Introduction to Quantum-limited Parametric

Amplification of Quantum Signals with Josephson

Circuits
arXiv:1605.00539v2 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 25 May 2016

Michel Devoreta , and Ananda Roya

a Department of Applied Physics, Yale University, PO BOX 208284, New Haven, CT 06511

Abstract
This short and opinionated review starts with a concept of quantum signals at
microwave frequencies and focuses on the principle of linear parametric ampli-
fication. The amplification process arises from the dispersive nonlinearity of
Josephson junctions driven with appropriate tones. We discuss two defining
characteristics of these amplifiers: the number of modes receiving the signal,
idler and pump waves and the number of independent ports through which
these waves enter into the circuit.

1. Introduction

Photons of microwave radiation in the band 3 − 12 GHz (25-100 mm wave-

length) have an energy approximately 105 smaller than those of visible light.
Yet, at a temperature 2×104 smaller than room temperature, now routinely
achievable with commercial dilution refrigerator, it is possible to detect and pro-
cess signals whose energy is equivalent to that of single microwave photons [1].
There are three advantages of single photon microwave electronics when com-
pared with quantum optics. First, signal envelopes with a relative bandwidth
of few percent at carrier frequencies of a few GHz can be controlled with much
greater relative precision than their equivalent at a few hundred of THz. This is
because microwave generators have better short term stability than lasers, and
also because microwave components are mechanically very stable, particularly
when cooled, compared with traditional optical components. Second, on-chip
circuitry of single-photon microwave electronics can be well in the lumped ele-
ment regime and consequently, the control of spatial mode structure more easily
achieved than in the optical domain. Finally, there exists a simple, robust, non-
dissipative component, the Josephson tunnel junction, whose non-linearity can
dominate over the linear characteristics of the circuit at the single photon level.

Email addresses: [email protected] (Michel Devoret), [email protected]

(and Ananda Roy)

Preprint submitted to Elsevier May 26, 2016

Many quantum signal processing functions have thus been realized, both digi-
tal and analog, and this short review will not attempt to describe all of them.
We will concentrate here on analog Josephson amplifying devices pumped with
one or several microwave tones. Only devices that demonstrate linear amplifi-
cation with added noise at the level of the standard quantum limit [2] will be
considered. These novel devices have taken the work pioneered by B. Yurke at
Bell labs 30 years ago [3, 4] to the point where new original experiments can
be performed successfully owing to Josephson amplifiers as the first link in the
chain of measurements [5, 6].
The article is organized as follows. Sec. 2 is devoted to the in-depth descrip-
tion of signals that are considered quantum in the field of microwave electronics.
We describe in Sec. 3 the important theoretical tool of the Quantum Langevin
Equation with which the amplifier characteristics can be calculated, starting
from the circuit Hamiltonian and the coupling parameters of its ports. Then, in
the following Sec. 4, we will introduce the notion of effective parametric ampli-
fier Hamiltonian. This will lead us to discuss the important distinction between
the degenerate and non-degenerate amplifiers that arises from a fundamental
difference in the in the degrees of freedom of the two devices. The practical
implementation of amplifiers will be treated in Sec. 5. Finally, in Sec. 6, after
a concluding summary, we will indicate the perspectives of the field.

2. Quantum electromagnetic signals propagating along transmission

lines

Crudely speaking, quantum signals are electromagnetic excitations of a trans-

mission line that involve only a few photons. The state of these excitations must
display some degree of quantum purity for the signals to carry quantum infor-
mation, which is the subject of interest in Josephson circuits. In this section, we
provide the basic mathematical background for the concept of photon applied
to microwave electromagnetic excitations [7, 8]. We start by considering an infi-
nite transmission line, a one-dimensional electromagnetic medium characterized
by a propagation velocity vp and a characteristic impedance Zc . A microwave
coaxial line serves as the canonical example of such medium (see Fig. 1).
Position along the line is indexed by the real number x ∈ (−∞, +∞). We
suppose that the line is ideal, with both vp and Zc independent of frequency ω.
It is convenient to combine the voltage V (x, t) across the line with the current
I (x, t) along the line in the +x direction into the so-called propagating wave
amplitude
 
1 1 p
A (x, t) = √ V (x, t) ± Zc I (x, t) . (1)
2 Zc
Here, the superscript arrows refer to the two directions of propagation along the
line. The wave amplitude, whose dimension is [watt]1/2 , is such that its square
is the energy flux of waves traveling in the direction indicated by the arrow.
This interpretation is justified by the formula giving the total energy flux at

2
Figure 1: (a) Electromagnetic transmission line implemented as a coaxial cable. The pa-
rameter x denotes the position along the line, I denotes the current along the line in the
positive direction and V the voltage between the inner and outer conductors. The charac-
teristic impedance and the propagation velocity are denoted by Zc and vp , respectively. The
line has a continuous density of modes in the limit where its length 2d → ∞. In (b), a ladder
circuit model with cell dimension δx models the infinite transmission line. Its capacitance and
inductance per unit length are given by L` = L/δx and √ C` = C/δx,p respectively. In the limit
√
where the signal frequency ω is small compared to 1/ LC, Zc = L/C and vp = 1/ L` C` .

time t crossing the location x, which is the equivalent of the Poynting vector for
a one-dimensional medium:
2 2
P (x, t) = |A→ (x, t)| − |A← (x, t)| = V (x, t) I (x, t) . (2)
Because the voltage and current obey the equivalent of Maxwell’s equations
∂V ∂I
= −L` , (3)
∂x ∂t
∂I ∂V
= −C` , (4)
∂x ∂t
−1/2 1/2
where (L` C` ) = vp and (L` /C` ) = Zc , the wave amplitude has the space-
time translation invariance properties of traveling electromagnetic waves

A (x, t) = A (0, t ∓ x/vp ) = A (x ∓ vp t, 0) . (5)

This shows that the entire field in the line is completely described by the left-
moving and right-moving components at time t = 0 for all position x. Equiv-
alently, the field is described by the left-moving and right-moving components
at x = 0 for all times t. We now introduce the wave amplitude operator, which
describes the electromagnetic field of the line quantum-mechanically

A (x, t) → A (x) . (6)

3
 Instead of a space index, we can give the wave amplitude operator a time
index, which is trivially deduced from the space index
 
x
A (x) ⇐⇒ A t = ± . (7)
vp
The commutation properties of the wave amplitude operator, which is hermi-
tian, are rather complex. The route to the mathematical introduction of the
microwave photon is easier if we first make a detour through Fourier space. We
define
Z +∞
1
A [ω] = √ dt eiωt A (t) , (8)
2π −∞
which describes the wave amplitude operator in the frequency domain (no real
time dynamics is considered here, as the time index is equivalent to a space
index and the reciprocal space equivalent to the wave vector space). We now
introduce field ladder operators
1
al [ω] = p Al [ω] , (9)
~ |ω| /2
where the superscripts l = ±1 denote the direction of propagation → or ← (we
will generalize later the index l to include the line number, i.e. spatial mode
number). The field ladder operators al [ω] have commutation relations bearing a
marked resemblance to the ladder operators of a set of standing wave harmonic
oscillators
 l1
a [ω1 ] , al2 [ω2 ] = sgn (ω1 − ω2 ) δ (ω1 + ω2 ) δl1 ,l2 .

(10)
This is somewhat clearer when we take into account that
†
al [ω] = al [−ω] . (11)

Yet, these operators do not correspond directly to the traveling photon ladder
operators. We go back in the time domain and introduce
Z +∞
1 †
al (t) = √ dωe−iωt al [ω] = ãl (t) + ãl (t) , (12)
2π −∞
Z +∞
1
l
ã (t) = √ dωe−iωt al [ω] , (13)
2π 0
Z 0
† 1
ãl (t) = √ dωe−iωt al [ω] . (14)
2π −∞

It is important to note that with our notations ãl (t) is NOT the inverse
Fourier transform of al [ω], since it involves only positive frequencies ω. The
inverse Fourier transform of al [ω] is al (t), which is a hermitian operator. The
dimension of the operators ãl (t) is the inverse square root of time and it would

4
be tempting to interpret them as photon flux amplitudes. However, in the time
domain, the commutation relations of the field ladder operators do not take the
usual bosonic form of a scalar field

Z +∞ Z 0 
h
†
i 1 −iω1 t1 −iω2 t2
ãl (t1 ) , ãl (t2 ) = dω1 e a [ω1 ] , dω2 e a [ω2 ]
2π 0 −∞
 
1 i 1
= δ (t1 − t2 ) + p.p. . (15)
2 2π t1 − t2

On the other hand,

 l1 i 1
a (t1 ) , al2 (t2 ) = p.p

δl ,l . (16)
π t1 − t2 1 2
In order to properly define the photons of the line, one needs to introduce an
l
orthonormal signal basis consisting of “first-quantization” wavelets wmp (t) such
that
Z +∞
l1 l2 ∗
dt wm 1 p1
(t) wm 2 p2
(t) = δm1 ,m2 δp1 ,p2 δl1 ,l2 , (17)
−∞
l ∗ l
wmp (t) = w−mp (t) , (18)
+∞
X +∞
X
l l
wmp (t1 ) w−mp (t2 ) = δ (t1 − t2 ) . (19)
m=−∞ p=−∞

The pair of indices (|m| , p) ∈ N+ × Z defines a propagating temporal mode of

the line, and the combined amplitudes of the two corresponding wavelets can be
seen as an elementary degree of freedom of the field. There are two conjugate
wavelets per mode since the phase space of each mode is bi-dimensional.
l
It is necessary to request that the support of wmp [ω], the Fourier transform
l
of wmp (t), is entirely contained in the positive frequency sector if m > 0 and in
the negative frequency sector if m < 0.
l l
wmp [ω] = wmp [ω] Θ (ω) if m > 0, (20)
l l
wmp [ω] = wmp [ω] Θ (−ω) if m < 0. (21)

In these last expressions, Θ (ω) is the Heaviside function 1 .

This complete wavelet basis is a purely classical signal processing concept
and its existence solely results from the property of the signals
R +∞ to be2 square-
integrable functions. Any continuous signal f (t) such that −∞ |f (t)| dt < ∞

1 The index value m = 0 corresponds to special wavelets that have to be treated separately.

5
can indeed be decomposed into a countable infinite number of elementary signals
+∞
X +∞
X
f (t) = f−mp wmp (t) , (22)
m=−∞ p=−∞
Z +∞
fmp = dt wmp (t) f (t) . (23)
−∞

A common example of such a wavelet is the Shannon wavelet

τ sin πτ (t − pτ ) i2πmt/τ
r

wmp (t) = 2 e (24)
2π t
whose Fourier transform is
r
τ
wmp [ω] = 1 2π 2π (ω) eipωτ , (25)
2π τ (m−1/2), τ (m+1/2)

where 1x1 ,x2 (x) is the indicator function which is 0 everywhere except in the
interval [x1 , x2 ], where its value is unity. Many other useful bases, involving
more continuous wavelets, exist [9]. In the above example, the center frequency
and time location of the wavelet is 2πm/τ and pτ , respectively (in order to form
a complete basis, the pitch in frequency ∆ω and pitch in time ∆t of the wavelet
basis has to satisfy ∆ω.∆t ≤ 2π) .
The discreteness of the signal component indices is the justification for the
term “first-quantization” and no quantum mechanics is involved here since all
functions are at this stage c-number valued. Second-quantization intervenes
when we define the discrete ladder field operators, with indices m > 0 and p
Z +∞
l l
ψmp = = dωwmp (ω) al (ω) , (26)
−∞
l l†
ψ−mp = ψmp . (27)

We introduce the short-hand µ = (l, |m|, p) as the index of the spatio-temporal

mode, also called the flying oscillator. The photon-number operator is given by:

nµ = ψµ† ψµ (28)

and the discrete ladder operators ψµ satisfy the same commutation relation as
standing mode ladder operators:
Z +∞ Z +∞
† l1 l2 ∗
(ω2 ) [al1 (ω1 ) , al2 (ω2 )]
 
ψµ1 , ψµ2 = dω1 dω2 wm 1 p1
(ω1 ) wm 2 p2
−∞ −∞
= δµ1 ,µ2 . (29)

An important remark can be made: if the photon amplitude operator ψµ is

l
non-hermitian, this is only because its first quantization component wmp (t) is
l
complex. Its second quantization component a (t) is an hermitian operator.

6
It is also important to note that, in general, the frequency of a photon is ill-
defined, in contrast with what could be inferred from elementary introductions
to quantum mechanics. This feature happens as soon as the duration of the
wavelet corresponding to that particular photon is not very long compared with
the inverse of the wavelet center frequency. Thus the concept of photon for a
propagating signal has to be clearly distinguished from an energy quantum. A
propagating photon is an elementary excitation of the field carrying a quantum
of action, and corresponds to a field wavefunction orthogonal to the vacuum.
|Ψ1µ i = ψµ† |vaci , (30)
hvac|Ψ1µ i = 0. (31)
A wavelet can contain several photons in mode µ
1
n
|Ψnµ i = √ ψµ† |vaci (32)
n!
and each multi-photon state (Fock state) is orthogonal to the others

hΨn2 µ |Ψn1 µ i = δn1 n2 . (33)

Several modes can simultaneously be excited
1
n1 1
n2 1
n3
|Ψn1 ,µ1 ;n2 ,µ2 ;n3 ,µ3 ;... i = √ ψµ† 1 √ ψµ† 2 √ ψµ† 3 . . . |vaci .
n1 ! n2 ! n3 !
(34)
The sequence of indices σ = (n1 , µ1 ; n2 , µ2 ; n3 , µ3 ; . . . ) is a mode photon occu-
pancy configuration. Finally, the most general wavefunction of the field of the
transmission line(s) is a superposition of all field photon configurations in all
the spatio-temporal modes of the line(s):
X
|Ψi = Cσ |Ψσ i . (35)
σ

There are exponentially many more quantum coefficients Cσ than the classical
coefficients fµ in Eq. (23)! And it is also important to understand that a state
with a well defined number of photons in a certain wavelet basis can be fully
entangled in another basis.
A wavelet can also support a so-called coherent state instead of a well defined
number of photons:

2 X αµn/2
|αµ i = e−|αµ | /2
√ |Ψnµ i , (36)
n n!
2 †
= e−|αµ | /2 αµ ψµ
e |vaci , (37)
and if all wavelets are in a coherent state, we obtain a coherent field state
  Y
Ψ{α} = |αµ i (38)
µ
(|αµ |2 /2−αµ ψµ† ) |vaci .
P
= e− µ (39)

7
Thus, the set of complex coefficients αµ plays the role of the coefficients fµ in
Eq. (23). Somewhat surprisingly, this property of being a coherent state remains
true in every wavelet basis (as can be inferred from the quadratic form in the
exponent of Eq. [39]).
The state of the line is in general not pure and must be described by a
density matrix ρσσ0 . This ultimate quantum field description tool leads to the
important notion of information contained in the signal.
In general, in quantum mechanics, we can define for a system with a finite-
dimension Hilbert space, the Shannon−Von Neumann entropy

S = −trρ ln ρ. (40)

The information contained in the system is then straightforwardly computed as

I = S (ρmix ) − S (ρ) , (41)

where ρmix is the fully mixed state in which all basis states are equiproba-
ble, with no off-diagonal correlations. The extension of these ideas to a trans-
mission line on which a signal propagates is not trivial since the number of
temporal modes is infinite and each temporal mode has a Hilbert space with
infinite dimensionality. Some constraints need to be provided, for instance a
fixed total energy for both ρ and ρmix . We can also, in another instance,
fix the maximum number of excitation in each temporal mode. Supposing
that the maximum number of excitations is unity in the domain (|m| , p) ∈
{1, 2, .., M } ⊗ {−P, ..., +P } and that other modes are in the vacuum
state, then,
for a state of the line characterized by an average photon number n|m|p per
mode
XM XP



I= Ib n|m|p − 1/2 , (42)
m=1 p=−P

where Ib (hXi) the information contained in a stochastic binary variable X =

±1:  
  |x|
p 1 + |x| 2
Ib (x) = log2  1 − x2 . (43)
1 − |x|

We refer the reader to [10] for a more complete description of the information
carried by quantum signals.

3. Quantum Langevin Equation

The main role of the previous section was to introduce the concept of quan-
tum electromagnetic fields propagating along a transmission line at microwave
frequencies. The elementary excitations of these fields, microwave photons, can
be seen as the carriers of the information transmitted by the propagating field.
An amplifier is a particular case of a signal processing device. In general, a
signal processing device is a lumped element circuit that is connected to two

8
Figure 2: Circuit modes and ports: a) We are interested in quantum signal processing circuits
in lumped element regime, which possess in general several standing modes. Input lines and
output lines are attached to ports. In the simplest case b), a one-mode circuit communicates
with the outside through only one port. An ideal circulator separates the input from the
output.

semi-infinite transmission lines [see Fig. 2 (a)]. It receives from the input line
the propagating signal carrying the information to be processed and re-emits in
the output line another signal carrying the result of the information processing.
A crucial ingredient, in the description of the mapping of the input signal into
the output signal, is the coupling between the circuit, which houses standing
electromagnetic modes, and the transmission lines, which support propagating
modes. This coupling is dealt with theoretically through the Quantum Langevin
Equation. We will first consider its simplest version in which a lumped element
circuit with only one electromagnetic mode is coupled to only one semi-infinite
transmission line [Fig. 2 (b)].
In this so-called one-mode, one-port configuration, the signal processing oc-
curs as a transformation of the incoming wave into the reflected outgoing wave.
However, in order to utilize the action of the one-mode, one-port circuit, a
non-reciprocal linear device called a circulator has to be added in order to sep-
arate the incoming and outgoing waves into two independent transmission lines
[Fig. 2 (b)]. This circuit configuration also provides a way to model directional,
through amplifiers [11]. We can leave the modeling of the circulator aside for
the moment (it is a 3-port device), and just write
 the equation linking the quan-
tum amplitude a of the circuit, satisfying a, a† = 1, to the incoming quantum
field amplitude of the line ain (t) at the unique port (this is the generic name
of the interface between a semi-infinite transmission line and a lumped element
circuit)

9
 da i κ √
= [H, a] − a + κain (t) , (44)
dt Markov
~ 2
RWA

where ain is the traveling photon amplitude defined in the last section (Eq. (12)),
the superscript “in” referring to the sense of propagation coming into the circuit.
The equation (44) is a special case of the Quantum Langevin Equation (QLE) [7]
and its right handside has three terms. The first term corresponds to that of the
usual Heisenberg equation of motion for an operator in quantum mechanics, in
which H is the Hamiltonian of the circuit, written as a function of the conjugate
ladder operators a and a† . The circuit can be arbitrarily non-linear and thus
H will be in general more sophisticated than the simple quadratic term ~ωa a† a
of the quantum harmonic oscillator. Next, the second term is a damping term
specific to both the open nature of the system, and the linear coupling between
the circuit and the transmission line. Its remarkable simple form requires two
assumptions: i) The so-called Markov approximation which considers that the
coupling of the system with the environment is “ohmic”: the density of modes
of the environment can be considered white across the set of circuit transition
frequencies, as in an ideal resistance. ii) The coupling is also supposed to be
weak in the sense that κ is much smaller than any transition frequency between
the energy levels of the lumped circuit. This is the so-called Rotating Wave
Approximation (RWA). Finally, the third and last term on the right handside
of the Quantum Langevin Equation describes the role of the incoming field as
a drive for the circuit. It represents the counterpart of the energy loss modeled
by the second term. Although approximations are made, the equation respects
the important commutation relation of the ladder operators:
h i
†
a (t) , a (t) = 1 (45)

at all times t.
The incoming driving field has in general three components which are treated
on equal footing by the QLE: i) the deterministic signal to be processed, ii) ther-
mal or parasitic noise accompanying the information-carrying signal, and iii)
quantum noise, or, in other words, the zero-point fluctuations of the field of the
semi-infinite transmission line. The inclusion of this last component is imple-
mented implicitly in that the Quantum Langevin Equation is an operator equa-
tion, in contrast with the Classical Langevin Equation which is just a differential
equation
√ for a c-number function, albeit stochastic. Note that the coefficient
κ in front of the propagating field amplitude embodies single-handedly the
fluctuation-dissipation theorem: the rate at which energy is radiated away from
the circuit (the coefficient κ of the second term) has to be tightly linked to the
coupling constant with which random radiation – emitted from the black body
that the line plays the role of – corrupt the purity of the state of the circuit. If
one wonders why κ appears under a square root in this coupling coefficient, one
just needs to remember that while a is a dimensionless standing photon number

10
amplitude, ain (t) is the dimensioned amplitude corresponding to a photon flux.
Consequently, when the semi-infinite line is in thermal equilibrium (input signal
is only black-body noise with temperature T ), the following relation involving
the anticommutator {, } holds

~ (|ω1 − ω2 |)
ain [ω1 ], ain [ω2 ]

 
T
= coth δ (ω1 + ω2 ) , (46)
4kB T

where kB is Boltzmann constant, {A, B} = AB + BA and h...iT the average

in the thermal state. Given an operating temperature around 20 mK, this
expression shows that the quantum fluctuations become fully dominant over
thermal fluctuations at frequencies above a GHz.
In principle, one can integrate the QLE and express the circuit variable a(t)
in terms of the incoming field ain (t). The output field can be obtained from the
Input-Output Equation
√
κa = ain (t) + aout (t) . (47)
√
Again, the appearance of the simple coefficient κ in this relation results from
the Markov approximation.
When the circuit is a simple harmonic oscillator H = ~ω0 a† a, see Fig. 3,
the elimination of a between input and output can be carried out fully at the
analytical level and one obtains
   
d d
+ iω0 + κ/2 aout (t) = − + iω0 − κ/2 ain (t) . (48)
dt dt

Going to the Fourier domain, one obtains the reflection coefficient r (ω)

aout [ω] = r (ω) ain [ω] , (49)

ω − ω0 − iκ/2
rRWA (ω) = − . (50)
ω − ω0 + iκ/2

The causality property of the circuit, which expresses the fact that it cannot
produce a response before being submitted to a stimulus, is implemented here
by the analytic property of the complex function rRWA (ω): its pole is in the
lower half complex plane while its zero is in the upper half. On the other hand,
the fact that the reflection coefficient has only one pole instead of a pair is
an artefact of RWA. As a matter of fact, when the circuit is linear as in Fig.
3, one can compute exactly the reflection coefficient using a more elaborate
form of QLE without RWA, while keeping the Markov approximation. One
then obtains
 the expression possessing the necessary pair of poles with values
p
ω± = −iκ ± −κ2 − 4ω02 /2:

ω 2 − ω02 − iκω
r (ω) = − . (51)
ω 2 − ω02 + iκω

11
Figure 3: Schematic of the circuit corresponding to a 1-port 1-mode passive linear device.

Figure 4: Example of a two-mode, two-port circuit in which care must be taken in the
amplitude factors of the Quantum Langevin Equation.

It is easy to see that in this last equation, r (ω) reduces to the single pole ex-
pression rRWA (ω) when ω is such that |1 − ω/ω0 |  1 and in the underdamped
limit κ/ω0  1.
Continuing to work in the framework of both RWA and the Markov approx-
imation, one can easily deal with more than one circuit mode and more than
one semi-infinite line. Denoting by M the circuit standing mode index and P
the port index, one obtains the multi-mode, multi-port generalized QLE:
d i X h κM P √ i
aM = [H, aM ] + − aM + εM P κM P ain
P (t) . (52)
dt ~ 2
P

Apart from a simple extension of the number of variables, this new equation
contains the rectangular matrix εM P whose complex coefficients are such that
|εM P | = 1. This matrix can be computed from the details of the coupling of the
lines to particular elements of the circuit (capacitances or inductances, series or
parallel connections). A simple example of a situation where the εM P cannot
be set to unity by a re-definition of the mode amplitude aM is presented in Fig.
4. The general Input-Output Equation takes the form
X 1  −1 out
εM P ain

aM = √ M (t) + εM P aP (t) . (53)
κM P
P

4. Model amplifiers

We have in the previous section introduced the Quantum Langevin Equa-

tion and the Input-Output Equation which together allow, at least formally, to

12
compute how a given circuit processes signals propagating on transmission lines.
We have treated the simplest case of a 1-mode, 1-port circuit implementing an
harmonic oscillator circuit. However, the understanding of amplifiers starts by
considering necessarily a generalization of the simple harmonic case, namely that
of an effective, time-dependent quadratic Hamiltonian for the circuit. We defer
to the next section the discussion of how these Hamiltonians emerge in practice
from damped-driven non-linear systems. We will address first the question of
how an amplification function can arise from such emergent effective quadratic
form. Thus, let us consider the time-dependent effective quadratic Hamiltonian
H X X  
= ωm a†m am + i eff
gmp am ap ei(Ωmp t+θmp ) − h.c. + neglected terms,
~ m m≤p
(54)
where m and p are circuit mode indices, and where the real, positive parame-
eff
ters ωm and gml are in general functions of elementary parameters of the circuit
combined with the values of time-dependent driving fields imposed from the
outside and treated classically. These driving fields excite the circuit, thus pro-
viding energy for the amplification process and are often nicknamed “pumps”.
We suppose that there are ports that couple the modes m to the outside world.
In the case of one port per mode, this coupling is described by constants κm .
The phase factors eiθmp depend on the details of the excitation, while the drive
frequencies Ωmp are in the vicinity of ωm + ωp (or sometimes |ωm − ωp |, but we
will not deal with this case here). By vicinity, we mean within the bandwidth de-
termined by the port coupling constants: |Ωmp − ωm − ωp | ≤ κm κp / (κm + κp ).
Here, we will limit ourselves to two elementary cases: i) the simple two-port,
2-mode, non-degenerate parametric amplifier with Hamiltonian
HNDPA  
= ωa a† a + ωb b† b + igab abei(Ωab t+θ) − h.c. (55)
~
and port coupling constants κa and κb , and ii) the simple one-port, 1-mode,
degenerate parametric amplifier with Hamiltonian
HDPA  
= ωa a† a + igaa a2 ei(Ωaa t+θ) − h.c. . (56)
~
In this case, there is a single port coupling constant κa . The frequency land-
scapes corresponding to the two cases are represented schematically on Fig.
5.
From the Langevin Equation [Eq. (44)] and the Input-Output Equation
[Eq. (47)] of the last section, we obtain for non-degenerate case (i) the pair of
equations:
† †
F (ωa , κa )aout + gab e−i(Ωab t+θ) bout = −F (ωa , −κa )ain − gab e−i(Ωab t+θ) bin ,
† †
F (ωb , κb )bout + gab e−i(Ωab t+θ) aout = −F (ωb , −κb )bin − gab e−i(Ωab t+θ) ain ,
where F (ω, κ) = d/dt + iω + κ/2. For degenerate case (ii) there is only one
equation:
† †
F (ωa , κa )aout + 2gaa e−i(Ωaa t+θ) aout = −F (ωa , −κa )ain − 2gaa e−i(Ωaa t+θ) ain .

13
Figure 5: Frequency landscape for the non-degenerate (i) and degenerate (ii) parametric
amplifiers. The dashed lines corresponds to response curves of each mode, as measured by a
probe tone injected in the circuit elements of the mode. The vertical arrows correspond to
the spectral densities of the signal and the idler tones arriving in the circuit through its ports.
The horizontal arrows denote the frequency translations between signal and idler operated by
the parametrical modulation induced by the pump tone.

Going to the Fourier domain and solving for outgoing waves as a function of the
incoming waves we find for case (i)
 out     in 
a [+ωS ] rSS 0 0 sSI a [+ωS ]
∗
 aout [−ωS ]   0 rSS s∗SI 0   in
  a in [−ωS ]  ,

 b [+ωI ]  =  0 ∗ ∗ (57)
 out  
sIS rII 0   b [+ωI ] 
bout [−ωI ] sIS 0 0 rII bin [−ωI ]

where ωS , ωI are the two signal and image (or idler) frequencies, respectively,
linked precisely by ωS + ωI = Ωab . Unlike in the case of simple harmonic cir-
cuits, an input signal at one frequency can here be processed into an output
signal at another frequency. There is also a change in sign of the frequency in
this process, which is called phase conjugation, and this is why we represent
the scattering by a 4 × 4 matrix. That matrix can be separated into two blocks
related by the simple complex conjugation relating Fourier coefficients with op-
posite frequencies, a mathematical operation independent of the physical phe-
nomenon of phase conjugation. Phase conjugation manifests itself practically in
the following manner: if one advances the phase of the input signal by a given
quantity, the phase of the conjugated output signal becomes retarded by the

14
same quantity. The elements of the scattering matrix are given by
∗
−1 ∗
χ−1
a (ωS ) χb (ωI ) + ρab
2
rSS = −1 −1 ∗ 2
, (58)
χa (ωS ) χb (ωI ) − ρab
−1
χ−1 2
a (ωS ) χb (ωI ) + ρab
rII = ∗ , (59)
χ−1 −1
a (ωS ) χb (ωI ) − ρab
2

2ρab e−iθ
sSI = ∗ , (60)
χ−1
a (ωS ) χ−1 2
b (ωI ) − ρab
2ρab eiθ
sIS = ∗ . (61)
χ−1 −1 2
a (ωS ) χb (ωI ) − ρab

These expressions contain two ingredients: the single mode bare susceptibilites
χ, which are given by
1
χm (ω) = (62)
1 − 2i (ω − ωm ) /κm

and the reduced effective mode coupling given by

2gab
ρab = √ . (63)
κa κb

Its modulus squared is often called the mode cooperativity. When the drive tone
of the amplifier is optimally tuned Ωab = ωa +ωb and when monochromatic input
signals are on resonance with their corresponding mode ωS = ωa , ωI = ωb the
scattering matrix takes the simpler form
√ √
G0 − 1e−iθ
 
G0 √0 √ 0 iθ
0 √ G0 G√ 0 − 1e 0
 
 −iθ
, (64)

√ 0 G0 − 1e G0 √ 0 
iθ
G0 − 1e 0 0 G0

where the zero-detuning, optimal amplifier power gain G0 is

2
1 + ρ2ab

G0 = . (65)
1 − ρ2ab

It can be shown that the stability of the amplifier requires that ρab < 1, i.e.
there is a ceiling to the effective coupling between modes of the circuit, beyond
which amplification turns into spontaneous parametric oscillations.
Note that the determinant of the scattering matrix is unity even in the fully
general case. Also, it is important to realize that, quite generally, the scattering
is not reciprocal. A wave going from port b to port a acquires a phase factor
e−iθ from the drive which is conjugate to the phase factor eiθ accompanying the
scattering from port a to port b.

15
 We now turn to case ii) in which the scattering relations, while involve only
one port, still are expressed as a 4 × 4 matrix:
 out     in 
a [+ωS ] rSS 0 0 sSI a [+ωS ]
 aout [−ωS ]   0 ∗ ∗   ain [−ωS ]
rSS s SI 0 
 a [+ωI ]  =  0
. (66)
s∗IS rII
∗
 out   
0   ain [+ωI ] 
aout [−ωI ] sIS 0 0 rII ain [−ωI ]

Now the different frequencies are carried on the same port and are all in the
vicinity of the single resonance of the unique mode. Nevertheless, the scattering
coefficients are in the analytic continuation of the previous expressions, in which
one simply sets χb (ω) = χa (ω). A simplification occurs if the drive frequency
is precisely tuned to twice the effective resonant frequency, i.e. Ωaa = 2ωa , in
∗
which case χa (ωI ) = χa (ωS ) and the subblock of the scattering matrix takes
the form
"  2 #
χ−1 2ρaa e−iθ
 out 2
ain [+ωS ]
 
a [+ωS ] 1 a (ωS ) + ρaa 

= ,
aout [−ωI ] 2 ain [−ωI ]

D 2ρaa eiθ χ−1
a (ωS ) + ρaa
2

(67)
 −1 2 2 4gaa
with D = χa (ωS ) − ρaa where ρaa = κa . We also introduce the in-phase
and quadrature components of the incoming and outgoing waves:

ain,out
k,⊥ (δω) = ain,out [ωS ] ± e−iθ ain,out [−ωI ] , (68)

where δω = ωS − ωa = ωa − ωI . The meaning of this transformation can be

illustrated by the following consideration, which supposes θ = 0 for simplicity.
Classically, if a signal is such that

y (t) = f (t) cos (ωa t) + g (t) sin (ωa t) , (69)

with in-phase and quadrature modulation components f (t) and g (t) slow com-
−1
pared to (ωa ) , then

yk (δω) = f (δω) , y⊥ (δω) = g (δω) . (70)

One can easily check that the effect of the angle θ associated with the time
dependence of the effective Hamiltonian is just to rotate the component signals
in the Fresnel plane. In the representation where the in-phase and quadrature
components form the basis signals, we find that the scattering matrix is diagonal

χa (ωS )2 + 2ρaa + ρ2aa

 −1 
out
ak (δω) = ain in
k (δω) = Λk (δω) ak , (71)
D
χa (ωS )2 − 2ρaa + ρ2aa
 −1 
aout
⊥ (δω) = ain in
⊥ (δω) = Λ⊥ (δω) a⊥ . (72)
D
The property of the scattering matrix to have unity determinant imposes

Gk G⊥ = 1. (73)

16
  2
where Gk,⊥ = Λk,⊥ (δω) . Thus, in this mode of operation of the degenerate
parametric amplifier, one quadrature of the signal is amplified while the other
is de-amplified. If the input signal consists only of vacuum fluctuations, the
amplifier squeezes these fluctuations for one quadrature, making it less uncertain
than the so-called standard quantum limit, which is associated to a standard
deviation corresponding to the square root of a quarter of a photon (the half
photon of the zero-point motion is split evenly between the two quadratures,
and only one is squeezed) [12].
In the non-degenerate case (i) a more complex form of squeezing – two-mode
squeezing – occurs in the four dimensional phase space of the quadratures of
the two propagating signals incident on the circuit [12].
The non-degenerate parametric amplifier is usually employed as a sort of
RF op-amp: the idler port is connected to a cold matched load emulating an
infinite transmission line at zero-temperature and the device viewed from the
signal port functions as a reflection amplifier operating in the phase preserving
mode: for signals having a bandwidth small compared to that of the amplifier
!
√
r
1
aout = G ain + 1 − bin† . (74)
G

The second term on the right of this last expression shows that quantum noise
entering through the b port must necessarily be added to the amplified signal [2].
This added noise contribution amounts, in the large gain limit G  1 and for an
idler port at zero temperature, to a half-photon at the signal frequency, referred
to the input. It can be seen as an evil necessary to preserve the commutation
relation  out out†   in in† 
a ,a = a ,a . (75)
More practically, the extra half-photon of noise can also be seen as a consequence
of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. A phase preserving amplifier processes
equally both quadratures, which in quantum mechanics are non-commuting ob-
servables. Since the process of amplification is equivalent to measurement, the
extra noise forbids that both quadratures are known precisely simultaneously,
in accordance with the central principle of quantum mechanics. An ampli-
fier functioning in this Heisenberg regime where the efficiency of the amplifica-
tion process is only limited by irreducible quantum fluctuations is said to be
quantum-limited.

5. Practical amplifier circuits based on Josephson junction circuits

We have introduced in the previous section the notion of effective, time-

dependent quadratic Hamiltonians and shown how their generic form lead to
the amplification of a quantum signal with a noise limited solely by the Heisen-
berg Uncertainty Principle. We now explain in this section how such quadratic
forms can arise from a practical non-linear, damped and driven system based
on Josephson tunnel junctions.

17
Figure 6: 1-mode, 1-port Josephson amplifier involving only the Josephson inductance. Left
panel is schematic of Josephson tunnel junction, itself consisting of a Josephson tunnel ele-
ment playing the role of non-linear inductance (cross, LJ ) and a junction capacitance CJ ,
in parallel with an external capacitance Cext and a transmission line bringing in the current
I(t). The variable ϕ is the phase across the junction. On the right panel, simplified schematic
based on an RWA treatment where the oscillator is reduced to its frequency ωa and damping
rate κ, with the Josephson non-linearity manifesting itself as a simple Kerr component (op-
posing arcs symbols) characterized by the parameter K, the shift in frequency of the oscillator
corresponding to 1 photon. The degree of freedom is described by the standing photon ladder
operator a.

5.1. Driven microwave oscillator whose inductance is a single Josephson ele-

ment: Duffing-like dynamics
We first examine the simplest case of a 1-mode, 1-port circuit in which the
inductance is just the Josephson element of superconducting tunnel junction
(see Fig. 6) [13, 14]. The Hamiltonian of such systems is given by

~
H = Hcirc − ϕ · I + Henv , (76)
2e
Q2
Hcirc = −EJ cos ϕ + , (77)
2CΣ
~ 2


where EJ = 2e /LJ is the Josephson energy, CΣ = CJ + Cext is the total
capacitance in parallel with the Josephson element, ϕ the gauge-invariant phase
difference across the junction, Q the charge conjugate to the phase [ϕ, Q] = 2ei,
Henv the Hamiltonian of the transmission line, including the pump arriving
through this channel and I the current operator belonging to the degrees of
freedom of the line. The amplifier functions with hϕi having excursions much
less than π/2 and the cosine function in the Hamiltonian can be expanded to
4th order only, with the ϕ4 term treated as a perturbation [15, 16]. Introducing
the ladder operators of the single mode of the circuit

ϕ = ϕZPF a + a†


(78)

1/2 1/4
and working in the framework of both an expansion in ϕZPF = 2e2 /~ (LJ /CΣ )
and RWA, the hamiltonian of the circuit simplifies to
Hcirc K
= ω̃a a† a + a† a a† a − 1 ,


(79)
~ 2

18
 √
where, in the regime ϕZPF  1, K = −e2 /(2~CΣ ) and ω̃a = 1/ LJ CΣ + K.
The Quantum Langevin Equation applied to this system yields
d κ √
a = −i ω̃a + Ka† a a − a + κain (t) ,


(80)
dt 2
where ω̃a  κa  K. This last equation is the quantum version, in the RWA
approximation, of the equation describing systems modeled by the Duffing equa-
tion. The classical Duffing oscillator obeys the equation
mẍ + η ẋ + mω02 x(1 + µx2 ) = fD cos (ωD t) + fP (t) (81)
for the position variable x having mass m, small amplitude spring constant
mω02 , friction coefficient η and driven at frequency ωD , which is close to the small
amplitude resonant frequency ω0 . A small probe force fP (t) allows to study the
displacement response of the system. Non-linearity of the oscillator corresponds
here to the spring constant being dependent quadratically on position.
Here, for our amplifier, κ plays the role of the damping rate η/m, and K
plays the role of µ. Let us now suppose that, in addition to the signal to
be processed, the a port also receives an intense drive tone described by a
propagating coherent state with amplitude αin and frequency Ω. We treat this
drive by the change of variable
ain (t) = αin e−iΩt + δain (t) , (82)
−iΩt
a (t) = αe + δa (t) . (83)
We aim to solve for the semi-classical amplitude α from Eq. (80):
dα κa √
− iΩα = −iω̃a α − iK|α|2 α − α + κa αin . (84)
dt 2
By treating the non-linear term as a perturbation, we obtain the self-consistent
algebraic equation in steady state:
√
i κa αin
α= 2, (85)
(Ω − ω̃a ) + iκ2a − K |α|
which in general yields for the c-number α a complex value such
√
i κa αin
|α − α0 |  1, α0 = 2 . (86)
(Ω − ω̃a ) + iκ2a − 4K |αin | /κa
This value leads to the effective Hamiltonian for the degenerate parametric
amplifier arising from the pumping of the Josephson junction
H h
2
i
= ωa δa† δa + gaa ei(Ωaa t+θ) (δa) + h.c. (87)
~
with
2
ωa = ω̃a + 2K |α| , (88)
iθ ∗2
gaa e = Kα , (89)
Ωaa = 2Ω. (90)

19
Figure 7: Parametrically driven oscillator based on the property of the Josephson inductance
of a DC-SQUID (two Josephson junctions in parallel forming a loop, here represented by a
thicker line) to be modulated by the variation of an external flux Φext . The modulation arises
from an RF drive current ID (t) = ID RF cos Ωt in the primary of a transformer that creates

though its mutual inductance M a sinusoidal flux variation in the loop of the DC-SQUID.

Eqs. (88), (90) put into light two drawbacks of this type of amplifier: the
center frequency of the band of the amplifier shifts as the pump amplitude is
increased and the pump tone needs to be at the center of the band for optimal
amplification. The use of two pumps frequencies Ω1 and Ω2 such that Ωaa =
Ω1 + Ω2 facilitates the use of this parametric amplifier [17].
 2
The device has noticeable gain when K αin  /κ2a is of order unity, implying
that the number of pump photons in the oscillator is of order κa /K, a large
number by hypothesis. This justifies our treatment of the pump drive as a c-
3
number. Neglected terms such as the non-RWA term (δa) eiΩt have smaller
factors and can themselves be treated as perturbations on top of the standard
degenerate parametric amplifier formalism. It is worth noting that for this
device, the pump tone and the signal tone must enter the circuit on the same
port, which is inconvenient given the widely different amplitude levels of these
two waves.
Amplifiers based on the same Duffing type of non-linearity can also be fab-
ricated with two-port circuits containing arrays of Josephson junctions [18, 19].

5.2. A parametrically driven oscillator: the DC-SQUID driven by RF flux vari-

ation
Another class of Josephson circuit implementing parametric amplifiers at
microwave frequencies is the RF-Flux-driven DC-SQUID (see Fig. 7).
It turns out that this parametric drive can be implemented in Josephson
circuits by taking a DC-SQUID, which is formed by two nominally identical
Josephson junctions in parallel and modulating at the RF pump frequency the
flux Φext threading the superconducting loop between them (here the term DC
refers to the circulating current in the loop due to an external bias flux). One
exploits the functional form of the Josephson inductance of the DC-SQUID
L
LSQU
J
ID
=  J , (91)
 Φext 
cos π Φ0 

20
where Φ0 = h/2e is the flux quantum and LJ /2 is the Josephson inductance of
each individual junction. When
Φ0
Φext = [1 + ε cos (Ωt)] , (92)
4
q
with Ω close to the resonant frequency of the SQUID 1/ CΣ LSQU J
ID
and ε 
1, one implements the parametrically driven harmonic oscillator with relative
frequency modulation parameter µr = πε/4. This modulation is produced by a
RF
drive current ID (t) = ID cos (Ωt) at the primary of the transformer coupling
the transmission line of an RF pump to the flux of the SQUID (see Fig. 7).
Classically, the parametrically driven harmonic oscillator obeys the equation

mẍ + η ẋ + mω02 x [1 + µr cos (Ωt)] = fP (t) . (93)

In contrast with the Duffing oscillator above, this system is described by a fully
linear, albeit time-dependent, equation. The drive, instead of appearing as a
force coupled directly to position, now modulates the spring constant with a
relative amplitude µr . The system behaves as an amplifier when the argument
of the cosine modulation term is such that the drive frequency Ω is close to
the resonant frequency ω0 . In the weak damping limit η  mω0 , the quantum
version of this oscillator is directly a one-port, one-mode system described by
our degenerate amplifier Hamiltonian
H
= ωa a† a + gaa eiΩaa t a2 + h.c. ,
 
(94)
~
where

Ωaa = Ω, (95)
gaa = µr ω0 /4. (96)

Note that now the drive frequency needs to be near twice the resonance
frequency of the amplified mode, unlike in the Duffing case, and it is thus easier
to decouple the pump tone from the weak signal to be amplified. This type of
amplifier has been implemented in several labs [20, 21, 22, 23].

5.3. 3-mode circuit employing the purely dispersive Josephson 3-wave mixer
We have just described the two ways in which a circuit involving one or
two Josephson junctions can implement the degenerate parametric amplifier
(case (ii) of last section). The non-degenerate parametric amplifier (case (i) of
last section) can be implemented by a 3-mode, 3-port circuit employing four
junctions forming the so-called Josephson ring modulator, a purely dispersive
3-wave mixer (see details in [24, 25, 26]).
Three microwave standing wave resonators are coupled by this last element
and are described by the Hamiltonian
H
= ωa a† a + ωb b† b + ωc c† c + g3 a + a† b + b† c + c† ,




(97)
~

21
Figure 8: Schematic circuit of the purely dispersive 3-wave mixer (dashed line) involving
three microwave modes, themselves coupled to three ports. The system functions as a non-
degenerate parametric amplifier with mode a and b playing the role of the signal and idler,
while mode c is used to couple in the pump tone. While there are in principle four modes
coupled by the junctions (cross inside a square, denoting both the Josephson element and
associated capacitance), the symmetry of the circuit when the junctions are identical, imposes
that only three modes participate in the nonlinear interaction. A flux threading the ring
of junctions induces a current (arrows) that replaces one of the four waves coupled by the
junction.

together with their port coupling κa , κb and κc . The frequency scales are such
that
ωc  ωb > ωa > κc  κa ' κb  g3 . (98)
The trilinear coupling term, treated as a perturbation, possesses the precious
property that it does not, at the lowest order, offset the frequency of the
quadratic terms when the modes
are occupied by coherent signals, unlike the
† †
Kerr term above K 2 a a a a − 1 . Other terms of higher order have been ne-
glected in the Hamiltonian (97). They ensure that the system remains stable
when the amplitudes become large, as the trilinear coupling renders by itself
the Hamiltonian unstable. In the regime where the c mode is driven by a large
coherent field αcin e−iΩt , we can neglect the fluctuating part of the corresponding
operator. The previous Hamiltonian can be treated as

Heff
= ωa a† a + ωb b† b + 2gab a + a† b + b† cos (Ωab t + θ) ,



(99)
~
where
" √ #
κc αcin e−iΩt
gab cos (Ωab t + θ) = g3 < D −ω

, (100)
−i ωab c + κc

Ωab = Ω. (101)

22
Figure 9: Minimalistic versions of the various Josephson circuits implementing parametric
amplification of quantum signals. The circuits are classified according to the degenerate/non-
degenerate character of the amplifying process (one or two standing modes). The four-wave
(4W) or the three-wave (3W) labels characterize the mixing process for the signal and idler
waves taking place in the Josephson junctions. In the three-wave process, the place of one of
the four-waves incident on the junction is replaced by a DC current generated by the externally
applied flux Φ. We also distinguish circuits by the number of ports through which the signal,
idler and the pump waves are delivered. In the upper left corner (minimal complexity),
the three waves are approximately at the same frequency and arrive through the same port,
whereas in the lower right corner (maximal complexity), the three waves are both spatially
and spectrally separated. In the upper right corner, we have represented two implementations
of the 1-port, 4-wave, non-degenerate parametric amplifier. In the circuit on the left-handside,
the two modes share a common junction but are symmetrically coupled to the port, whereas
on the right-handside, the two modes are gauge-coupled and are asymmetrically coupled to
the port [27].

When one works within the framework of the Rotating Wave Approximation
and Ωab ' ωa + ωb , the fast rotating terms can be neglected and one recovers

23
the Hamiltonian of the generic non-degenerate parametric amplifier
HNDPA h i
= ωa a† a + ωb b† b + gab abei(Ωab t+θ) + h.c. . (102)
~

6. Concluding Summary and Perspectives

In this short review, we have outlined the different ways in which Josephson
circuits can implement the functions of parametric amplification. The key or-
ganizing concept is the effective quadratic time-dependent Hamiltonian which
comes in two forms: degenerate and non-degenerate, depending on whether
the signal and idler waves occupy the same physical degree of freedom or two
separate ones. In Fig. 9, we summarize the different circuit configurations
leading, on one hand, to the degenerate case and, on the other hand, to the
non-degenerate case (left and right columns, respectively). The figure also clas-
sifies circuits depending on the number of access ports, the simpler case being
that of 1-port carrying the signal, idler and pump waves (upper left panels),
while the case in which the signal, idler and the pump waves are separated in
both temporally and spatially is shown in the bottom right panel. The circuit
complexity increases when going from the upper left corner of Fig. 9 to the
lower right one.
This survey of amplifiers has not covered the following topics of current in-
terest: dynamic range [26], directionality [28, 29, 19], efficiency and frequency-
conversion. Lastly, recently several ideas have been proposed to make the am-
plifier avoid the gain-bandwidth compromise and the instability at the onset
of parametric oscillation [30, 31]. These topics will be covered in an extended
version of this review.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Benjamin Huard, Michael Hatridge, Archana Ka-
mal and Katrina Sliwa for valuable discussions in the preparation of this review.
The authors thank Maxime Malnou for his critical reading of the manuscript.
This work is supported by ARO under Grant No.W911NF-14-1-0011.

References

References

[1] M. H. Devoret, R. J. Schoelkopf, Superconducting Circuits for Quantum

Information: An Outlook, Science 339 (6124) (2013) 1169–1174. doi:
10.1126/science.1231930.
URL http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1169.abstract
[2] C. M. Caves, Quantum limits on noise in linear amplifiers, Phys. Rev. D
26 (8) (1982) 1817–1839. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1817.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1817

24
 [3] B. Yurke, P. G. Kaminsky, R. E. Miller, E. A. Whittaker, A. D. Smith, A. H.
Silver, R. W. Simon, Observation of 4.2-K equilibrium-noise squeezing via
a Josephson-parametric amplifier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (9) (1988) 764–767.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.764.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.764

[4] B. Yurke, L. R. Corruccini, P. G. Kaminsky, L. W. Rupp, A. D. Smith,

A. H. Silver, R. W. Simon, E. A. Whittaker, Observation of parametric am-
plification and deamplification in a Josephson parametric amplifier, Phys.
Rev. A 39 (5) (1989) 2519–2533. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.39.2519.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.39.2519

[5] R. Vijay, D. H. Slichter, I. Siddiqi, Observation of Quantum Jumps in a

Superconducting Artificial Atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (11) (2011) 110502.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.110502.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.110502
[6] M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, M. Mirrahimi, F. Schackert, K. Geerlings,
T. Brecht, K. M. Sliwa, B. Abdo, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf,
M. H. Devoret, Quantum Back-Action of an Individual Variable-Strength
Measurement, Science 339 (6116) (2013) 178–181. doi:10.1126/science.
1226897.
URL http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6116/178.abstract

[7] C. Gardiner, P. Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and

Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quan-
tum Optics, Springer Series in Synergetics, Springer, 2004.
URL https://books.google.com/books?id=a{_}xsT8oGhdgC
[8] D. F. Walls, G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics, SpringerLink: Springer e-
Books, Springer, 2008.
URL https://books.google.com/books?id=LiWsc3Nlf0kC
[9] S. Mallat, A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing, Wavelet Tour of Signal
Processing, Elsevier Science, 1999.
URL https://books.google.com/books?id=hbVOfWQNtB8C

[10] A. S. Holevo, Quantum Systems, Channels, Information: A Mathematical

Introduction, De Gruyter Studies in Mathematical Physics, De Gruyter,
2013.
URL https://books.google.com/books?id=zh{_}rOYaVIf8C
[11] J.-M. Courty, F. Grassia, S. Reynaud, Quantum noise in ideal operational
amplifiers, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 46 (1) (1999) 31.
URL http://stacks.iop.org/0295-5075/46/i=1/a=031
[12] P. D. Drummond, Z. Ficek, Quantum Squeezing, Springer Series on Atomic,
Optical, and Plasma Physics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
URL https://books.google.com/books?id=VSzrCAAAQBAJ

25
[13] I. Siddiqi, R. Vijay, F. Pierre, C. M. Wilson, M. Metcalfe, C. Rigetti,
L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, RF-Driven Josephson Bifurcation Amplifier for
Quantum Measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (20) (2004) 207002. doi:
10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.207002.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.207002

[14] Josephson Bifurcation Amplifier: Amplifying quantum signals using a dy-

namical bifurcation, Yale University, 2008.
[15] V. E. Manucharyan, E. Boaknin, M. Metcalfe, R. Vijay, I. Siddiqi, M. De-
voret, Microwave bifurcation of a Josephson junction: Embedding-circuit
requirements, Phys. Rev. B 76 (1) (2007) 14524. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.
76.014524.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.014524
[16] S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio,
M. H. Devoret, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M. Girvin, Black-Box Superconducting
Circuit Quantization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (24) (2012) 240502. doi:10.
1103/PhysRevLett.108.240502.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.240502
[17] A. Kamal, A. Marblestone, M. Devoret, Signal-to-pump back action and
self-oscillation in double-pump Josephson parametric amplifier, Phys. Rev.
B 79 (18) (2009) 184301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.79.184301.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.184301
[18] M. A. Castellanos-Beltran, K. D. Irwin, G. C. Hilton, L. R. Vale, K. W.
Lehnert, Amplification and squeezing of quantum noise with a tunable
Josephson metamaterial, Nat Phys 4 (12) (2008) 929–931.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1090

[19] C. Macklin, K. OBrien, D. Hover, M. E. Schwartz, V. Bolkhovsky,

X. Zhang, W. D. Oliver, I. Siddiqi, A nearquantum-limited Josephson
traveling-wave parametric amplifier, Science 350 (6258) (2015) 307–310.
doi:10.1126/science.aaa8525.
URL http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6258/307.abstract

[20] T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, M. Watanabe, K. Matsuba, T. Miyazaki,

W. D. Oliver, Y. Nakamura, J. S. Tsai, Flux-driven Josephson para-
metric amplifier, Applied Physics Letters 93 (4) (2008) –. doi:http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2964182.
URL http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/93/4/10.
1063/1.2964182

[21] J. R. Johansson, G. Johansson, C. M. Wilson, F. Nori, Dynamical Casimir

Effect in a Superconducting Coplanar Waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (14)
(2009) 147003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.147003.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.147003

26
[22] X. Zhou, V. Schmitt, P. Bertet, D. Vion, W. Wustmann, V. Shumeiko,
D. Esteve, High-gain weakly nonlinear flux-modulated Josephson paramet-
ric amplifier using a SQUID array, Phys. Rev. B 89 (21) (2014) 214517.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.89.214517.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.214517

[23] J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro,

A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, C. Neill, P. J. J. O Mal-
ley, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, K. M. Sundqvist,
A. N. Cleland, J. M. Martinis, Strong environmental coupling in a Joseph-
son parametric amplifier, Applied Physics Letters 104 (26). doi:http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4886408.
URL http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/104/26/
10.1063/1.4886408
[24] N. Bergeal, R. Vijay, V. E. Manucharyan, I. Siddiqi, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M.
Girvin, M. H. Devoret, Analog information processing at the quantum limit
with a Josephson ring modulator, Nat Phys 6 (4) (2010) 296–302.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1516
[25] N. Bergeal, F. Schackert, M. Metcalfe, R. Vijay, V. E. Manucharyan,
L. Frunzio, D. E. Prober, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret,
Phase-preserving amplification near the quantum limit with a Josephson
ring modulator, Nature 465 (7294) (2010) 64–68.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09035
[26] B. Abdo, A. Kamal, M. Devoret, Nondegenerate three-wave mixing with
the Josephson ring modulator, Phys. Rev. B 87 (1) (2013) 14508. doi:
10.1103/PhysRevB.87.014508.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.014508

[27] T. Roy, S. Kundu, M. Chand, M. Vadiraj A., A. Ranadive, N. Nehra,

M. P. Patankar, J. Aumentado, A. A. Clerk, R. Vijay, Broadband paramet-
ric amplification with impedance engineering: Beyond the gain-bandwidth
product, ArXiv e-printsarXiv:1510.03065.
[28] A. Kamal, J. Clarke, M. H. Devoret, Noiseless non-reciprocity in a para-
metric active device, Nat Phys 7 (4) (2011) 311–315.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1893
[29] B. Abdo, K. Sliwa, S. Shankar, M. Hatridge, L. Frunzio, R. Schoelkopf,
M. Devoret, Josephson Directional Amplifier for Quantum Measurement of
Superconducting Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (16) (2014) 167701. doi:
10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.167701.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.167701
[30] A. Metelmann, A. A. Clerk, Quantum-Limited Amplification via Reser-
voir Engineering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (13) (2014) 133904. doi:10.1103/

27
 PhysRevLett.112.133904.
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.133904
[31] L. Ranzani, J. Aumentado, Graph-based analysis of nonreciprocity in
coupled-mode systems, New Journal of Physics 17 (2) (2015) 23024.
URL http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/17/i=2/a=023024

28