Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 85 references

Theory of dynamical superradiance in organic materials

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 Vibrational coupling in organic emitters can enhance, not just suppress, dynamical superradiance when the cavity is tuned below the molecular transition.

desk verdict Useful exact method for the dissipative Tavis-Cummings model, but the headline claim of vibrationally assisted superradiance rests on an unvalidated mean-field closure. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03067 v2 pith:7W3CWUZR submitted 2025-09-03 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.comp-phphysics.optics

Lukas Freter , Piper Fowler-Wright , Javier Cuerda , Brendon W. Lovett , Jonathan Keeling , Päivi Törmä This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallphysics.comp-phphysics.optics
keywords dynamicalsuperradiancesuperfluorescenceHolstein-Tavis-Cummingsmodelvibrationalcouplingcavityquantumelectrodynamicspermutationalinvariancemean-fieldapproximationphoton-numberrisetime
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 develops the theory of dynamical superradiance—collective emission from many excited molecules into a single cavity mode—for organic emitters whose electronic states are dressed by molecular vibrations. The authors show that treating vibrations as mere dephasing is insufficient: in the Holstein–Tavis–Cummings model, moderate vibrational coupling can actually speed up the photon-number rise when the cavity frequency sits below the molecular transition. They support this with an exact numerical method for the dissipative Tavis–Cummings model up to 140 emitters, use it to validate mean-field and second-order cumulant approximations, then apply mean-field theory to macroscopic emitter numbers. If correct, the work provides an experimentally accessible signature—an asymmetry in the photon-number risetime versus cavity detuning—that distinguishes coherent vibronic coupling from Markovian dephasing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are two complementary constructions. First, the Holstein–Tavis–Cummings Hamiltonian (two-level electronic states coupled to a common cavity mode and, per molecule, to a local harmonic vibrational mode with Huang–Rhys coupling S) supplies the physical mechanism: negative detuning lets the cavity pick out vibrationally dressed transitions. Second, an exact solution method for the dissipative Tavis–Cummings model combines weak permutation symmetry (emitters are interchangeable) with weak U(1) symmetry (the master equation is invariant under rotating photon and dipole phases together); this block structure lets the authors integrate the excitation-conserving diagonal sec

What would settle it

Measure the early exponential photon-number risetime in an organic microcavity as the cavity frequency is swept across the molecular transition. If the risetime remains symmetric about zero detuning at all Huang–Rhys couplings, or if no parameter regime shows a negative-detuning risetime shorter than the S=0 curve, the vibrationally assisted enhancement is falsified. A complementary calculation: an exact small-N solution of the Holstein–Tavis–Cummings model at θ=10^-3π that disagrees with mean-field would undercut the extrapolation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that vibrational coupling in organic emitters changes dynamical superradiance in a way that goes beyond simple dephasing. In the Holstein–Tavis–Cummings model, the photon-number rise time grows with coupling for small negative detunings, but for large negative detunings moderate coupling (Huang–Rhys parameter S between about 0.1 and 0.4) shortens the risetime below its vibration-free value. The explanation is that a negatively detuned cavity can resonantly connect the excited-state manifold with zero vibrational quanta to the ground-state manifold with vibrational quanta; increasing S makes one-vibration transitions more probable, so the cavity emission is assisted rathe

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on mean-field theory, validated only for the vibration-free Tavis–Cummings model at a large initial coherence angle, also being accurate for the vibration-coupled model at a much smaller initial coherence angle and macroscopic emitter number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dynamical superradiance survives in organic molecules at realistic Huang–Rhys parameters (up to roughly S=0.1), so organic microcavities are viable platforms for observing it.
  • For negative cavity detunings, moderate vibrational coupling can shorten the exponential photon-number risetime compared with the vibration-free case, an enhancement that pure-dephasing models cannot produce.
  • The risetime-versus-detuning curve is symmetric for Markovian dephasing and asymmetric for coherent vibronic coupling; measuring that asymmetry distinguishes the two microscopic pictures.
  • S beyond about 0.3 suppresses the exponential rise and inhibits electronic-coherence buildup, so strong vibrational dressing destroys dynamical superradiance.
  • The exact block solver extends benchmark-quality solutions to 140 emitters, roughly five times larger than the standard permutation-symmetry limit, providing a tool to test other approximations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural experimental next step is to scan cavity detuning in an organic microcavity while fitting the early exponential rise; the predicted asymmetric risetime would be evidence for coherent vibronic dressing, while a symmetric curve would point to pure dephasing.
  • Because the exact solver is formulated for two-level emitters and a single cavity mode, extending the same block structure to multi-level emitters or multi-mode cavities could test whether vibrational assistance survives those complications.
  • The paper validates mean-field on the vibration-free model at θ=π/4 but applies it to the vibration-coupled model at θ=10^-3π; a finite-N exact or cumulant check at the smaller angle would tighten the quantitative risetime predictions.
  • If the enhancement mechanism is correct, varying the vibrational frequency relative to the detuning should produce a resonant peak in the risetime speed-up, which could be used to calibrate the Huang–Rhys parameter in situ.
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 paper studies dynamical superradiance in a single-mode cavity coupled to N emitters, comparing two models for vibrational effects: Markovian pure dephasing and explicit Holstein–Tavis–Cummings (HTC) vibrational dressing. It introduces an exact numerical method for the dissipative Tavis–Cummings (TC) master equation up to N ≈ 140, exploiting weak permutation and weak U(1) symmetries, and benchmarks mean-field and second-order cumulant approximations against it. The manuscript then uses mean-field theory to simulate the HTC model at N = 10^8, predicting that moderate vibrational coupling can enhance superradiance for negative cavity detunings and produce an asymmetric photon-number risetime as a function of detuning, in contrast to pure dephasing. The proposed asymmetry is presented as an experimentally accessible signature of vibrationally assisted superradiance.

Significance. If the HTC mean-field prediction is robust, the predicted risetime asymmetry is a concrete, experimentally testable signature for organic microcavity systems, and the paper's exact numerical solver for dissipative TC models is a valuable technical contribution with code availability. However, the headline HTC result rests on a mean-field closure that is not benchmarked for the HTC model, and the paper's own mechanism explanation invokes vibronic structure that the closure cannot represent. The significance of the paper therefore depends on additional validation of the HTC mean-field treatment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A–III.B, Eq. (9)–(11)] The mean-field approximation factorizes each molecule's electronic and vibrational operators, e.g., ⟨σ_z(b+b†)⟩ ≈ ⟨σ_z⟩⟨b+b†⟩. For local vibrational modes this closure is uncontrolled: N→∞ does not suppress O(1) local vibrational quantum fluctuations, and the benchmark in Sec. II validates mean-field only for the TC model (S=0), not for HTC. Moreover, the proposed enhancement mechanism in Sec. III.B ('cavity frequency matches transitions from the excited state manifold with zero vibrational excitations to the ground-state manifold with vibrational excitations') is a vibronic Franck–Condon mechanism that a factorized mean-field treatment cannot represent. To support the central claim, the authors should benchmark HTC mean-field against a second-order cumulant or exact small-N calculation, or derive the result in a controlled limit (e.g., polaron frame, or classical cavity field with exact
  2. [Sec. II.C vs. Sec. III.B] Mean-field is validated against exact results only for SR initial angle θ=π/4 (Fig. 2d), while the HTC simulations use θ=10^{-3}π. This is a significant extrapolation: for θ=0 (SF), mean-field gives identically zero photon emission, so the small-θ regime is singular. The benchmark at θ=π/4 does not establish that mean-field remains reliable at θ=10^{-3}π. The authors should either provide a TC benchmark at small θ, or compare HTC mean-field to cumulant/exact results at small θ, before using this parameter regime for the central prediction.
  3. [Sec. III.B and Fig. 6] The definition of the risetime τ is not sufficiently precise. The text says τ is extracted from 'an exponential fit to the linear regions' of ⟨n⟩/N on a log scale, but the fitting interval, the criterion for what counts as a linear region, and any statistical uncertainty are not given. Since the asymmetry in Fig. 6(b) is the paper's main experimental signature, the extraction procedure should be specified quantitatively and error bars or confidence intervals should be provided, at least for representative parameter sets.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says '(c), (d), (f) Same as (a), (b), (c)' but should presumably read '(d), (e), (f) Same as (a), (b), (c)'.
  2. [Fig. 5 inset] The y-axis label in the inset appears garbled ('10□1'); please correct the typographical error.
  3. [Eq. (10)] The Lamb-shift term H_LS = i(γν/4)(b_i†² − b_i²) is unusual; a brief physical justification beyond the citation to Ref. [82] would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. II.B] It would be helpful to state explicitly that only the ν=ν′ diagonal block is implemented in the released PIBS code, and whether this limits which observables can be computed with the public version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: the HTC Hamiltonian/master equation are the inputs; the risetime asymmetry is a computed output, and the mean-field extrapolation is an approximation risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The HTC master equation (Eq. 10), with explicit physical parameters (g, S, gamma_phi, Delta, theta, omega_nu, T), is the input; the cavity photon number, coherence, Bloch vector length, and risetime tau are outputs of evolving that equation. The risetime tau is defined by fitting A e^{t/tau} to the computed exponential growth region (Sec. III.B and Fig. 6), so it is a summary statistic of the dynamics, not a fitted parameter inserted into the model. The claimed asymmetric risetime versus detuning is a computed consequence of the HTC Hamiltonian's vibronic resonances, not an assumption used to define the model. The exact PIBS benchmark in Sec. II.C validates mean-field only for the TC model (no vibrations), and using mean-field for the HTC model at theta = 10^-3 pi and N = 10^8 is an extrapolation; the paper itself states this step as 'from Sec. II we have confidence in mean-field theory capturing the essential early-time behavior also for the HTC model.' That is an approximation-validity/correctness concern, not circularity, since the mean-field equations are derived from the same Hamiltonian and are not constrained to reproduce the predicted asymmetry. The self-citations present (Refs. [34], [47], [69]) provide standard model definitions or published analytic scaling results; none is a uniqueness theorem or an unverified premise on which the central prediction solely rests. No equation in the paper reduces to another by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Hence no circular step can be identified.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. All free parameters are physical inputs (coupling strengths, decay rates, detunings) except the initial tilt angle theta, which is a hand-chosen seed. The main assumptions are the standard open-quantum-system formalism, the single-mode vibrational approximation, and the mean-field factorization used for the HTC model.

free parameters (1)
  • Initial tilt angle theta = theta = 10^-3 pi
    The mean-field dynamics are seeded by a small initial coherence chosen by hand. The main HTC results use theta = 10^-3 pi, and the risetime is shown to be approximately constant for small theta (Appendix A), but the specific value is ad hoc and the mean-field solution is sensitive to it for larger theta.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with Markovian dissipation is a valid description of the open system dynamics.
    Used throughout Eq. (2) and Eq. (10); assumes weak system-bath coupling and Markovian memory, standard but not derived.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave and dipole approximations are valid for the cavity-molecule coupling.
    Used in the Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian, Eq. (1); neglects counter-rotating terms and assumes small sample size compared to wavelength.
  • domain assumption A single dominant vibrational mode per molecule (Holstein model) captures the relevant vibrational physics.
    Used in the HTC Hamiltonian, Eq. (9); ignores the full phonon spectrum and multimode effects, which the authors acknowledge as future work.
  • domain assumption Mean-field factorization is accurate for the HTC model at N = 10^8 and theta = 10^-3 pi.
    The main results rely on mean-field theory. Validation was performed only for the TC model with theta = pi/4 and for cumulant-to-mean-field convergence in that regime (Fig. 3).
  • standard math Second-order cumulant expansion is sufficient to benchmark mean-field for early times.
    The comparison in Fig. 2 uses this truncation; the approximation is standard but its accuracy is not proven analytically for the studied parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory of dynamical superradiance in organic materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7W3CWUZR

@misc{pith2026250903067,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory of dynamical superradiance in organic materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7W3CWUZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03067}
}
read the original abstract

We develop the theory of dynamical superradiance -- the collective exchange of energy between an ensemble of initially excited emitters and a single-mode cavity -- for organic materials where electronic states are coupled to vibrational modes. We consider two models to capture the vibrational effects: first, vibrations treated as a Markovian bath for two-level emitters, via a pure dephasing term in the Lindblad master equation for the system; second, vibrational modes directly included in the system via the Holstein--Tavis--Cummings Hamiltonian. By exploiting the permutation symmetry of the emitters and weak U(1) symmetry, we develop a numerical method capable of exactly solving the Tavis-Cummings model with local dissipation for up to 140 emitters. Using the exact method, we validate mean-field and second-order cumulant approximations and use them to describe macroscopic numbers of emitters. We analyse the dynamics of the average cavity photon number, electronic coherence, and Bloch vector length, and show that the effect of vibrational mode coupling goes beyond simple dephasing. Our results show that superradiance is possible in the presence of vibrational mode coupling; for negative cavity detunings, the vibrational coupling may even enhance superradiance. We identify asymmetry of the photon number rise time as a function of the detuning of the cavity frequency as an experimentally accessible signature of such vibrationally assisted superradiance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03067 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the dynamical SR system. Emit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of exact dynamics of the average num [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of symmetry-broken second-order cu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a), (b) and (c) Average number of photons in the cavity mode, electronic coherence, and magnitude of the Bloch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average number of photons in the cavity mode as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average number of photons in the cavity mode as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average number of photons as a function of time in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in Spontaneous Radiation Pro- cesses, Physical Review 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  2. [2]

    Gross and S

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

    1982

  3. [3]

    K. Cong, Q. Zhang, Y. Wang, G. T. Noe, A. Belyanin, and J. Kono, Dicke superradiance in solids [Invited], JOSA B 33, C80 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    H. J. Carmichael and K. Kim, A quantum trajectory unraveling of the superradiance master equation, Optics Communications 179, 417 (2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    J. P. Clemens, L. Horvath, B. C. Sanders, and H. J. Carmichael, Collective spontaneous emission from a line of atoms, Physical Review A 68, 023809 (2003). 10

    2003

  6. [6]

    J. P. Clemens, L. Horvath, B. C. Sanders, and H. J. Carmichael, Shot-to-shot fluctuations in the directed su- perradiant emission from extended atomic samples, Jour- nal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 6, S736 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    M. O. Scully, E. S. Fry, C. H. R. Ooi, and K. W´ odkiewicz, Directed Spontaneous Emission from an Extended En- semble of N Atoms: Timing Is Everything, Physical Re- view Letters 96, 010501 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Zoubi and H

    H. Zoubi and H. Ritsch, Metastability and directional emission characteristics of excitons in 1D optical lattices, Europhysics Letters 90, 23001 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Bhatti, J

    D. Bhatti, J. von Zanthier, and G. S. Agarwal, Super- bunching and Nonclassicality as new Hallmarks of Su- perradiance, Scientific Reports 5, 17335 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Shahmoon, D

    E. Shahmoon, D. S. Wild, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, Cooperative Resonances in Light Scattering from Two-Dimensional Atomic Arrays, Physical Review Let- ters 118, 113601 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    S. J. Masson, I. Ferrier-Barbut, L. A. Orozco, A. Browaeys, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Many-Body Signa- tures of Collective Decay in Atomic Chains, Physical Re- view Letters 125, 263601 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Universality of Dicke superradiance in arrays of quantum emitters, Nature Communications 13, 2285 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Rubies-Bigorda and S

    O. Rubies-Bigorda and S. F. Yelin, Superradiance and subradiance in inverted atomic arrays, Physical Review A 106, 053717 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Rubies-Bigorda, S

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, S. Ostermann, and S. F. Yelin, Char- acterizing superradiant dynamics in atomic arrays via a cumulant expansion approach, Physical Review Research 5, 013091 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    W.-K. Mok, A. Asenjo-Garcia, T. C. Sum, and L.-C. Kwek, Dicke Superradiance Requires Interactions beyond Nearest Neighbors, Physical Review Letters 130, 213605 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    S. J. Masson, J. P. Covey, S. Will, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Dicke Superradiance in Ordered Arrays of Multilevel Atoms, PRX Quantum 5, 010344 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Holzinger and S

    R. Holzinger and S. Yelin, Collective Superradiance: Estimating the Peak Emission Rate and Time (2025), arXiv:2504.09985 [quant-ph]

    2025

  10. [18]

    Holzinger and S

    R. Holzinger and S. F. Yelin, Beyond Dicke superradi- ance: Universal scaling of the peak emission rate (2025), arXiv:2506.12649 [quant-ph]

    2025

  11. [19]

    Abate and H

    E. Abate and H. Haken, Exakte Behandlung eines Maser- Modells, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A19, 857 (1964)

    1964

  12. [20]

    Bonifacio and G

    R. Bonifacio and G. Preparata, Coherent Spontaneous Emission, Physical Review A 2, 336 (1970)

    1970

  13. [21]

    S. M. Barnett and P. L. Knight, Collective and Quan- tum Effects in Models of Rydberg Atom Maser Evo- lution, Optica Acta: International Journal of Optics 10.1080/713821515 (1984)

    1984 doi

  14. [22]

    Seke and F

    J. Seke and F. Rattay, Influence of the Fock-state field on the many-atom radiation processes in a damped cavity, Physical Review A 39, 171 (1989)

    1989

  15. [23]

    J. Seke, O. Hittmair, and F. Rattay, Collapse and revival phenomena in the many-atom-jaynes-cummings model in the presence on initial fock- and coherent-state fields, Op- tics Communications 70, 281 (1989)

    1989

  16. [24]

    P. R. Eastham, The new physics of non-equilibrium con- densates: Insights from classical dynamics, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 19, 295210 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Hepp and E

    K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, On the superradiant phase tran- sition for molecules in a quantized radiation field: The dicke maser model, Annals of Physics 76, 360 (1973)

    1973

  18. [26]

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

    1973

  19. [27]

    Baumann, C

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

    2010

  20. [28]

    Kirton, M

    P. Kirton, M. M. Roses, J. Keeling, and E. G. Dalla Torre, Introduction to the Dicke Model: From Equilibrium to Nonequilibrium, and Vice Versa, Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies 2, 1800043 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

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

    2020

  22. [30]

    Haake, M

    F. Haake, M. I. Kolobov, C. Fabre, E. Giacobino, and S. Reynaud, Superradiant laser, Physical Review Letters 71, 995 (1993)

    1993

  23. [31]

    Meiser, J

    D. Meiser, J. Ye, D. R. Carlson, and M. J. Holland, Prospects for a Millihertz-Linewidth Laser, Physical Re- view Letters 102, 163601 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    J. G. Bohnet, Z. Chen, J. M. Weiner, D. Meiser, M. J. Holland, and J. K. Thompson, A steady-state superradi- ant laser with less than one intracavity photon, Nature 484, 78 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Tavis and F

    M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Exact Solution for an N-Molecule—Radiation-Field Hamiltonian, Physical Re- view 170, 379 (1968)

    1968

  26. [34]

    Keeling, Quantum corrections to the semiclassical col- lective dynamics in the Tavis-Cummings model, Physical Review A 79, 053825 (2009)

    J. Keeling, Quantum corrections to the semiclassical col- lective dynamics in the Tavis-Cummings model, Physical Review A 79, 053825 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Babelon, L

    O. Babelon, L. Cantini, and B. Dou¸ cot, A semi-classical study of the Jaynes–Cummings model, Journal of Statis- tical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2009, P07011 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    A. V. Andreev, V. Gurarie, and L. Radzihovsky, Nonequilibrium Dynamics and Thermodynamics of a De- generate Fermi Gas Across a Feshbach Resonance, Phys- ical Review Letters 93, 130402 (2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    R. A. Barankov and L. S. Levitov, Atom-Molecule Co- existence and Collective Dynamics Near a Feshbach Res- onance of Cold Fermions, Physical Review Letters 93, 130403 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    M. H. Szyma´ nska, B. D. Simons, and K. Burnett, Dy- namics of the BCS-BEC Crossover in a Degenerate Fermi Gas, Physical Review Letters 94, 170402 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    E. A. Yuzbashyan, V. B. Kuznetsov, and B. L. Altshuler, Integrable dynamics of coupled Fermi-Bose condensates, Physical Review B 72, 144524 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    P. R. Eastham and R. T. Phillips, Quantum condensa- tion from a tailored exciton population in a microcavity, Physical Review B 79, 165303 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    B. C. Rose, A. M. Tyryshkin, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosi- mov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, K. M. Itoh, and S. A. Lyon, Coherent Rabi Dynamics of a Su- perradiant Spin Ensemble in a Microwave Cavity, Phys- ical Review X 7, 031002 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Kling, E

    P. Kling, E. Giese, C. M. Carmesin, R. Sauerbrey, and W. P. Schleich, High-gain quantum free-electron laser: Long-time dynamics and requirements, Physical Review Research 3, 033232 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Str¨ ater, O

    C. Str¨ ater, O. Tsyplyatyev, and A. Faribault, Nonequi- librum dynamics in the strongly excited inhomogeneous Dicke model, Physical Review B 86, 195101 (2012). 11

    2012

  36. [44]

    J¨ urgens, F

    K. J¨ urgens, F. Lengers, D. Groll, D. E. Reiter, D. Wig- ger, and T. Kuhn, Comparison of the semiclassical and quantum optical field dynamics in a pulse-excited optical cavity with a finite number of quantum emitters, Physical Review B 104, 205308 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Tsyplyatyev and D

    O. Tsyplyatyev and D. Loss, Dynamics of the inhomoge- neous Dicke model for a single-boson mode coupled to a bath of nonidentical spin-1/2 systems, Physical Review A 80, 023803 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Tsyplyatyev and D

    O. Tsyplyatyev and D. Loss, Classical and quantum regimes of the inhomogeneous Dicke model and its Ehren- fest time, Physical Review B 82, 024305 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    J. A. ´Cwik, S. Reja, P. B. Littlewood, and J. Keeling, Polariton condensation with saturable molecules dressed by vibrational modes, Europhysics Letters 105, 47009 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Herrera and F

    F. Herrera and F. C. Spano, Theory of Nanoscale Or- ganic Cavities: The Essential Role of Vibration-Photon Dressed States, ACS Photonics 5, 65 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Wellnitz, G

    D. Wellnitz, G. Pupillo, and J. Schachenmayer, Disor- der enhanced vibrational entanglement and dynamics in polaritonic chemistry, Communications Physics 5, 120 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    D. Wang, H. Kelkar, D. Martin-Cano, D. Rattenbacher, A. Shkarin, T. Utikal, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, Turning a molecule into a coherent two-level quantum system, Nature Physics 15, 483 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    T¨ orm¨ a and W

    P. T¨ orm¨ a and W. L. Barnes, Strong coupling between surface plasmon polaritons and emitters: A review, Re- ports on Progress in Physics 78, 013901 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    T. K. Hakala, A. J. Moilanen, A. I. V¨ akev¨ ainen, R. Guo, J.-P. Martikainen, K. S. Daskalakis, H. T. Rekola, A. Julku, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Bose–Einstein condensation in a plasmonic lattice, Nature Physics 14, 739 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    De Giorgi, M

    M. De Giorgi, M. Ramezani, F. Todisco, A. Halpin, D. Caputo, A. Fieramosca, J. Gomez-Rivas, and D. San- vitto, Interaction and Coherence of a Plasmon–Exciton Polariton Condensate, ACS Photonics 5, 3666 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Keeling and S

    J. Keeling and S. K´ ena-Cohen, Bose–Einstein Condensa- tion of Exciton-Polaritons in Organic Microcavities, An- nual Review of Physical Chemistry 71, 435 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    A. I. V¨ akev¨ ainen, A. J. Moilanen, M. Neˇ cada, T. K. Hakala, K. S. Daskalakis, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Sub-picosecond thermalization dynamics in condensation of strongly cou- pled lattice plasmons, Nature Communications 11, 3139 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Roden, W

    J. Roden, W. T. Strunz, K. B. Whaley, and A. Eisfeld, Accounting for intra-molecular vibrational modes in open quantum system description of molecular systems, The Journal of Chemical Physics 137, 204110 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    B. A. Chase and J. M. Geremia, Collective processes of an ensemble of spin-1/2 particles, Physical Review A 78, 052101 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    M. Xu, D. A. Tieri, and M. J. Holland, Simulating open quantum systems by applying SU(4) to quantum master equations, Physical Review A 87, 062101 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Richter, M

    M. Richter, M. Gegg, T. S. Theuerholz, and A. Knorr, Numerically exact solution of the many emitter–cavity laser problem: Application to the fully quantized spaser emission, Physical Review B 91, 035306 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Damanet, D

    F. Damanet, D. Braun, and J. Martin, Cooperative spon- taneous emission from indistinguishable atoms in arbi- trary motional quantum states, Physical Review A 94, 033838 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Kirton and J

    P. Kirton and J. Keeling, Suppressing and Restoring the Dicke Superradiance Transition by Dephasing and Decay, Physical Review Letters 118, 123602 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Shammah, S

    N. Shammah, S. Ahmed, N. Lambert, S. De Liberato, and F. Nori, Open quantum systems with local and col- lective incoherent processes: Efficient numerical simula- tions using permutational invariance, Physical Review A 98, 063815 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Barberena, Generalized holstein-primakoff mapping and 1 /n expansion of collective spin systems undergo- ing single particle dissipation (2025), arXiv:2508.05751 [quant-ph]

    D. Barberena, Generalized holstein-primakoff mapping and 1 /n expansion of collective spin systems undergo- ing single particle dissipation (2025), arXiv:2508.05751 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Z.-X. Gong, M. Xu, M. Foss-Feig, J. K. Thompson, A. M. Rey, M. Holland, and A. V. Gorshkov, Steady- state superradiance with Rydberg polaritons (2016), arXiv:1611.00797 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    P. R. Eastham and P. B. Littlewood, Bose condensation of cavity polaritons beyond the linear regime: The ther- mal equilibrium of a model microcavity, Physical Review B 64, 235101 (2001)

    2001

  58. [66]

    Mori, Exactness of the mean-field dynamics in optical cavity systems, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2013, P06005 (2013)

    T. Mori, Exactness of the mean-field dynamics in optical cavity systems, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2013, P06005 (2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    Carollo and I

    F. Carollo and I. Lesanovsky, Exactness of Mean-Field Equations for Open Dicke Models with an Application to Pattern Retrieval Dynamics, Physical Review Letters 126, 230601 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    Robicheaux and D

    F. Robicheaux and D. A. Suresh, Beyond lowest order mean-field theory for light interacting with atom arrays, Physical Review A 104, 023702 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Fowler-Wright, K

    P. Fowler-Wright, K. B. Arnard´ ottir, P. Kirton, B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling, Determining the validity of cumu- lant expansions for central spin models, Physical Review Research 5, 033148 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    K. C. Stitely, F. Finger, R. Rosa-Medina, F. Ferri, T. Donner, T. Esslinger, S. Parkins, and B. Krauskopf, Quantum Fluctuation Dynamics of Dispersive Superra- diant Pulses in a Hybrid Light-Matter System, Physical Review Letters 131, 143604 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Carollo, Non-Gaussian Dynamics of Quantum Fluc- tuations and Mean-Field Limit in Open Quantum Cen- tral Spin Systems, Physical Review Letters 131, 227102 (2023)

    F. Carollo, Non-Gaussian Dynamics of Quantum Fluc- tuations and Mean-Field Limit in Open Quantum Cen- tral Spin Systems, Physical Review Letters 131, 227102 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, New York, 2002)

    2002

  65. [73]

    J. M. Radcliffe, Some properties of coherent spin states, Journal of Physics A: General Physics 4, 313 (1971)

    1971

  66. [74]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  67. [75]

    Rosario, L

    P. Rosario, L. O. R. Solak, A. Cidrim, R. Bachelard, and J. Schachenmayer, Unraveling Dicke Superradiant Decay with Separable Coherent Spin States (2025), arXiv:2504.13418 [quant-ph]

    2025

  68. [76]

    Buˇ ca and T

    B. Buˇ ca and T. Prosen, A note on symmetry reductions of the Lindblad equation: Transport in constrained open spin chains, New Journal of Physics 14, 073007 (2012)

    2012

  69. [77]

    V. V. Albert and L. Jiang, Symmetries and conserved quantities in Lindblad master equations, Physical Review A 89, 022118 (2014)

    2014

  70. [78]

    Bonifacio, P

    R. Bonifacio, P. Schwendimann, and F. Haake, Quantum Statistical Theory of Superradiance. II, Physical Review A 4, 854 (1971). 12

    1971

  71. [79]

    Gardiner, Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009)

    C. Gardiner, Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009)

    2009

  72. [80]

    Plankensteiner, C

    D. Plankensteiner, C. Hotter, and H. Ritsch, Quantum- Cumulants.jl: A Julia framework for generalized mean- field equations in open quantum systems, Quantum 6, 617 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    (10) and Eq

    We note that since the dominant vibrational mode is in- cluded in the system description in the HTC model, the dephasing terms in Eq. (10) and Eq. (2) have different meanings in principle. However, since we only set γϕ > 0 in case S = 0, the two dephasing rates are equivalent

  74. [82]

    J. R. Mannouch, W. Barford, and S. Al-Assam, Ultra-fast relaxation, decoherence, and localization of photoexcited states in π-conjugated polymers, The Journal of Chemi- cal Physics 148, 034901 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    Friedberg, S

    R. Friedberg, S. R. Hartmann, and J. T. Manassah, Lim- ited superradiant damping of small samples, Physics Let- ters A 40, 365 (1972)

    1972

  76. [84]

    Friedberg and S

    R. Friedberg and S. R. Hartmann, Temporal evolution of superradiance in a small sphere, Physical Review A 10, 1728 (1974)

    1974

  77. [85]

    Coffey and R

    B. Coffey and R. Friedberg, Effect of short-range Coulomb interaction on cooperative spontaneous emis- sion, Physical Review A 17, 1033 (1978)

    1978

Pith tools

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