Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 32 references

Parametric Stability Analysis for Circuit Quantum Electrodynamical Hardwares

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that periodic modulation of superconducting qubit circuits maps their dynamics onto Mathieu-type equations, and that the resulting Arnold-tongue stability charts predict where parametric drives cause breakdown.

desk verdict The paper's central mapping from driven cQED circuits to the temporal Mathieu equation is asserted, not derived; Eq. 17 is the static Mathieu in the phase variable, so the numerics validate textbook charts, not the paper's claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13177 v1 pith:RMGQDNA4 submitted 2025-05-19 quant-ph

Maria Gabriela Boada , Andrea Delgado , Jose Morales Escalante This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords circuitquantumelectrodynamicstransmonCooperpairboxMathieuequationparametricresonanceArnoldtonguesFloquettheoryreadoutionization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that periodic modulation of a superconducting qubit's parameters—gate charge, flux, or cavity drive—maps its dynamics onto Mathieu-type equations, whose instability tongues mark where parametric resonances set in. The analysis walks through a hierarchy of devices, from the Cooper pair box to the transmon, electrometer, and full multimode qubit–cavity systems, showing that the same classical resonance structure appears at every level. If correct, the resulting stability charts give quantitative thresholds for effects already seen in the lab: readout-induced transmon ionization, parametric amplifier gain, and leakage or correlated errors in multi-qubit gates. The paper also shows that fabrication-scale variations in $E_J/E_C$ and flux bias can shift a device in and out of these instability regions, and that even nominally safe transmon operating points can lie close to chaotic dynamics.

What carries the argument

The Mathieu equation $$\frac{$d^{2}$x}{$dt^{2}$}+(\delta+\epsilon\cos\$\Omega$ t)x=0$$ is the central object. Arnold tongues are the wedges in the drive-amplitude and drive-frequency plane where the Floquet exponent acquires a positive real part and solutions grow without bound. The load-bearing move is reducing each driven circuit—Cooper pair box, transmon, electrometer, and multimode qubit–cavity system—to this single oscillator by linearizing about a potential minimum and absorbing the periodic modulation into a sinusoidal stiffness term; black-box quantization supplies the mode expansions that make this reduction practical.

What would settle it

Integrate the full time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the driven transmon Hamiltonian at a fixed drive frequency near $2\omega_{01}$ and sweep the drive amplitude, recording the amplitude at which population leaks out of the computational qubit subspace. If this onset amplitude differs substantially from the boundary of the primary Mathieu tongue predicted from the linearized parameters, the reduction to a single Mathieu oscillator is the point of failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a periodically driven Josephson circuit linearized about its potential minimum obeys a Mathieu equation $$\frac{$d^{2}$x}{$dt^{2}$}+(\delta+\epsilon\cos\$\Omega$ t)x=0,$$ and that the Arnold tongues of that equation—regions in drive-frequency and drive-amplitude space where solutions grow without bound—are the organizing feature of parametric instability in circuit QED hardware. The paper demonstrates this mapping for the Cooper pair box, transmon, electrometer, and multimode qubit–cavity systems, and derives perturbative corrections for damping, higher harmonics, and weak nonlinearities. Numerical simulations show that damping shrinks and shifts the tongues, while fabrication variations move their boundaries. These maps are then connected to experimentally observed phenomena: strong readout drives can ionize the transmon, parametric amplifiers deliberately exploit instability for gain, and multi-qubit pulses risk leakage when their frequency content hits a resonance.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes a driven qubit near its potential minimum behaves as a single classical oscillator whose restoring force wobbles sinusoidally; if real devices depart from that idealization, the predicted resonance boundaries need not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Readout drives should be operated below the first instability tongue, and the tongue boundary gives the maximum safe drive amplitude at a given readout frequency.
  • Parametric amplifiers can be designed to sit just inside an instability tongue, where the system is most sensitive, with the tongue width setting the gain-bandwidth trade-off.
  • Multi-qubit pulses whose spectra overlap rational multiples of qubit transition frequencies risk leakage errors, so pulse schedules can be checked against the tongue diagram before fabrication.
  • Fabrication spreads in $E_J/E_C$ and flux bias move the tongue boundaries, so nominally identical devices can land in different stability zones; Poincaré sections show that some apparently stable points are near chaos.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension not pursued in the paper: the same tongue boundaries should appear as avoided crossings in the Floquet quasienergy spectrum of the full driven quantum Hamiltonian, so a time-dependent Schrödinger simulation could confirm or refute the classical reduction.
  • The flux-tunability of the split Cooper pair box suggests a control strategy the paper only hints at: bias the device so that drive tones fall outside the tongues, switching in situ between charge-qubit sensitivity and transmon stability.
  • The same classical resonance framework should carry over to other Josephson circuits, such as SNAIL-based amplifiers or fluxonium, and to open-system Floquet master equations, where damping and temperature will shift the tongue boundaries.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper claims to provide a unified parametric-stability analysis of circuit QED devices — CPB, transmon, electrometer, and multimode qubit–cavity systems — by mapping their driven dynamics onto Mathieu-type equations and identifying Arnold tongues in drive-amplitude/drive-frequency space as thresholds for parametric resonances. The authors invoke Floquet theory, present a perturbative treatment, and report numerical simulations of stability charts, including damping effects and Poincaré sections, along with qualitative discussions of experimental relevance for readout, parametric amplification, and multi-qubit gates. The central assertion is that time-dependent modulation of circuit parameters converts the device dynamics into a temporal Mathieu equation whose instability regions constitute the Arnold tongues.

Significance. If the claimed mapping were actually derived and validated, the paper would supply a useful design-oriented stability chart spanning several cQED architectures, and its emphasis on fabrication sensitivity is well motivated by recent experiments on transmon ionization. The manuscript also draws on a sensible body of prior work (black-box quantization, Floquet theory, known parametric-resonance phenomena). However, as it stands, the paper does not carry out the derivation that connects the circuit Hamiltonians of Section II to the temporal Mathieu equation analyzed in Sections V–VI; the only displayed mapping is a static Mathieu equation in the phase variable, and the numerical validation integrates the very same temporal Mathieu equation whose stability chart is the prediction. The paper is therefore a coherent summary of known Mathieu-equation results together with qualitative commentary about cQED, rather than a demonstrated stability analysis of cQED hardware.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (17)] The only displayed mapping from a circuit to Mathieu form, Eq. (17), is a static Mathieu equation written in a phase variable that the text identifies as 't (phase)' following Ref. [22]; its bounded periodic solutions describe energy levels of the static CPB, not temporal parametric instabilities. The Arnold tongues analyzed in Sections V–VII are properties of the temporal Mathieu equation (16) with time-dependent stiffness. No derivation in Sections III–IV or the Appendix supplies the linearization or coordinate transformation that turns the driven quantum Hamiltonian (e.g., Eq. (3) with time-dependent Ng or EJ(t)) into Eq. (16). The central claim that time-dependent modulation maps cQED dynamics to Mathieu-type instabilities is therefore asserted rather than established.
  2. [Section VI] The numerical validation integrates Eq. (16) directly for a grid of (δ, ε) and classifies solutions as stable or unstable; this reproduces the textbook Mathieu stability chart and does not test the mapping from any cQED circuit. The manuscript never maps concrete circuit parameters (EC, EJ, drive amplitude, drive frequency) onto the (δ, ε) coordinates used in Eq. (16), so the device-specific statements, including the claims about split-CPB behavior in Sections VII and VIII, are not numerically validated.
  3. [Section VI, final paragraph] The text concedes that 'the classical Mathieu approach does not capture all quantum aspects of circuit QED (e.g., discrete transmon levels, multi-photon transitions, or master-equation effects)' but does not quantify the regimes in which these omissions are negligible. Since Section VIII draws concrete experimental conclusions about readout fidelity, amplifier gain, and multi-qubit gate stability, the unquantified discrepancy between the classical Mathieu model and the actual quantum device weakens the claimed practical applicability of the predicted tongue boundaries.
  4. [Section VII-B, Fig. 7] The Poincaré section shown in Fig. 7 is described as 'an analogous study for the split CPB (or its transmon limit)' but the surrounding text only presents the stroboscopic section of a parametrically driven pendulum. No simulation of the split-CPB Hamiltonian is described, and the caption's claim that a 'small perturbation of the initial conditions produces a broad scatter of points' is presented as a device result. This overclaims connection between generic pendulum chaos and a specific cQED operating point.
  5. [Section II-C] The electrometer/CPT discussion asserts that RF modulation 'can exhibit pronounced periodic modulations in its inducive response, again indicating parametric resonance,' but no equation, model, or quantitative analysis is provided for this device. The claim that the electrometer occupies a 'new parametric regime' is therefore unsupported by the manuscript's analysis.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract/Section VII-B] The abstract and introduction mention 'disordered dynamics' and 'chaos,' but the mathematical analysis concerns linear Mathieu stability; the relationship between Arnold tongues and the chaotic behavior illustrated in Section VII-B is never made precise.
  2. [Eqs. (16)–(17)] The symbol t is used for time in Eq. (16) and for the phase variable in Eq. (17), which is confusing; using a distinct symbol such as φ or θ for the phase would improve clarity.
  3. [Section II.B] The split-CPB Hamiltonian uses δ1 and δ2 without defining them before the expressions appear, and the definition of E*_J is introduced abruptly; a brief sentence defining the junction phases would help.
  4. [Section V] The resonance condition Ω = 2ωp/m is stated without specifying the integer m or the derivation of the primary tongue width; please state the range and the associated Floquet exponent formula.
  5. [Section VII.A, Fig. 5 caption] The caption describes stable/unstable zones but the figure axes are labeled Ek/EC and EJ/EC; the mapping between these device parameters and the Mathieu coefficients (δ, ε) is not given, so the reader cannot interpret the figure as a device-specific stability chart.
  6. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and stylistic errors, including 'anihilation' (Section II.D), 'finit' (Section VI), 'reminescent' (Section VII.A), 'Poincaree' (Section VII.B), 'prescence' (Introduction), and the phrase 'Eq. 2 at its most generic circuit parameters' in Section IV, which is unclear.
  7. [References] References [25] and [26] appear to be the same Nakamura, Pashkin, and Tsai paper listed twice with slightly different titles; please merge or differentiate them.
  8. [Index Terms] The index terms are inconsistently capitalized ('circuit Quantum Electrodynamics'); please use a consistent style.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The central Arnold-tongue predictions reduce to the input Mathieu equation: Eq. (17) is a static phase-space Mathieu equation cited from prior work, no temporal Mathieu equation is derived from a driven circuit Hamiltonian, and Section VI validates by integrating the same temporal Mathieu equation (Eq. 16).

  1. other [Section IV, Eq. (17); temporal Mathieu equation Eq. (16) invoked in Sections V–VII]
    "Even as we map Eq. 2 at its most generic circuit parameters, d2f/dt2 + [4Ek/EC + EJ/EC cos(2t)] f(t) = 0 (17) … Eq. 17 is π−periodic on t (phase) [22]"

    This displayed Mathieu mapping is the static CPB Schrödinger equation in the compact phase coordinate: the variable t is explicitly the phase, so its bounded solutions are energy bands, not time-domain instabilities. The temporal Mathieu equation (16), whose Arnold tongues are the paper’s central prediction, is never derived from the driven Hamiltonian (e.g., Eq. 3 with time-modulated Ng(t) or EJ(t)). Thus the claimed reduction from driven cQED circuits to Eq. (16) is an imported premise, and the stability charts that follow are properties of the assumed equation rather than derived consequences of the circuit dynamics.

  2. other [Section VI, Numerical Simulations (Figs. 4–5); also claimed in Abstract and Conclusion]
    "To validate the analytic insights derived in Sections II and IV , we conduct numerical simulations of the Mathieu equation … one can perform direct numerical integration of the classical Mathieu equation (Eq. 16) … By choosing an initial displacement x(0) and velocity ẋ(0) and numerically integrating over a sufficiently long duration, one can determine whether the solution remains bounded (Stable) or grows beyond some threshold (unstable)."

    The “numerical validation” integrates exactly Eq. (16), the same equation whose Floquet/Arnold-tongue structure is the analytic prediction. There is no independent cQED-level simulation (e.g., time-dependent Schrödinger or master equation for the circuit Hamiltonians of Section II) and no experimental data. The resulting stability diagrams therefore confirm the input Mathieu model, not the claimed mapping from circuit QED to Mathieu form; any agreement between the analytic tongues and the numeric tongues is by construction.

full rationale

The paper’s central claimed result is that time-dependent modulation maps cQED dynamics to Mathieu-type equations and that the resulting Arnold tongues are validated thresholds for parametric resonances. The only displayed quantitative mapping, Eq. (17), is a static Mathieu equation in the phase variable, cited from Ref. [22]; it is not a derivation of the temporal Mathieu equation (16) from a driven circuit Hamiltonian. When the paper then reports numerical “validation,” Section VI explicitly integrates Eq. (16) itself and classifies bounded versus unbounded solutions. That loop is circular for the core stability prediction: the analytic Arnold tongues and the numerical tongues are two computations of the same input equation. There are non-circular fragments (perturbative damping extensions, Poincaré sections of a driven pendulum, qualitative statements about transmon ionization), but they do not repair the missing bridge from circuit QED Hamiltonians to Eq. (16). The paper is self-contained only in the weak sense that its analytic and numerical parts agree with each other; it is not tested against an external device model or experiment. Score 7 reflects that the central stability-claim loop reduces to the assumed Mathieu equation, though some peripheral analyses have independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's stability analysis rests almost entirely on prior results: Mathieu theory, black-box quantization, and the CPB-to-Mathieu mapping from Cottet's thesis. The only hand-chosen number is the illustrative damping coefficient. No new entities or parameters are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Damping coefficient gamma = 0.1
    Used in Eq. 19 and Fig. 4 to illustrate the effect of dissipation; chosen by hand for illustration, not measured or derived.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Mathieu equation stability chart and Floquet theory are accepted as given.
    Section IV and V rely on the classical Mathieu stability diagram and Floquet exponents without derivation, citing Ref [23].
  • domain assumption A driven CPB/transmon near its potential minimum is described by a single classical Mathieu oscillator.
    Stated in Sections II and IV (e.g., Eq. 17) and attributed to Ref [22]; no derivation links the full Hamiltonian to this scalar equation.
  • domain assumption Black-box quantization (Nigg et al.) provides the correct multimode Hamiltonian.
    Used in Section III and the Appendix; the paper cites Ref [6] and does not re-derive the method.
  • domain assumption Classical stability analysis applies to the quantum qubit dynamics.
    Section VI states the classical Mathieu approach is a useful first approximation despite quantum effects; device implications in Section VIII rely on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parametric Stability Analysis for Circuit Quantum Electrodynamical Hardwares." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMGQDNA4

@misc{pith2026250513177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parametric Stability Analysis for Circuit Quantum Electrodynamical Hardwares},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMGQDNA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13177}
}
read the original abstract

The transmon qubit, essential to quantum computation, exhibits disordered dynamics under strong parametric drives critical to its control. We present a combined theoretical and numerical study of stability regions in circuit QED using Floquet theory, focusing on the appearance of Arnold tongues that distinguish stable from unstable regimes. Starting from simple Josephson circuits and progressing to full multimode qubit-cavity systems, we show how time-dependent modulation maps the dynamics to Mathieu-type equations, revealing thresholds for parametric resonances. Perturbative corrections capture effects like higher harmonics and weak nonlinearities. Simulations validate these predictions and expose sensitivity to fabrication parameters. These findings inform thresholds for readout fidelity, amplifier gain, and multi-qubit gate stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13177 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Low-lying eigenenergies of the split Cooper pair box (CPB), plotted as a function of the dimensionless gate charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Real and imaginary parts of the linear admittance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bifurcation diagram illustrating Arnold tongue struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Side-by-side numerical Arnold tongue diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Mathieu equation describes parametric resonance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Parameter map (left) and Poincare sections (right) illustrating the onset of chaos in a periodically driven pendulum as ´ the drive amplitude ϵ increases. The red point on the parameter map marks the fixed detuning δ and varying ϵ values used for each section. For smal…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Poincare section for a split-CPB biased in the transmon regime. Although linear analysis suggests bounded oscillations, a ´ small perturbation of the initial conditions produces a broad scatter of points, pointing to disordered behavior and underscoring thee device sen…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Cottet, Implementation of a quantum bit in a super- conducting circuit, 2002

    A. Cottet, Implementation of a quantum bit in a super- conducting circuit, 2002. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.5151.5208. [Online]. Available: http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/2.1.5151. 5208

    work page arXiv 2002

  2. [1]

    Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation,

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, “Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 69, p. 062 320, 2004. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.062320

    doi:10.1103/physreva.69.062320 2004

  3. [2]

    Strong cou- pling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit us- ing circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    A. Wallraff, D. Schuster, A. Blais, et al., “Strong cou- pling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit us- ing circuit quantum electrodynamics,” Nature, vol. 431, no. 7005, pp. 162–167, Sep. 2004. DOI: 10 . 1038 / nature02851

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Synthe- sizing arbitrary quantum states in a superconducting resonator,

    M. Hofheinz, H. Wang, M. Ansmann, et al. , “Synthe- sizing arbitrary quantum states in a superconducting resonator,” Nature, vol. 459, no. 7246, pp. 546–549,

    work page

  5. [4]

    Dynami- cally protected cat-qubits: A new paradigm for universal quantum computation,

    M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V . V . Albert, et al., “Dynami- cally protected cat-qubits: A new paradigm for universal quantum computation,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 045 014, 2014. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/4/ 045014

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/4/ 2014

  6. [5]

    Implement- ing a universal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator,

    R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, and et al., “Implement- ing a universal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator,” Nat. Commun., vol. 8, p. 94, 2017. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00045-1

    doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00045-1 2017

  7. [6]

    Black-box superconducting circuit quantization,

    S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, B. Vlastakis, et al. , “Black-box superconducting circuit quantization,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 108, p. 240 502, 24 Jun. 2012. DOI: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 108 . 240502. [Online]. Available: https : //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.240502

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.240502 2012

  8. [7]

    Strate- gies and trade-offs for controllability and memory time of ultra-high-quality microwave cavities in cir- cuit quantum electrodynamics,

    I. Pietik ¨ainen, O. ˇCernot´ık, A. Eickbusch, et al., “Strate- gies and trade-offs for controllability and memory time of ultra-high-quality microwave cavities in cir- cuit quantum electrodynamics,” PRX Quantum , vol. 5, p. 040 307, 2024. DOI: 10 . 1103 / PRXQuantum . 5 . 040307

    work page 2024

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Fast multiqubit gates through simultaneous two-qubit gates,

    X. Gu, J. Fern ´andez-Pend´as, P. Vikst ˚al, et al. , “Fast multiqubit gates through simultaneous two-qubit gates,” PRX Quantum, vol. 2, p. 040 348, 2021. DOI: 10.1103/ PRXQuantum.2.040348

    2021

  2. [9]

    Millisecond co- herence in a superconducting qubit,

    A. Somoroff, Q. Ficheux, R. A. Mencia, H. Xiong, R. Kuzmin, and V . E. Manucharyan, “Millisecond co- herence in a superconducting qubit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 130, p. 267 001, 2023. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 130.267001

    2023 doi

  3. [10]

    A superconducting dual-rail cav- ity qubit with erasure-detected logical measurements,

    K. S. Chou, T. Shemma, H. McCarrick, T.-C. Chien, J. D. Teoh, et al. , “A superconducting dual-rail cav- ity qubit with erasure-detected logical measurements,” Nature Physics , vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1454–1460, 2024, arXiv:2307.03169 [quant-ph]. DOI: 10 . 1038 / s41567 - 024- 025...

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    One hun- dred second bit-flip time in a two-photon dissipative oscillator,

    C. Berdou, A. Murani, U. R ´eglade, et al. , “One hun- dred second bit-flip time in a two-photon dissipative oscillator,” arXiv preprint , 2023. arXiv: 2307 . 06617 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2307.06617

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    A schr ¨odinger cat living in two boxes,

    C. Wang, Y . Y . Gao, P. Reinhold, et al., “A schr ¨odinger cat living in two boxes,” Science, vol. 352, no. 6289, pp. 1087–1091, 2016. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2941. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/10. 1126/science.aaf2941

    2016 doi

  6. [13]

    Hardware-efficient autonomous quantum memory protection,

    Z. Leghtas, G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, “Hardware-efficient autonomous quantum memory protection,” Physical Re- view Letters , vol. 111, no. 12, p. 120 501, 2013. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.120501

    2013 doi

  7. [14]

    Autonomous quantum state transfer by dissipation engineering,

    C. Wang and J. M. Gertler, “Autonomous quantum state transfer by dissipation engineering,” Physical Review Research, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 033 198, 2019. DOI: 10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.1.033198. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033198

    2019 doi

  8. [15]

    Pro- tecting a bosonic qubit with autonomous quantum error correction,

    J. M. Gertler, P. Reinhold, E. I. Rosenthal, et al., “Pro- tecting a bosonic qubit with autonomous quantum error correction,” Nature, vol. 590, no. 7845, pp. 243–248,

  9. [16]

    Autonomous error correction of a single logical qubit using two transmons,

    Z. Li, T. Roy, D. Rodr ´ıguez P´erez, K.-H. Lee, E. Kapit, and D. I. Schuster, “Autonomous error correction of a single logical qubit using two transmons,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 1681, Feb. 2024. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-45858-z

    2024 doi

  10. [17]

    Measurement-induced transmon ionization,

    M. F. Dumas, B. Groleau-Par ´e, A. McDonald, et al. , “Measurement-induced transmon ionization,” Physical Review X, vol. 14, no. 4, Oct. 2024, ISSN : 2160-3308. DOI: 10.1103/physrevx.14.041023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.14.041023

    2024 doi

  11. [18]

    Confining the state of light to a quantum manifold by engineered two-photon loss,

    Z. Leghtas, S. Touzard, I. M. Pop, et al. , “Confining the state of light to a quantum manifold by engineered two-photon loss,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 112, p. 12 005,

  12. [19]

    Rem- iniscence of classical chaos in driven transmons,

    J. Cohen, A. Petrescu, R. Shillito, and A. Blais, “Rem- iniscence of classical chaos in driven transmons,” PRX Quantum, vol. 4, p. 020 312, 2023. DOI: 10 . 1103 / PRXQuantum.4.020312

    2023

  13. [20]

    Small denominators. i. mapping the circle onto itself,

    V . I. Arnold, “Small denominators. i. mapping the circle onto itself,” American Mathematical Society Transla- tions, Series 2 , vol. 46, pp. 213–284, 1965, Translated from Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 25 (1961), 21–86

    1961

  14. [21]

    M ´emoire sur le mouvement vibratoire d’une membrane de forme elliptique,

    E. L. Mathieu, “M ´emoire sur le mouvement vibratoire d’une membrane de forme elliptique,” French, Jour- nal de Math ´ematiques Pures et Appliqu ´ees, vol. 13, pp. 137–203, 1868

  15. [23]

    Mathieu’s equation and its generalizations: Overview of stability charts and their features,

    I. Kovacic, R. Rand, and S. M. Sah, “Mathieu’s equation and its generalizations: Overview of stability charts and their features,” Applied Mechanics Reviews , vol. 70, no. 2, p. 020 802, 2018. DOI: 10.1115/1.4039144

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Quantum coherence with a single cooper pair,

    V . Bouchiat, D. Vion, C. Urbina, D. Esteve, and M. Devoret, “Quantum coherence with a single cooper pair,” Physica Scripta, vol. T76, pp. 165–170, 1998

    1998

  17. [25]

    Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-cooper-pair box,

    Y . Nakamura, Y . Pashkin, and J. Tsai, “Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-cooper-pair box,” Nature, vol. 398, pp. 786–788, 1999

    1999

  18. [26]

    Spec- troscopy of energy-level splitting between two macro- scopic quantum states of charge coherently superposed by josephson coupling,

    Y . Nakamura, Y . A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai, “Spec- troscopy of energy-level splitting between two macro- scopic quantum states of charge coherently superposed by josephson coupling,” Nature, vol. 398, pp. 786–788,

  19. [27]

    Possible new effects in superconductive tunneling,

    B. Josephson, “Possible new effects in superconductive tunneling,” Physics Letters, vol. 1, no. 7, pp. 251–253, 1962

    1962

  20. [28]

    Circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, “Circuit quantum electrodynamics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12667, May 2020

    2005 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Charge- insensitive qubit design derived from the cooper pair box,

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, et al. , “Charge- insensitive qubit design derived from the cooper pair box,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 76, p. 042 319, 2007. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042319. APPENDIX MAPPING THE BLACK -B OX HAMILTONIAN BACK TO THE COOPER PAIR BOX Starting from the t...

    2007 doi

  22. [2009]

    DOI: 10.1038/nature08005

    doi

  23. [2015]

    DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.12005

    doi

  24. [2021]

    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-03079-6

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.