Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 85 references

A consistent Keldysh path-integral formulation of the truncated Wigner approximation for open spin-1/2 systems requires evaluating dissipative operator products with the SU(2) star product, not ordinary multiplication of phase-space symbols

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:47 UTC pith:4L5XTRES

load-bearing objection The single-spin derivation is genuinely new and correct, and the paper is honest about the many-body truncation being uncontrolled; it deserves a serious referee. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26029 v1 pith:4L5XTRES submitted 2026-07-28 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mech

Path integral approach to the truncated Wigner approximation of driven-dissipative spins

Viktoria Noel , Michael Fleischhauer , Igor Lesanovsky This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mech
keywords truncated Wigner approximationKeldysh path integralspin-1/2SU(2) star productLindblad dynamicsdriven-dissipative systemsRydberg arraysstochastic equations of motion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Open spin-1/2 systems are often simulated by stochastic phase-space methods, but earlier Keldysh path-integral versions of the truncated Wigner approximation (TWA) fail even for a single decaying spin. This paper argues that the fault lies in how operator products are mapped to the curved spin phase space: they must be evaluated with the SU(2) star product, not ordinary multiplication of symbols. Keeping the star product produces O(1) corrections to the dissipative terms—there is no large-spin parameter to suppress them at S=1/2—and the resulting stochastic equations reproduce the exact master-equation dynamics of a single driven-decaying spin, including the correct steady state. The paper then extends the construction to interacting Rydberg arrays, where the only approximation is the truncation of mixed-spin derivative terms, and benchmarks the scheme against exact solutions.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a consistent Keldysh path-integral formulation of the TWA for open spin-1/2 systems must respect the SU(2) star product when converting dissipative operator products into phase-space symbols. Treating the symbols as ordinary functions, as in bosonic constructions, generates a spurious drift that drives trajectories to the wrong steady state and an extra noise channel that is absent from the exact divergence structure. With the star product, the dissipative part of the action is exact for a single spin: it takes the form of a Fokker-Planck equation with pure drift and diffusion, yields stochastic equations of motion that coincide with the continuous TWA, and repr

What carries the argument

The central object is the SU(2) star product (Moyal-type product) on the continuous Stratonovich–Weyl phase space of a spin-1/2, implemented through the differential identities D_L and D_R that describe left/right multiplication of the kernel Δ(Ω) by spin operators. Because the spin Hilbert space is finite-dimensional, these differential operators terminate at second order, and all star-product corrections are O(1) with no 1/S suppression at S=1/2. The Keldysh path integral is built by slicing the Lindblad evolution and resolving the density matrix on the sphere; after a classical/quantum rotation, the star product determines the linear and quadratic pieces of the action—drift and noise—and

Load-bearing premise

For interacting spins, the paper discards mixed-spin derivative terms that are the same order in the quantum fields as the retained dissipative noise, with no small parameter at spin-1/2 to justify the truncation; the accuracy of the many-body TWA therefore rests on a heuristic counting argument and on empirical benchmarks.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the steady-state magnetisation of a single driven-decaying spin with detuning equal to the drive and Γ = 0.1 Ω_R. If the ordinary-product TWA already reproduces the exact value ⟨σ_z⟩ ≈ −0.67, the paper's central claim fails; if (as reported) it settles at ≈ −0.56 while the star-product version matches the exact value, the claim is supported. A many-body falsifier would be a nearest-neighbour Rydberg chain with strong interactions and finite detuning, where a deviation systematically above the reported ~20% error bound would indicate the discarded interaction terms are not be

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The stochastic equations derived with the star product coincide with the continuous TWA and reproduce the exact single-spin decay dynamics at the level of first moments, including all drive, detuning, and decay cross terms.
  • Replacing the star product by ordinary multiplication changes both drift and noise in the dissipative sector: it drives every trajectory to the south pole and adds a spurious φ_q² noise channel, producing roughly 15% steady-state error for a single spin at finite detuning and 20–30% errors in a Rydberg chain.
  • For dephasing, the star-product corrections vanish identically, explaining why TWA simulations that treat dephasing only can still be accurate; the discrepancy is specific to non-Hermitian jump operators such as decay.
  • In the many-body case the method reduces to the continuous TWA equations, with the interaction contributing only a deterministic shift to the φ-drift; the discarded mixed-derivative terms are uncontrolled at spin-1/2 but mitigated for all-to-all interactions (1/N suppression) and for z-polarized initial states where the mixed-term coefficient vanishes.
  • The star-product TWA remains accurate in the strongly interacting Rydberg-chain benchmark at finite detuning, with steady-state errors below 10% over most of the parameter plane.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The success of the star-product correction suggests that other semiclassical phase-space methods for spin systems—e.g., discrete Wigner or cluster TWA—might also need a curvature-aware product rule when non-Hermitian dissipation is present; the paper only demonstrates the failure for the bosonic-style Keldysh route.
  • A testable prediction is that the discrepancy between star-product and ordinary-product TWA grows with the detuning-to-drive ratio for any spin-1/2 system with decay, not just Rydberg atoms, since the ordinary product develops a spurious drift term proportional to sin²θ; this could be checked in a single trapped-ion or superconducting qubit.
  • The uncontrolled mixed-derivative truncation implies that the many-body TWA's reliability depends on the observables and initial states, not just on parameters: initial states whose second moments deviate from those of z-polarized states would expose the discarded terms earlier.
  • An extension beyond the paper: augmenting the TWA with a positive-P-type doubled-phase-space representation would restore the mixed quadratic terms as complex noise, at the cost of sampling instabilities; for strongly driven-dissipative spin lattices these instabilities may be controllable, making the many-body error controllable in a different parameter regime.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Keldysh path-integral formulation of the truncated Wigner approximation (TWA) for open spin-1/2 systems, built on the continuous SU(2) Stratonovich–Weyl phase space. The central technical claim is that a consistent semiclassical treatment of dissipation requires evaluating operator products with the SU(2) star product rather than ordinary multiplication of phase-space symbols. For a single driven-decaying spin, the authors show that the star-product action is exactly linear-plus-quadratic in the quantum fields, that the resulting stochastic equations coincide with the continuous TWA of Ref. [50], and that the Itô moment closure reproduces the exact Bloch equations for first moments. For interacting spins, the construction is extended to a driven-dissipative Rydberg array with density-density interactions and local decay. The interaction generates mixed-spin derivative terms that are quadratic or cubic in the quantum fields; these are discarded, and the resulting truncated equations are benchmarked against exact master-equation solutions for an N=10 chain. The paper argues that the star-product variant removes systematic single-spin dissipation errors and that the residual many-body error is the expected semiclassical truncation error.

Significance. If the single-spin result is correct, it resolves a real inconsistency in earlier Keldysh-based spin TWA derivations: the naive replacement of the star product by ordinary multiplication produces a spurious drift and noise for decay, as shown explicitly in App. B 1. The explicit derivative-basis identities (43)–(48), the exact evaluation of the dissipator, and the analytic confirmation that Eq. (64) reproduces the exact single-spin Bloch equations are valuable and convincing. The paper also correctly identifies dephasing as a channel where the ordinary product is harmless (App. B 2). These are concrete, reproducible technical results. The many-body extension, however, rests on an explicitly uncontrolled truncation of mixed-spin terms, and the numerical benchmark does not currently establish the accuracy of that truncation in the O(1)-coordination regime. The paper is therefore significant as a field-theoretic foundation for the single-spin and dissipative-sector structure, but the practical many-body claim remains conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (71)] The many-body truncation is the load-bearing step for the paper's broader claim, and the authors explicitly acknowledge that discarding the mixed quadratic term θ_{q,i} φ_{q,j} is not controlled by order counting or by a 1/S parameter at S=1/2. This term is the same order in quantum fields as the dissipative noise retained in Eq. (51). The paper argues that no real noise can generate the cross-correlation, but this is a statement about the impossibility of a particular stochastic representation, not a bound on the error incurred by omitting the term. The subsequent mitigation arguments do not cover the benchmark: the N-suppression argument applies to all-to-all couplings, while the nearest-neighbour chain has O(1) coordination, and the early-time inactivity argument based on b(θ_j)=0 on the initial latitude is irrelevant for steady-state values extracted at Γt∈[24,30]. A quantitative est
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 3] The many-body benchmark reports steady-state relative errors up to about 20% for the star-product TWA in the strongly interacting corner, but no statistical error bars or convergence checks are provided for either the TWA ensemble (10^4 trajectories) or the exact quantum-trajectory reference (10^3 trajectories). As a result, the reader cannot determine whether the residual deviations are significant or whether they are dominated by sampling noise. The claim that the star-product variant 'performs at least as well as' the ordinary-product variant is therefore not quantitatively established. Error bars, a convergence study in trajectory number, or a comparison at a second system size would make the benchmark informative.
  3. [Sec. IV and Table I] The statement that 'the interaction row is the only approximate entry, every single-site row being treated exactly' is potentially misleading. The single-site dissipative rows are exact in the sense of reproducing the single-spin dissipator, but the interaction row is obtained after discarding the mixed-spin derivative terms of Eq. (70)–(71). This is an approximation to the full many-body Liouvillian, not merely to the TWA action. The text should be clearer that the interaction row is itself a truncated version of the exact many-body interaction, and that the discarded terms are not simply 'beyond TWA order' but are of the same formal order as the retained noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eq. (64)] The claim that Itô and Stratonovich readings coincide because the noise amplitude depends only on θ_{cl} while the noise acts on φ_{cl} is correct for this particular coupling, but it would be useful to state that this is a special property of the chosen variable pair and not of the general TWA construction, since in Cartesian variables (Table I) the noise is multiplicative and the Itô convention matters.
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 3] The centre-column time-evolution panels show only two parameter points. Given that the heatmaps cover a 10×10 parameter grid, it would be helpful to show at least one additional point in the high-error corner (e.g., Ω_R/Γ=10, V/Γ=10) to illustrate the nature of the 20% error.
  3. [Sec. II B, Eq. (18)] The comment that the Fourier representation on the line is exact for periodic φ because |Δφ|<2π is subtle and should be expanded or justified more carefully; a reader may worry about the periodicity of the δ-function on the circle.
  4. [General] The paper cites several very recent preprints (Refs. [54]–[57], [59], [60]) without date-stamped versions. If this is to be published in a journal, the authors should verify that these references are publicly available and add arXiv identifiers or journal references where appropriate.
  5. [Sec. VI] The outlook mentions positive-P-type extensions and cluster TWA as possible routes to recover the discarded terms. This is helpful, but a brief statement of what would need to be checked (e.g., stability of the positive-P trajectories for the parameter regime of Fig. 3) would make the outlook more concrete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained and externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The paper's central result is derived from the Lindblad master equation and the Stratonovich–Weyl kernel by explicit construction: the dissipative coefficients in Eq. (51) are obtained from the exact kernel identities (43)–(45), not chosen to match a target. The single-spin equations (64) are then checked against the exact master-equation equations of motion, an external benchmark, and the agreement with the continuous TWA of Ref. [50] is presented as an equivalence statement, not as the justification for any step. The many-body extension is approximate because mixed-spin derivative terms are discarded, and the paper explicitly states that this step is not controlled by order counting or by a small parameter; this is an acknowledged accuracy limitation rather than a circular reduction. Self-citations to Refs. [50], [59], and [60] occur as technical comparisons, gauge choices, and prior context (e.g., the flattened Wigner function and the positive initial representative), but none functions as the premise that forces the predicted equations; the core derivation can be followed independently from the Lindblad equation and the kernel identities, and the numerical benchmarks are against exact quantum-jump solutions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical entities. The free-parameter list is empty because all rates (Ω_R, Δ, Γ, V) are physical inputs, and the truncation of interaction terms is an approximation rather than a fitted quantity. The main axioms are the standard Lindblad/Keldysh/phase-space framework plus the un-controlled many-body truncation, which the paper explicitly flags.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The Lindblad Markovian master equation (Eq. 1) is the exact starting point for the open-system dynamics.
    All subsequent construction is built on the Lindblad form; non-Markovian or non-Lindblad environments are outside the paper's scope.
  • domain assumption The Stratonovich–Weyl kernel (Eq. 2) and its self-duality provide a valid operator-symbol correspondence for spin-1/2.
    This is a known property from Refs. [62,67]; the paper relies on it for the symbol map, trace formula, and reconstruction (Eqs. 4–7).
  • standard math The four matrices {Δ, ∂θΔ, ∂ϕΔ, ∂ϕ^2Δ} span the 2x2 matrix space away from the poles.
    Proven in App. A by explicit matrix representation; used to represent left/right multiplication by differential operators (Eqs. 14–15).
  • domain assumption The Keldysh/Trotter path-integral construction and the classical–quantum rotation are valid for spin systems; the semiclassical action is obtained by truncating at quadratic order in quantum fields.
    Standard Keldysh machinery [35,36,39]; the paper uses it to convert the exact path integral (23) into MSRJD stochastic form. For single spin the truncation is exact; for many-body spins the cubic/mixed terms are discarded.
  • ad hoc to paper Mixed-spin derivative terms from interactions can be discarded even though they are second order in quantum fields.
    This is the defining approximation of the many-body TWA. The paper states it is not controlled by order counting or a small parameter (Sec. IV, after Eq. 71), and supports it with heuristic 1/N counting and benchmarks.
  • domain assumption Initial states are sampled from the discrete Wigner positive representative, which reproduces first and symmetrically ordered second moments exactly.
    The continuous SU(2) Wigner function of a pure state is not positive, so sampling uses the discrete Wigner representation [50,60]; this affects the numerical initial conditions but not the analytic moment-closure claim.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26613 in / 12722 out tokens · 120125 ms · 2026-08-01T00:47:24.136825+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Path integral approach to the truncated Wigner approximation of driven-dissipative spins." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4L5XTRES

@misc{pith2026260726029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Path integral approach to the truncated Wigner approximation of driven-dissipative spins},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4L5XTRES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26029}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Phase-space approaches such as the truncated Wigner approximation (TWA) provide an efficient semiclassical framework for performing approximate simulations of the dynamics of open quantum many-body systems outside the reach of exact numerical methods but beyond the mean-field level. For bosonic systems, TWA is known to be equivalent to a Keldysh path-integral formulation truncated at second order in the so-called quantum fluctuations. This semiclassical approach provides an alternative transparent route towards approximate stochastic equations of motion, which can be efficiently solved. Here we establish the corresponding path-integral formulation for interacting open spin-$1/2$ systems using the continuous $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ phase space. We show, in particular, that a consistent treatment of dissipation requires correctly mapping operator products onto the curved spin phase space, leading to stochastic equations that coincide with those obtained from the continuous TWA formulation and thus reproduce the exact dynamics of a single dissipative spin. Our results provide a unified field-theoretic foundation for the TWA to dissipative spin dynamics and offer a systematic starting point for extensions beyond the semiclassical approximation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26029 by Igor Lesanovsky, Michael Fleischhauer, Viktoria Noel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: for the Rydberg chain as well: the equations of Table I, in which products of jump-operator symbols are evaluated with the SU(2) star product, and the variant in which they are replaced by ordinary multiplication using a time step Γ ∆t = 5×10−3 in both cases. The reference curve was obtained from a quantum-trajectory unravel￾ling of the Lindblad master equation with 103 trajectories using the package Quant… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Coherent terms In fact, Taylor-expanding the symbolH(θ ±, ϕ±) about the classical configuration,H(θ cl, ϕcl)≡H cl, usingδ≡ θq ∂θ +ϕ q ∂ϕ for brevity, we get H(θ ±, ϕ±) =H cl± 1 2 δHcl+ 1 8 δ2Hcl± 1 48 δ3Hcl+· · ·.(30) In the difference of the two copies the even orders cancel while the odd orders double, H(θ +, ϕ+)−H(θ −, ϕ−) =δH cl +O(q 3),(31) which is ...

  2. [2]

    TW A with star product

    Dissipative terms The dissipative part of the generator symbol (21), which enters the action throughS L =−i R dt ℓD, reads ℓD = X α h Rα − 1 2 L† αLα + − 1 2 L† αLα − i ,(40) mirroring the Lindblad dissipator (1) term by term, with left factors on the forward and right factors on the back- ward branch, as anticipated in Fig. 1. Here,R α denotes the polyno...

    2024

  3. [3]

    A derivative basis for the kernel In the parametrisation ˆ∆(Ω) = 1 2 1+ √ 3⃗ n·⃗ σ with⃗ n= (sinθcosϕ,sinθsinϕ,cosθ), the kernel and its angular derivatives read, in theσ z eigenbasis, ˆ∆ = 1 2 1 + √ 3 cosθ √ 3 sinθ e−iϕ √ 3 sinθ e+iϕ 1− √ 3 cosθ ! ,(A1) and∂ θ ˆ∆,∂ ϕ ˆ∆,∂ 2 ϕ ˆ∆ follow by differentiation. At every Ω away from the coordinate polesθ= 0, π(...

  4. [4]

    These are the ˆσ± analogues of the illustrative ˆσz ˆ∆ identity of Ref

    Kernel identities forˆσ ± Applying this to ˆσ− from the left and to ˆσ+ from the right, and fixing the coefficient functions by equating the four matrix entries, yields the identities (43) of the main text. These are the ˆσ± analogues of the illustrative ˆσz ˆ∆ identity of Ref. [50]. The check is elementary, with (A1), ˆσ− ˆ∆ = 1 2 0 0 1 + √ 3 cosθ √ 3 si...

  5. [5]

    Writing ˆσ− ˆσ+ =a ˆ∆ +b ∂θ ˆ∆ +c ∂ϕ ˆ∆ + d ∂2 ϕ ˆ∆ and matching the four matrix entries with (A1) gives a= 1, b= √ 3 cosθ+ 1√ 3 sinθ , c= 0, d= √ 3 + cosθ√ 3 sin2 θ

    The jump term In the main text the jump entry of the decay channel is evaluated by collapsing ˆσ− ˆ∆ ˆσ+ = tr[ˆσ+ ˆσ− ˆ∆] ˆσ− ˆσ+ = 1 2 (1 + √ 3 cosθ) ˆσ− ˆσ+, so the only ingredient of (44) not derived there is the expansion of the projector ˆσ − ˆσ+ in the basis (A2). Writing ˆσ− ˆσ+ =a ˆ∆ +b ∂θ ˆ∆ +c ∂ϕ ˆ∆ + d ∂2 ϕ ˆ∆ and matching the four matrix entri...

  6. [6]

    Decay The decay contributions to the dissipative action have been evaluated via the adequate operator mapping in the main text in Sec. III A 2. Here, we show instead what one would get by replacing the SU(2) star product with or- dinary multiplication of phase-space symbols. The con- tributions to the ordinary product come from L+L∗ − = 3Γ 4 sinθ + sinθ −...

  7. [7]

    We first record the exact evaluation, following Sec

    Dephasing We now repeat the comparison for the dephasing chan- nel, ˆL= √γˆσz, and show that here the ordinary multi- plicative product reproduces the star-product result ex- actly at the retained order. We first record the exact evaluation, following Sec. III A 2. The jump operator is Hermitian and squares to the identity, ˆL† ˆL=γ1, so the no-jump entri...

  8. [8]

    Weimer, A

    H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum, and R. Or´ us, Simulation methods for open quantum many-body systems, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 015008 (2021). 17

    2021

  9. [9]

    Fazio, J

    R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schir` o, Many- body open quantum systems, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 99 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Universal- ity in driven open quantum matter, Reviews of Modern Physics97, 025004 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch, Engi- neered dissipation for quantum information science, Na- ture Reviews Physics4, 660 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nature Physics4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  13. [13]

    Miet al., Stable quantum-correlated many-body states through engineered dissipation, Science383, 1332 (2024)

    X. Miet al., Stable quantum-correlated many-body states through engineered dissipation, Science383, 1332 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Science357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimbene, Quantum sim- ulations with ultracold quantum gases, Nature Physics 8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  16. [16]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V. Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Ultracold atomic gases in op- tical lattices: mimicking condensed matter physics and beyond, Advances in Physics56, 243 (2007)

    2007

  17. [17]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Quantum simulations with trapped ions, Nature Physics8, 277 (2012)

    2012

  18. [18]

    Schneider, D

    C. Schneider, D. Porras, and T. Schaetz, Experimental quantum simulations of many-body physics with trapped ions, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 024401 (2012)

    2012

  19. [19]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    A. A. Houck, H. E. T¨ ureci, and J. Koch, On-chip quan- tum simulation with superconducting circuits, Nature Physics8, 292 (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Walther, B

    H. Walther, B. T. H. Varcoe, B.-G. Englert, and T. Becker, Cavity quantum electrodynamics, Reports on Progress in Physics69, 1325 (2006)

    2006

  24. [24]

    Mivehvar, F

    F. Mivehvar, F. Piazza, T. Donner, and H. Ritsch, Cavity QED with quantum gases: new paradigms in many-body physics, Advances in Physics70, 1 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    Ritsch, P

    H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical poten- tials, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 553 (2013)

    2013

  26. [26]

    E. M. Kessler, G. Giedke, A. Imamoglu, S. F. Yelin, M. D. Lukin, and J. I. Cirac, Dissipative phase transition in a central spin system, Physical Review A86, 012116 (2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Biella, N. Bartolo, and C. Ciuti, Spectral theory of Liouvillians for dissipative phase transitions, Physical Review A98, 042118 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    P. D. Drummond and D. F. Walls, Quantum theory of op- tical bistability. I. Nonlinear polarisability model, Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and General13, 725 (1980)

    1980

  29. [29]

    C. Carr, R. Ritter, C. G. Wade, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, Nonequilibrium phase transition in a dilute Rydberg ensemble, Physical Review Letters111, 113901 (2013)

    2013

  30. [30]

    T. E. Lee and H. R. Sadeghpour, Quantum synchroniza- tion of quantum van der Pol oscillators with trapped ions, Physical Review Letters111, 234101 (2013)

    2013

  31. [31]

    Walter, A

    S. Walter, A. Nunnenkamp, and C. Bruder, Quan- tum synchronization of a driven self-sustained oscillator, Physical Review Letters112, 094102 (2014)

    2014

  32. [32]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses, Physical Review93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  33. [33]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission, Physics Reports93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  34. [34]

    M. O. Scully, Single photon subradiance: Quantum con- trol of spontaneous emission and ultrafast readout, Phys- ical Review Letters115, 243602 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    Guerin, M

    W. Guerin, M. O. Ara´ ujo, and R. Kaiser, Subradiance in a large cloud of cold atoms, Physical Review Letters 116, 083601 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Iemini, A

    F. Iemini, A. Russomanno, J. Keeling, M. Schir` o, M. Dal- monte, and R. Fazio, Boundary time crystals, Physical Review Letters121, 035301 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals Phys.326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals Phys.326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  38. [38]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Ma- trix product density operators: Simulation of finite- temperature and dissipative systems, Physical Review Letters93, 207204 (2004)

    2004

  39. [39]

    Zwolak and G

    M. Zwolak and G. Vidal, Mixed-state dynamics in one- dimensional quantum lattice systems: A time-dependent superoperator renormalization algorithm, Physical Re- view Letters93, 207205 (2004)

    2004

  40. [40]

    Kubo, Generalized Cumulant Expansion Method, J

    R. Kubo, Generalized Cumulant Expansion Method, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.17, 1100 (1962)

    1962

  41. [41]

    Plankensteiner, C

    D. Plankensteiner, C. Hotter, and H. Ritsch, Quantum- Cumulants.jl: A Julia framework for generalized mean- field equations in open quantum systems, Quantum6, 617 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Keldysh field theory for driven open quantum systems, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 096001 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    Kamenev,Field theory of non-equilibrium systems (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    A. Kamenev,Field theory of non-equilibrium systems (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    Sinatra, C

    A. Sinatra, C. Lobo, and Y. Castin, The truncated Wigner method for Bose-condensed gases: limits of va- lidity and applications, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics35, 3599 (2002)

    2002

  45. [45]

    P. B. Blakie, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, R. J. Ballagh, and C. W. Gardiner, Dynamics and statistical mechan- ics of ultra-cold Bose gases using c-field techniques, Ad- vances in Physics57, 363 (2008)

    2008

  46. [46]

    Polkovnikov, Phase space representation of quantum dynamics, Annals of Physics325, 1790 (2010)

    A. Polkovnikov, Phase space representation of quantum dynamics, Annals of Physics325, 1790 (2010)

    2010

  47. [47]

    H. G. Solari, Semiclassical treatment of spin system by means of coherent states, Journal of mathematical physics28, 1097 (1987)

    1987

  48. [48]

    Kochetov, SU(2) coherent-state path integral, Journal of Mathematical Physics36, 4667 (1995)

    E. Kochetov, SU(2) coherent-state path integral, Journal of Mathematical Physics36, 4667 (1995). 18

    1995

  49. [49]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Many- body quantum spin dynamics with Monte Carlo trajec- tories on a discrete phase space, Physical Review X5, 011022 (2015)

    2015

  50. [50]

    Weimer, M

    H. Weimer, M. M¨ uller, I. Lesanovsky, P. Zoller, and H. P. B¨ uchler, A Rydberg quantum simulator, Nature Physics 6, 382 (2010)

    2010

  51. [51]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  52. [52]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    Qu and A

    C. Qu and A. M. Rey, Spin squeezing and many-body dipolar dynamics in optical lattice clocks, Physical Re- view A100, 041602 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    H. Liu, S. B. J¨ ager, X. Yu, S. Touzard, A. Shankar, M. J. Holland, and T. L. Nicholson, Rugged mHz-linewidth su- perradiant laser driven by a hot atomic beam, Physical Review Letters125, 253602 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    Huber, P

    J. Huber, P. Kirton, and P. Rabl, Phase-space methods for simulating the dissipative many-body dynamics of collective spin systems, SciPost Physics10, 045 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    Huber, A

    J. Huber, A. M. Rey, and P. Rabl, Realistic simulations of spin squeezing and cooperative coupling effects in large ensembles of interacting two-level systems, Physical Re- view A105, 013716 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    C. D. Mink, D. Petrosyan, and M. Fleischhauer, Hybrid discrete-continuous truncated Wigner approximation for driven, dissipative spin systems, Physical Review Re- search4, 043136 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    V. P. Singh and H. Weimer, Driven-dissipative critical- ity within the discrete truncated Wigner approximation, Physical Review Letters128, 200602 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    C. D. Mink and M. Fleischhauer, Collective radiative in- teractions in the discrete truncated Wigner approxima- tion, SciPost Physics15, 233 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    Tebbenjohanns, C

    F. Tebbenjohanns, C. D. Mink, C. Bach, A. Rauschen- beutel, and M. Fleischhauer, Predicting correlations in superradiant emission from a cascaded quantum system, Physical Review A110, 043713 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    X. H. H. Zhang, D. Malz, and P. Rabl, Robust Super- radiance and Spontaneous Spin Ordering in Disordered Waveguide QED (2025), arXiv:2510.13671 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Ruks, Semiclassical Simulation of Homogeneous Emitter Ensembles with Local Dissipation (2026), arXiv:2602.14025 [quant-ph]

    L. Ruks, Semiclassical Simulation of Homogeneous Emitter Ensembles with Local Dissipation (2026), arXiv:2602.14025 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Mondal, L

    D. Mondal, L. F. Santos, and S. Sinha, Dissipation as a Resource: Synchronization, Coherence Recovery, and Chaos Control (2026), arXiv:2602.16817 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Xiang, Z

    Y.-X. Xiang, Z. Bai, and Y.-Q. Ma, Quantum predator- prey cycles in dissipative Rydberg lattices (2025), arXiv:2510.26295 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Hosseinabadi, O

    H. Hosseinabadi, O. Chelpanova, and J. Marino, User- friendly truncated Wigner approximation for dissipative spin dynamics, PRX Quantum6, 030344 (2025)

    2025

  66. [66]

    Noel and I

    V. Noel and I. Lesanovsky, Quantum to classical relax- ation dynamics of the dissipative Rydberg gas (2026), arXiv:2604.10538

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Hartmann, T

    J. Hartmann, T. Schlegel, V. Noel, C. D. Mink, and M. Fleischhauer, Truncated wigner approximation for spins in continuous phase space (2026), arXiv:2607.17295 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    J. E. Moyal, Quantum mechanics as a statistical theory, inMathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosoph- ical Society, Vol. 45 (Cambridge University Press, 1949) pp. 99–124

    1949

  69. [69]

    J. C. V´ arilly and J. M. Gracia-Bond ´ ıa, The Moyal repre- sentation for spin, Annals of physics190, 107 (1989)

    1989

  70. [70]

    Klimov and P

    A. Klimov and P. Espinoza, Moyal-like form of the star product for generalized SU(2) Stratonovich-Weyl sym- bols, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 35, 8435 (2002)

    2002

  71. [71]

    Yoneya, K

    T. Yoneya, K. Fujimoto, and Y. Kawaguchi, Path- integral formulation of truncated Wigner approximation for bosonic Markovian open quantum systems, Annals of Physics479, 170072 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermody- namic equilibrium, Physical Review40, 749 (1932)

    E. Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermody- namic equilibrium, Physical Review40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  73. [73]

    Weyl, Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik46, 1 (1927)

    H. Weyl, Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik46, 1 (1927)

    1927

  74. [74]

    R. L. Stratonovich, On distributions in representation space, Soviet Physics JETP4, 891 (1957)

    1957

  75. [75]

    W. K. Wootters, A Wigner-function formulation of finite- state quantum mechanics, Annals of Physics176, 1 (1987)

    1987

  76. [76]

    P. C. Martin, E. D. Siggia, and H. A. Rose, Statistical dynamics of classical systems, Physical Review A8, 423 (1973)

    1973

  77. [77]

    H.-K. Janssen, On a Lagrangean for classical field dynam- ics and renormalization group calculations of dynamical critical properties, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter23, 377 (1976)

    1976

  78. [78]

    de Dominicis, Technics of field renormalization and dynamics of critical phenomena, Journal de Physique Colloques37, C1 (1976)

    C. de Dominicis, Technics of field renormalization and dynamics of critical phenomena, Journal de Physique Colloques37, C1 (1976)

    1976

  79. [79]

    Mercurio, Y.-T

    A. Mercurio, Y.-T. Huang, L.-X. Cai, Y.-N. Chen, V. Savona, and F. Nori, Quantumtoolbox.jl: An efficient julia framework for simulating open quantum systems, Quantum9, 1866 (2025)

    2025

  80. [80]

    P. D. Drummond and C. W. Gardiner, Generalised p- representations in quantum optics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General13, 2353 (1980)

    1980

Showing first 80 references.