Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

A global adiabatic criterion shows fast topological photon transfer requires vanishing nonadiabaticity variance, not a constant energy gap.

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-4.3

2026-06-28 09:41 UTC pith:U3IHWORI

load-bearing objection The GAC isolates nonadiabatic variance vanishing as the condition for sinusoidal optimality among power-laws and shows constant gap is not enough, but the infidelity bound needs the derivation checked. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.03409 v1 pith:U3IHWORI submitted 2026-06-02 quant-ph

Global adiabatic criterion for fast topological photon transfer in Fock-state lattices

Jin-Lei Wu , Pei-Yao Song , Jia Li , Ya Gao , Yan Wang , Shi-Lei Su This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords topological photon transferFock-state latticesglobal adiabatic criterionnonadiabaticity variancesinusoidal couplingadiabaticity bound
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.

The paper introduces a global adiabatic criterion that bounds transfer infidelity directly by the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor across the evolution. It demonstrates that among power-law coupling profiles the variance reaches zero only for the sinusoidal shape, establishing that profile as globally optimal for speed. The criterion yields concrete predictions: a five-photon transfer can finish in 161 ns instead of the 600 ns used experimentally while raising transferred photon number by 29 percent, and optimal time grows linearly with photon number. The work further shows that constant-gap families alone do not produce fast transfer unless nonadiabaticity remains uniform.

Core claim

The global adiabatic criterion bounds infidelity by the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor. Among power-law couplings the variance vanishes solely for the sinusoidal profile, which is therefore globally optimal. Fast topological transfer therefore hinges on uniformity of nonadiabaticity rather than constancy of the energy gap; a constant-gap family constructed in the paper confirms the distinction.

What carries the argument

The global adiabatic criterion (GAC), which upper-bounds infidelity using the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor evaluated along the path.

Load-bearing premise

Infidelity of the transfer can be bounded by the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor.

What would settle it

Measure the actual infidelity and the nonadiabatic-factor variance for several power-law coupling shapes; only the sinusoidal shape should simultaneously minimize both variance and infidelity while achieving the predicted linear scaling of duration with photon number.

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

If this is right

  • Sinusoidal coupling yields a 73 percent reduction in transfer time for five-photon states while increasing the number of transferred photons by 29 percent.
  • Optimal transfer duration scales linearly with photon number, supplying a direct experimental guideline.
  • Any constant-gap coupling family fails to achieve the same speed unless its nonadiabaticity variance also vanishes.
  • Uniformity of nonadiabaticity, rather than gap constancy, is the essential design condition.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same variance-vanishing condition may supply a design rule for fast protocols in other lattice or waveguide systems that rely on topological pumping.
  • An experiment that systematically varies the coupling exponent and records both variance and fidelity would directly test whether sinusoidal is uniquely optimal.
  • The linear scaling prediction offers a simple check: doubling photon number should double the minimal duration under otherwise fixed parameters.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a global adiabatic criterion (GAC) to bound the infidelity of topological photon transfer in Fock-state lattices by the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor. It argues that vanishing nonadiabaticity variance (rather than constant energy gap) enables fast transfer, identifies the sinusoidal profile as globally optimal among power-law couplings, constructs a constant-gap counterexample family to confirm this, and predicts an optimal 161 ns transfer time for five-photon states (73% reduction) with linear scaling in photon number using experimental decoherence parameters.

Significance. If the GAC bound holds rigorously, the work supplies a practical optimization framework for topological photonics that explains the observed speed of sinusoidal profiles and supplies falsifiable scaling predictions. The constant-gap counterexample is a useful clarification. Strengths include the use of independently measured decoherence parameters for concrete time predictions and the focus on uniformity of nonadiabaticity.

major comments (3)
  1. [GAC derivation (section introducing the bound)] The central claim that the GAC bounds infidelity using only the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor (and thereby establishes global optimality of the sinusoidal profile) rests on a derivation whose approximations (e.g., neglect of higher moments, small-nonadiabatic-factor assumption, or eigenbasis commutation properties) are not shown. Without this explicit derivation the optimality conclusion and the counter-example with the constant-gap family do not necessarily follow.
  2. [Numerical checks and application to five-photon state] No numerical verification of the GAC infidelity bound against exact dynamics is provided for the power-law or five-photon cases; this is required to confirm that the mean/variance statistics alone suffice in the relevant regime.
  3. [Power-law profile analysis] The statement that variance vanishes only for the sinusoidal shape among power-law profiles requires an explicit calculation or proof; the optimality conclusion is load-bearing on this step.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states 'the optimal duration follow a simple linear scaling'; correct grammar to 'follows'.
  2. [Prediction section] Decoherence handling is mentioned only via external parameters; clarify in the main text how these enter the GAC application without circularity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below. The revisions will focus on making the GAC derivation fully explicit, adding numerical validations, and providing the requested calculation for the power-law case. These changes will strengthen the manuscript without altering its core claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [GAC derivation (section introducing the bound)] The central claim that the GAC bounds infidelity using only the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor (and thereby establishes global optimality of the sinusoidal profile) rests on a derivation whose approximations (e.g., neglect of higher moments, small-nonadiabatic-factor assumption, or eigenbasis commutation properties) are not shown. Without this explicit derivation the optimality conclusion and the counter-example with the constant-gap family do not necessarily follow.

    Authors: We agree that the derivation of the GAC bound requires more explicit steps. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant section to present a complete derivation of the infidelity bound in terms of the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor, explicitly stating the approximations employed (including the regime of small nonadiabatic factor that permits neglect of higher moments and the eigenbasis commutation relations used). This expanded derivation will also clarify how the bound implies global optimality of the sinusoidal profile and supports the constant-gap counterexample family. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical checks and application to five-photon state] No numerical verification of the GAC infidelity bound against exact dynamics is provided for the power-law or five-photon cases; this is required to confirm that the mean/variance statistics alone suffice in the relevant regime.

    Authors: We accept that direct numerical verification is necessary. The revised manuscript will include new numerical comparisons of the GAC-predicted infidelity against exact time-dependent Schrödinger evolution for representative power-law profiles and for the five-photon state, using the same experimental decoherence parameters. These checks will confirm the regime in which mean and variance statistics are sufficient. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Power-law profile analysis] The statement that variance vanishes only for the sinusoidal shape among power-law profiles requires an explicit calculation or proof; the optimality conclusion is load-bearing on this step.

    Authors: The manuscript asserts that the nonadiabaticity variance vanishes only for the sinusoidal profile within the power-law family. To address the request for rigor, the revised version will insert an explicit calculation (or short proof) showing that the variance expression is identically zero solely for the sinusoidal case among the considered power-law couplings; the steps will be presented in an appendix or dedicated subsection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives a global adiabatic criterion (GAC) that bounds infidelity via the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor, then applies this bound to power-law coupling profiles to show that only the sinusoidal shape makes the variance vanish. An alternative constant-gap family is explicitly constructed to test (and refute) the sufficiency of constant gap alone. The 161 ns prediction incorporates external experimental decoherence values that do not feed back into the optimality claim. No equations reduce by construction to their own inputs, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing steps rely on self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The chain is therefore independent of the target results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The GAC rests on the assumption that infidelity is bounded by nonadiabatic-factor statistics and on the restriction to power-law coupling profiles; no new entities are introduced and the decoherence values are taken from external experiment rather than fitted inside the derivation.

free parameters (1)
  • experimental decoherence parameters
    Used to generate the numerical prediction of 161 ns; not derived or fitted by the paper itself.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Infidelity is bounded by the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor
    This is the explicit foundation of the global adiabatic criterion stated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Coupling profiles belong to the power-law family
    The optimality proof is stated to hold inside this restricted class.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5744 in / 1447 out tokens · 29892 ms · 2026-06-28T09:41:46.288523+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Topological state transfer in Fock-state lattices has been demonstrated with high speed using sinusoidal profiles of coupling, yet the underlying reason has remained unclear. A global adiabatic criterion (GAC) is developed to bound the infidelity by the mean and variance of the nonadiabatic factor. The GAC reveals that the key to fast transfer is not a constant energy gap but the vanishing nonadiabaticity variance. For power-law coupling profiles, the variance vanishes only for the sinusoidal shape, which is thus globally optimal. Incorporating experimental decoherence parameters, it is predicted that the optimal transfer duration for a five-photon state is 161 ns, far shorter than 600 ns used in the experiment, reducing time by over 73% while increasing transferred photons by 29%. The optimal duration follow a simple linear scaling with photon number, providing a practical guideline. Through constructing an alternative constant-gap coupling family, it is confirmed that a constant gap alone is not sufficient for fast topological photon transfer. The essential condition is uniformity of nonadiabaticity. This work offers a rigorous explanation for the observed speed and a general framework for fast topological photonics engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03409 by Jia Li, Jin-Lei Wu, Pei-Yao Song, Shi-Lei Su, Ya Gao, Yan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Topological photon transfer in a two-mode JC model. (a) Schematic of the two-mode JC model: two cavity modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Global adiabatic criterion applied to the coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Numerical evaluation of topological photon transfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Constant energy gaps do not always guarantee fast [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Non-Abelian holonomic transformations in digitally coupled acoustic waveguides guided by the global adiabatic criterion

    physics.optics 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    GAC-guided power-law coupling halves the active length needed for acoustic Pauli-X and Hadamard holonomic transformations versus a Gaussian reference, and the same phase-stitched device supports unidirectional mode co...

  2. Non-Abelian Thouless pumping based on the global adiabatic criterion in Rydberg synthetic lattices

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A global adiabatic criterion selects Gaussian pulse timings that suppress leakage during non-Abelian Thouless pumping in a twelve-level Rydberg synthetic Lieb lattice, yielding order-dependent population transport con...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    L. Lu, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, Topological photonics, Nature Photonics8, 821 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    J. Noh, W. A. Benalcazar, S. Huang, M. J. Collins, K. P. Chen, T. L. Hughes, and M. C. Rechtsman, Topologi- cal protection of photonic mid-gap defect modes, Nature Photonics12, 408 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zil- berberg, and I. Carusotto, Topological photonics, Re- views of Modern Physics91, 015006 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    X. Ni, S. Yves, A. Krasnok, and A. Al` u, Topological metamaterials, Chemical Reviews123, 7585 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Ehrhardt, S

    M. Ehrhardt, S. Weidemann, L. J. Maczewsky, M. Hein- rich, and A. Szameit, A perspective on synthetic di- mensions in photonics, Laser & Photonics Reviews17, 2200518 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Y. E. Kraus, Y. Lahini, Z. Ringel, M. Verbin, and O. Zilberberg, Topological states and adiabatic pump- ing in quasicrystals, Physical Review Letters109, 106402 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Y. Ke, X. Qin, F. Mei, H. Zhong, Y. S. Kivshar, and C. Lee, Topological phase transitions and Thouless pumping of light in photonic waveguide arrays, Laser & Photonics Reviews10, 995 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Lohse, C

    M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, H. M. Price, O. Zilberberg, and I. Bloch, Exploring 4D quantum Hall physics with a 2D topological charge pump, Nature553, 55 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Zilberberg, S

    O. Zilberberg, S. Huang, J. Guglielmon, M. Wang, K. P. Chen, Y. E. Kraus, and M. C. Rechtsman, Photonic topo- logical boundary pumping as a probe of 4D quantum Hall physics, Nature553, 59 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    J¨ urgensen, S

    M. J¨ urgensen, S. Mukherjee, and M. C. Rechtsman, Quantized nonlinear Thouless pumping, Nature596, 63 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    Sun, X.-L

    Y.-K. Sun, X.-L. Zhang, F. Yu, Z.-N. Tian, Q.-D. Chen, and H.-B. Sun, Non-Abelian Thouless pumping in pho- tonic waveguides, Nature Physics18, 1080 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    Citro and M

    R. Citro and M. Aidelsburger, Thouless pumping and topology, Nature Reviews Physics5, 87 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    W. Song, O. You, J. Sun, S. Wu, C. Chen, C. Huang, K. Qiu, S. Zhu, S. Zhang, and T. Li, Fast topologi- cal pumps via quantum metric engineering on photonic chips, Science Advances10, eadn5028 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    S. Wu, W. Song, J. Sun, J. Li, Z. Lin, X. Liu, S. Zhu, and T. Li, Approaching the adiabatic infimum of topological pumps on thin-film lithium niobate waveguides, Nature Communications15, 9805 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Zhang, X

    H. Zhang, X. Wang, H. Qi, Z. Wang, X. Hu, and C. Lu, Topological photonic chiral mode converters, Laser & Photonics Reviews18, 2301315 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Wu, K.-H

    J.-L. Wu, K.-H. Xiao, X. Ni, J.-K. Guo, X.-L. Zhang, Q.-D. Chen, Y. Wang, Z.-Z. Li, S.-L. Su, Z.-N. Tian, and H.-B. Sun, Superadiabatic topological pumping on photonic chips, Nature Communications17, 966 (2026)

    2026

  17. [17]

    Y. Chen, Q. Fu, Z. Xu, and F. Ye, Progress on new-type optical Thouless pumping, Laser & Photonics Reviews 20, e01528 (2026)

    2026

  18. [18]

    D.-W. Wang, H. Cai, R.-B. Liu, and M. O. Scully, Meso- scopic superposition states generated by synthetic spin- orbit interaction in Fock-State lattices, Physical Review Letters116, 220502 (2016)

    2016

  19. [19]

    Cai and D.-W

    H. Cai and D.-W. Wang, Topological phases of quantized light, National Science Review8, nwaa196 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Saugmann and J

    P. Saugmann and J. Larson, Fock-state-lattice approach to quantum optics, Physical Review A108, 033721 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    X. Zhao, Y. Xu, L.-M. Kuang, and J.-Q. Liao, Dark- state engineering in Fock-state lattices, Physical Review Research7, 033070 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    C. B. Naves and J. Larson, Liouville-Fock-state lat- tices: From environment-induced frustration to synthetic lattice dynamics, Physical Review Research7, 043233 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    J. Yuan, H. Cai, C. Wu, S.-Y. Zhu, R.-B. Liu, and D.-W. Wang, Unification of valley and anomalous Hall effects in a strained lattice, Physical Review B104, 035410 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    J. Yuan, H. Cai, and D.-W. Wang, Quantum simulation in Fock-state lattices, Advances in Physics: X9, 2325611 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    J. Deng, H. Dong, C. Zhang, Y. Wu, J. Yuan, X. Zhu, F. Jin, H. Li, Z. Wang, H. Cai, C. Song, H. Wang, J. Q. You, and D.-W. Wang, Observing the quantum topology of light, Science378, 966 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    J. Yuan, C. Xu, H. Cai, and D.-W. Wang, Gap-protected transfer of topological defect states in photonic lattices, APL Photonics6, 030803 (2021). 8

    2021

  27. [27]

    C. Wu, W. Liu, Y. Jia, G. Chen, and F. Chen, Observa- tion of topological pumping of a defect state in a Fock photonic lattice, Physical Review A107, 033501 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Zhang, J.-L

    J.-N. Zhang, J.-L. Wu, C. Lv, J. Yao, J. Song, and Y.-Y. Jiang, Engineering of functional topological transport in photonic waveguide arrays mimicking the extended Fock- state lattice, Physical Review A110, 063529 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    T. Tian, H. Cai, L. Zhang, Y. Zhang, C.-K. Duan, and J. Zhou, Nonadiabatic topological transfer in a nanome- chanical phononic lattice, Physical Review B109, 125123 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Z. Guan, H. Liu, R. Zheng, J. Liang, M. Ke, J. Lu, W. Deng, X. Huang, and Z. Liu, Topological pumping in acoustic Fock lattices, Physical Review Applied21, 064068 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    M. Peng, Q. Wei, J. Yuan, D.-W. Wang, M. Yan, H. Cai, and G. Chen, Ideal flat and resolved SU(3) Landau levels in three dimensions, Physical Review Letters134, 116601 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    J. Yang, Y. Li, Y. Yang, X. Xie, Z. Zhang, J. Yuan, H. Cai, D.-W. Wang, and F. Gao, Realization of all-band- flat photonic lattices, Nature Communications15, 1484 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Zhang, W

    J. Zhang, W. Huang, J. Chu, J. Qiu, X. Sun, Z. Tao, J. Zhang, L. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Y. Chen, Y. Liu, S. Liu, Y. Zhong, J.-J. Miao, J. Niu, and D. Yu, Synthetic multi- dimensional Aharonov-Bohm cages in Fock state lattices, Physical Review Letters134, 070601 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    F. Mei, G. Chen, L. Tian, S.-L. Zhu, and S. Jia, Ro- bust quantum state transfer via topological edge states in superconducting qubit chains, Physical Review A98, 012331 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Qi, G.-L

    L. Qi, G.-L. Wang, S. Liu, S. Zhang, and H.-F. Wang, Controllable photonic and phononic topological state transfers in a small optomechanical lattice, Optics Let- ters45, 2018 (2020)

    2018

  36. [36]

    W. Liu, C. Wu, Y. Jia, S. Jia, G. Chen, and F. Chen, Observation of edge-to-edge topological transport in a photonic lattice, Physical Review A105, L061502 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    Zhang, J.-L

    J.-N. Zhang, J.-L. Wu, J.-X. Han, S. Tang, J. Song, and Y.-Y. Jiang, Small admixture of nonadiabaticity facili- tating topologically protected splitters and routers via optimizing coupling engineering, Physical Review B109, 094303 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Guo, J.-L

    J.-K. Guo, J.-L. Wu, J. Cao, S. Zhang, and S.-L. Su, Shortcut engineering for accelerating topological quan- tum state transfers in optomechanical lattices, Physical Review A110, 043510 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Han, J.-L

    J.-X. Han, J.-L. Wu, Z.-H. Yuan, Y.-J. Chen, Y. Xia, Y.- Y. Jiang, and J. Song, Fast and controllable topological excitation transfers in hybrid magnon-photon systems, Physical Review Applied21, 014057 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Solitons in polyacetylene, Physical Review Letters42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  41. [41]

    Song, J.-L

    P.-Y. Song, J.-L. Wu, W. Li, and S.-L. Su, Topological quantum transducers in a hybrid Rydberg atom system (2025), arXiv:2511.15439 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Roushan, C

    P. Roushan, C. Neill, A. Megrant, Y. Chen, R. Bab- bush, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, J. Mutus, P. J. J. O’Malley, M. Neeley, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. White, E. Kapit, H. Neven, and J. Martinis, Chiral ground-state currents of interacting photons in a synt...

    2017

  43. [43]

    Xiao, S.-L

    K.-H. Xiao, S.-L. Su, X. Ni, Y.-K. Sun, J.-K. Guo, Z.-Y. Hu, X.-L. Zhang, J. Li, J.-L. Wu, Z.-N. Tian, and Q.- D. Chen, Accelerated topological pumping in photonic waveguides based on global adiabatic criteria (2026), arXiv:2512.23466 [physics.optics]

    work page arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Xiang, S

    Z.-L. Xiang, S. Ashhab, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Hybrid quantum circuits: Superconducting circuits interacting with other quantum systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 623 (2013)

    2013

  45. [45]

    X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y. x. Liu, and F. Nori, Microwave photonics with superconducting quantum circuits, Physics Reports718-719, 1 (2017)

    2017

  46. [46]

    K. He, X. Geng, R. Huang, J. Liu, and W. Chen, Quan- tum computation and simulation with superconducting qubits, Chinese Physics B30, 080304 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Song, J.-L

    P.-Y. Song, J.-L. Wu, and S.-L. Su, Superadiabatic mul- tiphoton Landau–Zener–St¨ uckelberg–Majorana effect in a transmon qudit, Chinese Physics Letters43, 040601 (2026)

    2026

  48. [48]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    S. Ma, H. Miao, Y. Xiang, and S. Zhang, Enhanced dy- namic Casimir effect in temporally and spatially mod- ulated Josephson transmission line, Laser & Photonics Reviews13, 1900164 (2019)

    2019