bell MT, Samolov A. Traveling-Wave Parametric Ampliﬁer Based on a Chain of Coupled Asymmetric SQUIDs. Phys. Rev. Appl. 2015;4,024014. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.4.024014

2015 doi
[27]

Josephson Metamaterial with a Widely Tunable Positive or Negative Kerr Constant

Wenyuan Zhang, Huang W, Gershenson ME, Bell MT. Josephson Metamaterial with a Widely Tunable Positive or Negative Kerr Constant. Phys. Rev. Appl. 2017;8,051001 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.8.051001

2017 doi
[28]

Josephson Traveling-Wave Parametric Ampliﬁer with Three- Wave Mixing

Zorin AB. Josephson Traveling-Wave Parametric Ampliﬁer with Three- Wave Mixing. Phys. Rev. Appl. 2016;6,034006 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevAp- plied.6.034006

2016 doi
[29]

Traveling-Wave Parametric Ampli- ﬁer Based on Three-Wave Mixing in a Josephson Metamaterial

Zorin AB, Khabipov M, Dietel J, Dolata R. Traveling-Wave Parametric Ampli- ﬁer Based on Three-Wave Mixing in a Josephson Metamaterial. In: 2017 16th International Superconductive Electronics Conference (ISEC); 12-16 June 2017; Naples. New Yourk: IEEE; 2017. p. 1-3

2017
[30]

Symmetric Traveling Wave Parametric Am- pliﬁer

Miano A, Mukhanov OA. Symmetric Traveling Wave Parametric Am- pliﬁer. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity. 2019;29,5. DOI: 10.1109/TASC.2019.2904699

2019
[31]

Squeezing and quantum state engineering with Joseph- son travelling wave ampliﬁers

Grimsmo AL, Blais A. Squeezing and quantum state engineering with Joseph- son travelling wave ampliﬁers. npj Quantum Information. 2017;3,20. DOI: 10.1038/s41534-017-0020-8

2017 doi
[32]

Mesoscopic Hamiltonian for Josephson traveling-wave parametric ampliﬁers

van der Reep THA. Mesoscopic Hamiltonian for Josephson traveling-wave parametric ampliﬁers. Phys. Rev. A. 2019;99,063838. DOI: 10.1103/Phys- RevA.99.063838 19

2019 doi
[33]

Quantum-limited parametric ampliﬁcation with Josephson circuits in the regime of pump depletion Ananda Roy and Michel Devoret Phys. Rev. B 98, 045405 Published 5 July 2018 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.045405

2018 doi
[34]

The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd ed

Loudon R. The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, Ox- ford, UK, 2000)

2000
[35]

Introduction to quantum electromagnetic circuits

V ool U, Devoret M. Introduction to quantum electromagnetic circuits. In- ternational Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications. 2017;45,897. DOI: 10.1002/cta.2359

2017 doi
[36]

Electromagnetic-ﬁeld quantization in inhomogeneous and dispersive one-dimensional systems

Santos DJ, Loudon R. Electromagnetic-ﬁeld quantization in inhomogeneous and dispersive one-dimensional systems. Phys. Rev. A. 1995;52,1538. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.52.1538

1995 doi
[37]

Microwave Engineering, 4th ed

Pozar DM. Microwave Engineering, 4th ed. (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2012) 20

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Superconducting Circuits for Quantum Information: An Outlook

Devoret MH, Schoelkopf RJ. Superconducting Circuits for Quantum Information: An Outlook. Science 2013:339,1169. DOI: 10.1126/science.1231930

doi:10.1126/science.1231930 2013

[2] [2]

Possible new Effects in Superconductive Tunneling

Josephson BD. Possible new Effects in Superconductive Tunneling. Physics Let- ters. 1962;1,7:251-253. DOI: 10.1016/0031-9163(62)91369-0

doi:10.1016/0031-9163(62)91369-0 1962

[3] [3]

Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime

Niemczyk T, et al. Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime. Nat. Phys. 2010:6,772776. DOI: 10.1038/NPHYS1730

doi:10.1038/nphys1730 2010

[4] [4]

Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom by a Mi- crowave Method

Lamb WE, and Retherford RC. Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom by a Mi- crowave Method. Phys. Rev. 1947:72,241. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.72.241

doi:10.1103/physrev.72.241 1947

[5] [5]

Resolving Vacuum Fluctuations in an Electrical Circuit by Measuring the Lamb Shift

Fragner A, Goppl M, Fink JM, Baur M, Bianchetti R, Leek PJ, Blais A, and Wallraff A. Resolving Vacuum Fluctuations in an Electrical Circuit by Measuring the Lamb Shift. Science 2008:322, 1357. DOI: 10.1126/science.1164482

work page doi:10.1126/science.1164482 2008

[6] [6]

Quantum theory of the electromagnetic ﬁeld in a variable-length one- dimensional cavity

Moore GT. Quantum theory of the electromagnetic ﬁeld in a variable-length one- dimensional cavity. J. Math. Phys. 1970:11,2679. DOI: 10.1063/1.1665432 17

doi:10.1063/1.1665432 1970

[7] [7]

Radiation from a Moving Mirror in Two Dimen- sional Space-Time: Conformal Anomaly

Fulling SA, Davies PCW. Radiation from a Moving Mirror in Two Dimen- sional Space-Time: Conformal Anomaly. Proc. R. Soc. A 1976:348,393. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1976.0045

arXiv 1976

[8] [8]

Observation of the dynamical casimir effect in a superconducting circuit

Wilson C, et al. Observation of the dynamical casimir effect in a superconducting circuit. Nature 2011:479,376379. DOI: 10.1038/nature10561

doi:10.1038/nature10561 2011