Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Parametrically Driven Superradiance of an Interacting Tavis-Cummings Model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that all-to-all interactions between qubits substantially change where a parametrically driven, dissipative Tavis-Cummings system turns superradiant, and that an effective model built from only the four lowest symmetric col

desk verdict Solid thermodynamic-limit result, but the finite-N phase diagrams are built on a ground-state projection that isn't obviously the Lindblad steady state. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00695 v1 pith:GE4CHZZ2 submitted 2025-08-31 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Wen-Jie Geng , Yiwen Han , Wei Yi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph PACS 42.50.Pq
keywords superradiantphasetransitionTavis-Cummingsmodelparametricdrivesqueezedlightall-to-allinteractionsDickestatesopenquantumsystemsRydbergatoms
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

An ensemble of two-level atoms sits in a lossy cavity pumped through a nonlinear crystal, and every atom pair interacts with the same strength. The parametric pump breaks the symmetry that usually keeps the standard Tavis-Cummings model—a single cavity mode coupled to many atoms—from turning superradiant, so the system can make a transition to superradiance with squeezed cavity light once the pump strength exceeds the cavity-loss rate. The paper claims that repulsive atomic interactions push that transition to stronger pumping, while attractive interactions mostly ease it—except near special attractive strengths, where normal-phase 'fingers' protrude above the pump-loss boundary and locally suppress superradiance. The finite-size phase diagram is faithfully reproduced by an effective model containing only the four lowest Dicke states (fully symmetric collective states with 0 to 3 atomic excitations), and in the thermodynamic limit the boundary becomes a closed-form expression. If the claims hold, interaction strength becomes a practical knob for switching superradiance on and off in Rydberg-atom cavity experiments.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the projection of Hamiltonian (3) onto the subspace spanned by the four lowest symmetric Dicke states |ψ_n⟩, n=0,...,3, where |ψ_n⟩ is the equal-weight superposition over all ways to put n of N atoms in the excited state. The effective Hamiltonian has Dicke energies ω_n=(n−N/2)Δ_a+n(N−n)V/N and coupling weights η_n=sqrt((N−n)(n+1)); keeping d=3 reproduces the phase boundaries. In the thermodynamic limit, the Holstein-Primakoff transformation maps the collective spin to a harmonic oscillator, and the condition det|[G^R(ω=0)]^{-1}|=0 yields the closed-form λ_c. The interaction dependence is carried mainly by the energy gap E₁−E_g between the two lowest Dicke states.

What would settle it

Solve the full Lindblad master equation for N=8 at g=0.2, Δ_a=Δ_c=1, κ=0.25, V=−2, scanning λ from 0.2 to 0.6. The paper's projection method predicts a normal-phase finger (near-zero photon number) above the λ=κ line; if the exact steady state instead shows a macroscopic photon number across that window, the finger is an artifact of the projection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center is a closed-form thermodynamic-limit phase boundary: λ_c = sqrt(κ² + [g² − (Δ_a+V)Δ_c]²/(Δ_a+V)²). Superradiance is accessible only for λ>κ; when V=0 this reduces to the known noninteracting boundary. For finite N, the paper's numerical phase diagrams—repulsive V raising the threshold monotonically, attractive V generally lowering it but producing finger-like normal regions near V=−2 and V=−4/3 for the plotted detunings—are reproduced by projecting the Hamiltonian onto d=3 (four lowest) Dicke states. The fingers sit at local maxima of the gap between the two lowest Dicke states, so the transition is controlled by interaction-modified collective level spacings rather than by sin

Load-bearing premise

The finite-N phase diagrams are obtained by finding the ground state of the coherent Hamiltonian under a self-consistency condition, not by solving the Lindblad master equation for the actual steady state, and the paper does not show that these two prescriptions agree.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Superradiance requires λ>κ regardless of g or V; below that pump-loss threshold the normal phase is stable.
  • Repulsive all-to-all interactions shift the superradiant boundary to larger λ, with the shift saturating as V→∞.
  • Attractive interactions mostly lower the threshold, but at a discrete set of strengths (e.g. V=−2 and −4/3) normal-phase fingers protrude above λ=κ; larger N and larger g wash these fingers out.
  • The four-Dicke-state effective model is sufficient, so the experimentally relevant phase diagram is governed by the gap between the two lowest collective states; measuring or tuning that gap predicts the threshold.
  • In the thermodynamic limit the boundary is the closed-form λ_c formula, and finite-N results converge to it for N≳45.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A finite-size analytic boundary should be derivable: because the d=3 truncation reproduces the numerics, diagonalizing the 4×4 effective Hamiltonian would yield λ_c(N,V,g) as a closed-form criterion rather than numerical contours.
  • Near a finger tip the system acts as a pump-controlled threshold switch—a small change in λ across the boundary flips the cavity between near-vacuum and macroscopic photon number—so the geometry could serve as a sensitive detector or a bistable memory element.
  • The paper's finite-N criterion is a ground-state projection of the coherent Hamiltonian, not a solution of the dissipative master equation; an exact small-N Liouvillian calculation would show whether the finger features are genuine properties of the steady state or artifacts of that projection.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a generalized Tavis-Cummings model in which N two-level qubits couple to a single cavity mode with a parametric drive (squeezing term), uniform all-to-all qubit interactions, and cavity loss. For vanishing interactions the authors reproduce the known result that superradiance requires the parametric gain to exceed the cavity decay (lambda > kappa), with a second boundary separating a region of two degenerate superradiant solutions from a region of coexisting superradiant and normal solutions. For nonvanishing interactions they report that repulsive interactions suppress superradiance, attractive interactions generally enhance it, and at special attractive strengths (V = -2 and V = -4/3 for N = 8) normal-phase 'finger' regions protrude above lambda = kappa. The finite-N phase diagrams are computed by diagonalizing the coherent Hamiltonian (3) for its ground state while imposing the cavity stationary condition (7). These diagrams are said to be reproduced by an effective model retaining the four lowest Dicke states. In the thermodynamic limit the authors use a Holstein-Primakoff linearization to derive an analytic critical boundary, Eq. (18): lambda_c = sqrt(kappa^2 + [g^2 - (Delta_a+V)Delta_c]^2/(Delta_a+V)^2).

Significance. If the finite-N results are valid, the paper offers a concise description of interaction-modified superradiance in an open Tavis-Cummings model and a low-dimensional effective model that could be useful for Rydberg-cavity experiments. The thermodynamic-limit boundary (18) is a genuine parameter-free prediction, and the derivation is transparent: the determinant condition is stated explicitly, the V=0 limit is recovered, and the effective model uses exact Dicke-state matrix elements. The main reservation is that the finite-N phase diagrams and all interaction fingerprints are obtained from a ground-state mean-field projection rather than from the Lindblad steady state of Eq. (1). Until this projection is validated against an exact small-N Liouvillian or quantum-trajectory calculation, the central finite-N claims must be regarded as conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III; Sec. IV; Figs. 2, 5, 7] The finite-N 'steady-state' phase diagrams are obtained by diagonalizing Hamiltonian (3) for its ground state while imposing only the cavity stationary condition (7). This is not a solution of the Lindblad master equation (1): the true steady state for finite N is generically mixed, the atomic stationary conditions (5)-(6) are not enforced, and the ground state of the coherent Hamiltonian is not the attractor of the dissipative dynamics without additional justification. No exact small-N Liouvillian spectrum, quantum-trajectory simulation, or other benchmark is provided. Because the interaction-induced finger-like normal regions and their N-dependence are the paper's main new claims, they may be artifacts of the projection. I ask the authors to benchmark the method for small N (e.g., N=2-6 with a truncated photon space) and, if discrepancies appear, to re-evaluate the finite-N phase diagr
  2. [Sec. IV, effective model (9) and Fig. 5] The effective model with d=3 is validated by comparing its phase boundary with the same ground-state projection used to generate the 'numerical' color contours (the Fig. 5 caption states that photon numbers are calculated using Hamiltonian (3)). The agreement therefore establishes only that the four-Dicke-state truncation is internally consistent with the assumed projection; it does not independently validate the projection itself. The abstract's statement that the steady-state phase diagram is 'faithfully reproduced' is stronger than what is demonstrated.
  3. [Sec. III, Figs. 3-4] The dynamical corroboration in Figs. 3 and 4 evolves the mean-field equations (4)-(6), which are semiclassical factorized equations of motion, not the full Lindblad equation. This confirms fixed points of the mean-field dynamics but does not show that the ground-state projection gives the steady state of the open quantum system. In particular, the Z2-breaking 'steady states' shown are mean-field attractors; for finite N the exact Liouvillian steady state is unique and symmetry-preserving unless a genuine dissipative phase transition develops in the thermodynamic limit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, after Eq. (9)] The text says 'This is illustrated in Fig. 4(a)' but the referenced color contours are in Fig. 5(a); the figure number should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] Typos: 'deutnings' should be 'detunings' (Sec. II); 'Travis-Cummings' should be 'Tavis-Cummings' (Sec. IV); 'supperadiant' should be 'superradiant' (Sec. III); the affiliation line contains 'F or' instead of 'For'.
  3. [Eq. (7)] The restriction lambda < sqrt(Delta_c^2 + kappa^2) is mentioned but not derived. A one-sentence explanation that this avoids the pole in Eq. (7) would improve readability.
  4. [Figs. 2, 5, 7] The phase-boundary classification in the figures is based on the color scale of ln<a^dagger a>. It would be helpful to state explicitly the numerical photon-number threshold used to draw the boundaries, since the color scale saturates and the apparent boundary can be threshold-dependent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic phase boundary is derived from a parameter-free stability condition, the effective-model truncation is validated against full numerics, and self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The thermodynamic-limit critical coupling, Eq. (18), follows from setting det[G^R(0)]^{-1}=0 using the Holstein-Primakoff linearized Hamiltonian (13) and the matrix M in Eq. (14); no fitted parameter enters. The condition λ>κ emerges from the positivity of the square term in Eq. (17), not from an assumed input. The V=0 limit reduces to the known result from Ref. [33], which is a consistency check rather than a load-bearing import. The finite-N phase diagrams are obtained by diagonalizing the coherent Hamiltonian (3) subject to the stationary condition (7); this is a mean-field/projection approximation, and while it may raise correctness questions about whether it faithfully represents the Lindblad steady state of Eq. (1), that is an approximation-validity concern, not a circularity. The effective model (9) uses exact Dicke-state matrix elements, and the truncation order d=3 is validated by comparison with the full numerical phase diagram rather than being used to construct the analytic boundary, so the reproduction is non-trivial. The only self-citation is Ref. [39], used for qualitative expectations about interaction effects and the energy-gap intuition; it is not the basis of the paper's analytic results or phase boundaries. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions. Its central prediction depends on the dissipative model, the mean-field approximation, and the Dicke-state truncation; the physical couplings Delta, kappa, g, lambda, V are model inputs, not fitted constants.

free parameters (1)
  • Effective-model truncation order d = 3
    Chosen so that the four lowest Dicke states in Eq. (9) reproduce the full N=8 phase diagram; no a priori convergence criterion is given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Markovian Lindblad dissipation with only cavity decay kappa; qubit dephasing and spontaneous emission are neglected.
    Eq. (1) defines the open dynamics; all subsequent results inherit this dissipation model.
  • domain assumption Mean-field factorization of atom-field and atom-atom correlations in the Heisenberg equations (4)-(6).
    Used throughout; fluctuation corrections beyond mean field are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The steady-state phase diagram is captured by the ground state of Hamiltonian (3) plus the stationary condition Eq. (7), rather than the steady state of the Liouvillian.
    Introduced in Sec. III for Fig. 2; no derivation or exact benchmark is provided.
  • domain assumption Dicke states form a closed manifold for the all-to-all symmetric Hamiltonian, and projection onto the lowest d+1 states is sufficient for d=3.
    Needed for the effective model (9); the truncation order is justified only by numerical agreement.
  • domain assumption Holstein-Primakoff mapping and linear stability of the normal phase determines the thermodynamic phase boundary.
    Used to derive Eqs. (13)-(18); assumes quantum fluctuations do not shift the transition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parametrically Driven Superradiance of an Interacting Tavis-Cummings Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GE4CHZZ2

@misc{pith2026250900695,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parametrically Driven Superradiance of an Interacting Tavis-Cummings Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GE4CHZZ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00695}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the superradiant transition of a generalized Tavis-Cummings model, where a number of two-level qubits are coupled to a dissipative cavity. The cavity is coherently driven through a parametric medium, and all-to-all interactions between the qubits are introduced. While the nonlinear gain from the parametric drive breaks the U(1) symmetry of the standard Tavis-Cummings model, thus giving rise to superradiance with squeezed cavity fields, we show that the interactions impact the collective excitations and significantly modify the superradiant transition. Insights to the superradiant phase transitions, as well as the interaction effects, are obtained through effective models involving only a handful of low-lying collective states, under which the steady-state phase diagram of the hybrid system is faithfully reproduced. Our study is relevant to Rydberg-atom arrays coupled to a parametrically driven cavity, where the long-range interactions derive from the dipole-dipole interatomic interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00695 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the parametrically driven, dissipative Tavis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a)(b) Time evolutions of the cavity mean field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a)(c) Time evolutions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Steady-state phase diagrams for (a) 9 atoms and (b) 75 atoms, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    C. J. Zhu, L. L. Ping, Y . P. Yang, and G. S. Agarwal, Squeezed Light Induced Symmetry Breaking Superradiant Phase Transi- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 073602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    N. E. Rehler and J. H. Eberly, Superradiance, Phys. Rev. A 3, 1735 (1971)

    1971

  3. [2]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission, Phys. Rep. 93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  4. [3]

    Lambert, C

    N. Lambert, C. Emary, and T. Brandes, Entanglement and the Phase Transition in Single-Mode Superradiance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 073602 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [4]

    N. Liu, J. Lian, J. Ma, L. Xiao, G. Chen, J.-Q. Liang, and S. Jia, Light-shift-induced quantum phase transitions of a Bose- Einstein condensate in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. A 83, 033601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Yu, J.-S

    D. Yu, J.-S. Pan, X.-J. Liu, W. Zhang, and W. Yi, Topological superradiant state in Fermi gases with cavity induced spin-orbit coupling, Front. Phys. 13, 136701 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    F. T. Hioe, Phase transitions in some generalized dicke models of superradiance, Phys. Rev. A 8, 1440 (1973)

    work page 1973

  8. [7]

    Hepp and E

    K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, On the superradiant phase transition for molecules in a quantized radiation field: the dicke maser model, Ann. Phys. 76, 360 (1973)

    work page 1973

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    H. J. Carmichael, C. W. Gardiner, and D. F. Walls, Higher or- der corrections to the Dicke superradiant phase transition, Phys. Lett. A 46, 47 (1973)

    1973

  2. [9]

    Takatsuji, Semiclassical theory of a superradiant phase tran- sition, Phys

    M. Takatsuji, Semiclassical theory of a superradiant phase tran- sition, Phys. Rev. A 10, 1437 (1974)

    1974

  3. [10]

    B. M. Garraway, The Dicke model in quantum optics: Dicke model revisited, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 369, 1137 (2011)

    2011

  4. [11]

    M. M. Roses and E. G. Dalla Torre, Dicke model, PLoS ONE 15, e0235197 (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Emary and T

    C. Emary and T. Brandes, Quantum Chaos Triggered by Precur- sors of a Quantum Phase Transition: The Dicke Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 044101 (2003)

    2003

  6. [13]

    N. Liu, J. D. Li, and J. Q. Liang, Nonequilibrium quantum phase transition of bose-einstein condensates in an optical cav- ity, Phys. Rev. A87, 053623 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    E. G. D. Torre, S. Diehl, M. D. Lukin, S. Sachdev, and P. Strack, Keldysh approach for nonequilibrium phase transitions in quan- tum optics: Beyond the Dicke model in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023831 (2013)

    2013

  8. [15]

    Gutierrez-Jauregui and H

    R. Gutierrez-Jauregui and H. J. Carmichael, Dissipative quantum phase transition of light in a generalized Jaynes- Cummings-Rabi model, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023804 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Z. Wu, Y . Chen, and H. Zhai, Emergent symmetry at super- radiance transition of a Bose condensate in two crossed beam cavities, Sci. Bull. 63, 542 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Kirton, M

    P. Kirton, M. M. Roses, J. Keeling, and E. G. Dalla Torre, In- troduction to the Dicke Model: From Equilibrium to Nonequi- librium, and Vice Versa, Adv. Quantum Technol. 2, 1800043 (2019). 7

    2019

  11. [18]

    Y . K. Wang and F. T. Hioe, Phase Transition in the Dicke Model of Superradiance, Phys. Rev. A 7, 831 (1973)

    1973

  12. [19]

    G. Chen, D. Zhao, and Z. Chen, Quantum phase transition for the Dicke model with the dipole-dipole interactions, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 39, 3315 (2006)

    2006

  13. [20]

    Baumann, C

    K. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Dicke quantum phase transition with a superfluid gas in an optical cav- ity, Nature 464, 1301 (2010)

    2010

  14. [21]

    Garbe, I

    L. Garbe, I. L. Egusquiza, E. Solano, C. Ciuti, T. Coudreau, P. Milman, and S. Felicetti, Superradiant phase transition in the ultrastrong coupling regime of the two-photon Dicke model, Phys. Rev. A 95, 053854 (2017)

    2017

  15. [22]

    M. Gegg, A. Carmele, A. Knorr, and M. Richter, Superradiant to subradiant phase transition in the open system Dicke model: dark state cascades, New J. Phys. 20, 013006 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    D. S. Shapiro, W. V . Pogosov, and Y . E. Lozovik, Universal fluctuations and squeezing in a generalized Dicke model near the superradiant phase transition, Phys. Rev. A 102, 023703 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    Brange, N

    F. Brange, N. Lambert, F. Nori, and C. Flindt, Lee-Yang theory of the superradiant phase transition in the open Dicke model, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 033181 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    N. M. Bogoliubov, R. K. Bullough, and J. Timonen, Exact so- lution of generalized Tavis - Cummings models in quantum op- tics, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 29, 6305 (1996)

    1996

  19. [26]

    Castaños, R

    O. Castaños, R. López-Peña, E. Nahmad-Áchar, J. G. Hirsch, E. López-Moreno, and J. E. Vitela, Coherent state description of the ground state in the Tavis-Cummings model and its quantum phase transitions, Phys. Scr. 79, 065405 (2009)

    2009

  20. [27]

    Agarwal, S

    S. Agarwal, S. M. H. Rafsanjani, and J. H. Eberly, Tavis- Cummings model beyond the rotating wave approximation: Quasidegenerate qubits, Phys. Rev. A 85, 043815 (2012)

    2012

  21. [28]

    J. H. Zou, T. Liu, M. Feng, W. L. Yang, C. Y . Chen, and J. Twamley, Quantum phase transition in a driven Tavis- Cummings model, New J. Phys. 15, 123032 (2013)

    2013

  22. [29]

    Sun and N

    C. Sun and N. A. Sinitsyn, Landau-Zener extension of the Tavis-Cummings model: Structure of the solution, Phys. Rev. A 94, 033808 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    C. Zhu, L. Dong, and H. Pu, E ffects of spin-orbit coupling on Jaynes-Cummings and Tavis-Cummings models, Phys. Rev. A 94, 053621 (2016)

    2016

  24. [31]

    Léonard, A

    J. Léonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger and T. Don- ner, Supersolid formation in a quantum gas breaking a continu- ous translational symmetry, Nature 543, 87 (2017)

    2017

  25. [32]

    Z. Dong, G. Zhang, A.-G. Wu, and R.-B. Wu, On the Dynamics of the Tavis-Cummings Model, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 68, 2048 (2023)

  26. [34]

    R. K. Bullough, Photon, quantum and collective, Hyperfine In- teract. 37, 71 (1987)

    1987

  27. [35]

    Keeling, M

    J. Keeling, M. J. Bhaseen, and B. D. Simons, Fermionic Super- radiance in a Transversely Pumped Optical Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 143002 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Piazza and P

    F. Piazza and P. Strack, Umklapp Superradiance with a Colli- sionless Quantum Degenerate Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 143003 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Y . Chen, Z. Yu, and H. Zhai, Superradiance of Degenerate Fermi Gases in a Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 143004 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y . Chen, Z. Wu, J. Wang, J. Fan, S. Deng, and H. Wu, Observation of a superradiant quantum phase transition in an intracavity degenerate Fermi gas, Science 373, 1359 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Y . Han, H. Li, W. Yi, Interaction-Enhanced Superradiant of a Rydberg-Atom Array, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 243401 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Kumar, J

    S. Kumar, J. Sheng, J. A. Sedlacek, H. Fan, and J. P. Shaf- fer, Collective state synthesis in an optical cavity using Ryd- berg atom dipole blockade, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 49, 064014 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Yang, B.-Z

    T.-H. Yang, B.-Z. Wang, X.-C. Zhou, and X.-J. Liu, Quantum Hall states for Rydberg arrays with laser-assisted dipole-dipole interactions, Phys. Rev. A 106, L021101 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Suarez, P

    E. Suarez, P. Wolf, P. Weiss, and S. Slama, Superradiance deco- herence caused by long-range Rydberg-atom pair interactions, Phys. Rev. A 104, L041302 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    An, Y .-H

    G.-Q. An, Y .-H. Zhou, T. Wang, and X.-F. Zhang, Quantum phase transition of a two-dimensional Rydberg atom array in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. B106, 134506 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Srakaew, P

    K. Srakaew, P. Weckesser, S. Hollerith, D. Wei, D. Adler, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, A subwavelength atomic array switched by a single Rydberg atom, Nat. Phys. 19, 714 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    M. A. Bastarrachea-Magnani, B. López-del-Carpio, S. Lerma- Hernández and J. G. Hirsch, Chaos in the Dicke model: quan- tum and semiclassical analysis, Phys. Scr. 90, 068015 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Merkli and A

    M. Merkli and A. Rafiyi, Mean field dynamics of some open quantum systems, Proc. R. Soc. A. 474, 20170856 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Garbe, P

    L. Garbe, P. Wade, F. Minganti, N. Shammah, S. Felicetti, and F. Nori, Dissipation-induced bistability in the two-photon Dicke model, Sci. Rep. 10, 13408 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Carollo and I

    F. Carollo and I. Lesanovsky, Exactness of Mean-Field Equa- tions for Open Dicke Models with an Application to Pattern Retrieval Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 230601 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    K. Lenk, J. Li, P. Werner, and M. Eckstein, Dynamical mean- field study of a photon-mediated ferroelectric phase transition, Phys. Rev. B 106, 245124 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Fan and S

    J. Fan and S. Jia, Collective dynamics of the unbalanced three- level Dicke model, Phys. Rev. A 107, 033711 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Biella, N. Bartolo, and C. Ciuti, Spectral theory of Liouvillians for dissipative phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042118 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    H. Ma, C. Ye, D. Wei, and J. Zhang, Coherence Phenomena in the Phase-Sensitive Optical Parametric Amplification inside a Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 233601 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    Huang and G

    S. Huang and G. S. Agarwal, Normal-mode splitting in a cou- pled system of a nanomechanical oscillator and a parametric amplifier cavity, Phys. Rev. A80, 033807 (2009)

    2009

  46. [54]

    Leroux, L

    C. Leroux, L. C. G. Govia, and A. A. Clerk, Enhancing Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics via Antisqueezing: Synthetic Ultra- strong Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 093602 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Hwang, P

    M.-J. Hwang, P. Rabl, and M. B. Plenio, Dissipative Phase Transition in the Open Quantum Rabi Model, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013825 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Liu, X.-D

    Y .-C. Liu, X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, H. Zhu, and X. Zhang, Efficient verification of Dicke states, Phys. Rev. Applied 12, 044020 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.