Superradiant Phase is a Finite Size Effect in Two-photon Processes

David Villase\~{n}or; Fabrizio Ram\'{i}rez; Jorge G. Hirsch; Nahum V\'{a}zquez

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Superradiant Phase is a Finite Size Effect in Two-photon Processes

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The superradiant phase of the two-photon Dicke model is a finite-size effect that disappears in the thermodynamic limit, leaving spectral collapse as the only genuine collective instability.

desk verdict Correct and useful correction to the two-photon Dicke superradiance claim, with presentation gaps around coupling conventions and numerics. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.19986 v2 pith:ADXIHTHO submitted 2026-01-27 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Fabrizio Ramírez , David Villaseñor , Nahum Vázquez , Jorge G. Hirsch This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech MSC 81V8082B26 PACS 42.50.Ct42.50.Pq

keywords two-photonDickemodelsuperradiantphasefinite-sizeeffectthermodynamiclimitspectralcollapsesqueezedcoherentstatesGlauberquantumtransition

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

Drawing on analytical mean-field expressions and numerical diagonalization, the paper argues that the superradiant phase reported for the two-photon Dicke model—N two-level atoms coupled to a single cavity mode by two-photon transitions—is not a genuine thermodynamic phase. The superradiant stationary solutions exist only when j²ω0² < γ²; since this inequality cannot be maintained as the number of atoms j grows while the coupling γ and atomic frequency ω0 stay fixed, the superradiant region shrinks and vanishes in the thermodynamic limit. The paper contrasts two classical limits: the squeezed-vacuum mean field that produced the superradiant solutions, and a Glauber-coherent-state mean field that yields only the normal phase and correctly describes spectral collapse at γ = ω/2. A sympathetic reader would take this as a clarification of two-photon superradiance that constrains quantum-technology proposals relying on a superradiant phase.

What carries the argument

The argument hinges on comparing two mean-field classical limits of the same quantum Hamiltonian. The squeezed-vacuum classical Hamiltonian uses squeezed states for the boson and Bloch coherent states for the spin; its stationary points x± depend explicitly on j and exist only for j²ω0² < γ². The Glauber-coherent-state Hamiltonian uses ordinary coherent states; its stationary equations admit a single real solution y0 (normal phase) and two complex solutions y±. In the limit j→∞, the squeezed-state extrema x± continuously become the complex solutions y± of the coherent-state Hamiltonian, while x0 becomes y0. This mapping is the load-bearing identity: it shows that the superradiant solutions h

What would settle it

A calculation that finds a nonzero superradiant order parameter, such as a macroscopic photon density ⟨â†â⟩/j, persisting in the j→∞ limit at fixed γ and ω0 would falsify the paper's claim; concretely, exact diagonalization of the two-photon Dicke model for large j (e.g., j=200,400,800) could test whether the photon number extrapolates to zero for γ<ω/2, or whether a genuine discontinuity develops at a finite critical coupling. The paper's analytical condition j²ω0² < γ² predicts the former; observing the latter would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two-photon Dicke model, defined by the Hamiltonian H_D = ω â†â + ω0 Ĵz + (γ/N)(â†² + â²)(Ĵ+ + Ĵ−), has no superradiant phase in the thermodynamic limit j→∞. The squeezed-state mean-field solution, which previously yielded a superradiant phase for γ > γc = √(ωω0j/2), requires the condition j²ω0² < γ². At fixed γ and ω0, this condition fails once j is large enough, so the superradiant extrema become complex numbers and therefore unphysical. The Glauber-coherent-state classical limit has exactly one real stationary point, reproducing the normal-phase ground state E0 = −jω0; its complex stationary points are precisely the j→∞ limit of the squeezed-state superradiant

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on defining the thermodynamic limit as j→∞ with γ and ω0 held fixed, and on treating the Glauber-coherent-state classical limit as the physically meaningful one; if the relevant scaling instead grows the coupling with system size (γ ∝ √j), the paper's central inequality no longer rules out superradiance, and the argument would need the additional, unstated fact that such couplings leave no bounded ground state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any fixed coupling γ and atomic frequency ω0, the ground state of the two-photon Dicke model remains in the normal phase as j→∞; there is no superradiant phase transition.
The apparent superradiant region at finite j is a crossover whose width shrinks to zero in the thermodynamic limit; observables such as the photon number develop delta-like or step-function behavior at ω0=0, which is incompatible with a stable phase.
Spectral collapse at γ=ω/2 is a genuine, size-independent phenomenon and can be identified as the point where the classical energy surface becomes unbounded.
Previous mean-field treatments based on squeezed states (Holstein–Primakoff plus Bogoliubov) misclassify the thermodynamic behavior of the model, since their superradiant extrema become complex as j→∞.
Proposals that assume a superradiant phase in two-photon Dicke devices, such as quantum batteries, cannot rely on an ideal closed-system superradiant phase; either the coupling must scale with system size or dissipation must stabilize the state, which the paper leaves open.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: The paper's argument implicitly fixes the thermodynamic limit as j→∞ at constant γ and ω0. If one instead adopts the ultrastrong-coupling scaling γ ∝ √j used in the original superradiance report, the inequality j²ω0² < γ² could be satisfied at any j, but such a coupling exceeds the spectral-collapse threshold γ_sc = ω/2, so the Hamiltonian would have no bounded ground state; the paper d
Inference: The finite-size crossover could in principle be detected experimentally as a smooth but sharp feature in the photon number or atomic inversion at γ ≈ √(ωω0j/2). Since the feature moves to larger couplings as j grows, a scanning of atom number would reveal the absence of a true phase boundary.
Inference: A natural follow-up calculation is to compute the fidelity susceptibility or the Binder cumulant of the photon number from exact diagonalization at fixed γ; the paper's claim predicts these diagnostics show no genuine critical scaling in j, only a broad crossover that sharpens and disappears.
Inference: The role of dissipation remains open: if engineered loss can stabilize a superradiant steady state, the closed-system result here would delimit the parameter region where such a state must be a genuine nonequilibrium phase rather than a finite-size artifact.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The main claim of this paper is right: the superradiant phase of the two-photon Dicke model, as previously reported, is a finite-size crossover and not a thermodynamic phase. The argument is transparent: their own mean-field expressions require j²ω0² < γ² for the superradiant solutions to be real, and for fixed γ and ω0 that condition fails as j→∞. The numerics up to j=100 show the phase region shrinking accordingly, and the spectral-collapse surface is a nice phase-space picture.

The paper also does something genuinely new: it shows that the squeezed-state stationary points that define the superradiant phase become complex in the j→∞ limit, mapping onto the complex stationary points of the Glauber-coherent-state classical limit. That is a clean way to see why the squeezed mean-field was misleading, and it gives a practical rule for when to trust a variational manifold.

The soft spots are mostly presentation. The biggest one: the paper never maps its coupling convention to the one used in the original reports [69,70], which write the coupling as g/√N. In that convention, the collective coupling grows as √j, so a reader might think the paper's fixed-γ limit is not the relevant one. The stress-test note is correct that the conclusion is robust even under the g/√N scaling — the condition becomes jω0² < 2g², which also fails for large j — but the paper should say that explicitly. Right now the proof as written only covers the fixed-γ limit, and the original convention is left unaddressed.

Two smaller issues. First, there is no numerical method section, no code, no data; the claim of "complete agreement" between analytics and numerics is not checkable. That is easy to fix. Second, the choice of the coherent-state classical limit over the squeezed one is justified by the complex-solution mapping, not derived from a variational principle. The mapping is convincing, but a sentence or two on why this is the correct limit (rather than just an assertion) would help.

The paper does not engage ref [70]'s finite-size scaling analysis, which seems directly relevant to the claim that the phase is finite-size. That is a missed opportunity but not a fatal flaw.

Who should read this: anyone working on two-photon cavity-QED, ultrastrong coupling, or two-photon quantum battery proposals that assume superradiant operation. It provides a concrete constraint on those platforms.

I would send this to peer review. The central result is sound and useful, and the gaps are addressable in revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the two-photon Dicke model, Eq. (1), in the coupling convention γ/N with j=N/2. Using a squeezed-state Holstein–Primakoff/Bogoliubov mean field, it reproduces the previously reported superradiant phase and shows that the superradiant stationary points are real only under j²ω0² < γ² (together with γ < ω/2). Hence, at fixed γ and ω0, the superradiant region shrinks as j grows and disappears as j→∞; the reported critical coupling γ_c=√(ωω0j/2) is not a thermodynamic phase boundary. A Glauber-coherent-state classical limit has only the normal-phase real stationary point for γ<ω/2, and the squeezed-state superradiant solutions formally tend to complex coherent-state solutions. Spectral collapse at γ=ω/2 survives, as seen in the unbounded effective surface Eq. (9). Exact diagonalization results for j up to 100–200 are presented in support.

Significance. If correct, the result overturns the published prediction of a genuine superradiant phase in the two-photon Dicke model and sharpens the distinction between superradiance and spectral collapse. The paper is valuable because it provides explicit analytic stationary conditions, finite-size scaling, and independent numerical cross-checks; the prediction that the superradiant region disappears with increasing j is falsifiable. The main caveat is that the thermodynamic limit is taken at fixed γ, which is not automatically the convention used in the original reports [69,70]. I regard the central claim as likely correct, but the manuscript needs to state and justify its coupling convention more carefully before the claim can be considered established.

major comments (2)

[Eq. (1); Sec. ‘Thermodynamic limit and disappearance of the superradiant phase’] The Hamiltonian uses γ/N, so γ is the collective coupling of the atomic ensemble to the two-photon mode. The original reports [69,70] use the g/√N convention, but the manuscript never gives the mapping between the two. With γ=g√N=g√(2j), the superradiant stationarity condition j²ω0²<γ² becomes jω0²<2g², which still fails for j→∞ at fixed g and ω0, but this is not the argument given in the text. Moreover, in that convention γ=g√(2j) exceeds the spectral-collapse bound ω/2 for j>ω²/(8g²), so the Hamiltonian becomes unbounded below and neither the normal nor the superradiant phase is well defined. The authors should state this mapping explicitly and either justify that the physically relevant thermodynamic limit is fixed γ (equivalently g∝1/√N) or analyze the fixed-g scaling directly.
[SM Eq. (S39); Sec. ‘Spectral collapse in bosonic phase space’] The demonstration that the squeezed-state superradiant stationary points x± tend to the complex coherent-state points y± is a statement about the chosen variational manifolds. The conclusion stated as ‘the superradiant phase is not allowed’ is one step stronger than what is proven: it assumes that the exact ground state is captured by these mean-field ansätze. The exact diagonalization results in Figs. 1–2 support the finite-size trend, but only up to j=100–200 and with no details on the bosonic truncation or convergence. I ask the authors to either add a rigorous scaling argument (for example, a lower bound on the ground-state energy density in the superradiant region) or soften the claim to ‘the superradiant mean-field solutions are finite-size artifacts’.

minor comments (5)

[Eqs. (5)–(7)] The reality conditions for the superradiant expressions are not stated together. The solutions require both γ<ω/2 and jω0<ω/2; the latter gives the finite-size upper bound j<ω/(2ω0). Stating this explicitly would sharpen the central message and make the finite-size nature of the superradiant region immediate.
[SM after Eq. (S39)] The sentence ‘the superradiant phase is not allowed’ is stronger than ‘the mean-field superradiant solutions are not allowed’. Please align the wording with the actual analytical content.
[Figs. 1, S1, S2] The analytical and numerical phase diagrams use different color scales; a common scale would make the agreement easier to assess. Also, the main text does not describe the exact-diagonalization method, bosonic Hilbert-space truncation, or convergence checks; a short description should be added.
[Abstract and Conclusion] The paper uses both ‘finite-size effect’ and ‘finite-size crossover’. These are not identical; please define one consistent terminology.
[References [69,70]] Because the manuscript directly contradicts Ref. [69], the coupling convention of that work should be quoted explicitly when it is introduced. This is related to major comment 1, but a one-sentence clarification in the introduction would avoid reader confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the finite-size conclusion is an algebraic consequence of external mean-field equations, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central chain is not circular. The mean-field ground-state expressions (5)-(7) are taken from the external Ref. [69]; the paper only algebraically analyzes their domain of validity: SP stationary points require j^2 ω0^2 < γ^2 and γ < ω/2, so for fixed γ, ω0 the interval j ω0 < γ < ω/2 has vanishing length as j→∞. This is a direct consequence of the input Hamiltonian and external mean-field equations, not a fit or a renaming. The coherent-state construction (Eq. (8), SM Eq. (S31)) is derived in the SM and is used mainly to characterize spectral collapse; it is attributed in one place to the authors' own Ref. [68], but that citation is not load-bearing because the derivation is self-contained and the disappearance argument does not depend on it. The numerical exact-diagonalization results corroborate rather than define the analytical claim. The main scope caveat—that the paper fixes γ while the original superradiance reports may use g/√N scaling—concerns applicability of the thermodynamic-limit convention, not circularity; moreover the bound γ<ω/2 makes the conclusion robust in any convention. Therefore no step reduces to its own input; the score reflects only the minor self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted: ω, ω0, γ, j are model inputs from Eq. (1), and the classical-limit constructions introduce no adjustable constants; the conclusion follows from the existence condition of the reported mean-field solutions. No new entities are postulated. The main unstated inputs are the fully symmetric sector choice, the mean-field ansatz inherited from ref [69], the authority of the coherent-state classical limit over the squeezed one, and the fixed-(γ,ω0) thermodynamic limit.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Fully symmetric sector j = N/2 and coupling scaled as γ/N govern the thermodynamic limit (Eq. 1).
Stated after Eq. (1): 'we focus on the fully symmetric subspace with j=N/2'. The standard Dicke scaling γ/N is inherited from ref [69]; alternative coupling scalings or non-symmetric sectors are not considered.
domain assumption The ground-state ansatz is the squeezed vacuum |r_b⟩ from the Holstein-Primakoff/Bogoliubov treatment (Eq. (2), SM Sec. 1, ref [69]).
The finite-size SP analysis inherits the variational ansatz of [69]; the paper does not prove the ansatz exhaustive, only that it reproduces the reported solutions.
domain assumption The squeezed-vacuum classical limit (Eq. (3)) is a valid classical representation used to define the SP stationary points.
This is the construction under scrutiny; the paper disqualifies it in the thermodynamic limit via the complex-solution mapping (SM Eqs. S25-S26, S39).
domain assumption The Glauber-Bloch coherent-state classical limit (Eq. (8)) is the physically correct classical limit as j→∞.
Load-bearing: 'only the latter yields physically meaningful stationary solutions as the system size diverges' (abstract). Its authority rests on standard practice (refs [75-80]) and the authors' own ref [68]; it is asserted rather than derived.
domain assumption The thermodynamic limit is j→∞ at fixed γ and ω0.
Convention taken in the section 'Thermodynamic limit and disappearance of the superradiant phase'. The alternative ultrastrong scaling γ∝√j used by ref [69] is not analyzed; the paper would need a separate argument (spectral collapse at γ_sc=ω/2) to exclude it.
standard math Spectral collapse occurs at γ_sc = ω/2 independent of j (refs [60-63]) and is captured by the effective surface Eq. (9).
Inherited from the two-photon Rabi/Dicke literature; confirmed here by the phase-space flattening in Fig. 3.
domain assumption The numerical diagonalizations are converged (implicit unspecified bosonic truncation).
Numerical method is not described; 'complete agreement' with analytics assumes converged truncation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superradiant Phase is a Finite Size Effect in Two-photon Processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ADXIHTHO

@misc{pith2026260119986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superradiant Phase is a Finite Size Effect in Two-photon Processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ADXIHTHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.19986}
}

read the original abstract

Two-photon light-matter interactions exhibit distinctive features such as spectral collapse. The two-photon Dicke model has been reported to exhibit a superradiant phase which could be useful in quantum applications. Here we show that this superradiant phase is not a genuine thermodynamic phase but a finite-size effect. Combining analytical and numerical analyses, we demonstrate that the superradiant region shrinks with increasing system size and disappears in the thermodynamic limit, while spectral collapse remains. Our results clarify the nature of superradiant conditions in two-photon systems and constrain its realization in quantum platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.19986 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Projections of (a1) displaced ground-state energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a1)-(a4) Energy surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[70]

Finite-size scaling analysis in the two-photon Dicke model,

Xiang-You Chen and Yu-Yu Zhang, “Finite-size scaling analysis in the two-photon Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 053821 (2018)

2018
[1]

Scully and M

Marlan O. Scully and M. Suhail Zubairy,Quantum optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

1997
[2]

Quantum metrology and its application in biology,

Michael A. Taylor and Warwick P. Bowen, “Quantum metrology and its application in biology,” Phys. Rep. 615, 1–59 (2016)

2016
[3]

Quantum sensing,

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

2017
[4]

Quantum metrology with quantum-chaotic sensors,

Lukas J. Fiderer and Daniel Braun, “Quantum metrology with quantum-chaotic sensors,” Nature Commun.9, 1351 (2018)

2018
[5]

Quantum sensing for energy applications: Review and perspective,

Scott E. Crawford, Roman A. Shugayev, Hari P. Paudel, Ping Lu, Madhava Syamlal, Paul R. Ohodnicki, Ben- jamin Chorpening, Randall Gentry, and Yuhua Duan, “Quantum sensing for energy applications: Review and perspective,” Adv. Quantum Technol.4, 2100049 (2021)

2021
[6]

Review: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems,

Victor Montenegro, Chiranjib Mukhopadhyay, Rozhin Yousefjani, Saubhik Sarkar, Utkarsh Mishra, Mat- teo G.A. Paris, and Abolfazl Bayat, “Review: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems,” Phys. Rep.1134, 1–62 (2025)

2025
[7]

Universal quantum simulators,

Seth Lloyd, “Universal quantum simulators,” Science 273, 1073–1078 (1996)

1996

Show all 80 references

[8]

Quantum simulation,

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and Franco Nori, “Quantum simulation,” Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153–185 (2014)

2014
[9]

Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics,

Anton Zeilinger, “Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.71, S288–S297 (1999)

1999
[10]

Quantum communica- tion,

Nicolas Gisin and Rob Thew, “Quantum communica- tion,” Nature Photonics1, 165–171 (2007)

2007
[11]

Measuring the scrambling of quan- tum information,

Brian Swingle, Gregory Bentsen, Monika Schleier-Smith, and Patrick Hayden, “Measuring the scrambling of quan- tum information,” Phys. Rev. A94, 040302 (2016)

2016
[12]

Verified quan- tum information scrambling,

K. A. Landsman, C. Figgatt, T. Schuster, N. M. Linke, B. Yoshida, N. Y. Yao, and C. Monroe, “Verified quan- tum information scrambling,” Nature567, 61–65 (2019)

2019
[13]

Quan- tum technology: the second quantum revolution,

Jonathan P. Dowling and Gerard J. Milburn, “Quan- tum technology: the second quantum revolution,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A361, 1655–1674 (2003)

2003
[14]

Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses,

R. H. Dicke, “Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses,” Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

1954
[15]

Introduction to the Dicke model: From equilibrium to nonequilibrium, and vice versa,

Peter Kirton, Mor M. Roses, Jonathan Keeling, and Emanuele G. Dalla Torre, “Introduction to the Dicke model: From equilibrium to nonequilibrium, and vice versa,” Adv. Quantum Technol.2, 1800043 (2019)

2019
[16]

Dicke model,

Mor M. Roses and Emanuele G. Dalla Torre, “Dicke model,” PLOS ONE15, 1–8 (2020)

2020
[17]

Jonas Larson and Themistoklis Mavrogordatos,The Jaynes–Cummings Model and Its Descendants, 2053- 2563 (IOP Publishing, 2021)
[18]

Clas- sical and quantum properties of the spin-boson Dicke model: Chaos, localization, and scarring,

David Villase˜ nor, Sa´ ul Pilatowsky-Cameo, Jorge Ch´ avez- Carlos, Miguel A. Bastarrachea-Magnani, Sergio Lerma- Hern´ andez, Lea F. Santos, and Jorge G. Hirsch, “Clas- sical and quantum properties of the spin-boson Dicke model: Chaos, localization, and scarring,” (2024), ar...

2024 arXiv
[19]

Chaos and the quan- tum phase transition in the Dicke model,

Clive Emary and Tobias Brandes, “Chaos and the quan- tum phase transition in the Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. E 67, 066203 (2003)

2003
[20]

Quantum chaos trig- gered by precursors of a quantum phase transition: The Dicke model,

Clive Emary and Tobias Brandes, “Quantum chaos trig- gered by precursors of a quantum phase transition: The Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 044101 (2003)

2003
[21]

En- tanglement and the phase transition in single-mode su- perradiance,

Neill Lambert, Clive Emary, and Tobias Brandes, “En- tanglement and the phase transition in single-mode su- perradiance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 073602 (2004)

2004
[22]

Coherent and collective quantum opti- cal effects in mesoscopic systems,

Tobias Brandes, “Coherent and collective quantum opti- cal effects in mesoscopic systems,” Phys. Rep.408, 315– 6 474 (2005)

2005
[23]

Excited-state quantum phase transi- tions in Dicke superradiance models,

Tobias Brandes, “Excited-state quantum phase transi- tions in Dicke superradiance models,” Phys. Rev. E88, 032133 (2013)

2013
[24]

Superradi- ance,

Nicholas E. Rehler and Joseph H. Eberly, “Superradi- ance,” Phys. Rev. A3, 1735–1751 (1971)

1971
[25]

Quantum statistical theory of superradiance. I,

R. Bonifacio, P. Schwendimann, and Fritz Haake, “Quantum statistical theory of superradiance. I,” Phys. Rev. A4, 302–313 (1971)

1971
[26]

Theory of superra- diance in an extended, optically thick medium,

J. C. MacGillivray and M. S. Feld, “Theory of superra- diance in an extended, optically thick medium,” Phys. Rev. A14, 1169–1189 (1976)

1976
[27]

Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission,

Michel Gross and Serge Haroche, “Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission,” Phys. Rep.93, 301–396 (1982)

1982
[28]

Superradiance in inverted multilevel atomic clouds,

R. T. Sutherland and F. Robicheaux, “Superradiance in inverted multilevel atomic clouds,” Phys. Rev. A95, 033839 (2017)

2017
[29]

Many-body signatures of collective decay in atomic chains,

Stuart J. Masson, Igor Ferrier-Barbut, Luis A. Orozco, Antoine Browaeys, and Ana Asenjo-Garcia, “Many-body signatures of collective decay in atomic chains,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 263601 (2020)

2020
[30]

Universality of Dicke superradiance in arrays of quantum emitters,

Stuart J. Masson and Ana Asenjo-Garcia, “Universality of Dicke superradiance in arrays of quantum emitters,” Nature Communications13, 2285 (2022)

2022
[31]

Dicke superradiance in ordered lattices: Dimensionality matters,

Eric Sierra, Stuart J. Masson, and Ana Asenjo-Garcia, “Dicke superradiance in ordered lattices: Dimensionality matters,” Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023207 (2022)

2022
[32]

Emergent dark states from superradiant dynamics in multilevel atoms in a cavity,

A. Pi˜ neiro Orioli, J. K. Thompson, and A. M. Rey, “Emergent dark states from superradiant dynamics in multilevel atoms in a cavity,” Phys. Rev. X12, 011054 (2022)

2022
[33]

Many-body superradiance and dy- namical mirror symmetry breaking in waveguide QED,

Silvia Cardenas-Lopez, Stuart J. Masson, Zoe Zager, and Ana Asenjo-Garcia, “Many-body superradiance and dy- namical mirror symmetry breaking in waveguide QED,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 033605 (2023)

2023
[34]

Dicke superradiance in ordered ar- rays of multilevel atoms,

Stuart J. Masson, Jacob P. Covey, Sebastian Will, and Ana Asenjo-Garcia, “Dicke superradiance in ordered ar- rays of multilevel atoms,” PRX Quantum5, 010344 (2024)

2024
[35]

Unraveling Dicke superradiant decay with separable coherent spin states,

P. Rosario, L. O. R. Solak, A. Cidrim, R. Bachelard, and J. Schachenmayer, “Unraveling Dicke superradiant decay with separable coherent spin states,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 133602 (2025)

2025
[36]

Observation of Dicke superradiance in op- tically pumped HF gas,

N. Skribanowitz, I. P. Herman, J. C. MacGillivray, and M. S. Feld, “Observation of Dicke superradiance in op- tically pumped HF gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 309–312 (1973)

1973
[37]

Collective absorption of blackbody radia- tion by Rydberg atoms in a cavity: An experiment on Bose statistics and Brownian motion,

J. M. Raimond, P. Goy, M. Gross, C. Fabre, and S. Haroche, “Collective absorption of blackbody radia- tion by Rydberg atoms in a cavity: An experiment on Bose statistics and Brownian motion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 117–120 (1982)

1982
[38]

Superra- diant Rayleigh scattering from a Bose-Einstein conden- sate,

S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, J. Stenger, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, “Superra- diant Rayleigh scattering from a Bose-Einstein conden- sate,” Science285, 571–574 (1999)

1999
[39]

Superradiant Rayleigh scattering and collective atomic recoil lasing in a ring cavity,

S. Slama, S. Bux, G. Krenz, C. Zimmermann, and Ph. W. Courteille, “Superradiant Rayleigh scattering and collective atomic recoil lasing in a ring cavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 053603 (2007)

2007
[40]

Superradiance of quantum dots,

Michael Scheibner, Thomas Schmidt, Lukas Worschech, Alfred Forchel, Gerd Bacher, Thorsten Passow, and Detlef Hommel, “Superradiance of quantum dots,” Nat. Phys.3, 106–110 (2007)

2007
[41]

The multiquan- tum Jaynes-Cummings model with the counter-rotating terms,

C. F. Lo, K. L. Liu, and K. M. Ng, “The multiquan- tum Jaynes-Cummings model with the counter-rotating terms,” Europhys. Lett.42, 1 (1998)

1998
[42]

Thek-photon quantum Rabi model,

Daniel Braak, “Thek-photon quantum Rabi model,” in Mathematical Foundations for Post-Quantum Cryptogra- phy: Crypto-Math CREST, edited by Tsuyoshi Takagi, Masato Wakayama, Noboru Kunihiro, Keisuke Tanaka, Kazufumi Kimoto, and Momonari Kudo (Springer Na- ture Singapore, Singapo...

2026
[43]

Two-photon adiabatic inversion,

M. M. T. Loy, “Two-photon adiabatic inversion,” Phys. Rev. Lett.41, 473–476 (1978)

1978
[44]

Two-photon amplification on cascade-transitions,

H. Schlemmer, D. Fr¨ olich, and H. Welling, “Two-photon amplification on cascade-transitions,” Opt. Commun.32, 141–144 (1980)

1980
[45]

Two- photon laser,

B. Nikolaus, D. Z. Zhang, and P. E. Toschek, “Two- photon laser,” Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 171–173 (1981)

1981
[46]

Theory of the Rydberg-atom two-photon micromaser,

M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, “Theory of the Rydberg-atom two-photon micromaser,” Phys. Rev. A35, 154–163 (1987)

1987
[47]

Realization of a two-photon maser oscilla- tor,

M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, P. Goy, L. Davidovich, and S. Haroche, “Realization of a two-photon maser oscilla- tor,” Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 1899–1902 (1987)

1902
[48]

The two-photon Rydberg atom micro- maser,

M. Brune, J.M. Raimond, P. Goy, L. Davidovich, and S. Haroche, “The two-photon Rydberg atom micro- maser,” IEEE J. Quantum Electronics24, 1323–1330 (1988)

1988
[49]

Realization of a continuous-wave, two-photon optical laser,

Daniel J. Gauthier, Qilin Wu, S. E. Morin, and T. W. Mossberg, “Realization of a continuous-wave, two-photon optical laser,” Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 464–467 (1992)

1992
[50]

Two-photon Rabi os- cillations in a single In xGa1−xAs/GaAs quantum dot,

S. Stufler, P. Machnikowski, P. Ester, M. Bichler, V. M. Axt, T. Kuhn, and A. Zrenner, “Two-photon Rabi os- cillations in a single In xGa1−xAs/GaAs quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. B73, 125304 (2006)

2006
[51]

Two-photon lasing by a single quantum dot in a high-qmicrocavity,

Elena del Valle, Stefano Zippilli, Fabrice P. Laussy, Ale- jandro Gonzalez-Tudela, Giovanna Morigi, and Carlos Tejedor, “Two-photon lasing by a single quantum dot in a high-qmicrocavity,” Phys. Rev. B81, 035302 (2010)

2010
[52]

Two-photon quantum Rabi model with superconducting circuits,

S. Felicetti, D. Z. Rossatto, E. Rico, E. Solano, and P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, “Two-photon quantum Rabi model with superconducting circuits,” Phys. Rev. A97, 013851 (2018)

2018
[53]

Ultrafast charging in a two-photon Dicke quantum battery,

Alba Crescente, Matteo Carrega, Maura Sassetti, and Dario Ferraro, “Ultrafast charging in a two-photon Dicke quantum battery,” Phys. Rev. B102, 245407 (2020)

2020
[54]

Deep strong charging in a multiphoton anisotropic Dicke quantum battery,

Lu Wang, Shu-Qian Liu, Feng-lin Wu, Hao Fan, and Si-Yuan Liu, “Deep strong charging in a multiphoton anisotropic Dicke quantum battery,” Phys. Rev. A110, 042419 (2024)

2024
[55]

Vacuum-field Rabi oscillations of atoms in a cavity,

G. S. Agarwal, “Vacuum-field Rabi oscillations of atoms in a cavity,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B2, 480–485 (1985)

1985
[56]

Collapse and revivals in a two-photon absorption process,

P. Alsing and M. S. Zubairy, “Collapse and revivals in a two-photon absorption process,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B4, 177–184 (1987)

1987
[57]

Quantum electrodynam- ics of an atom making two-photon transitions in an ideal cavity,

R. R. Puri and R. K. Bullough, “Quantum electrodynam- ics of an atom making two-photon transitions in an ideal cavity,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B5, 2021–2028 (1988)

2021
[58]

Validity of the effective Hamiltonian in the two-photon atom-field interaction,

A. H. Toor and M. S. Zubairy, “Validity of the effective Hamiltonian in the two-photon atom-field interaction,” Phys. Rev. A45, 4951–4959 (1992)

1992
[59]

Coherent two-photon transitions in Rydberg atoms in a cavity with finite Q,

R. R. Puri and G. S. Agarwal, “Coherent two-photon transitions in Rydberg atoms in a cavity with finite Q,” Phys. Rev. A37, 3879–3883 (1988)

1988
[60]

Spectral collapse via two-phonon interactions in trapped ions,

S. Felicetti, J. S. Pedernales, I. L. Egusquiza, G. Romero, 7 L. Lamata, D. Braak, and E. Solano, “Spectral collapse via two-phonon interactions in trapped ions,” Phys. Rev. A92, 033817 (2015)

2015
[61]

Two-photon Rabi model: analytic solutions and spectral collapse,

Liwei Duan, You-Fei Xie, Daniel Braak, and Qing-Hu Chen, “Two-photon Rabi model: analytic solutions and spectral collapse,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.49, 464002 (2016)

2016
[62]

Spectral collapse in the two- photon quantum Rabi model,

R. J. Armenta Rico, F. H. Maldonado-Villamizar, and B. M. Rodriguez-Lara, “Spectral collapse in the two- photon quantum Rabi model,” Phys. Rev. A101, 063825 (2020)

2020
[63]

Spectral collapse in multiqubit two-photon Rabi model,

C. F. Lo, “Spectral collapse in multiqubit two-photon Rabi model,” Sci. Rep.11, 5409 (2021)

2021
[64]

Squeez- ing and photon antibunching from a two-photon Dicke model,

Christopher C. Gerry and James B. Togeas, “Squeez- ing and photon antibunching from a two-photon Dicke model,” Optics Communications69, 263–266 (1989)

1989
[65]

Dark-like states for the multi-qubit and multi-photon Rabi models,

Jie Peng, Chenxiong Zheng, Guangjie Guo, Xiaoy- ong Guo, Xin Zhang, Chaosheng Deng, Guoxing Ju, Zhongzhou Ren, Lucas Lamata, and Enrique Solano, “Dark-like states for the multi-qubit and multi-photon Rabi models,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.50, 174003 (2017)

2017
[66]

Ef- fect of system energy on quantum signatures of chaos in the two-photon Dicke model,

Shangyun Wang, Songbai Chen, and Jiliang Jing, “Ef- fect of system energy on quantum signatures of chaos in the two-photon Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. E100, 022207 (2019)

2019
[67]

Enhanced photon squeezing in two- photon Dicke model,

Priyankar Banerjee, Deepti Sharma, and Aranya B. Bhattacherjee, “Enhanced photon squeezing in two- photon Dicke model,” Phys. Lett. A446, 128287 (2022)

2022
[68]

Loss of integrability in a system with two-photon interactions,

Fabrizio Ram ´ ırez, David Villase˜ nor, Viani S. Morales- Guzm´ an, Darly Y. Castro, and Jorge G. Hirsch, “Loss of integrability in a system with two-photon interactions,” Phys. Rev. A112, 063707 (2025)

2025
[69]

Superradi- ant phase transition in the ultrastrong-coupling regime of the two-photon Dicke model,

L. Garbe, I. L. Egusquiza, E. Solano, C. Ciuti, T. Coudreau, P. Milman, and S. Felicetti, “Superradi- ant phase transition in the ultrastrong-coupling regime of the two-photon Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. A95, 053854 (2017)

2017
[71]

Dissipation-induced bistability in the two-photon Dicke model,

Louis Garbe, Peregrine Wade, Fabrizio Minganti, Nathan Shammah, Simone Felicetti, and Franco Nori, “Dissipation-induced bistability in the two-photon Dicke model,” Sci. Rep.10, 13408 (2020)

2020
[72]

Dissipative phase transition in the two-photon Dicke model,

Aanal Jayesh Shah, Peter Kirton, Simone Felicetti, and Hadiseh Alaeian, “Dissipative phase transition in the two-photon Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 173602 (2025)

2025
[73]

Stark-induced tunable phase transition in the two-photon Dicke-Stark model,

Cui-Lu Zhai, Wei Wu, Chun-Wang Wu, and Ping- Xing Chen, “Stark-induced tunable phase transition in the two-photon Dicke-Stark model,” Phys. Rev. A112, 013720 (2025)

2025
[74]

This Sup- plemental Material includes Refs

(See the Supplemental Material at [...] for additional in- formation about the two-photon Dicke model. This Sup- plemental Material includes Refs. [75–80])
[75]

Chaos in a spin-boson system: Classical analy- sis,

M.A.M de Aguiar, K Furuya, C.H Lewenkopf, and M.C Nemes, “Chaos in a spin-boson system: Classical analy- sis,” Annals of Physics216, 291–312 (1992)

1992
[76]

Dynamics of the Dicke model close to the classical limit,

L. Bakemeier, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, “Dynamics of the Dicke model close to the classical limit,” Phys. Rev. A88, 043835 (2013)

2013
[77]

Comparative quantum and semiclassical analysis of atom-field systems. I. Density of states and excited-state quantum phase transitions,

M. A. Bastarrachea-Magnani, S. Lerma-Hern´ andez, and J. G. Hirsch, “Comparative quantum and semiclassical analysis of atom-field systems. I. Density of states and excited-state quantum phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. A 89, 032101 (2014)

2014
[78]

Comparative quantum and semiclassical analysis of atom-field systems. II. Chaos and regularity,

M. A. Bastarrachea-Magnani, S. Lerma-Hern´ andez, and J. G. Hirsch, “Comparative quantum and semiclassical analysis of atom-field systems. II. Chaos and regularity,” Phys. Rev. A89, 032102 (2014)

2014
[79]

Chaos in the Dicke model: Quantum and semi- classical analysis,

Miguel Angel Bastarrachea-Magnani, Baldemar L´ opez del Carpio, Sergio Lerma-Hern´ andez, and Jorge G Hirsch, “Chaos in the Dicke model: Quantum and semi- classical analysis,” Phys. Scr.90, 068015 (2015)

2015
[80]

Classical chaos in atom-field systems,

J. Ch´ avez-Carlos, M. A. Bastarrachea-Magnani, S. Lerma-Hern´ andez, and J. G. Hirsch, “Classical chaos in atom-field systems,” Phys. Rev. E94, 022209 (2016). 8 Supplemental Material: The superradiant phase is a finite size effect in two-photon processes Fabrizio Ram ´ ırez,1...

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [70]

Finite-size scaling analysis in the two-photon Dicke model,

Xiang-You Chen and Yu-Yu Zhang, “Finite-size scaling analysis in the two-photon Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 053821 (2018)

2018

[2] [1]

Scully and M

Marlan O. Scully and M. Suhail Zubairy,Quantum optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

1997

[3] [2]

Quantum metrology and its application in biology,

Michael A. Taylor and Warwick P. Bowen, “Quantum metrology and its application in biology,” Phys. Rep. 615, 1–59 (2016)

2016

[4] [3]

Quantum sensing,

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

2017

[5] [4]

Quantum metrology with quantum-chaotic sensors,

Lukas J. Fiderer and Daniel Braun, “Quantum metrology with quantum-chaotic sensors,” Nature Commun.9, 1351 (2018)

2018

[6] [5]

Quantum sensing for energy applications: Review and perspective,

Scott E. Crawford, Roman A. Shugayev, Hari P. Paudel, Ping Lu, Madhava Syamlal, Paul R. Ohodnicki, Ben- jamin Chorpening, Randall Gentry, and Yuhua Duan, “Quantum sensing for energy applications: Review and perspective,” Adv. Quantum Technol.4, 2100049 (2021)

2021

[7] [6]

Review: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems,

Victor Montenegro, Chiranjib Mukhopadhyay, Rozhin Yousefjani, Saubhik Sarkar, Utkarsh Mishra, Mat- teo G.A. Paris, and Abolfazl Bayat, “Review: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems,” Phys. Rep.1134, 1–62 (2025)

2025

[8] [7]

Universal quantum simulators,

Seth Lloyd, “Universal quantum simulators,” Science 273, 1073–1078 (1996)

1996