Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Non-equilibrium magnetic phases in spin lattices with gain and loss

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dissipative spin lattice with alternating gain and loss has steady-state transitions governed by PT-symmetry breaking, including first-order transitions without phase coexistence and mixed-order transitions that preserve the U(1)…

desk verdict A genuinely interesting dissipative-phase-transition paper whose dimer physics is solid, but whose headline lattice claims rest on an unpublished TWA variant that needs to see the light of day before I'd bet on them. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02290 v2 pith:VU2WE363 submitted 2019-08-06 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.stat-mech

Julian Huber , Peter Kirton , Peter Rabl This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords dissipativephasetransitionPTsymmetrybreakingspinchaingainandlosstruncatedWignerapproximationmixed-orderU(1)Liouvillianspectrum
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 studies a one-dimensional chain of spin-S systems in which coherent XX couplings compete with alternating gain and loss on the two sublattices. It argues that, for large S, the steady state has several distinct magnetic phases and that the transitions between them are controlled by parity-time-reversal (PT) symmetry breaking of the Liouvillian, not by the usual equilibrium mechanisms. The distinctive claims are first-order transitions at which the two adjacent phases do not coexist, and mixed-order transitions at which the order parameter jumps while the correlation length diverges but the underlying U(1) symmetry is not broken. If correct, this substantially expands the known phenomenology of driven-dissipative spin systems and gives a concrete dynamical mechanism for classifying their non-equilibrium phases.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is parity-time-reversal (PT) symmetry breaking of the Liouvillian superoperator. For balanced gain and loss, $\Gamma_g = \Gamma_l$, the master equation is invariant under sublattice exchange (parity) together with the particle-hole conjugation $S^+ \leftrightarrow S^-$, and the PT phase is the symmetric side where a macroscopic number of Liouvillian eigenvalues vanish, driving the steady state close to the fully mixed state. The paper combines this symmetry analysis with a Holstein-Primakoff linearization in the ordered phases, which yields the exact large-$S$ phase boundaries and the correlation-length exponent, and with a truncated-Wigner simulation using a positive-diffusion approximation for the lattice steady states, cross-checked against cluster mean-field and infinite-matrix-product-operator calculations at smaller $S$.

What would settle it

Compute the steady state in the PPT phase with a method that retains full quantum noise with controlled errors (for example, a regularized positive-P simulation or a tensor-network calculation for moderate $S$), and check whether the transverse polarization $\langle S^\perp \rangle$ remains of order $S$ for large $S$ or whether the correlation length still diverges at the magnetization jump as $\Gamma$ crosses $\Gamma_c$. If $\langle S^\perp \rangle$ stays of order $S$, or the divergence disappears, the claimed absence of symmetry breaking and the mixed-order classification would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the steady-state phase diagram of the gain-loss spin chain at large S is set by the lines $\Gamma_g \Gamma_l = (g \pm h)^2$ and $\Gamma_g = \Gamma_l$, which the authors trace to the dynamical phenomenon of PT-symmetry breaking. In the dimer ($h=0$), the transition between the two ferromagnetic phases is first order, but the steady state at the transition is a fully mixed, infinite-temperature state rather than a mixture of the two ordered states, so phase coexistence is absent and the purity vanishes roughly as $(2S+1)^{-2}$. In the extended chain a pseudo-PT (PPT) phase appears between the ordered phases over a substantial parameter region; the AM–PPT transition shows a diverging correlation length with exponent $\nu = 1/2$ together with a jump in the order parameter, i.e., it is mixed-order, and numerical simulations find no spontaneous U(1) symmetry breaking even in the large-$S$ limit, in contrast to mean-field predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The lattice-level claims—the PPT phase, the mixed-order transition, and the absence of U(1) symmetry breaking at $S \to \infty$—rest on a truncated-Wigner approximation with a positive-diffusion modification whose validity is deferred to an unpublished companion paper and is explicitly checked only in the ordered phases, not in the PPT phase.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The phase boundaries in the large-$S$ limit are known analytically, so the full $S \to \infty$ phase diagram can be mapped without numerical simulation.
  • First-order transitions of this type cannot be described as bistability between two quasi-stationary states; purity or eigenvalue-based tests will distinguish them from conventional dissipative transitions such as the Kerr oscillator.
  • In the extended chain the PPT phase replaces the mean-field staggered-XY phase, so a broad class of 'unconventional magnetism' models should be reclassified as exhibiting a PPT phase without symmetry breaking.
  • The correlation-length exponent $\nu = 1/2$ at the mixed-order transition is the same as in the Holstein-Primakoff approximation, and the transition can occur in one dimension despite the usual suppression of long-range order.
  • PT-symmetry breaking provides a classification principle for non-equilibrium phases in larger or higher-dimensional lattices, where full Liouvillian spectra are unavailable; the authors note the Holstein-Primakoff analysis generalizes to a square lattice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the model maps onto an XY model with only decay, the same PPT phenomenology should appear in any driven-dissipative lattice that is unitarily equivalent to a balanced gain-loss chain, which would substantially widen the class of testable systems.
  • If the measured symmetry-restoration time stays short as $S$ grows, experiments with cavity-coupled atomic ensembles should see a rapid decay of any initial transverse polarization in the PPT phase; measuring that timescale versus spin size would directly test the absence of symmetry breaking.
  • The absence of phase coexistence at first-order transitions might be generic for transitions into an infinite-temperature steady state, since that state has extensive impurity; other models with infinite-temperature phases should be checked for the same missing coexistence.
  • Adding a weak U(1)-breaking term or staggered detuning could be a sharp test: if PT-symmetry breaking is the organizing mechanism, the phase boundaries should track the exceptional points of the linearized fluctuation matrix rather than Landau-type free-energy minima.
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 a one-dimensional chain of large spin-S degrees of freedom with XX couplings of alternating strength and alternating gain and loss processes. It claims that the steady state exhibits two ordered phases (FM and AM) and two disordered phases (PT and PPT), with phase boundaries given exactly by the Holstein-Primakoff approximation in the large-S limit. The central qualitative claims are that the lattice hosts a first-order transition without phase coexistence, a mixed-order AM-PPT transition with diverging correlation length but no U(1) symmetry breaking, and that these phenomena originate from a dissipative PT-symmetry-breaking mechanism. The dimer limit is treated with exact diagonalization and analytic HPA, while the extended lattice results rely on a truncated Wigner approximation with a positive-diffusion approximation, together with iMPO and cluster mean-field calculations for small spins.

Significance. If the central lattice claims hold, the paper significantly extends the known phenomenology of dissipative phase transitions: it provides a concrete model in which first-order transitions lack phase coexistence and in which a diverging correlation length accompanies a discontinuous order parameter without symmetry breaking. The HPA derivations of the phase boundaries and the correlation-length exponent are clean and parameter-free, and the dimer results are convincing and well supported by exact numerics. The proposed cold-atom/cavity implementation is also a strength. However, the headline lattice conclusions rest on a stochastic method whose derivation is deferred to an unpublished companion paper and which is benchmarked only where fluctuations are small; this makes the significance conditional on additional validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV A and Figs. 5-7] The existence of the PPT phase, the mixed-order AM-PPT transition, and the absence of U(1) symmetry breaking are established almost entirely by the TWA with the additional positive-diffusion approximation, whose derivation is deferred to Ref. [56] (in preparation) and which explicitly discards non-positive diffusion terms. The only benchmark provided is agreement with the HPA in the ordered FM/AM phases (Appendix A), where fluctuations are small, and the iMPO curves in Fig. 5 are for S=1/2 and S=2 while the TWA curves are for S=1000, so there is no overlap in parameters. Since the discarded diffusion terms could in principle be responsible for the apparent suppression of symmetry breaking or for the stability of the PPT phase, the central lattice claims are not yet supported. I request a self-contained derivation of the method or a direct benchmark in the fluctuation-dominated PPT regime, including convergence checks in trajectory number and in S, before these claims are accepted.
  2. [Sec. IV D and Fig. 7(c)] The claim that U(1) symmetry is not broken in the S→∞ limit is supported by the dynamical TWA experiment in Fig. 7(c), where the symmetry-restoration time τsb changes by less than a factor of 2 when S is increased by a factor of 16. This does not exclude a slow divergence at larger S (for example a logarithmic growth), and the simulation uses the same unbenchmarked TWA. A concrete scaling test over a wider range of S, or an analytic bound on τsb, is needed to distinguish true symmetry restoration from a long-lived transient that would eventually break the symmetry in the thermodynamic limit.
  3. [Sec. IV C and Fig. 5(d)] The correlation-length exponent ν≈0.5 for the AM-PPT transition is quoted without specifying how ξ is extracted from the TWA data, the fit ranges used, or the statistical errors. Because the mixed-order classification rests on a diverging correlation length at a jump in the order parameter, this exponent is load-bearing. Please provide the fitting procedure, the data range, and an estimate of the uncertainty, and clarify whether the exponent is obtained from the HPA result or from the numerical TWA curves.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B] The text states that the closing of the Liouvillian gap confirms a sharp phase transition 'in the limit S → 0'; this should clearly read 'S → ∞'.
  2. [Sec. IV A] The positive-diffusion approximation is described only verbally ('non-positive terms ... are also neglected'). A few sentences explaining which terms are discarded and why they are subleading for large S would help the reader assess the approximation, independent of the companion paper.
  3. [Fig. 5] The comparison between TWA (S=1000) and iMPO (S=1/2, S=2) is only qualitative, and the figure caption does not state error bars or the number of trajectories used in the TWA; adding this information would strengthen the presentation.
  4. [Sec. III A] Equation (4) and the surrounding discussion state that the PT-symmetric steady state is close to the fully mixed state with impurity extensive; it would be useful to state the order of the correction term more explicitly, since the text later uses the exact vanishing of the purity at the transition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the central claims are supported by independent analytic HPA results, exact diagonalization, iMPO/CMF simulations, and a TWA whose deferred derivation is a verification gap rather than a circular input.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the phase boundaries in Eq. (3) are obtained from the Holstein-Primakoff linearized master equation in Appendix A: the stability conditions for the |↑↑>, |↓↓>, and |↑↓> phases follow from the analytic occupation numbers (A6)-(A14), not from fitting. The correlation-length exponent ν=1/2 is computed analytically in Eq. (A19), and the TWA simulations independently find the same exponent in Fig. 5(d); the numerical 'ν≃0.5' is an extracted value, not an input. The dimer PT phase's fully mixed steady state and the absence of coexistence are established by exact diagonalization (Figs. 2-3), analytic HPA purity (A23)-(A24), and Liouvillian-gap scaling, so the self-citation to Ref. [46] for the general PT-symmetry statement is corroborated in-paper and is not load-bearing. The lattice PPT phase, mixed-order transition, and absence of U(1) symmetry breaking are outputs of the TWA, CMF cluster-size scaling, and dynamical initialization simulations (Figs. 5-7); no equation in the paper reduces these results to the assumptions of the method. The one genuine gap is that the TWA's 'additional positive diffusion approximation' is asserted in Sec. IV A with its derivation deferred: 'A detailed derivation of the TWA scheme and its applicability for the simulation of collective spin models is presented in a separate publication [56]', and the method is benchmarked only 'in the ordered phases'. This is an omitted derivation and a correctness/verification risk for the fluctuation-dominated PPT regime, but it is not circularity: the claimed results are numerical outputs of an approximate scheme, not restatements of its inputs. Under hard rule 1, no specific equation or constructed equivalence can be exhibited that would make any central claim self-referential. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has no fitted constants: g, h, Gamma_g, Gamma_l are physical inputs. The central claims rest on the HPA expansion, the unpublished TWA variant, and the cited PT-symmetry framework. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The PPT phase is a new phase label, not an invented physical entity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Markovian master equation (2) with local gain and loss terms accurately describes the spin lattice dynamics.
    Standard open quantum systems modeling, needed for all results in the paper.
  • domain assumption For S to infinity, the Holstein-Primakoff approximation linearizing around fully polarized configurations correctly gives the phase boundaries and correlation length exponent nu = 1/2.
    Used in Appendix A to derive Eq. (3) and Eq. (A19); assumes small fluctuations around the ordered phases.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncated Wigner approximation with positive diffusion approximation, detailed in companion paper [56], accurately reproduces steady-state expectation values and correlation functions for large S.
    Main numerical method for the chain results; derivation is not included in this paper and validation is only shown in ordered phases.
  • domain assumption The PT-symmetry result that a PT-symmetric Liouvillian has a steady state close to the fully mixed state, as established in Ref. [46] by the same authors.
    Used in Sec. III.A to interpret the dimer PT phase; the authors cite their own prior work for this general statement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-equilibrium magnetic phases in spin lattices with gain and loss." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VU2WE363

@misc{pith2026190802290,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-equilibrium magnetic phases in spin lattices with gain and loss},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VU2WE363}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02290}
}
abstract

We study the magnetic phases of a non-equilibrium spin chain, where coherent interactions between neighboring lattice sites compete with alternating gain and loss processes. This competition between coherent and incoherent dynamics induces transitions between magnetically aligned and highly mixed phases, across which the system changes from a low- to an effective infinite-temperature state. We show that the origin of these transitions can be traced back to the dynamical effect of parity-time-reversal symmetry breaking, which has no counterpart in the theory of equilibrium phase transitions. This mechanism also results in very atypical features and we find first-order transitions without phase co-existence and mixed-order transitions which do not break the underlying $U(1)$ symmetry, even in the appropriate thermodynamic limit. Thus, despite its simplicity, the current model considerably extends the phenomenology of non-equilibrium phase transitions beyond that commonly assumed for driven-dissipative spins and related systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02290 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Sketch of a 1D spin chain, where the individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Plot of the order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The real part of the first 8 eigenvalues [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. First-order phase transition in the disspative Kerr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Plot of (a) the average magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Plot of the eigenvalues [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Sketch of a setup for implementing a dissipa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    M. K. Olsen, L. I. Plimak, S. Rebic, and A. S. Bradley, Phase-space analysis of bosonic spontaneous emission, Optics Commun. 254, 271 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [46]

    Bartolo, F

    N. Bartolo, F. Minganti, W. Casteels, and C. Ciuti, Ex- act steadystate of a Kerr resonator with one- and two- photon driving and dissipation: Controllable Wigner- function multimodality anddissipative phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A 94, 033841 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [1]

    Phase Boundaries By assuming periodic boundary conditions, the lin- earized ME can be solved by changing to Fourier space, ca/b,n = 1√ N ∑ k einkca/b,k, (A4) where the Hamiltonian reads H = ℏ ∑ k gkca,kc† b,k +g∗ kc† a,kcb,k (A5) with gk = g + heik. For the steady-state occupation numbers in k-space we then obtain ⟨c† a,kca,k⟩ = Γl|gk|2 (Γg− Γl)(|gk|2− Γg...

    work page

  4. [2]

    To quantify these correlations we calculate ⟨c† a,nca,n+s⟩ = 1 N ∑ k ⟨c† a,kca,k⟩eisk, (A15) which can be evaluated in the same way as the magne- tization above

    Correlation length Close to the points where transitions between the dif- ferent phases occur we see the build-up of long-range cor- relations in the steady-state density matrix. To quantify these correlations we calculate ⟨c† a,nca,n+s⟩ = 1 N ∑ k ⟨c† a,kca,k⟩eisk, (A15) which can be evaluated in the same way as the magne- tization above. For example, in ...

    work page

  5. [3]

    Since within the HPA the steady-state is Gaussian we may examine these quantities to understand more about the nature of the phases

    Purity and Entanglement For Gaussian states we can calculate the purity and entanglement negativity from the covariance matrix [69]. Since within the HPA the steady-state is Gaussian we may examine these quantities to understand more about the nature of the phases. This calculation is only analyt- ically tractable in the case of a single dimer, whereh = 0...

    work page

  6. [4]

    D. F. Walls, P. D. Drummond, S. S. Hassan, and H. J. Carmichael, Non-Equilibrium Phase Transitions in Coop- erative Atomic Systems, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 64, 307 (1978)

    work page 1978

  7. [5]

    Dimer, B

    F. Dimer, B. Estienne, A. S. Parkins, and H. J. Carmichael, Proposed realization of the Dicke-model quantum phase transition in an optical cavity QED sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A 75, 013804 (2007)

    2007

  8. [6]

    Morrison and A

    S. Morrison and A. S. Parkins, Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions in the Dissipative Lipkin-Meshkov- 13 Glick Model with Proposed Realization in Optical Cavity QED, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 040403 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 72 references
  1. [7]

    Prosen and I

    T. Prosen and I. Pizor, Quantum Phase Transition in a Far-from-Equilibrium Steady State of an XY Spin Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 105701 (2008)

    2008

  2. [8]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nat. Phys. 4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  3. [9]

    E. M. Kessler, G. Giedke, A. Imamoglu, S. F. Yelin, M. D. Lukin, and J. I. Cirac, Dissipative phase transition in a central spin system, Phys. Rev. A 86, 012116 (2012)

    2012

  4. [10]

    T. E. Lee, S. Gopalakrishnan, and M. D. Lukin, Uncon- ventional Magnetism Via Optical Pumping of Interacting Spin Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 257204 (2013)

    2013

  5. [11]

    L. M. Sieberer, S. D. Huber, E. Altman, and S. Diehl, Dy- namical Critical Phenomena in Driven-Dissipative Sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 195301 (2013)

    2013

  6. [12]

    L. Zou, D. Marcos, S. Diehl, S. Putz, J. Schmiedmayer, J. Majer, and P. Rabl, Implementation of the Dicke lattice model in hybrid quantum system arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 023603 (2014)

    2014

  7. [13]

    Marzolino and T

    U. Marzolino and T. Prosen, Quantum metrology with nonequilibrium steady states of quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. A 90, 062130 (2014)

    2014

  8. [14]

    H. J. Carmichael, Breakdown of Photon Blockade: A Dis- sipative Quantum Phase Transition in Zero Dimensions, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031028 (2015)

    2015

  9. [15]

    Weimer, Variational Principle for Steady States of Dis- sipative Quantum Many-Body Systems, Phys

    H. Weimer, Variational Principle for Steady States of Dis- sipative Quantum Many-Body Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 040402 (2015)

    2015

  10. [16]

    Schiro, C

    M. Schiro, C. Joshi, M. Bordyuh, R. Fazio, J. Keel- ing, and H. E. T¨ ureci, Exotic attractors of the non- equilibrium Rabi-Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 143603 (2016)

    2016

  11. [17]

    J. Jin, A. Biella, O. Viyuela, L. Mazza, J. Keeling, R. Fazio, and D. Rossini, Cluster Mean-Field Approach to the Steady-State Phase Diagram of Dissipative Spin Sys- tems, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031011 (2016)

    2016

  12. [18]

    M. F. Maghrebi and A. V. Gorshkov, Nonequilibrium Many-Body Steady States via Keldysh Formalism, Phys. Rev. B 93, 014307 (2016)

    2016

  13. [19]

    Buchhold, B

    M. Buchhold, B. Everest, M. Marcuzzi, I. Lesanovsky, and S. Diehl, Nonequilibrium effective field theory for absorbing state phase transitions in driven open quantum spin systems, Phys. Rev. B 95, 014308 (2017)

    2017

  14. [20]

    J. M. Fink, A. Dombi, A. Vukics, A. Wallraff, and P. Domokos, Observation of the Photon-Blockade Break- down Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011012 (2017)

    2017

  15. [21]

    Foss-Feig, J

    M. Foss-Feig, J. T. Young, V. V. Albert, A. V. Gor- shkov, and M. F. Maghrebi, Solvable Family of Driven- Dissipative Many-Body Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 190402 (2017)

    2017

  16. [22]

    Kshetrimayum, H

    A. Kshetrimayum, H. Weimer, and R. Ors, A simple ten- sor network algorithm for two-dimensional steady states, Nat. Commun. 8, 1291 (2017)

    2017

  17. [23]

    R. Rota, F. Storme, N. Bartolo, R. Fazio, and C. Ciuti, Critical behavior of dissipative two-dimensional spin lat- tices, Phys. Rev. B 95, 134431 (2017)

    2017

  18. [24]

    Vicentini, F

    F. Vicentini, F. Minganti, R. Rota, G. Orso, and C. Ciuti, Critical slowing down in driven-dissipative Bose-Hubbard lattices, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013853 (2018)

    2018

  19. [25]

    J. Jin, A. Biella, O. Viyuela, C. Ciuti, R. Fazio, and D. Rossini, Phase diagram of the dissipative quantum Ising model on a square lattice, Phys. Rev. B 98, 241108(R) (2018)

    2018

  20. [26]

    Minganti, A

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

    2018

  21. [27]

    Hannukainen and J

    J. Hannukainen and J. Larson, Dissipation-driven quan- tum phase transitions and symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042113 (2018)

    2018

  22. [28]

    Roscher, S

    D. Roscher, S. Diehl, and M. Buchhold, Phenomenology of first-order dark-state phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062117 (2018)

    2018

  23. [29]

    Kirton, M

    P. Kirton, M. M. Roses, J. Keeling, and E. G. Dalla Torre, Introduction to the Dicke model: from equilib- rium to nonequilibrium, and vice versa, Adv. Quantum Technol. 2, 1970013 (2019)

    2019

  24. [30]

    Gillman, F

    E. Gillman, F. Carollo, and I. Lesanovsky, Numeri- cal Simulation of Critical Dissipative Non-Equilibrium Quantum Systems with an Absorbing State, New J. Phys. 21, 093064 (2019)

    2019

  25. [31]

    J. S. Ferreira, and P. Ribeiro, Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model with Markovian dissipation: A description of a collective spin on a metallic surface, Phys. Rev. B 100, 184422 (2019)

    2019

  26. [32]

    Barberena, R

    D. Barberena, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. K. Thompson, and A. M. Rey, Driven-dissipative quantum dynamics in ultra- long-lived dipoles in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. A 99, 053411 (2019)

    2019

  27. [33]

    T. O. Puel, Stefano Chesi, S. Kirchner, and P. Ribeiro, Mixed-Order Symmetry-Breaking Quantum Phase Tran- sition Far from Equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 235701 (2019)

    2019

  28. [34]

    Vicentini, F

    F. Vicentini, F. Minganti, A. Biella, G. Orso, and C. Ciuti, Optimal stochastic unraveling of disordered open quantum systems: Application to driven-dissipative pho- tonic lattices, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032115 (2019)

    2019

  29. [35]

    Landa, M

    H. Landa, M. Schiro, G. Misguich, Multistability of Driven-Dissipative Quantum Spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 043601 (2020)

    2020

  30. [36]

    Verstraelen, and M

    W. Verstraelen, and M. Wouters, Classical critical dy- namics in quadratically driven Kerr resonators, Phys. Rev. A 101, 043826 (2020)

    2020

  31. [37]

    Syassen, D

    N. Syassen, D. M. Bauer, M. Lettner, T. Volz, D. Dietze, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, J. I. Cirac, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, Strong Dissipation Inhibits Losses and Induces Correla- tions in Cold Molecular Gases, Science 320, 1329 (2008)

    2008

  32. [38]

    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

  33. [39]

    J. T. Barreiro, M. M¨ uller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, C. F. Roos, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, An open-system quantum simulator with trapped ions, Nature 470, 486 (2011)

    2011

  34. [40]

    M¨ uller, S

    M. M¨ uller, S. Diehl, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Engineered Open Systems and Quantum Simulations with Atoms and Ions, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 61, 1 (2012)

    2012

  35. [41]

    Safavi-Naini, R

    A. Safavi-Naini, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. G. Bohnet, M. Garttner, K. A. Gilmore, J. E. Jordan, J. Cohn, J. K. Freericks, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Verification of a Many-Ion Simulator of the Dicke Model Through Slow Quenches across a Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 04...

    2018

  36. [42]

    Lienhard, S

    V. Lienhard, S. de Leseleuc, D. Barredo, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, M. Schuler, L.-P. Henry, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Observing the Space- and Time-Dependent Growth of 14 Correlations in Dynamically Tuned Synthetic Ising Mod- els with Antiferromagnetic Interactions, Phys. Rev. X 8, 0...

    2018

  37. [43]

    C. G. Wade, M. Marcuzzi, E. Levi, J. M. Kondo, I. Lesanovsky, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, A terahertz-driven non-equilibrium phase transition in a room temperature atomic vapour, Nature Commun. 9, 3567 (2018)

    2018

  38. [44]

    P. D. Drummond and D. F. Walls, Quantum theory of optical bistability. I. Nonlinear polarisability model, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.13,725 (1980)

    1980

  39. [45]

    Casteels, R

    W. Casteels, R. Fazio, and C. Ciuti, Critical dynami- cal proper-ties of a first-order dissipative phase transi- tion,Phys.Rev.A 95, 012128 (2017)

    2017

  40. [47]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Real spectra in non- hermitian hamiltonians having PT symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243 (1998)

    1998

  41. [48]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Non- Hermitian physics and PT symmetry, Nature Phys. 14, 11 (2018)

    2018

  42. [49]

    Huber, P

    J. Huber, P. Kirton, S. Rotter, and P. Rabl, Emer- gence of PT-symmetry breaking in open quantum sys- tems, arXiv:2003.02265 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  43. [50]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Absence of Ferro- magnetism or Antiferromagnetism in One- or Two- Dimensional Isotropic Heisenberg Models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  44. [51]

    Vidal, Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in One Spatial Dimension, Phys

    G. Vidal, Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in One Spatial Dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070201 (2007)

    2007

  45. [52]

    Ors, and G

    R. Ors, and G. Vidal, Infinite time-evolving block deci- mation algorithm beyond unitary evolution. Phys. Rev. B 78, 155117 (2008)

    2008

  46. [53]

    Polkovnikov, Phase space representation of quantum dynamics, Annals of Phys

    A. Polkovnikov, Phase space representation of quantum dynamics, Annals of Phys. 325, 1790 (2010)

    2010

  47. [54]

    Ng and E

    R. Ng and E. S. Sørensen, Exact real-time dynamics of quantum spin systems using the positive-P representa- tion, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 065305 (2011)

    2011

  48. [55]

    R. Ng, E. S. Sørensen, and P. Deuar, Simulation of the dynamics of many-body quantum spin systems using phase-space techniques, Phys. Rev. B 88, 144304 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise (Springer, 2000)

    2000

  50. [58]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  51. [59]

    Huber et al., in preparation

    J. Huber et al., in preparation

  52. [60]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    2001

  53. [61]

    Bar and D

    A. Bar and D. Mukamel, Mixed-Order Phase Transi- tion in a One-Dimensional Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 015701 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    K. V. Kepesidis, T. J. Milburn, J. Huber, K. G. Makris, S. Rotter, and P. Rabl, PT-symmetry breaking in the steady state of microscopic gain-loss systems, New J. Phys. 18, 095003 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Huber and P

    J. Huber and P. Rabl, Active energy transport and the role of symmetry breaking in microscopic power grids, Phys. Rev. A 100, 012129 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Vazquez-Candanedo, J

    O. Vazquez-Candanedo, J. C. Hernandez-Herrejon, F. M. Izrailev, and D. N. Christodoulides, Gain-or loss- induced localization in one-dimensional PT-symmetric tight-binding models, Phys. Rev. A 89, 013832 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    A. J. Kollar, A. T. Papageorge, V. D. Vaidya, Y. Guo, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Supermode-density-wave- polariton condensation with a Bose-Einstein condensate in a multimode cavity, Nature Commun.8, 14386 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Morales, P

    A. Morales, P. Zupancic, J. Leonard, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Coupling two order parameters in a quantum gas, Nature Materials 17, 686 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Morales, D

    A. Morales, D. Dreon, X. Li, A. Baumg¨ artner, P. Zupan- cic, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Two-mode Dicke model from non-degenerate polarization modes, Phys. Rev. A 100, 013816 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    A. D. Greentree, C. Tahan, J. H. Cole, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Quantum phase transitions of light, Nature Phys. 2, 856 (2006)

    2006

  61. [69]

    M. J. Hartmann, F. G. S. L. Brandao, and M. B. Ple- nio, Strongly interacting polaritons in coupled arrays of cavities, Nature Phys. 2, 849 (2006)

    2006

  62. [70]

    J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, N. P. de Leon, J. Feist, A. V. Akimov, M. Gullans, A. S. Zibrov, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, Coupling a single trapped atom to a nanoscale optical cavity, Science 340, 1202 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    Goban, C.-L

    A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, S. P. Yu, J. D. Hood, J. A. Muniz, J. H. Lee, M. J. Martin, A. C. McClung, K. S. Choi, D. E. Chang, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimble, Atom-light interactions in photonic crystals, Nat. Commun. 5, 3808 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    Serafini, F

    A. Serafini, F. Illuminati, M. G. Paris, and S. De Siena, Entanglement and purity of two-mode Gaussian states in noisy channels, Phys. Rev. A, 69, 022318 (2004)

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.