Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 56 references

A single susceptibility formula covers Majorana parity readout from resonance to the dispersive limit, with few-percent semiclassical errors near resonance.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-15 13:47 UTC pith:QAEL4NUR

load-bearing objection Solid calibration paper: full-crossover χ_z plus an honest few-percent audit of the semiclassical factorization against Lindblad/analytic references; useful for MBQ readout, not a conceptual leap.

arxiv 2603.06482 v2 pith:QAEL4NUR submitted 2026-03-06 cond-mat.str-el

Parity readout in Majorana box qubits from the dispersive to the resonant regime

Sara M. Benjadi , Reinhold Egger This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Majorana box qubitparity readoutdynamical susceptibilitycharge reflectometryquantum capacitanceLindblad master equationdispersive regimesemiclassical approximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Both charge-reflectometry and quantum-capacitance readout of Majorana box qubit parity are controlled by one parity-dependent dynamical susceptibility. This paper derives a closed linear-response expression for that susceptibility that remains valid across the entire crossover from the resonant strong-coupling regime to the off-resonant dispersive regime. It then tests the semiclassical factorization of photon-qubit correlators that earlier analytic formulas relied on, using three error measures against exact steady states of the Lindblad master equation. In the dispersive regime the factorization is essentially exact for realistic device parameters; near resonance the same formulas deviate by only a few percent. The result supplies experimentalists with a practical accuracy budget for the readout expressions already in use.

Core claim

A parity-dependent dynamical susceptibility obtained from a Kubo formula with dephasing and relaxation rates interpolates continuously between the resonant and dispersive limits of Majorana box qubit readout. When the same Lindblad dynamics are solved without the semiclassical factorization of photon-qubit correlators, the transmission amplitude and phase used for parity discrimination differ from the approximate analytic expressions by typically a few percent near resonance and by well under one percent in the dispersive regime.

What carries the argument

The full-crossover susceptibility χ_full_z(ω) = g_z² [1/(iΓ_tot − (2ω_z − ω)) − 1/(iΓ_tot + (2ω_z + ω))], together with three error measures (connected correlator, amplitude relative error, and normalized phase error) that quantify the semiclassical factorization against exact Lindblad steady states.

Load-bearing premise

The crossover formula treats the cavity–dot coupling as a weak linear-response perturbation even when it is used to judge the accuracy of strong-coupling, near-resonant formulas that assume coherent hybridization.

What would settle it

Measure transmission phase versus drive frequency on a device tuned through resonance and compare the observed slope and peak location with both the semiclassical analytic formula and a full numerical Lindblad solution; a systematic discrepancy larger than a few percent would invalidate the claimed error budget.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Experimentalists can use one closed-form susceptibility for quantum-capacitance calibration without switching formulas when detuning changes.
  • In the dispersive regime the existing semiclassical transmission formulas remain reliable at the sub-percent level for current hybrid-device parameters.
  • Near resonance a numerical Lindblad solution is needed only when parity contrast is already marginal; otherwise few-percent analytic errors are tolerable.
  • Single-port reflection coefficients used in recent experiments are algebraically equivalent to the two-port amplitudes analyzed here, so the same error budgets apply.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The few-percent residual error near resonance may become the dominant systematic once quasiparticle poisoning and charge noise fall below that level.
  • The same Kubo-plus-Lindblad framework can be reused for Andreev-bound-state parity readout, giving a direct experimental path that does not require topological protection.
  • If higher-order photon processes at experimental coupling strengths exceed the linear-response assumption, the reported error floors would understate the true discrepancy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes charge-reflectometry and quantum-capacitance parity readout of a Majorana box qubit (MBQ) within a Lindblad master-equation framework that includes dephasing, relaxation, and photon leakage. It shows that both schemes are controlled by a single parity-dependent dynamical susceptibility χ_z(ω). A Kubo formula (Eq. 40) is derived that interpolates between the known resonant (RWA) expression (Eq. 19) and the static dispersive pull (Eq. 22). The authors then re-examine the semiclassical factorization ⟨a τ_z⟩_ss ≈ ⟨a⟩_ss ⟨τ_z⟩_ss used in earlier work, quantifying its accuracy with three error measures (ε_aτz, ε_A, ε_φ) against numerical steady states of the full Lindblad equation in the resonant regime and against a closed analytic expression (Eq. 27) in the dispersive regime. For experimentally motivated parameters the factorization is essentially exact in the dispersive limit and incurs only few-percent errors near resonance.

Significance. Reliable, fast parity readout is a prerequisite for any scalable MBQ architecture. The work supplies a single, experimentally usable expression for χ_z(ω) across the resonant-to-dispersive crossover and a quantitative error budget for the widely employed semiclassical formulas. The resonant-regime audit is performed against independent numerical solutions of the full Lindblad equation (not against the Kubo formula itself), and the dispersive audit uses an exact closed-form result; both are therefore non-circular. The three error measures and the parameter scans in Figs. 2–4 give experimental groups a concrete map of when the simple analytic expressions remain trustworthy. These results are of immediate practical value for ongoing InAs-Al and poor-man’s-Majorana readout experiments.

minor comments (5)
  1. In Sec. III A the authors correctly state that Eq. (40) is an O(g_z^{2}) linear-response result. A single clarifying sentence noting that the resonant error audit of Fig. 3(a–d) never uses χ_full as reference (it compares directly to the numerical Lindblad steady state under H_sc) would prevent any possible misreading of the scope of the crossover formula.
  2. Fig. 2 caption and surrounding text: the horizontal 2 % threshold is useful, but the precise definition of ε (relative deviation of complex χ) could be restated once more when the figure is first introduced, so that readers do not have to flip back to Eq. (41).
  3. Notation: the same symbol χ_z is used for the dynamical susceptibility, its static dispersive limit, and the resonator pull; a brief remark that the frequency argument is dropped only when χ_z is frequency-independent would improve readability.
  4. A short remark on the numerical method used to obtain the steady state of the full Lindblad equation (photon-number truncation, solver, convergence checks) would aid reproducibility; the Zenodo data deposit is already a strong point.
  5. Typographical: “Dottel horizontal lines” in the caption of Fig. 3 should be “Dotted”; a few other minor typos (“aka tetron”, spacing around ±) can be cleaned in proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: crossover susceptibility is standard linear-response Kubo, and semiclassical error budgets are audited against independent Lindblad numerics and closed analytic expressions.

full rationale

The paper's two central results are (i) the full-crossover susceptibility χ_full_z(ω) obtained from the Kubo formula treating the cavity–dot coupling as an O(g^{2}) linear-response perturbation (Sec. III A, Eqs. 39–40), which recovers the known resonant (Eq. 19) and dispersive (Eq. 22) limits by elementary expansion and is checked in Fig. 2, and (ii) a quantitative audit of the semiclassical factorization ⟨a τ_z⟩_ss ≈ ⟨a⟩_ss ⟨τ_z⟩_ss via three error measures against independent references: numerical steady states of the full Lindblad equation (12) under H_sc in the resonant regime (Fig. 3a–d) and the closed analytic weak-coupling amplitude (27) in the dispersive regime (Fig. 3e–h and Fig. 4). Neither result is forced by definition, by fitting a parameter that is then re-predicted, or by a load-bearing self-citation uniqueness claim. Self-citation of Plugge et al. (2017) supplies only the model setup and the prior semiclassical formulas being stress-tested; the error numbers themselves are newly computed against independent solvers. The O(g^{2}) scope of Eq. 40 is already stated by the authors and is not used as the reference for the resonant factorization audit. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work sits on standard open-system cavity-QED and an idealized four-Majorana Coulomb-blockaded box. No new particles or forces are invented. Free parameters are experimental rates and couplings chosen as ‘typical’ for InAs–Al hybrids; they set the numerical error budgets but not the form of χ_z. Load-bearing modeling axioms are Lindblad Markovian decoherence, RWA near resonance, linear-response truncation for χ_full, and restriction to pure Majorana (not Andreev) low-energy modes.

free parameters (2)
  • cavity–dot coupling λ / g_z and decoherence rates (Γ_ϕ, γ, κ, Γ_tot) = e.g. g ~ 4–40 MHz, Γ_tot ~ 9–60 MHz; λ_0 = 0.2 GHz scale in Fig. 3
    Chosen in the MHz range as ‘typical experimental values’ for hybrid devices; they control the size of the reported few-percent errors and the width of the crossover window in Fig. 2.
  • tunnel amplitudes t_0, t_1, detuning ε, phase φ, temperature T = e.g. |t_0|=5λ_0, |t_1|=λ_0, T=30 mK in Fig. 3
    Hand-chosen device parameters that fix ω_z and |t_z|; used to place the system in resonant or dispersive regimes for the error scans.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Markovian Lindblad master equation with independent dephasing, relaxation, and photon leakage channels adequately describes the double-dot–resonator dynamics.
    Invoked throughout Sec. II B and III; standard in circuit QED but not derived from a microscopic bath model here.
  • domain assumption Near resonance, the rotating-wave approximation retains only the resonant term in the interaction (H_RWA / H_sc).
    Sec. II B 1; used to define the strong-coupling Hamiltonian against which semiclassics is tested.
  • ad hoc to paper The full-crossover susceptibility is given by the O(g_z²) Kubo formula with the uncoupled (λ=0) average, including dephasing via Γ_tot.
    Sec. III A, Eqs. 39–40; this is the paper’s interpolating formula and the reference for ε in Fig. 2.
  • domain assumption Only the four Majorana operators (ideal MBQ under Coulomb valley) are the relevant low-energy degrees of freedom; Andreev subgap states are set aside.
    Sec. II A; authors note the methods can apply to Andreev parities but focus on the idealized case.
  • standard math Standard linear algebra / Fourier transforms of two-time correlators and steady-state truncation of Heisenberg hierarchies under factorization.
    Used for χ_z, A_ω, and the semiclassical closure ⟨aτ_z⟩≈⟨a⟩⟨τ_z⟩.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22447 in / 3250 out tokens · 30229 ms · 2026-07-15T13:47:05.247472+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study theoretical models for charge reflectometry and capacitive readout of the Majorana parity degree of freedom in Majorana box qubits, taking into account decoherence channels within the framework of the Lindblad master equation. Noting that a parity-dependent dynamical susceptibility $\chi_z(\omega)$ governs both readout schemes, we provide a general expression for $\chi_z(\omega)$ which covers the full crossover from the resonant regime to the off-resonant dispersive regime. In addition, we re-examine previous results which were obtained under a semiclassical factorization assumption. Using three different error measures, we show that this approximation is quantitatively justified in the dispersive regime. In the resonant regime, however, we find deviations from exact reference data, obtained by numerical solution for the steady state of the full Lindblad equation. These deviations are typically of the order of a few percent in the considered error measures.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In addition, many aspects of Majorana physics can be emulated using a poor man’s version of short Kitaev chains engineered by the fine tuning of coupled quantum dots [11–15]

    More recently, the so-called topological gap proto- col was employed for identifying parameter regions where devices are expected to harbor MBSs [8–10]. In addition, many aspects of Majorana physics can be emulated using a poor man’s version of short Kitaev chains engineered by the fine tuning of coupled quantum dots [11–15]. An intensely pursued topologi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    As a result, Eq

    Near-resonant conditions First, if the resonator and the double dot are nearly res- onant,|ω 0 −2ωz| ≪min(ω 0, ωz) for both values ofz=±, the standard rotating-wave approximation (RWA) ap- plies [47]. As a result, Eq. (5) yields the effective Hamil- tonian HRWA =ω zτz +ω 0a†a+g z(aτ+ +a †τ−),(6) where the parity-dependent coupling gz =− λ|tz| 2ωz (7) desc...

  3. [3]

    [16, 17, 29, 30]

    Off-resonant conditions Next we turn to the off-resonant case, realizing the dis- persive regime of MBQ parity readout, see also Refs. [16, 17, 29, 30]. Recent experimental readout schemes [9, 15] have employed this regime. The dispersive regime is re- alized forλ≪min(ω 0,|ω 0 ±2ω z|), so that only virtual photon processes are important. ExpandingHin Eq. ...

  4. [4]

    II B to the numerically exact solution for the steady state of the Lindblad equation

    Strong-coupling limit In the strong-coupling limit, the three error measures introduced above are evaluated by comparing the semi- classical predictions in Sec. II B to the numerically exact solution for the steady state of the Lindblad equation. Our results are shown in Fig. 3(a)–(d) for a specific pa- rameter set, where the system is in the strong-coupl...

  5. [5]

    3(e)–(h), where the cavity and the double dot are energetically detuned and coherent hybridization ef- fects are suppressed

    Weak-coupling regime We now turn to the dispersive weak-coupling regime, see Fig. 3(e)–(h), where the cavity and the double dot are energetically detuned and coherent hybridization ef- fects are suppressed. In contrast to the strong-coupling limit, the semiclassical approximation can now be bench- marked against analytical expressions, see Sec. II B. We a...

    2004

  6. [6]

    Mourik, K

    V. Mourik, K. Zuo, S. M. Frolov, S. R. Plissard, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Signa- tures of Majorana Fermions in Hybrid Superconductor- Semiconductor Nanowire Devices, Science336, 1003 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Superconducting Proximity Effect and Majorana Fermions at the Surface of a Topological Insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 096407 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Topological insulators, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    R. M. Lutchyn, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwen- hoven, P. Krogstrup, C. M. Marcus, and Y. Oreg, Majo- rana zero modes in superconductor–semiconductor het- erostructures, Nature Reviews Materials3, 52 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Prada, P

    E. Prada, P. San-Jose, M. W. A. de Moor, A. Geresdi, E. J. H. Lee, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, J. Nyg˚ ard, R. Aguado, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, From Andreev to Majorana bound states in hybrid superconductor–semiconductor nanowires, Nature Reviews Physics2, 575 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Search for non-Abelian Majorana braiding statistics in superconductors, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 15 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Flensberg, F

    K. Flensberg, F. von Oppen, and A. Stern, Engineered platforms for topological superconductivity and Ma- jorana zero modes, Nature Reviews Materials6, 944 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Aghaee, A

    M. Aghaee, A. Akkala, Z. Alam, R. Ali, A. Al- caraz Ramirez, M. Andrzejczuk, A. E. Antipov, P. Aseev, M. Astafev, B. Bauer, and et al. (Microsoft Quantum), InAs-Al hybrid devices passing the topological gap pro- tocol, Phys. Rev. B107, 245423 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Aghaee, A

    Microsoft Azure Quantum, M. Aghaee, A. Al- caraz Ramirez, Z. Alam, R. Ali, M. Andrzejczuk, A. An- tipov, M. Astafev, A. Barzegar, B. Bauer, J. Becker, and et al., Interferometric single-shot parity measurement in InAs–Al hybrid devices, Nature638, 651 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Aghaee, Z

    M. Aghaee, Z. Alam, R. Andersen, M. Andrzejczuk, A. Antipov, M. Astafev, L. Avilovas, A. Azizimanesh, E. Banek, B. Bauer, and et al., Distinct Lifetimes forX andZLoop Measurements in a Majorana Tetron Device (2025), arXiv:2507.08795 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Parity qubits and poor man’s Majorana bound states in double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B86, 134528 (2012). 11

    2012

  17. [17]

    T. Dvir, G. Wang, N. van Loo, C.-X. Liu, G. P. Mazur, A. Bordin, S. L. D. ten Haaf, J.-Y. Wang, D. van Driel, F. Zatelli, and et al., Realization of a minimal Kitaev chain in coupled quantum dots, Nature614, 445 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    S. L. D. ten Haaf, Q. Wang, A. M. Bozkurt, C.-X. Liu, I. Kulesh, P. Kim, D. Xiao, C. Thomas, M. J. Manfra, T. Dvir, M. Wimmer, and S. Goswami, A two-site Kitaev chain in a two-dimensional electron gas, Nature630, 329 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Nitsch, L

    M. Nitsch, L. Maffi, V. V. Baran, R. Seoane Souto, J. Paaske, M. Leijnse, and M. Burrello, Poor Man’s Ma- jorana Tetron, PRX Quantum6, 030365 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    van Loo, F

    N. van Loo, F. Zatelli, G. O. Steffensen, B. Roovers, G. Wang, T. Van Caekenberghe, A. Bordin, D. van Driel, Y. Zhang, W. D. Huisman, G. Badawy, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, G. P. Mazur, R. Aguado, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Single-shot parity readout of a minimal Kitaev chain, Nature650, 334 (2026)

    2026

  21. [21]

    Plugge, A

    S. Plugge, A. Rasmussen, R. Egger, and K. Flensberg, Majorana box qubits, New Journal of Physics19, 012001 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    Karzig, C

    T. Karzig, C. Knapp, R. M. Lutchyn, P. Bonder- son, M. B. Hastings, C. Nayak, J. Alicea, K. Flens- berg, S. Plugge, Y. Oreg, C. M. Marcus, and M. H. Freedman, Scalable designs for quasiparticle-poisoning- protected topological quantum computation with Majo- rana zero modes, Phys. Rev. B95, 235305 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    B´ eri and N

    B. B´ eri and N. R. Cooper, Topological Kondo Effect with Majorana Fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 156803 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Altland and R

    A. Altland and R. Egger, Multiterminal Coulomb- Majorana Junction, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 196401 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    B´ eri, Majorana-Klein Hybridization in Topological Su- perconductor Junctions, Phys

    B. B´ eri, Majorana-Klein Hybridization in Topological Su- perconductor Junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 216803 (2013)

    2013

  26. [26]

    L. A. Landau, S. Plugge, E. Sela, A. Altland, S. M. Albrecht, and R. Egger, Towards Realistic Implementa- tions of a Majorana Surface Code, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 050501 (2016)

    2016

  27. [27]

    Plugge, L

    S. Plugge, L. A. Landau, E. Sela, A. Altland, K. Flens- berg, and R. Egger, Roadmap to Majorana surface codes, Phys. Rev. B94, 174514 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    Litinski, M

    D. Litinski, M. S. Kesselring, J. Eisert, and F. von Op- pen, Combining Topological Hardware and Topological Software: Color-Code Quantum Computing with Topo- logical Superconductor Networks, Phys. Rev. X7, 031048 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Litinski and F

    D. Litinski and F. von Oppen, Quantum computing with Majorana fermion codes, Phys. Rev. B97, 205404 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    Aasen, M

    D. Aasen, M. Aghaee, Z. Alam, M. Andrzejczuk, A. An- tipov, M. Astafev, L. Avilovas, A. Barzegar, B. Bauer, J. Becker, and et al., Blueprint for fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with topological qubit arrays, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 041002 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Aasen, M

    D. Aasen, M. Hell, R. V. Mishmash, A. Higginbotham, J. Danon, M. Leijnse, T. S. Jespersen, J. A. Folk, C. M. Marcus, K. Flensberg, and J. Alicea, Milestones toward majorana-based quantum computing, Phys. Rev. X6, 031016 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    Hyart, B

    T. Hyart, B. van Heck, I. C. Fulga, M. Burrello, A. R. Akhmerov, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Flux-controlled quantum computation with Majorana fermions, Phys. Rev. B88, 035121 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    Vijay, T

    S. Vijay, T. H. Hsieh, and L. Fu, Majorana Fermion Sur- face Code for Universal Quantum Computation, Phys. Rev. X5, 041038 (2015)

    2015

  34. [34]

    Ohm and F

    C. Ohm and F. Hassler, Microwave readout of Majorana qubits, Phys. Rev. B91, 085406 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    Yavilberg, E

    K. Yavilberg, E. Ginossar, and E. Grosfeld, Fermion par- ity measurement and control in Majorana circuit quan- tum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. B92, 075143 (2015)

    2015

  36. [36]

    Vijay and L

    S. Vijay and L. Fu, Teleportation-based quantum infor- mation processing with Majorana zero modes, Phys. Rev. B94, 235446 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    T. B. Smith, M. C. Cassidy, D. J. Reilly, S. D. Bartlett, and A. L. Grimsmo, Dispersive Readout of Majorana Qubits, PRX Quantum1, 020313 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    Gharavi, D

    K. Gharavi, D. Hoving, and J. Baugh, Readout of Ma- jorana parity states using a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 94, 155417 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    M. I. K. Munk, R. Egger, and K. Flensberg, Fidelity and visibility loss in Majorana qubits by entanglement with environmental modes, Phys. Rev. B99, 155419 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    M. I. K. Munk, J. Schulenborg, R. Egger, and K. Flens- berg, Parity-to-charge conversion in Majorana qubit readout, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033254 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    J. F. Steiner and F. von Oppen, Readout of Majorana qubits, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033255 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Sz´ echenyi and A

    G. Sz´ echenyi and A. P´ alyi, Parity-to-charge conversion for readout of topological Majorana qubits, Phys. Rev. B101, 235441 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Zhang and D

    Z.-T. Zhang and D. E. Liu, Readout of Majorana bound states via Landau-Zener transition, Phys. Rev. B103, 195401 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Schulenborg, M

    J. Schulenborg, M. Burrello, M. Leijnse, and K. Flens- berg, Multilevel effects in quantum dot based parity-to- charge conversion of Majorana box qubits, Phys. Rev. B 103, 245407 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Schulenborg, S

    J. Schulenborg, S. Krøjer, M. Burrello, M. Leijnse, and K. Flensberg, Detecting Majorana modes by readout of poisoning-induced parity flips, Phys. Rev. B107, L121401 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    C.-X. Liu, H. Pan, F. Setiawan, M. Wimmer, and J. D. Sau, Fusion protocol for Majorana modes in coupled quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B108, 085437 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    J. D. Sau and S. Das Sarma, Capacitance-based fermion parity readout and predicted Rabi oscillations in a Ma- jorana nanowire, Phys. Rev. B111, 224509 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    K. D. Petersson, C. G. Smith, D. Anderson, P. Atkin- son, G. A. C. Jones, and D. A. Ritchie, Charge and Spin State Readout of a Double Quantum Dot Coupled to a Resonator, Nano Letters10, 2789 (2010)

    2010

  49. [49]

    T. Frey, P. J. Leek, M. Beck, A. Blais, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraff, Dipole Coupling of a Double Quantum Dot to a Microwave Resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 046807 (2012)

    2012

  50. [50]

    J. I. Colless, A. C. Mahoney, J. M. Hornibrook, A. C. Doherty, H. Lu, A. C. Gossard, and D. J. Reilly, Disper- sive Readout of a Few-Electron Double Quantum Dot with Fast rf Gate Sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 046805 (2013)

    2013

  51. [51]

    Y.-Y. Liu, K. D. Petersson, J. Stehlik, J. M. Taylor, and J. R. Petta, Photon Emission from a Cavity-Coupled Double Quantum Dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 036801 (2014)

    2014

  52. [52]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A69, 062320 (2004). 12

    2004

  53. [53]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  54. [54]

    L. Peri, M. Benito, C. J. B. Ford, and M. F. Gonzalez- Zalba, Unified linear response theory of quantum elec- tronic circuits, npj Quantum Information10, 114 (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Mar- quardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  56. [56]

    Bruus and K

    H. Bruus and K. Flensberg,Many-body quantum theory in condensed matter physics - an introduction(Oxford University Press, United States, 2004)

    2004