Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Incoherently pumped atoms coupled to one-dimensional baths sustain steady-state phase order with N² emission, realized as chiral symmetry breaking in a ring cavity and phase separation in a waveguide.

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 ↗

Incoherently pumped atoms in a ring cavity or a bidirectional waveguide sustain steady-state superradiant order with N² intensity, via chiral symmetry breaking or phase separation respectively.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Two genuinely new ordering phenomena beyond the Dicke limit, with a solid ring-cavity analytic result and a plausible but under-validated TWA-based waveguide result. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.10638 v3 pith:WSFSEP36 submitted 2025-11-13 quant-ph

Steady-state spin order and superradiance beyond the Dicke limit

Silvia Cardenas-Lopez , Edgar Guardiola-Navarrete , Ana Asenjo-Garcia This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords steady-state superradianceDicke limitring cavitybidirectional waveguidechiral orderphase separationspin synchronizationtruncated Wigner approximation
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.

The reading

This paper asks whether incoherently pumped atoms can spontaneously synchronize into a superradiant steady state when the reservoir is not a single-mode cavity but a one-dimensional bath with competing decay channels. Using two minimal models—a ring cavity with two bright collective decay modes and a bidirectional waveguide that adds coherent dipole–dipole interactions—the authors find that both sustain steady-state phase order with emission scaling as N², showing that superradiance is not confined to the Dicke limit. The order is not a single macroscopic dipole: in the ring cavity each realization picks one of two mirror-related chiral orders, while in the waveguide the two orders coexist in a phase-separated pattern with opposite ends locked to opposite directions. The paper derives analytical pumping thresholds and the maximum intensity for the ring cavity, gives numerical thresholds for the waveguide, and finds a linewidth narrowing trend only for the ring, leaving waveguide narrowing unresolved.

Core claim

The central claim is that competition among collective decay channels and propagation do not destroy steady-state ordering in one-dimensional reservoirs; they reshape it. In a ring cavity, two bright jump operators corresponding to left- and right-propagating emission compete, and each trajectory spontaneously breaks mirror symmetry and locks the ensemble to one chiral order. In a bidirectional waveguide, the same dissipative modes are accompanied by coherent dipole–dipole exchange, and the order becomes phase separated: atoms at one end lock to right emission, atoms at the other to left emission, with a central domain-wall region. In both models the optimal steady-state intensity scales as

What carries the argument

The machinery is the decomposition of collective decay into two directional jump operators O_L and O_R (collective spin-flip operators for left- and right-propagating emission), obtained from the dissipative coupling matrix Γ_nm=Γ_1D cos(k|z_n−z_m|). In the ring cavity these two modes give global, position-independent feedback; in the waveguide the feedback is directional, so order parameters become position-dependent—right-moving light from atoms to the left pulls a given atom, left-moving light from atoms to the right pulls it oppositely. The paper analyzes phase dynamics at mean-field level as Kuramoto-type synchronization, obtains ring-cavity thresholds analytically through a superspin (

Load-bearing premise

The waveguide claims—phase separation, N² intensity, and the inconclusive linewidth—rest on the Truncated Wigner Approximation for arrays up to about 1000 atoms, and the paper's stated benchmark support (Sec. II B, against exact small-N simulations) is not shown; if that approximation misrepresents steady-state correlations, the waveguide conclusions could be numerical artifacts.

What would settle it

Compute the steady-state correlation matrix for a waveguide with N ≈ 20–50 atoms using a method not relying on the Truncated Wigner Approximation (for example, exact master-equation integration or matrix-product-state techniques) and check for the phase-separated block structure, the cosine-like central domain wall, and the N² intensity scaling; absence of these features would falsify the waveguide claims. A nanofiber experiment measuring the spatial phase profile of emission could also distinguish phase separation from global chirality.

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

If this is right

  • Steady-state superradiance survives competition between two collective decay channels in a ring cavity, with analytical thresholds w_l=Γ′, w_u=NΓ_1D/2 and maximum intensity N²Γ_1D/16.
  • Coherent dipole–dipole interactions in a waveguide change the order from winner-take-all to phase-separated: left and right orders coexist, each dominating one end, with a domain wall in the middle.
  • The ordering is visible in the correlation matrix rather than in mean coherences: phase-locked edge regions, a cosine-like central region, and interdomain correlations washed out by the random relative phase between domains.
  • The ring-cavity linewidth shows a downward trend with atom number, suggesting a superradiant laser may be realizable in a ring; the waveguide line narrowing is not established at accessible sizes.
  • At the mirror spacing kd=nπ the models reduce to the single bright mode of the standard Dicke limit, so the new ordered regimes connect continuously to known superradiant lasing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the position-dependent order parameters are analogous to chimera states in classical oscillator networks, suggesting the waveguide's phase-separated state may be a quantum counterpart of chimera order, with the domain wall as the incoherent region.
  • Editorial inference: because the mean-field equations do not depend on periodic spacing, similar order should appear in disordered arrays; correlation measurements on nanofiber or microring experiments could test the domain-wall signature without needing Bragg spacings.
  • Editorial inference: if line narrowing is genuinely absent in the waveguide at large N, the phase-separated state would be superradiant but not lasing, which would imply that spatial phase order alone does not guarantee spectral narrowing—a distinguishing prediction compared with the ring cavity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes steady-state spin order and superradiant emission for incoherently pumped atoms coupled to one-dimensional reservoirs. Two setups are studied: a ring cavity with two bright collective decay channels, and a bidirectional waveguide in which the same dissipative couplings coexist with Hamiltonian dipole-dipole interactions. For the ring cavity, the authors derive analytic expressions for the synchronization thresholds and the maximum emission rate (Eq. (33)) using a superspin cumulant expansion, and show that individual trajectories break mirror symmetry and lock to either the left- or right-propagating order. For the waveguide, mean-field and truncated-Wigner-approximation (TWA) simulations are used to argue that left and right orders coexist in a phase-separated pattern, with an intensity that also scales as N^2. The emitted-light linewidth is found to narrow with N in the single-mode and ring cavities, while the waveguide linewidth remains inconclusive within accessible numerics.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper would establish that steady-state superradiance and spontaneous phase order can survive beyond the single-mode Dicke limit in 1D reservoirs with competing decay channels and light propagation. The ring-cavity analytic thresholds are a useful parameter-free contribution, and the distinction between winner-take-all chirality (ring) and phase-separated coexistence (waveguide) is conceptually appealing. The manuscript also shows good practice in several places: it explicitly states the uniqueness of the steady state, identifies the weak symmetry responsible for trajectory-level symmetry breaking, and is candid about the limitations of the linewidth analysis. The main issue is that the waveguide's central predictions—phase separation and N^2 scaling—rest on TWA without the advertised benchmarks, and the waveguide ansatz is fitted to the very correlations it is used to reproduce. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's headline claims, though they appear fixable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B; Figs 4(b), 5(c)] The paper states in Section II.B that TWA reliability "is supported by benchmarks against exact small-N simulations," but no such benchmarks are shown anywhere in the manuscript. The waveguide's two headline results—the phase-separated correlation pattern of Fig. 4(b) and the N^2 intensity scaling of Fig. 5(c)—are obtained with TWA at N up to ~1000. Appendix C additionally reports that the linewidth estimates are "too noisy" and that "the inherent noise of the approximation" contaminates the correlation function at large delay. Since the waveguide is the only model that combines propagative feedback with competing decay channels, this missing validation is load-bearing. Please present the small-N exact comparisons, or alternatively reframe the waveguide claims as provisional and supported only at the level of TWA.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A3)-(A8)] The analytic derivation of the ring-cavity thresholds, Eq. (33), relies on two assumptions introduced without proof: (i) all superspins have equal size, N_alpha = N_s, and (ii) two-superspin correlations factorize as <J_alpha+ J_beta->(t) = Gamma_{alpha beta} C(t) for all times. These assumptions are used to reduce the p+p^2 cumulant equations to the closed two-equation system (A8), and the identity (A7) alone does not justify the factorization. If the factorization is valid only at steady state or only in a large-N limit, the analytic thresholds would be approximate. The agreement with TWA in Fig. 5 is encouraging but not a substitute. Please derive the closure or state its regime of validity explicitly.
  3. [Section III.C and Appendix B, Eqs. (31), (B1)] The waveguide ansatz, Eq. (31), with the probability model of Eq. (B1), is introduced as a phenomenological model and its parameters (alpha, beta) are obtained by fitting to the TWA correlation phases (Appendix B). It is then shown to reproduce those same correlation phases in Fig. 4(b). This is a consistency check of the ansatz family, not an independent validation of the phase-separated order. Because the phase-separated steady state is a central claim, please clearly label the ansatz comparison as a fit and, if possible, test a nontrivial prediction that was not used in the fit—for example, the correlation magnitudes or the distribution of local orderings P(A).
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (33)] The notation N_s and p appears in Eq. (33) before either quantity is defined in the main text; p is introduced in Section II.B but N_s only appears in Appendix A. Define both quantities at the point of first use.
  2. [Throughout] There are typographical inconsistencies, e.g., "T W A" for TWA and "sytem sizes" in Section V. Please proofread.
  3. [Fig. 7] The caption for Fig. 7(b) references the rescaled variable n' but the axis label is not shown in the figure. Adding a visible axis label would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Waveguide ansatz is fitted to the very correlations it is said to reproduce; central ring-cavity and TWA results remain independent.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III C, Eqs. (31)-(32); Appendix B, Eqs. (B1)-(B2), Figs. 4(b) and 7(b)]
    "The specific parameters of the model (α, β) are obtained by fitting the ansatz to the correlation phases extracted from the TW A numerical simulations. As shown in Fig. 4(b) of the main text, and further illustrated for a different parameter set in Fig. 7(b), the steady-state correlations are well reproduced by the probability model in Eq. (B1)"

    The waveguide ansatz ρ_ans,WG is specified by configuration probabilities whose marginals P_n(L) are adjusted to match arg[C_nm] from TWA. The main text then cites that agreement ('well reproduced') as evidence that the mean-field phase-separation picture is consistent with TWA, and labels regions (I)-(V) accordingly. Because the data being reproduced are the same data used to fit α and β, the agreement is enforced by the fit rather than independently predicted. This is a local interpretive loop: the ansatz can describe, but cannot independently validate, the phase-separation interpretation. The central N^2 scaling and phase order come directly from TWA and mean-field simulations, so the loop does not infect the main derivation chain.

full rationale

The paper's principal derivation chain is not circular. The ring-cavity thresholds and R_max = N^2 Γ_1D/16 are obtained from a second-order cumulant calculation spelled out in Appendix A, with the superspin method from Ref. [23] serving only as a computational tool; the input is the original master equation, not the target result. The single-mode cavity results are standard external references. The waveguide phase-separated correlations and N^2 intensity are TWA simulation outputs, i.e., numerical experiments on the model, and the back-of-envelope threshold estimate interprets those numerics rather than being fitted to them. The one genuine reduction-by-construction element is the steady-state ansatz: Appendix B fits α and β to the TWA correlation phases, and then the main text presents the same ansatz as having 'successfully reproduced' those phases and as demonstrating consistency with mean-field intuition. This circularity is limited to the interpretive ansatz and its region assignment (I)-(V); it does not provide independent evidence, but it also is not the source of the headline N^2 scaling or phase order. The unshown TWA benchmarks mentioned in Sec. II B and the admitted noise in the linewidth estimates (Appendix C) are correctness/reproducibility limitations rather than derivation-circularity. Overall, partial circularity localized to the waveguide ansatz, with central claims retaining independent numerical and analytic content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are the fitting parameters of the phenomenological waveguide ansatz and the linewidth-fitting procedure. The load-bearing assumptions are the validity of TWA for the waveguide, the factorized correlation form in the ring-cavity cumulant expansion, and the uniqueness/Evans-theorem condition (which fails for the Γ′=0 cases shown in Fig. 3).

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (ansatz) = 2.162 (main text), 2.492 (Fig. 7b)
    Controls sharpness of the crossover between left and right domains in the waveguide ansatz P(A_n,A_m); fitted to TWA correlation phases (Appendix B).
  • beta (ansatz) = 0.651 (main text), 0.722 (Fig. 7b)
    Controls how strongly atoms at edges are pinned to their preferred order; fitted to TWA correlation phases (Appendix B).
  • gamma (ansatz) = not stated; ∈[0,1]
    Suppresses same-order joint probabilities in Eq. (B1); the paper does not report how γ is chosen or whether it is fitted.
  • polynomial fit for linewidth minimum = not stated
    In Appendix C, the minimum linewidth is estimated by fitting a second-order polynomial to 10-15 selected pumping strengths; the choice of points and polynomial order is a fitting procedure that affects the reported trend.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov master equation with individual decay and incoherent pumping (Eq. 1)
    Standard open quantum system approximation; assumed valid for atoms coupled to 1D reservoirs.
  • standard math Steady state of Eq. (1) is unique via Evans' theorem because individual decay/pumping span the operator space
    Invoked in Sec. II A; requires Γ′>0, so uniqueness does not apply to the Γ′=0 simulations in Fig. 3.
  • domain assumption Truncated Wigner Approximation (TWA) is accurate for the observables and system sizes considered
    Stated in Sec. II B with reference to benchmarks against exact small-N simulations, but no benchmark data are shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-superspin correlations factorize as ⟨Jα+ Jβ−⟩(t)=Γαβ C(t) in the ring-cavity cumulant expansion
    Appendix A; this factorized form is asserted rather than derived and is needed to close the reduced equations that yield the analytic thresholds Eq. (33).
  • ad hoc to paper Equal superspin sizes Nα=N_s for the p symmetric groups in the ring-cavity derivation
    Appendix A: required to reduce the system; not guaranteed for arbitrary N with spacing d=mλ0/(2p) unless N is divisible by p.
  • ad hoc to paper Phenomenological ansatz for the waveguide steady state, Eq. (31), with probability model Eq. (B1)
    Sec. III C and Appendix B; the model is fitted to TWA data, so any insight drawn from it is not independent of the numerics.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Steady-state spin order and superradiance beyond the Dicke limit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSFSEP36

@misc{pith2026251110638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Steady-state spin order and superradiance beyond the Dicke limit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSFSEP36}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.10638}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Spontaneous collective decay in incoherently driven atomic ensembles can generate macroscopic coherence in the steady state, as exemplified by steady-state superradiance in single-mode cavities. Whether spontaneous order persists beyond the Dicke limit, where competing collective decay channels and light propagation might preclude an ordered phase, remains an open question. We address it by analyzing incoherently pumped atoms coupled to one-dimensional electromagnetic baths through two models: a ring cavity with two bright decay channels, and a bidirectional waveguide where propagation additionally induces Hamiltonian dipole-dipole interactions. We find that both systems sustain steady-state phase order with intensity scaling as $N^2$, but that the order takes two qualitatively distinct forms, neither described by a single macroscopic dipole. In the ring cavity, individual trajectories spontaneously break mirror symmetry, locking the atomic phases and the emitted field to one of two chiral orders. In the waveguide, coherent interactions instead enforce a phase-separated steady state in which the two chiral orders coexist, each dominating one end of the array. Our results show how competition and propagation shape emergent order beyond the Dicke limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.10638 by Ana Asenjo-Garcia, Edgar Guardiola-Navarrete, Silvia Cardenas-Lopez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In contrast to transient superradiance, where co￾herent interactions can be often neglected when analyzing the superradiant burst [15, 20], the coherent interactions intrinsic to the waveguide strongly modifies the proper￾ties of the radiation emitted in the steady state. B. Spectral properties In a single-mode cavity, the emitted light is coherent and there is a superradiant “lasing” regime if the pump￾in… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (b) shows the minimum linewidth as a func￾tion of atom number. Both the spectral linewidth of Eˆ+ C in the single-mode cavity and that of Eˆ+ RC,R/L in the ring cavity exhibit a seemingly downward trend with increas￾ing N. In the waveguide, we calculate the linewidth of the right (left) field at an observation point to the right (left) of all atoms. Our numerical estimations do not conclusively show line n… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Continuous Narrow-Linewidth Superradiance in Waveguide QED

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Partially pumping a waveguide-coupled emitter chain produces continuous narrow-linewidth superradiant emission near the bare atomic transition frequency, with quadratic intensity scaling and near-Poissonian photon statistics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Since the steady state is unique, single-superspin variables are identical acrossαin the long time limit regardless of the initial state, i.e.⟨ ˆJ α z ⟩ ≡ ⟨ˆJ 1 z ⟩ and⟨ ˆJ α + ˆJ α −⟩ ≡ ⟨ˆJ 1 + ˆJ 1 −⟩ ∀α

  2. [2]

    In fact, for alltandα̸=β,⟨ ˆJ α + ˆJ β −⟩(t) = ΓαβC(t), i.e., correlations between different super- spins are described by a global function weighted by the coupling

    Two-superspin correlations depend only on separa- tion. In fact, for alltandα̸=β,⟨ ˆJ α + ˆJ β −⟩(t) = ΓαβC(t), i.e., correlations between different super- spins are described by a global function weighted by the coupling. Harnessing these observations and the identity pX µ=1 ΓαµΓµξ = p 2 Γ1DΓαξ,(A7) the system (A4) reduces fromp+p 2 equations to two by d...

  3. [3]

    Haken,Synergetics: An Introduction, 3rd ed., Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer Berlin, Heidel- berg, 1983) pp

    H. Haken,Synergetics: An Introduction, 3rd ed., Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer Berlin, Heidel- berg, 1983) pp. XIV + 390

    1983

  4. [4]

    Haken,Laser Theory, 1st ed

    H. Haken,Laser Theory, 1st ed. (Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, 1984) pp. XVI, 322

    1984

  5. [5]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf, The single-mode laser, inOptical Coherence and Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, 1995) p. 900–975

    1995

  6. [6]

    Meiser, J

    D. Meiser, J. Ye, D. R. Carlson, and M. J. Holland, Prospects for a millihertz-linewidth laser, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 163601 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Meiser and M

    D. Meiser and M. J. Holland, Steady-state superradi- ance with alkaline-earth-metal atoms, Phys. Rev. A81, 033847 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Zhang, Y.-X

    Y. Zhang, Y.-X. Zhang, and K. Mølmer, Monte-Carlo simulations of superradiant lasing, New Journal of Physics20, 112001 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    H. Liu, S. B. J¨ ager, X. Yu, S. Touzard, A. Shankar, M. J. Holland, and T. L. Nicholson, Rugged mHz-Linewidth Superradiant Laser Driven by a Hot Atomic Beam, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 253602 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    J. T. Reilly, S. B. J¨ ager, J. Cooper, and M. J. Hol- land, Fully collective superradiant lasing with van- ishing sensitivity to cavity length vibrations (2025), arXiv:2506.12267 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

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

    1954

  12. [12]

    J. A. Acebr´ on, L. L. Bonilla, C. J. P´ erez Vicente, F. Ri- tort, and R. Spigler, The kuramoto model: A simple paradigm for synchronization phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 137 (2005)

    2005

  13. [13]

    M. Xu, D. A. Tieri, and M. J. Holland, Simulating open quantum systems by applying SU(4) to quantum master equations, Phys. Rev. A87, 062101 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    B. Zhu, J. Schachenmayer, M. Xu, F. Herrera, J. G. Re- strepo, M. J. Holland, and A. M. Rey, Synchronization of interacting quantum dipoles, New Journal of Physics 17, 083063 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Bychek, R

    A. Bychek, R. Holzinger, and H. Ritsch, Nanoscale mir- rorless superradiant lasing, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 143601 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 263601 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Universality of Dicke superradiance in arrays of quantum emitters, Nature Communications13, 2285 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Sierra, S

    E. Sierra, S. J. Masson, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Dicke su- perradiance in ordered lattices: Dimensionality matters, Phys. Rev. Research4, 023207 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Robicheaux, Theoretical study of early-time superra- diance for atom clouds and arrays, Physical Review A 104, 063706 (2021)

    F. Robicheaux, Theoretical study of early-time superra- diance for atom clouds and arrays, Physical Review A 104, 063706 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Liedl, F

    C. Liedl, F. Tebbenjohanns, C. Bach, S. Pucher, A. Rauschenbeutel, and P. Schneeweiss, Observation of superradiant bursts in a cascaded quantum system, Phys. Rev. X14, 011020 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Rubies-Bigorda, S

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

    2023

  22. [22]

    Cardenas-Lopez, S

    S. Cardenas-Lopez, S. J. Masson, Z. Zager, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Many-body superradiance and dynam- ical mirror symmetry breaking in waveguide qed, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 033605 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    D. M. Lukin, B. Windt, M. Bello, D. Catanzaro, M. A. Guidry, E. Lustig, S. Biswas, G. Scuri, T. K. Le, J. Yang, A. A. Nikitina, M. Ghezellou, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. Ul- Hassan, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Mesoscopic cavity quantum electrodynamics with phase-disordered emitters in a kerr nonlinear resonator (2025), arXiv:2504.09324 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    X. H. H. Zhang, D. Malz, and P. Rabl, Robust superradi- ance and spontaneous spin ordering in disordered waveg- uide QED (2025), arXiv:2510.13671 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Superspins

    J. T. Lee, S. Cardenas-Lopez, S. J. Masson, R. Trivedi, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Exact Many-body Quantum Dy- namics in One-Dimensional Baths via “Superspins” (2025), arXiv:2505.00588 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    X. Zhou, H. Tamura, T.-H. Chang, and C.-L. Hung, Trapped atoms and superradiance on an integrated nanophotonic microring circuit, Phys. Rev. X14, 031004 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    D. A. Suresh, X. Zhou, C.-L. Hung, and F. Ro- bicheaux, Collective emission and selective-radiance in atomic clouds and arrays coupled to a microring res- onator (2025), arXiv:2503.21121 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    X. Zhou, D. A. Suresh, F. Robicheaux, and C.-L. Hung, 16 Selective collective emission from a dense atomic ensem- ble coupled to a nanophotonic resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 113601 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    J. R. K. Cline, V. M. Sch¨ afer, Z. Niu, D. J. Young, T. H. Yoon, and J. K. Thompson, Continuous collective strong coupling of strontium atoms to a high finesse ring cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 013403 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    L. W. Clark, N. Schine, C. Baum, N. Jia, and J. Si- mon, Observation of Laughlin states made of light, Na- ture582, 41 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Y.-T. Chen, M. Szurek, B. Hu, J. de Hond, B. Braver- man, and V. Vuletic, High finesse bow-tie cavity for strong atom-photon coupling in Rydberg arrays, Opt. Express30, 37426 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Vetsch, D

    E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagu´ e, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Optical interface cre- ated by laser-cooled atoms trapped in the evanescent field surrounding an optical nanofiber, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 203603 (2010)

    2010

  33. [33]

    Goban, K

    A. Goban, K. S. Choi, D. J. Alton, D. Ding, C. Lacroˆ ute, M. Pototschnig, T. Thiele, N. P. Stern, and H. J. Kim- ble, Demonstration of a state-insensitive, compensated nanofiber trap, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 033603 (2012)

    2012

  34. [34]

    Gouraud, D

    B. Gouraud, D. Maxein, A. Nicolas, O. Morin, and J. Laurat, Demonstration of a memory for tightly guided light in an optical nanofiber, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 180503 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    Solano, P

    P. Solano, P. Barberis-Blostein, F. K. Fatemi, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, Super-radiance reveals infinite-range dipole interactions through a nanofiber, Nature Communications8, 1857 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    Gruner and D.-G

    T. Gruner and D.-G. Welsch, Green-function approach to the radiation-field quantization for homogeneous and inhomogeneous Kramers-Kronig dielectrics, Phys. Rev. A53, 1818 (1996)

    1996

  37. [37]

    H. T. Dung, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, Resonant dipole-dipole interaction in the presence of dispersing and absorbing surroundings, Phys. Rev. A66, 063810 (2002)

    2002

  38. [38]

    selective radiance

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Exponential improve- ment in photon storage fidelities using subradiance and “selective radiance” in atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. X7, 031024 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Carmichael and K

    H. Carmichael and K. Kim, A quantum trajectory unrav- eling of the superradiance master equation, Opt. Com- mun.179, 417 (2000)

    2000

  40. [40]

    J. P. Clemens, L. Horvath, B. C. Sanders, and H. J. Carmichael, Collective spontaneous emission from a line of atoms, Phys. Rev. A68, 023809 (2003)

    2003

  41. [41]

    D. E. Evans, Irreducible quantum dynamical semi- groups, Communications in Mathematical Physics54, 293 (1977)

    1977

  42. [42]

    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 Physics14, 073007 (2012)

    2012

  43. [43]

    Lalumi` ere, B

    K. Lalumi` ere, B. C. Sanders, A. F. van Loo, A. Fedorov, A. Wallraff, and A. Blais, Input-output theory for waveg- uide QED with an ensemble of inhomogeneous atoms, Phys. Rev. A88, 043806 (2013)

    2013

  44. [44]

    Caneva, M

    T. Caneva, M. T. Manzoni, T. Shi, J. S. Douglas, J. I. Cirac, and D. E. Chang, Quantum dynamics of propa- gating photons with strong interactions: a generalized input–output formalism, New Journal of Physics17, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    Xu and S

    S. Xu and S. Fan, Input-output formalism for few-photon transport: A systematic treatment beyond two photons, Phys. Rev. A91, 043845 (2015)

    2015

  46. [46]

    Albrecht, L

    A. Albrecht, L. Henriet, A. Asenjo-Garcia, P. B. Dieterle, O. Painter, and D. E. Chang, Subradiant states of quan- tum bits coupled to a one-dimensional waveguide, New Journal of Physics21, 025003 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    Bonifacio, P

    R. Bonifacio, P. Schwendimann, and F. Haake, Quantum Statistical Theory of Superradiance. I, Phys. Rev. A4, 302 (1971)

    1971

  48. [48]

    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

  49. [49]

    S. L. Kristensen, E. Bohr, J. Robinson-Tait, T. Zelevin- sky, J. W. Thomsen, and J. H. M¨ uller, Sub-natural linewidth superradiant lasing with cold 88sr atoms (2023), arXiv:2302.08977 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    H¨ ummer, F

    T. H¨ ummer, F. J. Garc ´ ıa-Vidal, L. Mart ´ ın-Moreno, and D. Zueco, Weak and strong coupling regimes in plasmonic qed, Phys. Rev. B87, 115419 (2013)

    2013

  51. [51]

    Pichler, T

    H. Pichler, T. Ramos, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum optics of chiral spin networks, Phys. Rev. A91, 042116 (2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    D. E. Chang, L. Jiang, A. V. Gorshkov, and H. J. Kimble, Cavity QED with atomic mirrors, New Journal of Physics 14, 063003 (2012)

    2012

  53. [53]

    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

  54. [54]

    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, Phys. Rev. X5, 011022 (2015)

    2015

  55. [55]

    C. D. Mink, D. Petrosyan, and M. Fleischhauer, Hy- brid discrete-continuous truncated Wigner approxima- tion for driven, dissipative spin systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043136 (2022)

    2022

  56. [56]

    C. D. Mink and M. Fleischhauer, Collective radiative in- teractions in the discrete truncated Wigner approxima- tion, SciPost Phys.15, 233 (2023)

    2023

  57. [57]

    Guardiola-Navarrete, S

    E. Guardiola-Navarrete, S. Cardenas-Lopez, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Phase-space methods for many-body quantum optics, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys.74, 87 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    X. H. H. Zhang, D. Malz, and P. Rabl, Unraveling su- perradiance: Entanglement and mutual information in collective decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 033602 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Kuramoto,Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Tur- bulence, 1st ed., Springer Series in Synergetics, Vol

    Y. Kuramoto,Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Tur- bulence, 1st ed., Springer Series in Synergetics, Vol. 19 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1984) pp. viii + 158

    1984

  60. [60]

    S. H. Strogatz, From Kuramoto to Crawford: exploring the onset of synchronization in populations of coupled os- cillators, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena143, 1 (2000)

    2000

  61. [61]

    Watanabe and S

    S. Watanabe and S. H. Strogatz, Integrability of a glob- ally coupled oscillator array, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2391 (1993)

    1993

  62. [62]

    M. J. Panaggio and D. M. Abrams, Chimera states: co- existence of coherence and incoherence in networks of coupled oscillators, Nonlinearity28, R67 (2015)

    2015

  63. [63]

    Sakaguchi and Y

    H. Sakaguchi and Y. Kuramoto, A soluble active rotator model showing phase transitions via mutual entrainment, Progress of Theoretical Physics76, 576 (1986)

    1986

  64. [64]

    Kuramoto and D

    Y. Kuramoto and D. Battogtokh, Coexistence of coher- ence and incoherence in nonlocally coupled phase oscilla- tors, Nonlinear Phenomena in Complex Systems5, 380 17 (2002)

    2002

  65. [65]

    D. M. Abrams and S. H. Strogatz, Chimera states for coupled oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 174102 (2004)

    2004

  66. [66]

    M. Xu, D. A. Tieri, E. C. Fine, J. K. Thompson, and M. J. Holland, Synchronization of two ensembles of atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 154101 (2014)

    2014

  67. [67]

    D. A. Tieri, M. Xu, D. Meiser, J. Cooper, and M. J. Holland, Theory of the crossover from lasing to steady state superradiance (2017), arXiv:1702.04830 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

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

    2014

  69. [69]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Measure- ment and Control(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2009)

    2009

  70. [70]

    S´ anchez Mu˜ noz, B

    C. S´ anchez Mu˜ noz, B. Buˇ ca, J. Tindall, A. Gonz´ alez- Tudela, D. Jaksch, and D. Porras, Symmetries and con- servation laws in quantum trajectories: Dissipative freez- ing, Phys. Rev. A100, 042113 (2019)

    2019

  71. [71]

    Goncalves, L

    D. Goncalves, L. Bombieri, G. Ferioli, S. Pancaldi, I. Ferrier-Barbut, A. Browaeys, E. Shahmoon, and D. Chang, Driven-dissipative phase separation in free- space atomic ensembles, PRX Quantum6, 020303 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    Xu and M

    M. Xu and M. J. Holland, Conditional Ramsey Spec- troscopy with Synchronized Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 103601 (2015)

    2015

  73. [73]

    Shankar, J

    A. Shankar, J. T. Reilly, S. B. J¨ ager, and M. J. Hol- land, Subradiant-to-subradiant phase transition in the bad cavity laser, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 073603 (2021)

    2021

  74. [74]

    W.-K. Mok, A. Poddar, E. Sierra, C. C. Rusconi, J. Preskill, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Universal scaling laws for correlated decay of many-body quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2406.00722 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Xu,Theory of Steady-State Superradiance, Ph.d

    M. Xu,Theory of Steady-State Superradiance, Ph.d. the- sis, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA (2016)

    2016

  76. [76]

    H. Yu, Y. Zhang, Q. Wu, C.-X. Shan, and K. Mølmer, Conditional dynamics in heterodyne detection of super- radiant lasing with incoherently pumped atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 073601 (2024)

    2024

  77. [77]

    R. H. Dicke, The coherence brightened laser, inQuan- tum Electronics, edited by P. Grivet and N. Bloembergen (Dunod Editeur, Paris, 1964) proceedings of the Third International Quantum Electronics Conference, Paris,

    1964

  78. [78]

    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

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.