Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Super-Poissonian Squeezed Light in the Deep Strong Regime of the Quantum Rabi Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An exact solution of the quantum Rabi model shows its ground-state cavity field is squeezed in one quadrature, with the squeezing peaking at the superradiant transition and reaching r≈0.8 at g/ω≈3, while the photon statistics stay…

desk verdict The conditional-state calculations are real, but the central claim that the ground state emits squeezed light is sunk by the spin-averaging error, so the paper needs a major reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04085 v1 pith:QGS6W5GK submitted 2024-12-05 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Chon-Fai Kam , Xuedong Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords quantumRabimodeldeepstrongcouplingsqueezedlightsuper-PoissonianstatisticsphasetransitionSegal-Bargmannrepresentationtrapped-ionsimulationcavityelectrodynamics
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 aims to establish what the photonic part of the quantum Rabi ground state looks like when the atom–mode coupling g exceeds the mode frequency ω, the deep strong coupling regime now accessible in trapped-ion and superconducting simulators. Using the exact analytic solution of the model, the authors compute the quadrature variances, mean photon number, and number fluctuations of the two spin-projected photonic states that compose the entangled eigenstate. They find that the field is squeezed in one quadrature, with an effective squeezing parameter r peaking along a curve just below the normal-to-superradiant phase transition and reaching about 0.8 at g/ω≈3. The same state has super-Poissonian photon statistics—number variance larger than the mean—for every coupling strength, so the ground state is squeezed light that would be classified as noisy by a Hanbury Brown–Twiss measurement; the paper concludes that photon statistics alone cannot certify quantumness in this regime.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the exact Segal–Bargmann solution of the quantum Rabi model. For H=Δσ_z+ωa†a+gσ_x(a†+a) with ω=1, parity symmetry splits the Hilbert space, and the eigenfunctions are two-component holomorphic functions built from coefficients K_n(x) and J_n(x) determined by the recurrence nK_n=f_{n−1}(x)K_{n−1}−K_{n−2}, with each eigenvalue coming from a zero of the spectral function G_±(x_m). The photonic states |Δ,g,±⟩ are expanded in shifted number states D(±g)|n⟩, which turns expectation values of quadratures and number operators into convergent series. From these series the authors evaluate ⟨x⟩, the variances Δx and Δp, the photon fluctuation $Δn^{2}$, and the overlap ⟨Δ,g,+|Δ,g,−⟩, and they define the squeezing parameter r≡−(1/2)ln(Δp/Δx). The general quadrature variance (ΔI)^2=(Δx)^2 $cos^{2}$φ+(Δp)^2 $sin^{2}$φ maps the squeezing ellipse onto a spiric section, with the infinite-squeezing limit traced by the lemniscate of Bernoulli.

What would settle it

A trapped-ion or superconducting experiment at g/ω≈3 that measures the unheralded cavity-mode quadrature variances and photon-number variance should find Δp/Δx ≈ $e^{{−2r}}$ with r≈0.8 and $Δn^{2}$>⟨n⟩; observing r≈0, or sub-Poissonian number statistics, would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the lowest odd-parity eigenstate |ψ0,−⟩ = |Δ,g,+⟩⊗|+⟩ + |Δ,g,−⟩⊗|−⟩ of the quantum Rabi model carries photonic squeezing that grows with coupling and is maximal at the quantum phase transition. With ω=1, the authors define the effective squeezing parameter r ≡ −(1/2) ln(Δp/Δx), where Δp and Δx are the quadrature uncertainties of the photonic components, and show by direct evaluation that r reaches roughly 0.8 for g/ω≈3, along a ridge in the (Δ,g) plane close to, but slightly below, the phase-transition curve Δ=$2g^{2}$ (a quadratic fit gives Δ≈$2g^{2}$−1.5g+0.6). They also find that the photon-number variance always exceeds the mean, $Δn^{2}$>⟨n⟩, so the distribution is super-Poissonian for all coupling strengths, with the largest deviation from Poissonian behavior at the phase transition. In the normal phase the photonic components behave approximately as standard squeezed states, whereas in the superradiant phase the uncertainty product rises above 1/2, the overlap between the two photonic components drops sharply, and the ground state becomes a cat-like entangled state; the paper reads this as deterministically generated super-Poissonian squeezed light.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that measuring the cavity without reading the spin leaves the quadrature variances and number fluctuations of the spin-projected photonic components unchanged, an identification that holds only if the two components have the same means and variances; in the superradiant phase, where their coherent offsets are large, this equality is not automatic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trapped-ion Rabi simulator operating at g/ω≈3 should show directly measurable quadrature squeezing with r≈0.8, which can be seen in standard homodyne or phonon-tomography measurements.
  • Because the maximum squeezing sits on the phase-transition ridge and drops quickly on both sides, the coupling ratio provides a sharp control knob: a small change in g or Δ near the ridge changes the squeezing strongly.
  • The super-Poissonian statistics imply that a Hanbury Brown–Twiss measurement reporting g^(2)(0)>1 will not discriminate the quantum squeezed ground state from classical chaotic light; distinguishing the two requires higher-order correlations or entanglement witnesses.
  • Crossing into the superradiant phase, the mean photon number and the mean x-quadrature jump by an order of magnitude and the two photonic components become nearly orthogonal, so the cavity emission should switch from a roughly coherent squeezed field to a bright cat-like field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the near-orthogonality of |Δ,g,+⟩ and |Δ,g,−⟩ in the superradiant phase suggests the ground state is a macroscopic-cat resource for entanglement-based quantum metrology; the paper notes the cat picture but does not propose such an application.
  • Going beyond the paper, the spiric-section variance formula means the full squeezing ellipse can be reconstructed from three phase-rotated quadrature measurements, so an experiment can extract r and the anti-squeezing direction without assuming a minimum-uncertainty state.
  • Going beyond the paper, one can test whether the reported super-Poissonian squeezed state persists for thermal or lossy cavities; if it does, the result would extend into open-system dynamics, which the paper lists as future work.
  • Going beyond the paper, the same series-expansion machinery applied to excited parity states could reveal whether the super-Poissonian and squeezing features are ground-state-specific or generic to the spectrum; the authors leave this for future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper solves the quantum Rabi model analytically in the Segal-Bargmann representation and studies the photonic statistics of the ground eigenstate. It claims that in the deep strong coupling regime the photonic state is squeezed, with an effective squeezing parameter reaching r≈0.8 for g/ω≈3, and that the photon-number distribution is super-Poissonian. The analysis is based on the spin-projected photonic states |Δ,g,±⟩ of Eq. (5); the paper asserts that when a photonic measurement is performed without spin knowledge, the uncertainties and statistics remain unchanged.

Significance. The paper draws on the exact analytic solution of the quantum Rabi model, which is a strength: the computation has no fitted free parameters and the series expressions are explicit. If the central claim were correct, the predicted deep-strong-coupling squeezing would be relevant to trapped-ion and circuit-QED experiments. However, the central quantitative claim is undermined by two load-bearing issues: the spin-averaging treatment of variances is incorrect, and the effective squeezing parameter is not a valid measure of quadrature squeezing for states with ΔxΔp>1/2. These issues affect the abstract's headline numbers and the interpretation of Figs. 1–6. The paper's underlying exact-solution framework has merit, but the current presentation overstates and mischaracterizes the squeezing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, first paragraph] The statement ‘the uncertainties and statistics remain unchanged’ after averaging over the two spin projections is incorrect. The reduced photonic state is an equal mixture ρ_ph = (1/2)(|Δ,g,+⟩⟨Δ,g,+| + |Δ,g,−⟩⟨Δ,g,−|), so for any quadrature O the unconditional variance is Var_ρ(O) = (Var_+ + Var_−)/2 + (⟨O⟩_+ − ⟨O⟩_−)^2/4. Since Figs. 2c–2d show that ⟨x⟩_+ and ⟨x⟩_− have opposite nonzero values in the superradiant phase, the unconditional Δx² is larger than the conditional values plotted in Figs. 1–5 by an amount proportional to ⟨x⟩_+². The claim in the abstract that the ground state's photonic field is squeezed must be backed by unconditional variances, not by the conditional variances alone.
  2. [Results, definition of r] The effective squeezing parameter r ≡ −1/2 ln(Δp/Δx) equals the standard squeezing parameter only for minimum-uncertainty states with ΔxΔp = 1/2. The paper itself shows ΔxΔp deviates substantially from 1/2 (Fig. 3b reports values up to roughly 1.3). For such states the ratio Δp/Δx does not quantify the variance reduction below the vacuum level. For example, if ΔxΔp = 1.3 and r = 0.8, then Δp² ≈ 0.26, which corresponds to a standard squeezing parameter r_s = −(1/2)ln(2Δp²) ≈ 0.33, not 0.8. Therefore the abstract's claim ‘r≈0.8’ is not supported as a statement about quadrature squeezing. The authors should define squeezing directly via Var(p) < 1/2 (or an equivalent standard measure) and report that quantity.
  3. [Fig. 6 and accompanying text] The curve fitted in Fig. 6 is the locus of maximal r, not an independently computed quantum phase boundary. The sentence ‘the deviation of the actual quantum phase transition curve from the one obtained through perturbative computation indicates that the perturbative treatment may overestimate the superradiance phase’ is therefore a non sequitur. To claim that the phase-transition curve is shifted from Δ = 2g^2, the authors would need to compute a phase-transition indicator, such as the second derivative of the ground-state energy or an order parameter, and locate the boundary from that. Without such a computation, the statement is unsupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix reference] The text refers to ‘App. II’ for the Lemniscate of Bernoulli and the spiric-section formula, but the appendices are not included in the manuscript as provided; the reader cannot check those derivations. The appendix should be included or the reference removed.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption for panels (c) and (d) states ‘Mean x-quadrature in |Δ,g,−⟩’ but the text says the result is the same for |Δ,g,+⟩; please clarify that the plotted quantity is the conditional mean and specify whether the opposite-sign component is also shown.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusion] The quantitative claim ‘r≈0.8’ appears in the abstract and conclusion, but it relies on the nonstandard definition of r and on conditional variances; after correcting the variance and squeezing measures, the numerical value will change, so these statements should be revised.
  4. [Typographical issue] In the paragraph after Fig. 5, ‘the standard derivation ∆I’ should read ‘the standard deviation ∆I’.
  5. [Discussion of Poissonian statistics] The sentence ‘In traditional thinking, quantum squeezed light is often associated with sub-Poissonian statistics’ is vague and not a general result; it would benefit from a citation or a more careful formulation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: exact-solution computation with no fitted parameters; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are computed directly from the exact Segal-Bargmann solution of the quantum Rabi model: the eigenstates in Eq. (5) and the series coefficients (2)-(6) are used to evaluate quadrature variances and photon-number fluctuations, with no free parameters fitted to the target quantities. The squeezing parameter r is defined in the Results section from the computed variances, and the r≈0.8 value is the evaluated output of this exact computation, not an input. The quadratic fit in Fig. 6 is explicitly presented as 'A quadratic fit to the data points' and does not feed back into the derivation. The self-citations (refs. [41], [42]) appear only in the context of potential applications such as qubit readout fidelity and do not support the squeezing or photon-statistics derivation. The one questionable passage—'When a photonic measurement is done without knowledge of the spin states, ... the uncertainties and statistics remain unchanged'—is a physical assumption about conditional versus unconditional variances and is a correctness concern, not a circularity: the reported numbers are not defined in terms of the desired conclusion, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model inputs are Δ and g; no free parameters are used to fit the central results. The paper's interpretation that the conditional-state variances represent the ground-state photonic field is an unstated assumption that is mathematically incorrect for the mixture, and the finite-ratio crossover is treated as a true phase transition.

free parameters (1)
  • Quadratic fit coefficients for maximal squeezing curve Δ ≈ 2g^2 - 1.5g + 0.6 = 2, -1.5, 0.6
    Fitted to the numerically computed location of maximal squeezing in Fig. 6. This fit is used only to describe the shift of the maximal-squeezing curve relative to Δ=2g^2, not to derive the central squeezing claim.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Braak's exact solution of the quantum Rabi model yields the eigenstates via zeros of the spectral function G±(x) (Eq. 4).
    The paper relies on the 2011 Braak solution as an established exact result; the series (Eq. 2-3) and the spectral condition (Eq. 4) are taken as given.
  • ad hoc to paper The photonic state of the ground eigenstate can be characterized by the uncertainties of the spin-projected states |Δ,g,±> alone.
    The paper computes variances for the conditional states and then claims these represent the field's uncertainties after averaging over spin ('the uncertainties and statistics remain unchanged'), which is not generally correct for non-zero opposite mean quadratures.
  • domain assumption The quantum Rabi model exhibits a sharp phase transition at finite Δ/ω along Δ=2g^2.
    The model has a true phase transition only in the limit Δ/ω→∞; at finite ratio the behavior is a crossover. The paper uses the transition curve as a sharp boundary to characterize the squeezing maximum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Super-Poissonian Squeezed Light in the Deep Strong Regime of the Quantum Rabi Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGS6W5GK

@misc{pith2026241204085,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Super-Poissonian Squeezed Light in the Deep Strong Regime of the Quantum Rabi Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGS6W5GK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04085}
}
abstract

By analytically solving the quantum Rabi model, we investigate the photonic properties of its ground eigenstate. In particular, we find that in the deep strong coupling regime, where the coupling strength $g$ exceeds the mode frequency $\omega$, the photonic state is effectively squeezed in one of its quadratures. The squeezing reaches its maximum at the curve corresponding to the quantum phase transition of the quantum Rabi system, and decreases rapidly on both sides of the phase transition. Notably, for $g/\omega\approx 3$, which is experimentally testable in existing trapped-ion platforms, the achievable squeezing parameter can reach approximately $r\approx 0.8$. Intriguingly, the photonic state is squeezed while its number distribution follows a super-Poissonian distribution, with the largest deviation from Poissonian behavior occurring at the phase transition between the normal and superradiant phases. In other words, the ground state of the quantum Rabi model contains super-Poissonian quantum squeezed photons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04085 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the squeezing parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Upper two panels: mean photon number in the photonic state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a shows that the uncertainty product ∆x∆p devi￾ates from the coherent state value of 1/2 when g > 0.4. This is also the regime where the Jaynes-Cummings approxima￾tion of the Rabi model starts to break down. As one can see from Fig. 3b, the photonic state |∆, g, +⟩ and |∆, g, −⟩ differ from the standard squeezed state in a crucial aspect: the un￾certainty ∆x∆p is not a constant 1/2, but rather varies with respect to… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Standard deviation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The red solid line represents the best fit of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Upper two panels: photon fluctuation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 1 (1987)

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    The photonic states |∆, g,±⟩ can be equivalently expressed in terms of the eigenstates of a shifted harmonic oscillator, whose orthonormal eigenstates are|α, n⟩≡ D(α)|n⟩. Using |α, n⟩ as basis,|∆, g,±⟩ take the form |∆, g, +⟩ =σe 1 2 g2 ∞X n=0 bn(xm,σ)|− g, n⟩ = e 1 2 g2 ∞X n=0 an(xm,σ)|g, n⟩, (6a) |∆, g,−⟩ =σe 1 2 g2 ∞X n=0 (−1)nan(xm,σ)|− g, n⟩ = e 1 2 ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Larson, Phys

    J. Larson, Phys. Scr. 76, 146 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Haroche and J

    S. Haroche and J. M. Raimond, Exploring the quantum: atoms, cavities, and photons (Oxford University Press, 2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    N. K. Langford, R. Sagastizabal, M. Kounalakis, C. Dickel, A. Bruno, F. Luthi, D. J. Thoen, A. Endo and L. DiCarlo, Nat. Commun. 8, 1715 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Stockklauser, P

    A. Stockklauser, P. Scarlino, J. V . Koski, S. Gasparinetti, C. K. Andersen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin and W. Andreas, Phys. Rev. X7, 011030 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Stassi, M

    R. Stassi, M. Cirio and F. Nori, Npj Quantum Inf. 6, 67 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Dareau, Y

    A. Dareau, Y . Meng, P. Schneeweiss and A. Rauschenbeutel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 253603 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    D. Lv, S. An, Z. Liu, J. N. Zhang, J. S. Pedernales, L. Lamata, E. Solano and K. Kim, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021027 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Yoshihara, F

    F. Yoshihara, F. Fuse, A. Ashhab, K. Kakuyanagi, S. Saito and K. Semba, Nat. Phys. 13, 44 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Bayer, M

    A. Bayer, M. Pozimski, S. Schambeck, D. Schuh, R. Huber, D. Bougeard and C. Lange, Nano Lett. 17, 6340 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Forn-Díaz, L

    P. Forn-Díaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono and E. Solano, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025005 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    M. L. Cai, Z. D. Liu, W. D. Zhao, Y . K. Wu, Q. X. Mei, Y . Jiang, L. He, X. Zhang, Z. C. Zhou and L. M. Duan, Nat. Commun. 12, 1126 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    J. Koch, G. R. Hunanyan, T. Ockenfels, E. Rico, E. Solano and M. Weitz, Nat. Commun. 14, 954 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Braak, Phys

    D. Braak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 100401 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    M. V . Berry and M. Tabor, Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Sci. 356, 375 (1977)

    1977

  9. [17]

    M. T. Batchelor and H. Q. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 91, 053808 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    H. P. Eckle, Models of Quantum Matter: A First Course on Inte- grability and the Bethe Ansatz (Oxford University Press, 2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    H. P.. Eckle and H. Johannesson, J. Phys. A 50, 294004 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Q. Xie, H. Zhong, M. T. Batchelor and C. Lee, J. Phys. A 50, 113001 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Casanova, G

    J. Casanova, G. Romero, I. Lizuain, J. J. García-Ripoll and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 263603 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Bargmann, Commun

    V . Bargmann, Commun. Pure Appl. Math.14, 187 (1961)

    1961

  15. [23]

    I. E. Segal, Mathematical problems of relativistic physics (American Mathematical Soc., 1963)

    1963

  16. [24]

    Zhong, Q

    H. Zhong, Q. Xie, M. T. Batchelor and C. Lee, J. Phys. A 46, 415302 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    A. J. Maciejewski, M. Przybylska and T. Stachowiak, Phys. Lett. A 378, 16 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Ronveaux and F

    A. Ronveaux and F. M. Arscott, Heun’s differential equations (Oxford University Press, 1995)

    1995

  19. [27]

    M. J. Hwang, R. Puebla and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 180404 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    R. H. Zheng, W. Ning, Y . H. Chen, J. H. Lü, L. T. Shen, K. Xu, Y . R. Zhang, D. Xu, H. Li, Y . Xia, and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 113601 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  22. [30]

    Hepp and E

    K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, Phys. Lett. A 76, 360 (1973)

    1973

  23. [31]

    Y . K. Wang and F. T. Hioe, Phys. Rev. A7, 831 (1973)

    1973

  24. [32]

    Puebla, M

    R. Puebla, M. J. Hwang, J. Casanova, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 073001 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    D. F. Walls, Nature 306, 141 (1983)

    1983

  26. [34]

    W. M. Zhang, R. Gilmore, and D. H. Feng, Rev. Mod. Phys. 4, 867 (1990)

    1990

  27. [35]

    C. F. Kam, W. M. Zhang, and D. H. Feng,Coherent States: New Insights into Quantum Mechanics with Applications (Springer Nature, 2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    M. Tse, H. Yu, N. Kijbunchoo, A. Fernandez-Galiana, P. Dupej, L. Barsotti, C. D. Blair, D. D. Brown, S. E. Dwyer, A. E ffler, and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231107 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, L. Aiello, A. Allocca, A. Amato, S. Ansoldi, S. Antier, M. Arène, N. Arnaud, S. Ascenzi, and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231108 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    S. E. Dwyer, G. L. Mansell, and L. McCuller, Galaxies 10, 46 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Gehring, V

    T. Gehring, V . Händchen, J. Duhme, F. Furrer, T. Franz, C. Pacher, R. F. Werner, and R. Schnabel, Nat. Commun. 6, 1 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    B. J. Lawrie, P. D. Lett, A. M. Marino, and R. C. Pooser, ACS photonics 6, 1307 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Junker, D

    J. Junker, D. Wilken, E. Huntington, and M. Heurs, Opt. Ex- press 29, 6053 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    C. F. Kam and X. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 109, L040402 (L040402)

  35. [43]

    C. F. Kam, and X. Hu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03617

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz and F. Nori, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12044

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    B. C. Hall, Quantum theory for mathematicians (Springer Sci- ence & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    F. A. Wolf, M. Kollar, and D. Braak, Phys. Rev. A 85, 053817 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    M. A. Caprio, P. Cejnar, and F. Iachello, Ann. Phys. (N. Y .)323, 1106 (2008)

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.