Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 93 references

Dynamical multipartite entanglement in a generalized Tavis-Cummings model with XY spin interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Strong coupling and low temperature drive a cavity-spin model into genuine multipartite entanglement.

desk verdict Clear analytic derivation, but the simulated regime violates the mapping conditions, so the TC-model entanglement claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05841 v1 pith:C5BXS45J submitted 2025-05-09 quant-ph

Yuguo Su , Zhijie Sun , Yiying Yan , Hengyan Wang , Junyan Luo , Tiantian Ying , Hongbin Liang , Yi-Xiao Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords multipartiteentanglementquantumFisherinformationTavis-CummingsmodelcentralspinHolstein-PrimakofftransformationXYchainmetrology
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 a generalized Tavis-Cummings model with XY spin interaction can generate genuine multipartite entanglement, detected through the quantum Fisher information, without preparing any initially entangled central spins. The authors derive an effective central spin model from the cavity-atom system, obtain its reduced density matrix, and show numerically that for six central spins the quantum Fisher information crosses the genuine multipartite entanglement threshold when the coupling is strong and the temperature is low. They also show that the magnetic field modulates the period and amplitude of the entanglement oscillations. If correct, this provides a concrete path from cavity QED and superconducting circuits to multipartite entangled states useful for quantum metrology.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective central spin Hamiltonian $H_{\rm CSM} = H_0(h) - 2\eta J_z S_z$, obtained from the generalized Tavis-Cummings model through the Holstein-Primakoff transformation under the large-detuning condition $\Delta \gg g\sqrt{N_b}$ and the photon-rich condition $\langle a^\dagger a\rangle \gg N_b$. The quantitative workhorse is a closed-form reduced density matrix for the central spins, built by diagonalizing the XY bath Hamiltonian through Jordan-Wigner, Fourier, and Bogoliubov transformations. The entanglement witness is the optimized quantum Fisher information $F = \lambda_{\rm max}(\Gamma)$, with the criterion $F > (N_c-1)^2+1$ identifying genuine $N_c$-partite entanglement.

What would settle it

Compute the quantum Fisher information directly from the original Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian, without replacing the cavity by a six-spin central system, at the same bath size, coupling, and temperature; if the threshold $F > 26$ is not reached, or if the threshold fails for larger central spin numbers such as $N_c = 8$ or $10$, the genuine multipartite entanglement is an artifact of the small central-spin reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a generalized Tavis-Cummings model, in which a chain of two-level atoms with XY interaction collectively couples to a single cavity mode, can be replaced in the large-detuning, strong-coupling regime by an effective central spin model obtained through the Holstein-Primakoff transformation. In that effective model, the paper derives the reduced density matrix of the central spins and shows that their optimized quantum Fisher information exceeds the genuine multipartite entanglement threshold, with the simulation reaching values above the N_c-partite bound for six central spins when the coupling is strong and the inverse temperature is large. The magnetic field then modulates the oscillation period and amplitude of the entanglement measure. The authors conclude that strong coupling and low temperature are necessary conditions for genuine multipartite entanglement, which emerges dynamically from an initially unentangled central spin state.

Load-bearing premise

The whole demonstration rests on the assumption that the simulated small system with six central spins and ten bath spins behaves like the real cavity model, even though the simulation does not satisfy the required hierarchy $N_c \gg \langle a^\dagger a\rangle \gg N_b$ that the mapping needs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strong coupling is required for any multipartite entanglement: at weak coupling, lowering the temperature only raises the quantum Fisher information slightly and never produces genuine multipartite entanglement.
  • Low temperature alone cannot create entanglement, but combined with strong coupling it stabilizes and enhances the entanglement, so both conditions together are necessary for the genuine multipartite regime.
  • The magnetic field modulates both the period and amplitude of the quantum Fisher information oscillations, and in the Ising chain weak coupling preserves a stable long-time envelope while stronger coupling destroys that stability.
  • The closed-form reduced density matrix enables computation of other observables and entanglement measures for the central spins beyond the quantum Fisher information.
  • The mapping gives a route from a cavity-QED-style experimental setup to a central spin model, so genuine multipartite entanglement could be generated without preparing multipartite entangled initial states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mapping survives at larger central spin numbers, the central spin entanglement should also be observable through the cavity field's photon statistics, since the central spin operator $S_z$ is the Holstein-Primakoff image of the photon number operator; a photon-parity measurement would then serve as a direct witness.
  • The paper's parameter scan stops at six central spins and ten bath spins; an extrapolation to larger $N_c$ would test whether the genuine multipartite threshold is crossed robustly as the required hierarchy $N_c \gg \langle a^\dagger a\rangle \gg N_b$ is approached.
  • Because a quantum Fisher information above the $N_c$-partite threshold is a metrological resource, the same strong-coupling and low-temperature region should translate into sub-shot-noise sensitivity for estimating a collective rotation, although the paper does not compute the estimation error itself.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a generalized Tavis-Cummings (TC) model in which N_b two-level atoms with an XY spin interaction are coupled to a single cavity mode. Using a high-frequency/time-averaging approximation and a Holstein-Primakoff transformation, the authors derive an effective central-spin Hamiltonian H_CSM and obtain a closed-form reduced density matrix for the central spins in a thermal bath (Appendix B). They then compute the quantum Fisher information dynamics for the central spins for the XX and Ising cases, with an initially spin-coherent state, and report that genuine multipartite entanglement (F > (N_c−1)^2+1 = 26 for N_c=6) appears for strong coupling η and low temperature β, with the magnetic field modulating the period and amplitude. They also validate the effective Hamiltonian against the original model in Fig. 2 for a specific set of parameters.

Significance. If substantiated, the analytical reduced density matrix (Eq. (10), Appendix B) would be a useful tool for studying entanglement dynamics in central-spin systems, and the connection between the TC model and central-spin models is of interest. The paper correctly uses established QFI multipartite-entanglement criteria (Refs. [91,92]) and provides a detailed diagonalization of the XY chain. However, the central claim that the generalized TC model generates genuine multipartite entanglement in the simulated regime is currently undermined by (i) an inconsistent QFI normalization that appears incompatible with the plotted values, and (ii) the use of parameters (N_c=6, N_b=10, η up to 1) that violate the approximations used to derive the effective model. These issues are load-bearing and require revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (11) and (13)] The QFI is defined with a prefactor 2/2^{N_c}, whereas the standard quantum Fisher information used for multipartite entanglement criteria in Refs. [91,92] contains no factor of 2^{-N_c}. The thresholds quoted in Sec. IV (F > N_c, F > (N_c−1)^2+1) are therefore inconsistent with this definition unless the 2^{-N_c} factor is absent. Moreover, the maximum possible QFI for six qubits with a collective spin generator is N_c^2 = 36, but Figs. 3(c) and 5 show values reaching the plot limit of 40, which is impossible for the standard QFI. The authors must correct the normalization and verify that the plotted F values match the standard definition.
  2. [Secs. II and IV] The numerical demonstration of genuine multipartite entanglement is performed in a parameter regime where the effective central-spin Hamiltonian is not a faithful reduction of the generalized TC model. Equation (2) requires Δ ≫ g√N_b, but with η = g²/Δ², the strong-coupling values η = 0.2 and η = 1 give g√N_b/Δ ≈ 1.4 and ≈ 3.2 (for N_b = 10), respectively, violating the large-detuning condition. The Holstein-Primakoff mapping additionally requires N_c ≫ ⟨a†a⟩ ≫ N_b, which cannot be satisfied for the simulated N_c = 6 and N_b = 10; the paper itself concedes this in Sec. IV ("Still, the numerical feasibility of the demonstration is almost impossible. Thus, for convenience..."). Figure 2 validates the effective Hamiltonian only for N_b = 4 and η ≈ 0.011, not for the strong-coupling region of Figs. 3–7. Consequently, the results in Figs. 3–7 do not establish the dynamics of the generalized TC model, and the conclusion that the TC model is a source of genuine multipartite entanglement is not supported.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The definition of the coupling constant η = −g²/Δ² appears dimensionally inconsistent with the preceding derivation. From Eq. (3), the term 2g²/Δ J_z a†a transforms under the Holstein-Primakoff mapping to 2g²/Δ J_z S_z (plus a field shift proportional to (g²/Δ) N_c J_z), so the coefficient of J_z S_z in Eq. (4) should be −2η with η = −g²/Δ, not −g²/Δ². The same issue affects the definition of h := h0−ω0+ηN_c. If the authors intend to measure all frequencies in units of Δ, this should be stated explicitly; as written, the mapping from Eq. (3) to Eq. (4) is incorrect.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. I] The sentence "We the impacts of the inverse temperature β, the coupling constant η, and the magnetic field h on it, respectively" appears to be missing the verb "discuss".
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (11)] The argument of F is written as H but the expression involves S_α and S_α′; this should be the collective operator n·S.
  3. [Sec. IV and Fig. 3] The comparison supporting "low temperature could not directly induce the multipartite entanglement" is not cleanly isolated: Figs. 3(a)-3(b) vary β at fixed η = 0.01, while Figs. 3(c)-3(d) vary β at η = 0.1, but the text does not explicitly separate the effect of β from the simultaneous change in η.
  4. [Fig. 2] The color bar is labeled K but the y-axis label reads ζ; please clarify which quantity is plotted.
  5. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B13)-(B14)] The exponent n in (d†_{m,±k}d_{m,±k})^n is introduced without definition; it should be stated that the identity holds for any positive integer n.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the QFI dynamics are computed from a derived Hamiltonian and externally sourced entanglement criteria, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (1) time-averaged reduction of the generalized TC Hamiltonian to Eq. (2) under large detuning; (2) neglect of the J+J- term to obtain Eq. (3) under the photon-number assumption; (3) Holstein-Primakoff mapping to the central-spin Hamiltonian Eq. (4); (4) an exact reduced density matrix Eq. (10) obtained by Jordan-Wigner/Bogoliubov diagonalization; and (5) a QFI computed from Eq. (10) and compared to the Hyllus-Toth criteria (Eq. (14)). Each step is a derivation from the previous Hamiltonian, not an input to it. The QFI thresholds come from independent Refs. [91,92], not from the authors' own prior work. The authors' self-citations (Refs. [44,45,50,77]) are contextual and do not supply any load-bearing premise; the central premise (large-detuning and Holstein-Primakoff mapping) is stated explicitly and checked against the original model in Fig. 2. The reduced density matrix is not assumed but derived in Appendix B. The reader and skeptic concerns about the simulation regime violating Nc >> <a^dagger a> >> Nb or Delta >> g sqrt(Nb) are validity/correctness issues, not circularity: the paper explicitly concedes the numerical compromise in Sec. IV, so no prediction is being smuggled in as an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the large-detuning and photon-rich approximations, the Holstein-Primakoff mapping, and the standard XY-chain diagonalization. No data are fitted; the listed parameters are scanned by hand. The main fragility is the mapping-validity hierarchy, explicitly violated in the numerics, and the QFI normalization inconsistency.

free parameters (5)
  • N_c (central spins) = 6
    Chosen for numerical feasibility; violates the N_c >> average photon number requirement of the HP mapping.
  • N_b (bath spins) = 10
    Bath chain length in the numerics; results depend on this finite size.
  • η (central-bath coupling) = 0.01, 0.1, 1
    Coupling constant in H_CSM; scanned to demonstrate strong-coupling requirement.
  • β (inverse temperature) = 0 and 50
    Temperature parameter; low temperature claimed necessary for genuine multipartite entanglement.
  • h (magnetic field) = 0, 0.1, 0.5, 1
    Transverse field; scans show modulation of entanglement period and amplitude.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Large detuning and high-frequency conditions: Δ ≫ g√N_b and |ω_a + h0 - ω0| ≫ λ.
    Invoked in Sec. II and Appendix A to justify the time-averaged effective Hamiltonian (2); if violated, the effective model and all subsequent results do not follow.
  • domain assumption Photon-rich regime: ⟨a†a⟩ ≫ N_b, used to drop the J+J- term in Eq. (2).
    Stated after Eq. (2); required for the simplified Heff in Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption HP mapping validity: N_c ≫ ⟨a†a⟩ so the bosonic mode can be represented by a large spin; the numerics violate this.
    Acknowledged in Sec. IV: 'in principle, we could set N_c ≫ ⟨a†a⟩ ≫ N_b ... numerical feasibility is almost impossible'; the paper proceeds with N_c=6.
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner, Fourier, and Bogoliubov diagonalization of the XY chain (Appendix B).
    Standard exact solution of the transverse-field XY model, cited to Ref. [90].
  • standard math QFI entanglement-depth criterion of Hyllus and Toth (Eq. (14)).
    External witness thresholds F > s l^2 + r^2; cited to Refs. [91,92].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical multipartite entanglement in a generalized Tavis-Cummings model with XY spin interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5BXS45J

@misc{pith2026250505841,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical multipartite entanglement in a generalized Tavis-Cummings model with XY spin interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C5BXS45J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05841}
}
read the original abstract

Multipartite entanglement is a long-term pursuit in the resource theory, offering a potential resource for quantum metrology. Here, we present the dynamical multipartite entanglement, which is in terms of the quantum Fisher information, of a generalized Tavis-Cummings (TC) model introducing the XY spin interaction. Since our model cannot be solved exactly, we theoretically derive and numerically examine the effective description of our model. By the Holstein-Primakoff transformation, we show the bridge from the generalized TC model to the central spin model. Furthermore, the reduced density matrix of the central spins is presented, which is the prerequisite for calculating multipartite entanglement. We also discuss the effect of the temperature, the coupling constant, and the magnetic field on the dynamical multipartite entanglement in the central spin model, where the central spin is initially unentangled. Strong coupling and low temperature are necessary conditions for a genuine multipartite entanglement in the XY model, and together with the magnetic field, they govern the modulation of both the entanglement period and amplitude. Our results unveil the deep link between the TC model and the central spin model, allowing for a better comprehension of their dynamical multipartite entanglement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05841 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) (a) Cavity-QED setup. A coherent field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) Density plot of the difference ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (Color online) Dynamical evolutions of multipartite entan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Color online) Dynamical evolutions of multipartite entan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Color online) Dynamical evolutions of multipartite entan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online) Short and long-dynamical evolutions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Color online) Effect of the magnetic field on multipartite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  2. [2]

    The total Hamiltonian of the system (shown as Eq

    = Y k 2cosh(βΛk/2), (B5) β is the inverse temperature and the QPT points are hc = 1, γc = 0 whenh0∈ [−1, 1]. The total Hamiltonian of the system (shown as Eq. (4) in main text when the magnetic field shifts fromh0 toh :=h0− ω0 +ηNc) is H =H0 (h)⊗I2Nc×2Nc + 2ηH1⊗Sz, (B6) whereH0 (h) is the Hamiltonian of the central, ηH1⊗Sz is the Hamiltonian of the spin-b...

  3. [3]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V . Scarani, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  4. [4]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    Pezz `e, A

    L. Pezz `e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Zhuang, Z

    Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032329 (2018). 10

    2018

  8. [8]

    Carollo, B

    A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, A. A. Dubkov, and D. Valenti, J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp. 2019, 094010 (2019)

    2019

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    G. D. Fresco, B. Spagnolo, D. Valenti, and A. Carollo, SciPost Phys. 13, 077 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    J. T. Reilly, J. D. Wilson, S. B. J ¨ager, C. Wilson, and M. J. Holland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 150802 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1784 (1999)

    1999

  4. [12]

    S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 097904 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    Ohliger and J

    M. Ohliger and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. A 85, 062318 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  7. [15]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992)

    1992

  8. [16]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

    1993

  9. [17]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    Gong, M.-C

    M. Gong, M.-C. Chen, Y . Zheng, S. Wang, C. Zha, H. Deng, Z. Yan, H. Rong, Y . Wu, S. Li, F. Chen, Y . Zhao, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y . Xu, C. Guo, L. Sun, A. D. Castellano, H. Wang, C. Peng, C.-Y . Lu, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 110501 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    C. Song, K. Xu, H. Li, Y .-R. Zhang, X. Zhang, W. Liu, Q. Guo, Z. Wang, W. Ren, J. Hao, H. Feng, H. Fan, D. Zheng, D.-W. Wang, H. Wang, and S.-Y . Zhu, Science365, 574 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, A. Mazurenko, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 243201 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    B. Yang, H. Sun, C.-J. Huang, H.-Y . Wang, Y . Deng, H.-N. Dai, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Science 369, 550 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. H ¨ansel, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Friis, O

    N. Friis, O. Marty, C. Maier, C. Hempel, M. Holz¨apfel, P. Jurce- vic, M. B. Plenio, M. Huber, C. Roos, R. Blatt, and B. Lanyon, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021012 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Omran, H

    A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, A. S. Zibrov, H. Pichler, S. Choi, J. Cui, M. Rossignolo, P. Rembold, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, M. En- dres, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, Science 365, 570 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    T. M. Graham, Y . Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phuttitarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinkemeyer, M. Kwon, M. Ebert, J. Cherek, M. T. Lichtman, M. Gillette, J. Gilbert, D. Bowman, T. Ballance, C. Campbell, E. D. Dahl, O. Crawford, N. S. Blunt, B. Rogers, T. ...

    2022

  18. [26]

    C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  19. [27]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  20. [28]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep.509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Dell’Anna, S

    F. Dell’Anna, S. Pradhan, C. D. E. Boschi, and E. Ercolessi, Phys. Rev. B 108, 144414 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    P. M. Pogg and M. H. Mu ˜noz Arias, Quantum 7 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Dutra, Cavity quantum electrodynamics (John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2005)

    S. Dutra, Cavity quantum electrodynamics (John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 565 (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    Haroche, Phys

    S. Haroche, Phys. Today 51, 36 (1998)

    1998

  27. [35]

    Mabuchi and A

    H. Mabuchi and A. C. Doherty, Science 298, 1372 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R. Huang, J. Ma- jer, S. Kumar, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, Nature 431, 162 (2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    Brune, F

    M. Brune, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Maali, J. Dreyer, E. Hagley, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1800 (1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    McKeever, A

    J. McKeever, A. Boca, A. D. Boozer, J. R. Buck, and H. J. Kimble, Nature 425, 268 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    C. H. Bennett and D. P. Divincenzo, Nature 404, 247 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature 409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    Buluta, S

    I. Buluta, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rep. Prog. Phys. 74, 104401 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Buluta and F

    I. Buluta and F. Nori, Science 326, 108 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat. Photonics 96, 222 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Su and X

    Y . Su and X. Wang, Results Phys.24, 104159 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Y . Su, W. Lu, and H.-L. Shi, Phys. Rev. A109, 042614 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Y . Chu, X. Li, and J. Cai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 170801 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    X. Deng, S. Li, Z.-J. Chen, Z. Ni, Y . Cai, J. Mai, L. Zhang, P. Zheng, H. Yu, C.-L. Zou, S. Liu, F. Yan, Y . Xu, and D. Yu, (2023), arXiv:2306.16919 [quant-ph]

    2023

  41. [49]

    Y . Chu, X. Li, and J. Cai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 110201 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Vitale, A

    V . Vitale, A. Rath, P. Jurcevic, A. Elben, C. Branciard, and B. Vermersch, PRX Quantum 5, 030338 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Su, H.-L

    Y . Su, H.-L. Shi, X.-G. Wang, C. Lee, and X.-W. Guan, (2024), arXiv:2403.05279 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Scarani, H

    V . Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Du ˇsek, N. L¨utkenhaus, and M. Peev, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1301 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vu ˇckovi´c, Nat. Photonics 3, 687 (2009)

    2009

  46. [54]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kase- vich, Nature 529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    K. C. Cox, G. P. Greve, J. M. Weiner, and J. K. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 093602 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Flower, M

    G. Flower, M. Goryachev, J. Bourhill, and M. E. Tobar, New J. Phys. 21, 095004 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Gietka, F

    K. Gietka, F. Mivehvar, and T. Busch, New J. Phys.23, 043020 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    M. S. Kim and G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A 59, 3044 (1999)

    1999

  51. [59]

    Scheel, J

    S. Scheel, J. Mod. Opt. 56, 141 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    Penasa, S

    M. Penasa, S. Gerlich, T. Rybarczyk, V . M ´etillon, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, S. Haroche, L. Davidovich, and I. Dotsenko, Phys. Rev. A 94, 022313 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Niemczyk, F

    T. Niemczyk, F. Deppe, H. Huebl, E. P. Menzel, F. Hocke, M. J. Schwarz, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, D. Zueco, T. H¨ummer, E. Solano, A. Marx, and R. Gross, Nat. Phys. 6, 772 (2010)

    2010

  54. [62]

    Ballester, G

    D. Ballester, G. Romero, J. J. Garc ´ıa-Ripoll, F. Deppe, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. X 2, 021007 (2012)

    2012

  55. [63]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Lled ´o, R

    C. Lled ´o, R. Dassonneville, A. Moulinas, J. Cohen, R. Shillito, A. Bienfait, B. Huard, and A. Blais, Nat. Commun. 14, 6313 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Clarke and F

    J. Clarke and F. K. Wilhelm, Nature 453, 1031 (2008)

    2008

  58. [66]

    Wendin, Rep

    G. Wendin, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 106001 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    Blais, S

    A. Blais, S. M. Girvin, and W. D. Oliver, Nat. Phys. 16, 247 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Xiang, S

    Z.-L. Xiang, S. Ashhab, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 623 (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    A. A. Clerk, K. W. Lehnert, P. Bertet, J. R. Petta, and Y . Naka- mura, Nat. Phys. 16, 257 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Tavis and F

    M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Phys. Rev.170, 379 (1968). 11

    1968

  64. [72]

    Tavis and F

    M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Phys. Rev.188, 692 (1969)

    1969

  65. [73]

    Gaudin, M., J. Phys. France 37, 1087 (1976)

    1976

  66. [74]

    N. V . Prokof’ev and P. C. E. Stamp, Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 669 (2000)

    2000

  67. [75]

    J. M. Taylor, A. Imamoglu, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 246802 (2003)

    2003

  68. [76]

    Dukelsky, S

    J. Dukelsky, S. Pittel, and G. Sierra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 643 (2004)

    2004

  69. [77]

    D. A. Rowlands and A. Lamacraft, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 090401 (2018)

    2018

  70. [78]

    Y . Su, H. Liang, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052423 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Xu, J.-J

    K. Xu, J.-J. Chen, Y . Zeng, Y .-R. Zhang, C. Song, W. Liu, Q. Guo, P. Zhang, D. Xu, H. Deng, K. Huang, H. Wang, X. Zhu, D. Zheng, and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 050507 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    D. F. James and J. Jerke, Can. J. Phys. 85, 625 (2007)

    2007

  73. [81]

    B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight, J. Mod. Opt. 40, 1195 (1993)

    1993

  74. [82]

    H. T. Quan, Z. Song, X. F. Liu, P. Zanardi, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 140604 (2006)

    2006

  75. [83]

    Y . Liu, Z. Wang, P. Yang, Q. Wang, Q. Fan, S. Guan, G. Li, P. Zhang, and T. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 173601 (2023)

    2023

  76. [84]

    J. M. Fink, M. Goeppl, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, P. J. Leek, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Nature 454, 315 (2008)

    2008

  77. [85]

    Allcock, W

    T. Allcock, W. Langbein, and E. A. Muljarov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 123602 (2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, A. Wallraff, J. M. Gambetta, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, B. Johnson, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 445, 515 (2007)

    2007

  79. [87]

    Brennecke, R

    F. Brennecke, R. Mottl, K. Baumann, R. Landig, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 11763 (2013)

    2013

  80. [88]

    S. M. Spillane, T. J. Kippenberg, K. J. Vahala, K. W. Goh, E. Wilcut, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 71, 013817 (2005)

    2005

  81. [89]

    J. R. Buck and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 67, 033806 (2003)

    2003

  82. [90]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  83. [91]

    S.-J. Gu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 24, 4371 (2010)

    2010

  84. [92]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz´e, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  85. [93]

    T ´oth, Phys

    G. T ´oth, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

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