Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Quantum manifestations of homogeneous and inhomogeneous oscillation suppression states

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coupled identical quantum van der Pol oscillators can reach a quantum oscillation death state—a symmetry-broken inhomogeneous steady state visible as a two-lobed Wigner function in the deep quantum regime.

desk verdict Interesting quantum AD results and a suggestive but unproven quantum OD claim; deserves peer review with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.10039 v2 pith:IAS6CTI4 submitted 2020-09-21 nlin.CD nlin.AOquant-ph

Biswabibek Bandyopadhyay , Taniya Khatun , Debabrata Biswas , Tanmoy Banerjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.CDnlin.AOquant-ph PACS 05.45.-a03.65.-w42.50.-p
keywords quantumvanderPoloscillatoramplitudedeathoscillationWignerfunctionHusimimean-fieldcouplingsymmetrybreakingTuringbifurcation
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

The paper sets out to show that the two classical oscillation-suppression phenomena—amplitude death and oscillation death—have distinct quantum counterparts in two identical van der Pol oscillators coupled through a weighted mean field. It reports that amplitude death survives in the quantum setting in two forms, squeezed and nonsqueezed, depending on the coupling type. It further reports that oscillation death, in which oscillators settle into different nonzero steady states, is absent in the classical limit of the quantum model but appears in the deep quantum regime as a two-lobed Wigner function. A sympathetic reader would care because this would be the first quantum analog of oscillation death and a concrete hint that the classical Turing-type symmetry-breaking transition has a quantum version.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the Lindblad master equation for two coupled quantum van der Pol oscillators, with weighted mean-field diffusive coupling, solved in a truncated Fock basis. The diagnostic object is the steady-state Wigner function (and its Husimi cousin): the paper reads a single-peaked origin as quantum amplitude death, squeezing in the quadrature distribution as squeezed quantum AD, and a two-lobed bimodal distribution with off-diagonal density-matrix elements as quantum oscillation death. The deep quantum regime ($k_2>k_1$) is essential because only there the low-lying Fock-state occupation makes the symmetry-breaking bifurcation of the Wigner function visible.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to compute, at $q=1.5$ and $\epsilon/k_1=20$ in the deep quantum regime, a quantitative bimodality or coherence measure such as the magnitude of the off-diagonal density-matrix element or a phase-space separation metric; if that measure stays at noise level for a single uncoupled oscillator run under the same parameters, or if the two lobes merge when the off-diagonal terms are set to zero by hand, the quantum-OD claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two identical quantum van der Pol oscillators under scalar weighted mean-field coupling exhibit a quantum oscillation death state in the deep quantum regime ($k_1=1$, $k_2=3$), with high mean-field density $q>1$ and strong coupling $\epsilon/k_1=20$. In this state the steady-state Wigner and Husimi functions split into two separated lobes, the density matrix contains nonzero off-diagonal (coherence) elements, and the mean phonon number rises markedly—the quantum counterpart of the inhomogeneous steady states seen in classical oscillation death. The paper also claims that in the classical-limit parameter regime no oscillation death appears: quantum noise homogenizes the steady states around the origin, and the only quantum suppression is a squeezed amplitude death state. It interprets the transition from squeezed quantum amplitude death to the two-lobed state as a qualitative quantum analog of the AD-to-OD Turing-type bifurcation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two-lobed, always-positive steady-state Wigner function in the deep quantum regime is a genuine symmetry-broken inhomogeneous quantum state, not a statistical mixture produced by strong nonlinear damping and quantum noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quantum amplitude death comes in two distinguishable forms—squeezed and nonsqueezed—depending on whether the coupling acts symmetrically on all phase-space variables.
  • The classical parameter regime that produces oscillation death in mean-field-coupled oscillators produces only homogenized steady states in the quantum model, so classical OD does not directly survive quantization.
  • If the two-lobed state is genuine quantum OD, then a symmetry-breaking inhomogeneous steady state exists in the quantum domain and is observable through phase-space quasiprobability distributions.
  • The route from squeezed quantum AD to quantum OD as mean-field density increases offers a controllable, parameter-mismatch-free setting for studying a quantum Turing-type bifurcation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the Wigner function in the reported quantum OD state is always positive, a classical mixture of two displaced coherent states would also produce two lobes; a quantitative witness of quantum coherence, not just bimodality, is needed to confirm the symmetry-breaking reading.
  • Editorial inference: the same master-equation machinery could be applied to a single oscillator with matched nonlinear damping and noise; if the two-lobed Wigner function persists without coupling, the state is a noise effect rather than an emergent OD state.
  • Editorial inference: extending the model to a ring or network of many quantum van der Pol oscillators could test whether quantum multicluster oscillation death or chimera-like states appear, connecting to known classical network phenomena.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

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. This paper studies quantum counterparts of amplitude death (AD) and oscillation death (OD) in two identical quantum van der Pol oscillators coupled by weighted mean-field diffusive coupling. It first revisits the classical bifurcation structure for nonscalar and scalar coupling, including Hopf and pitchfork bifurcations. It then writes quantum master equations for both coupling schemes, solves them numerically, and compares mean phonon numbers and Wigner functions with a noisy classical model. Under nonscalar coupling the authors find a nonsqueezed quantum AD; under scalar coupling they find a squeezed quantum AD and, in the deep quantum regime (k1=1, k2=3) with high q and strong coupling, a two-lobed Wigner/Husimi distribution that they interpret as a quantum OD state. They also suggest this indicates a quantum analog of the Turing-type bifurcation. The paper's central claim is that this is the first observation of a quantum OD state.

Significance. The classical bifurcation analysis, the noisy-classical comparison, and the demonstration that OD is absent from the classical limit of the quantum model are valuable and are executed carefully; the master equations are stated explicitly and the numerical approach (QuTiP) is standard. The comparison with the noisy classical model is not circular because no parameters are fitted to the quantum outputs. If the quantum OD interpretation were established, the result would be significant as a first quantum analog of oscillation death and a symmetry-breaking inhomogeneous steady state in coupled quantum oscillators. However, the current evidence is not decisive because the distinguishing signature relies on visual inspection of a positive Wigner function and on off-diagonal density-matrix elements that are also compatible with a classical statistical mixture. The paper's own caveats in Sec. V and the Conclusions explicitly state that no quantitative measure exists and that stronger conclusions require further measures.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Figs. 7 and 8] The central evidence for the claimed quantum OD state is underdetermined. The Wigner function in Figs. 7(e-h) is stated to be always positive, and the inset of Fig. 7(i) shows only that some off-diagonal density-matrix elements are nonzero. Both features are reproduced by the classical-like mixture rho_mix = (|beta><beta| + |-beta><-beta|)/2, whose Fock-basis elements are nonzero for n-n' even; this is a statistical mixture, not a quantum superposition. The paper itself states in Sec. V (around Fig. 8) that the OD region is demarcated by visual inspection and that no quantitative measure exists. I therefore do not see a demonstrated distinction between the claimed quantum OD state and a two-lobe mixture produced by strong nonlinear damping and noise. A quantitative witness is needed, for example an order parameter built from the joint two-oscillator state, such as the distribution of <a1-a2> or the two-mode Wigner function, rather than the single-oscillator Wigner function alone.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (15)] No test for genuine symmetry breaking is provided. The master equation (15) is linear and invariant under exchange of the two oscillators; if its steady state is unique, that steady state must also be exchange-invariant. A two-lobed reduced Wigner function is then a symmetric statistical mixture, not a spontaneously symmetry-broken inhomogeneous state. To support the claim of a symmetry-breaking bifurcation, the authors should demonstrate either multiple steady states or long-lived metastability: for example, prepare the system in states localized near each lobe and show that the lobe population remains bistable on accessible timescales, or measure a two-time order-parameter correlation whose relaxation time grows near the purported transition. Without such a test, the word 'bifurcation' is not justified by the steady-state data.
  3. [Sec. V and Conclusions] The suggestion of a quantum Turing-type transition from quantum AD to quantum OD is presented in the abstract and conclusions, but the authors themselves caution that the exact route cannot be identified without more quantitative measures. Since this transition is part of the paper's central narrative, it should either be supported by a measurable order parameter across the transition (for example, a Binder cumulant of the lobe population or another symmetry-breaking witness) or be removed from the abstract and conclusions until such support exists.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V, Figs. 5 and 7] The term 'squeezed quantum AD' is not quantified; reporting the quadrature variances relative to the vacuum or the standard quantum limit for the states in Figs. 5 and 7(c,d) would make the claim precise.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B3)] The factorization <a-dagger a^2> approximately equals |<a^2>|<a> is unclear and appears to be a typo; for a coherent state the correct factorization is <a-dagger a^2> = <a-dagger a><a> = |<a>|^2 <a>.
  3. [References] Reference [3] gives the volume and page range of the Koseska-Volkov-Kurths review incorrectly; it should be Physics Reports 531, 173-199 (2013).
  4. [Fig. 7(i) inset] The histogram of density-matrix elements in the inset of Fig. 7(i) should state whether it is for the reduced single-oscillator state or the joint two-oscillator state, and should define the Fock-state labeling, since this is important for evaluating the 'coherence' claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quantum OD claim is an interpretive underdetermination, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained by numerically solving the quantum master equations (7) and (15) with fixed parameters (k1, k2, omega, epsilon, q); no parameter is fitted to the quantum Wigner or Husimi outputs, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict. The classical and noisy-classical comparisons in Secs. IV and V are independent limits or benchmarks, not fitted targets. The authors' self-citations (e.g., Refs. [20,21] for the classical weighted mean-field bifurcation curves) supply prior classical results used for comparison; they are not invoked to force the quantum oscillation-death conclusion. The main weakness is the deep-quantum-regime claim in Sec. V: the quantum OD region is demarcated 'by visual inspection of the bifurcation of Wigner function,' and the paper concedes that 'an exact demarcation of the quantum OD in the parameter space is difficult in the absence of any quantitative measure of this state' and that the Wigner function 'is always positive.' These admissions show that the symmetry-breaking/quantum-interference reading is underdetermined, and a positive two-lobed Wigner function is also compatible with a classical-like mixture. However, underdetermination is an evidentiary or interpretive limitation, not a circular reduction: the observation is not equivalent to the model input by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 1, reflecting only the minor self-reliance on the authors' earlier classical coupling papers, which are not load-bearing for the specifically quantum claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model parameters k1, k2, omega, epsilon, and q are physical inputs from the classical and quantum oscillator model, not fitted to data. The single hand-chosen element is the quantum OD boundary curve, drawn by visual inspection. The central QOD claim rests on an interpretive assumption about the Wigner function rather than a derived order parameter. The classical-limit correspondence also uses a standard factorization whose validity in the deep quantum regime is not established.

free parameters (1)
  • quantum OD boundary curve = dashed line in Fig. 8, placed by visual inspection of Wigner function bifurcation
    Used to delineate the parameter region where quantum OD is claimed; the paper states an exact demarcation is difficult in the absence of a quantitative measure.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Lindblad master equations (7) and (15) faithfully represent two coupled quantum van der Pol oscillators with weighted mean-field diffusive coupling.
    The coupling is introduced phenomenologically to match the classical mean-field equations; no microscopic derivation is provided.
  • domain assumption In the classical limit, the quantum expectation value obeys ⟨a† a²⟩ ≈ |⟨a²⟩|⟨a⟩, so the master equation reduces to the classical amplitude equation.
    Appendix B; the factorization is a standard mean-field approximation and may fail in the deep quantum regime used for the central OD claim.
  • ad hoc to paper A two-lobed, always-positive Wigner function with nonzero off-diagonal density-matrix elements is a valid indicator of a quantum oscillation death state.
    Section V and Fig. 7; authors state there is no quantitative measure, and Wigner positivity means the state could be a classical mixture rather than a quantum-superposed symmetry-broken state.
  • standard math The usual Lindblad dissipator and Wigner function formalism are valid for open quantum systems in the deep quantum regime.
    Standard quantum optics background used throughout the paper.
invented entities (2)
  • Quantum oscillation death (QOD) state
    purpose: Name for the symmetry-broken two-lobed steady state of two coupled quantum van der Pol oscillators in the deep quantum regime.
    No external experimental or quantitative falsifiable handle is given; the state is identified by visual inspection of Wigner and Husimi functions in Figs. 7 and 8.
  • Squeezed quantum amplitude death
    purpose: Label for quantum amplitude death with quadrature squeezing under scalar coupling.
    Describes a feature visible in the Wigner function; no independent observable or quantitative criterion beyond the numerical plot is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum manifestations of homogeneous and inhomogeneous oscillation suppression states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IAS6CTI4

@misc{pith2026200910039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum manifestations of homogeneous and inhomogeneous oscillation suppression states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IAS6CTI4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.10039}
}
read the original abstract

We study the quantum manifestations of homogeneous and inhomogeneous oscillation suppression states in coupled identical quantum oscillators. We consider quantum van der Pol oscillators coupled via weighted mean-field diffusive coupling and using the formalism of open quantum system we show that depending upon the coupling and the density of mean-field, two types of quantum amplitude death occurs, namely squeezed and nonsqueezed quantum amplitude death. Surprisingly, we find that the inhomogeneous oscillation suppression state (or the oscillation death state) does not occur in the quantum oscillators in the classical limit. However, in the deep quantum regime we discover an oscillation death-like state which is manifested in the phase space through the symmetry-breaking bifurcation of Wigner function. Our results also hint towards the possibility of the transition from quantum amplitude death to oscillation death state through the "quantum" Turing-type bifurcation. We believe that the observation of quantum oscillation death state will deepen our knowledge of symmetry-breaking dynamics in the quantum domain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.10039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Nonscalar coupling: Amplitude death (AD) oc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Two parameter diagram in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The steady state mean phonon number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Re( 1) W( 1) 0.04 0 -4 4 -4 4 (i) 0.049 0.04 0.037 (a) (c) (e) (g) (d) (f) (h) 0.097 0.113 Re(

    work page

  2. [2]

    and the mean phonon number of the 6 noisy classical classical quantum 0 1 2 3 4 0 3 6 | 1 ____ |2, 〈a1 a1〉, | 1 _____ |nc 2 /k1HB,ns/k1 FIG. 4. Nonscalar coupling: Comparison of the classical, quantum, and semiclassical results. At q = 0.2, the aver- age amplitude from the classical model (|α1|2), mean phonon number from the quantum model (⟨a† 1a1⟩) and t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Other pa- rameters are k1 = 1, k2 = 0.2, and ω = 2

    of the first oscillator plotted together with coupling strength. Other pa- rameters are k1 = 1, k2 = 0.2, and ω = 2. quantum model (⟨a† 1a1⟩) of the first oscillator with the coupling parameter. The averaged classical amplitude shows an abrupt jump from oscillatory state to death state atεHB,ns . Whereas, the mean phonon number and the averaged amplitude of...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Red dashed line represents the shift of the stable inhomogeneous fixed points from the origin in the OD state

    of the first oscillator at q = 0.2. Red dashed line represents the shift of the stable inhomogeneous fixed points from the origin in the OD state. Other parameters are k1 = 1, k2 = 0.2 and ω = 2. case of the the previous section, we consider k1 = 1 and k2 = 0.2. The results are summarized in Fig. 5: it shows the mean phonon number ⟨a† 1a1⟩ (=⟨a† 2a2⟩) along...

    work page

  5. [5]

    membrane-in-the-middle

    Re( 1) Im( 1)Im( 1) 0.084 0.087 4 4 4 4 4-4 -4 4 0 0 0 0 0000 /k1=0 q=0.6, /k1=20 q=1.25, /k1=20 q=1.5, /k1=20 -4 -4 -4 -4 0.049 0 0 9 9 0.18 0 FIG. 7. Quantum manifestation of oscillation death (OD): Deep quantum region (k1 = 1 andk2 = 3). (a, c, e, g) Wigner function (b, d, f, h) Husimi function. (a, b) Limit cycle oscillation in uncoupled oscillators (...

    work page

  6. [6]

    T. E. Lee, C.-K. Chan, and S. Wang, Entanglement tongue and quantum synchronization of disordered os- cillators, Phys. Rev. E 89, 022913 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Strogatz, Sync: The emerging science of spontaneous order (Penguin UK, 2004)

    S. Strogatz, Sync: The emerging science of spontaneous order (Penguin UK, 2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Pikovsky, M

    A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths, Synchroniza- tion: A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences (Cam- bridge University Press, England, 2003)

    work page 2003

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Koseska, E

    A. Koseska, E. Volkov, and J. Kurths, Oscillation quench- ing mechanisms: Amplitude vs oscillation death, Phys. Reports 80, 5109 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    T. E. Lee and H. R. Sadeghpour, Quantum synchroniza- tion of quantum van der pol oscillators with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 234101 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Walter, A

    S. Walter, A. Nunnenkamp, and C. Bruder, Quan- tum synchronization of a driven self-sustained oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 094102 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Mok, L.-C

    W.-K. Mok, L.-C. Kwek, and H. Heimonen, Synchro- nization boost with single-photon dissipation in the deep quantum regime, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033422 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Walter, A

    S. Walter, A. Nunnenkamp, and C. Bruder, Quantum synchronization of two van der pol oscillators, Ann. der. Phys. 527, 131 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    L¨ orch, S

    N. L¨ orch, S. E. Nigg, A. Nunnenkamp, R. P. Tiwari, and C. Bruder, Quantum synchronization blockade: Energy quantization hinders synchronization of identical oscilla- tors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 243602 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Morgan and H

    L. Morgan and H. Hinrichsen, Oscillation and synchro- nization of two quantum self-sustained oscillators, J. Stat. Mech. 28, P09009 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    V. M. Bastidas, I. Omelchenko, A. Zakharova, E. Sch¨ oll, and T. Brandes, Quantum signatures of chimera states, Phys. Rev. E 92, 062924 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Sonar, M

    S. Sonar, M. Hajduˇ sek, M. Mukherjee, R. Fazio, V. Ve- dral, S. Vinjanampathy, and L. Kwek, Squeezing en- hances quantum synchronization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 163601 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Turing, The chemical basis of morphogenesis, Philos

    A. Turing, The chemical basis of morphogenesis, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 237, 37 (1952)

    1952

  11. [19]

    A. W. Laskar, P. Adhikary, S. Mondal, P. Katiyar, S. Vinjanampathy, and S. Ghosh, Observation of quan- tum phase synchronization in spin-1 atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 013601 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Koppenh¨ ofer, C

    M. Koppenh¨ ofer, C. Bruder, and A. Roulet, Quantum synchronization on the IBM Q system, Phys. Rev. Re- search 2, 023026 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Ishibashi and R

    K. Ishibashi and R. Kanamoto, Oscillation collapse in coupled quantum van der pol oscillators, Phys. Rev. E 96, 052210 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Amitai, M

    E. Amitai, M. Koppenh¨ ofer, N. L¨ orch, and C. Bruder, Quantum effects in amplitude death of coupled anhar- monic self-oscillators, Phys. Rev. E 97, 052203 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Koseska, E

    A. Koseska, E. Volkov, and J. Kurths, Transition from amplitude to oscillation death via turing bifurcation, Phys. Rev. Lett 111, 024103 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    D. G. Aronson, G. B. Ermentrout, and N. Kopell, Ampli- tude response of coupled oscillators, Physica D 41, 403 (1990)

    1990

  17. [25]

    van der Pol, On oscillation hysteresis in a triode gen- erator with two degrees of freedom, Philos

    B. van der Pol, On oscillation hysteresis in a triode gen- erator with two degrees of freedom, Philos. Mag. 43, 700 (1922)

    1922

  18. [26]

    Banerjee and D

    T. Banerjee and D. Ghosh, Transition from amplitude to oscillation death under mean-field diffusive coupling, Phys. Rev. E 89, 052912 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Banerjee and D

    T. Banerjee and D. Ghosh, Experimental observation of a transition from amplitude to oscillation death in coupled oscillators, Phys. Rev. E 89, 062902 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    D. V. Ramana Reddy, A. Sen, and G. L. Johnston, Time delay induced death in coupled limit cycle oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett 80, 5109 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    Saxena, A

    G. Saxena, A. Prasad, and R. Ramaswamy, Amplitude death: The emergence of stationarity in coupled nonlin- ear systems, Physics Reports 521, 205 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    H.Hellen and E

    E. H.Hellen and E. Volkov, How to couple identical ring oscillators to get quasiperiodicity, extended chaos, mul- tistability, and the loss of symmetry, Comm. in Nonlin Sci. Num. Simulat. 62, 462 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    W. Zou, D. V. Senthilkumar, J. Duan, and J. Kurths, Emergence of amplitude and oscillation death in identical coupled oscillators, Phys. Rev. E 90, 032906 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Garc´ ıa-Ojalvo, M

    J. Garc´ ıa-Ojalvo, M. B. Elowitz, and S. H. Strogatz, Modeling a synthetic multicellular clock: Repressilators coupled by quorum sensing, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 10955 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Ullner, A

    E. Ullner, A. Zaikin, E. I. Volkov, and J. Garc´ ıa-Ojalvo, Multistability and clustering in a population of synthetic genetic oscillators via phase-repulsive cell-to-cell commu- nication, Phys. Rev. Lett 99, 148103 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Ghosh, T

    D. Ghosh, T. Banerjee, and J. Kurths, Revival of oscilla- tion from mean-field-induced death: Theory and experi- ment, Phys. Rev. E 92, 052908 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Banerjee, P

    T. Banerjee, P. S. Dutta, and A. Gupta, Mean-field dispersion-induced spatial synchrony, oscillation and am- plitude death, and temporal stability in an ecological model, Phys. Rev. E 91, 052919 (2015). 11

    2015

  28. [36]

    Ansmann, Efficiently and easily integrating differen- tial equations with JiTCODE, JiTCDDE, and JiTCSDE, Chaos 28, 043116 (2018)

    G. Ansmann, Efficiently and easily integrating differen- tial equations with JiTCODE, JiTCDDE, and JiTCSDE, Chaos 28, 043116 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Zakharova, I

    A. Zakharova, I. Schneider, Y. N. Kyrychko, K. B. Blyuss, A. Koseska, B. Fiedler, and E. Sch¨ oll, Time de- lay control of symmetry-breaking primary and secondary oscillation death, EPL 104, 50004 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Ermentrout, Simulating, Analyzing, and Animating Dynamical Systems: A Guide to Xppaut for Researchers and Students (Software, Environments, Tools) (SIAM Press, 2002)

    B. Ermentrout, Simulating, Analyzing, and Animating Dynamical Systems: A Guide to Xppaut for Researchers and Students (Software, Environments, Tools) (SIAM Press, 2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems., Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Weinbub and D

    J. Weinbub and D. K. Ferry, Recent advances in wigner function approaches, Appl. Phys. Rev. 5, 041104 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    H. J. Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1 (Springer, 1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    K. Goda, O. M. E. E. Mikhailov, S. Saraf, R. Ad- hikari, K. McKenzie, R. Ward, S. Vass, A. J. Wein- stein, and N. Mavalvala, A quantum-enhanced prototype gravitational-wave detector, Nat. Phys. 4, 472 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    However, unlike the vortex state and Schr¨ odinger cat state in our system the Wigner function is always positive

    (see Chapter 4 of [44]); also, it shares some of the visual features of the squeezed Schr¨ odinger cat (like) state [45, 46]. However, unlike the vortex state and Schr¨ odinger cat state in our system the Wigner function is always positive. Nevertheless, this visual resemblanc...

    2019

  36. [44]

    C. K. Zachos, D. B. Fairlie, and T. L. Curtright,Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    R. P. Rundle, P. W. Mills, T. Tilma, J. H. Samson, and M. J. Everitt, Simple procedure for phase-space mea- surement and entanglement validation, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022117 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    M. R. Hush, W. Li, S. Genway, I. Lesanovsky, and A. D. Armour, Spin correlations as a probe of quantum syn- chronization in trapped-ion phonon lasers, Phys. Rev. A 91, 061401(R) (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Jayich, J

    A. Jayich, J. Sankey, B. Zwickl, C. Yang, J. Thompson, S. Girvin, A. Clerk, F. Marquardt, and J. Harris, Disper- sive optomechanics: a membrane inside a cavity, New J. Phys. 8, 095008 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Quantum computation over continuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1784 (1999)

    1999

  41. [49]

    G. S. Agarwal, Engineering non-gaussian entangled states with vortices by photon subtraction, New J. Phys. 13, 073008 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    G. S. Agarwal, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, England, 2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    Gerry and P

    C. Gerry and P. Knight, Introductory Quantum Op- tics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    Hacker, S

    B. Hacker, S. Welte, S. Daiss, A. Shaukat, S. Ritter, L. Li, and G. Rempe, Deterministic creation of entangled atom- light schr¨ odinger-cat states, Nature Photonics 13, 110 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Zakharova, M

    A. Zakharova, M. Kapeller, and E. Sch¨ oll, Chimera death: Symmetry breaking in dynamical networks, Phys. Rev. Lett 112, 154101 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Banerjee, Mean-field-diffusion–induced chimera death state, EPL 110, 60003 (2015)

    T. Banerjee, Mean-field-diffusion–induced chimera death state, EPL 110, 60003 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.