Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Chiral coupling of magnons in waveguides

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By positioning a ferromagnet off-center in a rectangular microwave waveguide, the magnon–photon coupling becomes chiral, letting magnons exchange energy and angular momentum with photons traveling in one direction only; the result is…

desk verdict A solid magnonic realization of chiral waveguide QED that deserves peer review, but the paper's headline two-sphere imbalance number is inflated: the correct full-chirality limit is Λ² = 9, not 81. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01817 v1 pith:LVEFJHSA submitted 2019-09-04 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Tao Yu , Xiang Zhang , Sanchar Sharma , Yaroslav M. Blanter , Gerrit E. W. Bauer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords chiralcouplingmagnon-photonwaveguidesuperradiancesubradiancenon-HermitianHamiltonianradiativedampingKittelmode
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

This paper establishes that a sub-millimeter ferromagnet placed off-center in a rectangular microwave waveguide can couple to TE10 photons in one propagation direction only. The direction-selective coupling follows from the elliptical polarization of the waveguide mode at the magnet's position, and at a particular transverse coordinate the magnon–photon coupling to one direction vanishes. The authors show that this chirality makes the photon-mediated interaction between two magnets nonreciprocal, so one magnet drives the other without back-action, and that in a chain of about a hundred magnets the superradiant modes concentrate at one edge. For two spheres the predicted ratio of coherent magnon numbers reaches 81 at full chirality. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a room-temperature, position-tunable route to one-way magnon transport and directional microwave–magnon interfaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photon-mediated self-energy matrix $\Sigma_{jl}$, defined as the emission of a photon by magnet $l$ and its reabsorption by magnet $j$. Evaluated on-shell, $\Sigma_{jl}$ becomes a non-Hermitian coupling whose right-moving and left-moving parts, $\Gamma_R$ and $\Gamma_L$, are controlled by the magnets' positions in the waveguide cross-section. For the TE10 mode the coupling amplitude $g_j(k)$ is not symmetric under $k\to -k$ because the ac magnetic field is elliptically polarized, and Eq. (56) locates the transverse position where one of the directional couplings vanishes. This one-sided $\Sigma$ is assembled into an $N\times N$ non-Hermitian effective Hamiltonian whose eigenvalues and left/right eigenvectors determine the collective modes, the scattering matrix, and the magnon population imbalance.

What would settle it

Take a single YIG sphere in a TE10 waveguide at the transverse coordinate solving Eq. (56) and measure transmission at the Kittel frequency from both ends; the prediction is near-unity transmission for photons traveling in one direction and a strong absorption dip for the other. Symmetric transmission dips from both directions would falsify the chiral-coupling claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a small ferromagnet in a rectangular waveguide couples chirally to the TE10 photon mode when it sits at a transverse position satisfying $\cot(\pi x_j/a)=-\sqrt{a^2\omega_l^2/(\pi^2 c^2)-1}$. At that position the coupling $g_j(k)$ to photons with one sign of momentum vanishes while the coupling to the opposite momentum remains finite, so the photon-mediated self-energy $\Sigma_{jl}$ becomes one-sided. For two identical magnets this yields a non-Hermitian effective Hamiltonian whose off-diagonal couplings are nonzero in one direction only, so one magnet can pump the other without reciprocal back-action and the coherent magnon-number ratio can reach $\Lambda^2=81$. For a long chain, the collective eigenmodes split into superradiant modes localized at one edge and subradiant standing waves that are barely affected by chirality. The paper further derives the transmission and reflection coefficients, connecting these collective modes to directly measurable microwave scattering.

Load-bearing premise

The whole model treats the photon-mediated coupling as instantaneous: a magnet's state is assumed unchanged over the light-travel time between magnets, so the retarded self-energy is evaluated on-shell at the fixed magnon frequency. If retardation becomes important, the predicted imbalance ratios and edge-state localization would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single magnet at the chiral position should appear transparent to microwaves incident from one direction and absorbing for the opposite direction, giving a directly measurable transmission asymmetry.
  • Two magnets at the chiral position act as a one-way coupler: the upstream magnet drives the downstream magnet without reciprocal back-action, producing a coherent magnon-number ratio up to 81.
  • A chain of $N$ magnets supports superradiant collective modes whose decay rates grow with $N$ and whose intensity localizes at one edge, with the chosen edge set by the sign of the chirality.
  • The most subradiant chain modes remain standing waves with amplitudes suppressed at the edges and are insensitive to chirality, so their decay rates follow the non-chiral scaling.
  • The microwave transmission spectrum of the chain carries resonances at the collective-mode frequencies, allowing the edge states to be detected through simple S-parameter measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the chiral position condition depends on magnon frequency, sweeping the applied magnetic field should switch the sign of directionality in situ, which could make a tunable microwave isolator or directional coupler out of the same device.
  • The underlying mechanism is the elliptical polarization of the TE10 mode rather than magnetism per se, so other dipolar emitters placed at the same transverse positions should display the same direction-selective coupling.
  • The chain's non-Hermitian Hamiltonian is of the type studied for non-Hermitian skin effects, so measuring the decay rates and spatial profiles of the edge-localized superradiant modes as a function of chain length would be a direct probe of whether the localization is a skin effect or ordinary edge enhancement.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a quantum theory of Kittel magnons in small ferromagnets placed in a rectangular microwave waveguide, coupled to TE/TM photon modes. It derives the magnon-photon coupling from the waveguide mode functions, shows that the TE10 mode gives a direction-dependent (chiral) coupling that can be tuned by the transverse magnet position, and constructs the retarded photon-mediated magnon-magnon self-energy. The resulting non-Hermitian effective Hamiltonian is used to compute microwave transmission, radiative damping, the two-magnet 'magnon hydrogen molecule' with imbalanced pumping, and the collective super- and subradiant modes of chains of up to about 80 magnets, including edge-localized superradiant states and chirality-insensitive standing-wave subradiant states.

Significance. The paper is valuable: it provides a first-principles, parameter-free derivation of a concrete chiral magnon-photon interface in a standard microwave setup, with explicit mode functions, scattering matrix, and collective-mode analysis. The predictions are falsifiable (transmission spectra, position-dependent radiative damping, edge localization) and the derivation is transparent. A corrected version of the two-magnet imbalance still yields a factor of 9 rather than 81, which remains a nontrivial and experimentally accessible effect, and the chain analysis of edge-localized superradiance is a new contribution connecting waveguide QED to macroscopic magnonics. The main quantitative claim needs correction, but the framework and qualitative predictions are sound.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. V B, Eq. (83)] The printed formula for the two-magnet imbalance is missing a factor of 2 in the phase term. Solving the steady-state version of Eq. (25) with the matrix (75) and drive G = -i g0 (1, e^{ikd})^T at zero detuning gives the amplitude ratio as |2αGωm + ΓR + ΓL(1 − 2e^{2ikd})| / |2αGωm + ΓL − ΓR|, not the expression with (1 − e^{2ikd}) in the numerator. In the full-chirality limit ΓR → 0, ΓL ≫ αGωm, the amplitude ratio is |1 − 2e^{2ikd}|, so Λ² = 5 − 4cos(2kd) ≤ 9, with maximum Λ² = 9 at 2kd = π. The manuscript's sequence 'Λ ≈ 5 − 4cos(2kd), Λ = 9, and Λ² ≈ 81' is therefore internally inconsistent and the headline two-sphere enhancement of 81 is not supported by the paper's own equations. The corrected maximum of Λ² = 9 is still a sizable imbalance, and the divergence near ΓL = ΓR − 2αGωm or the chain results may give larger effects, so the qualitative mechanism survives; however, the abstract, the introduction, and Sec. V B must be revised to remove the unsupported order-of-magnitude claim based on this formula.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (56) and Fig. 2] Equation (56) as written has only one solution in the interval 0 < x < a at the quoted frequency (x = 2a/3 for cot(πx/a) = −1/√3), whereas the text and Fig. 2 refer to two chiral lines (x = a/3 and x = 2a/3). The opposite sign in the square-root term gives the second chiral position; please state both conditions explicitly.
  2. [Sec. V B, text following Eq. (83)] The sentence 'we obtain the universal Λ ≈ 5 − 4cos(2kd)' conflates Λ with Λ². After the factor correction in Eq. (83), the relation is Λ² = 5 − 4cos(2kd), and the maximum amplitude ratio is Λ = 3, not Λ = 9; this paragraph should be rewritten for internal consistency.
  3. [Sec. II A, Eq. (25)] The Markovian/adiabatic approximation is justified only qualitatively. Please include the numerical estimate κ_j r_jl / c for the longest chain used in Sec. VI (Nd ≈ 18 cm), so that the on-shell treatment of Eq. (30) is explicitly validated for the parameters of Figs. 4 and 5.
  4. [Sec. II C and Sec. V B] The symbol Λ with a superscript Δ in Eq. (82) is undefined and appears to be a typo; the notation for S21 and S22 introduced after Eq. (45) could also be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all central predictions follow from the derived non-Hermitian coupling matrix rather than from fitted inputs or author-defined inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The magnon-photon couplings in Eq. (14) are computed from the quantized waveguide modes and Kittel-mode operators; the self-energy Σ in Eq. (30) is obtained by direct integration over these couplings; the directional couplings Γ_R and Γ_L are explicit functions of the same field amplitudes; and the chiral condition Eq. (56) is obtained by setting Γ_R = 0 in the resulting TE-mode expression. The two-magnon and chain results are then obtained by diagonalizing the derived non-Hermitian matrices in Eqs. (75) and (92), with no parameter fitted to the predicted observables. External benchmarks are present: free-space radiative damping in Appendix B is compared with published measurements [21,22], and the collective-mode scalings are compared with independent atomic-ensemble results [37–42]. Citations to prior work by the same authors (spin-pumping formalism Refs. [7,8], cavity experiment [20], the accompanying Letter [44], or the YIG damping value in [23]) supply standard formalism, empirical parameters, or parallel presentation, and none carries the load of the central chiral-coupling prediction. The explicit adiabatic/Markovian approximation in Sec. II A is a stated model limitation with a quantitative validity estimate, not a circular reduction. The quantitative issue flagged by the skeptic — that the Γ_R → 0 limit of Eq. (83) does not appear to support the printed Λ ≈ 5 − 4cos(2kd) and hence Λ² ≈ 81 — is a correctness/arithmetic risk, not a circularity, and is outside the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on standard electrodynamics and LLG plus a set of stated approximations. No new physical entities are postulated. The only tuning knob introduced ad hoc (the cutoff k_c) does not affect the central predictions.

free parameters (1)
  • k_c (wave-number cutoff) = approximately 10^5 m^-1
    Upper cutoff for the photon wave number introduced to regularize the divergent self-energy integral in Appendix A (Eq. (A7)). Estimated from the electron relaxation time in copper (tau_el = 50 fs, Omega_c approximately 2 pi times 20 THz). It affects only the small frequency shift delta omega (Eq. (49)) and not the chirality, imbalance, or radiative damping, so it is not load-bearing.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Maxwell's equations with perfect metallic boundary conditions in the waveguide
    Used in Secs. II and III to derive the photon mode functions and dispersion.
  • domain assumption The magnetization dynamics is described by the Landau-Lifshitz equation with a single Kittel mode per magnet
    Invoked in Sec. II: magnets are small compared to photon wavelengths, so only the uniform precession couples.
  • domain assumption The photon-mediated coupling is Markovian and adiabatic: magnons move coherently during the photon transit time
    Sec. II A, Eq. (25); this is the weakest assumption and underpins the non-Hermitian coupling matrix.
  • domain assumption The waveguide is lossless and only the lowest TE10 mode propagates in the frequency window of interest
    Sec. III, Eq. (57); higher modes are evanescent and neglected.
  • domain assumption The magnon linewidth is small enough that the on-shell approximation Gamma(omega) approximately Gamma(omega_m) holds
    Sec. V; justified by the small computed frequency shifts (Sec. VI A).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral coupling of magnons in waveguides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LVEFJHSA

@misc{pith2026190901817,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral coupling of magnons in waveguides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LVEFJHSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01817}
}
read the original abstract

We theoretically investigate the collective excitation of multiple (sub)millimeter-sized ferromagnets mediated by waveguide photons. By the position of the magnets in the waveguide, the magnon-photon coupling can be tuned to be chiral, i.e., magnons only couple with photons propagating in one direction, leading to asymmetric transfer of angular momentum and energy between the magnets. A large imbalance in the magnon number distribution over the magnets can be achieved with a long chain of magnets, which concentrate at one edge. The chain also supports standing waves with low radiation efficiency that is inert to the chirality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01817 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An ensemble of magnets in a waveguide along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Snapshot of the spatial distribution of the AC mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Position-dependent radiative damping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Intensity distributions of magnons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. Lenk, H. Ulrichs, F. Garbs, and M. Muenzenberg, Phys. Rep. 507, 107 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    A. V. Chumak, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Nat. Phys. 11, 453 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    Grundler, Phys

    D. Grundler, Phys. Rep. 11, 407 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    V. E. Demidov, S. Urazhdin, G. de Loubens, O. Klein, V. Cros, A. Anane, and S. O. Demokritov, Phys. Rep. 673, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Chang, P

    H. Chang, P. Li, W. Zhang, T. Liu, A. Hoffmann, L. Deng, and M. Wu, IEEE Magn. Lett. 5, 6700104 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Science 349, 405 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Tserkovnyak, A

    Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 117601 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    Tserkovnyak, A

    Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, G. E. W. Bauer, and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys., 77, 1375 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    T. Yu, C. P. Liu, H. M. Yu, Ya. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B 99, 134424 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    J. L. Chen, T. Yu, C. P. Liu, T. Liu, M. Madami, K. Shen, J. Y. Zhang, S. Tu, M. S. Alam, K. Xia, M. Z. Wu, G. Gubbiotti, Ya. M. Blanter, G. E. W. Bauer, and H. M. Yu, arXiv:1903.00638

    1903 arXiv

  3. [11]

    T. Yu, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, arXiv:1908.09141

    1908 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Y. Kubo, F. R. Ong, P. Bertet, D. Vion, V. Jacques, D. Zheng, A. Dr\' e au, J.-F. Roch, A. Auffeves, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, M. F. Barthe, P. Bergonzo, and D. Esteve, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 140502 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    u ss, C. Koller, T. N\

    R. Ams\" u ss, C. Koller, T. N\" o bauer, S. Putz, S. Rotter, K. Sandner, S. Schneider, M. Schramb\" o ck, G. Steinhauser, H. Ritsch, J. Schmiedmayer, and J. Majer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 060502 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    D. I. Schuster, A. P. Sears, E. Ginossar, L. DiCarlo, L. Frunzio, J. J. L. Morton, H. Wu, G. A. D. Briggs, B. B. Buckley, D. D. Awschalom, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 140501 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Probst, H

    S. Probst, H. Rotzinger, S. W\" u nsch, P. Jung, M. Jerger, M. Siegel, A. V. Ustinov, and P. A. Bushev, Phys. Rev. Lett. \ 110, 157001 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    \"O. O. Soykal, and M. E. Flatt\'e, Phy. Rev. Lett. 104, 077202 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Huebl, C

    H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, F. Hocke, M. Greifenstein, A. Marx, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Phy. Rev. Lett. 111, 127003 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Phy. Rev. Lett. 113, 083603 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Phy. Rev. Lett. 113, 156401 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, N. Zhu, F. Marquardt, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Nat. Comm. 6, 8914 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    S. M. Rezende, E. Soares, and V. Jaccarino, AIP Conference Proceedings 18, 1083 (1974)

    1974

  14. [22]

    R. W. Sanders, D. Paquette, V. Jaccarino, and S. M. Rezende, Phys. Rev. B 10, 132, (1974)

    1974

  15. [23]

    B. M. Yao, Y. S. Gui, T. Yu, J. W. Rao, Y. T. Zhao, W. Lu, and C.-M. Hu, arXiv:1902.06795

    1902 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bloembergen and R

    N. Bloembergen and R. V. Pound, Phys. Rev. 95, 8, (1954)

    1954

  17. [25]

    M. A. W. Schoen, J. M. Shaw, H. T. Nembach, M. Weiler, and T. J. Silva, Phys. Rev. B 92, 184417 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, (Wiley, New York, 1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Nature (London) 541, 473 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Le Kien, S

    F. Le Kien, S. D. Gupta, K. P. Nayak, and K. Hakuta, Phys. Rev. A 72, 063815 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    Scheucher, A

    M. Scheucher, A. Hilico, E. Will, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Science 354, 1577 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Nature 541, 473 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Vermersch, P.-O

    B. Vermersch, P.-O. Guimond, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 133601 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Schneeweiss, S

    P. Schneeweiss, S. Zeiger, T. Hoinkes, A. Rauschenbeutel, and J. Volz, Opt. Lett. 42, 85 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    C. A. Downing, J. C. L\'opez Carre\ no, F. P. Laussy, E. del Valle, and A. I. Fern\'andez-Dom\' nguez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 057401 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Harder, Y

    M. Harder, Y. Yang, B. Yao, C. Yu, J. Rao, Y. Gui, R. Stamps, and C.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 137203 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    B. M. Yao, T. Yu, X. Zhang, W. Lu, Y. S. Gui, C.-M. Hu, and Y. M. Blanter, arXiv:1906.12142

    1906 arXiv

  28. [36]

    B. Z. Rameshti and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014419 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Asenjo-Garc\'ia, M

    A. Asenjo-Garc\'ia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031024 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Zhang and K

    Y.-X. Zhang and K. M lmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 203605 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    M. M. Cardoner, D. Plankensteiner, L. Ostermann, D. E. Chang, and H. Ritsch, Phys. Rev. A 100 , 023806 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Guimond, A

    P.-O. Guimond, A. Grankin, D. V. Vasilyev, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 093601 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Buonaiuto, R

    G. Buonaiuto, R. Jones, B. Olmos, and I. Lesanovsky, arXiv:1902.08525

    1902 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. Li, S. Y. Zhu, and G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 203601 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    S. Y. Yao and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 , 086803 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Yu, Y.-X

    T. Yu, Y.-X. Zhang, S. Sharma, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett

  37. [45]

    Kittel, Phys

    C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. 73, 155 (1948)

    1948

  38. [46]

    Kittel, Quantum Theory of Solids (Wiley, New York, 1963)

    C. Kittel, Quantum Theory of Solids (Wiley, New York, 1963)

    1963

  39. [47]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continuous Media, 2nd ed. (Butterworth-Heinenann, Oxford, 1984)

    1984

  40. [48]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  41. [49]

    Kamra and W

    A. Kamra and W. Belzig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 146601 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    T. Yu, S. Sharma, Ya. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B 99, 174402 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  44. [52]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    M lmer, Y

    K. M lmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 10, 524 (1993)

    1993

  46. [54]

    C. W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2269 (1993)

    1993

  47. [55]

    Y. Xu, Y. Li, R. K. Lee, and A. Yariv, Phys. Rev. E 62, 7389 (2000)

    2000

  48. [56]

    S. Fan, P. R. Villeneuve, and J. D. Jaonnopoulos, Phys. Rev. B 59, 15 882 (1999)

    1999

  49. [57]

    Fano, Phys

    U. Fano, Phys. Rev. 124, 1866 (1961)

    1961

  50. [58]

    G. D. Mahan, Many Particle Physics (Plenum, New York, 1990)

    1990

  51. [59]

    D. Gall, J. Appl. Phys. 119, 085101 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    S S im\'anek and B

    E. S S im\'anek and B. Heinrich, Phys. Rev. B 67, 144418 (2003)

    2003

  53. [61]

    A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1963)

    1963

  54. [62]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many Particle Systems (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971)

    1971

  55. [63]

    Haug and A

    H. Haug and A. P. Jauho, Quantum Kinetics in Transport and Optics of Semiconductors (Springer, Berlin, 1996)

    1996

  56. [64]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 570 (1996)

    1996

  57. [65]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and H. F. Jones, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 270401 (2002)

    2002

  58. [66]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, H. F. Jones, and B. K. Meister, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 040403 (2007)

    2007

  59. [67]

    Zhang, X.-Q

    D. Zhang, X.-Q. Luo, Y.-P. Wang, T.-F. Li, and J. Q. You, Nat. Commun. 8, 1368 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Nat. Phys. 14, 11 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, k. Kawabata, k. Takasan, S. Higashikawa, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. X. 8, 031079 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    X. S. Yang, Y. Cao, and Y. Zhai, arXiv:1904.02492

    1904 arXiv

  63. [71]

    S. Y. Yao, F. Song, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 136802 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Jiang, L

    H. Jiang, L. J. Lang, C. Yang, S. L. Zhu, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 100 , 054301 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    V. L. Grigoryan, K. Shen, and K. Xia,

  66. [74]

    Harder, Y

    M. Harder, Y. Yang, B. Yao, C. Yu, J. Rao, Y. Gui, R. Stamps,

  67. [75]

    B. Bhoi, B. Kim, S.-H. Jang, J. Kim, J. Yang, Y.-J. Cho, and

  68. [76]

    Y. Yang, J. W. Rao, Y. S. Gui, B. M. Yao, W. Lu, and C.-M. Hu,

  69. [77]

    Heinrich, Y

    B. Heinrich, Y. Tserkovnyak, G. Woltersdorf, A. Brataas, R. Urban, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 187601 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.