Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Dissipative quantum phase transitions in electrically driven lasers

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A voltage-driven quantum-dot laser is predicted to undergo two distinct quantum phase transitions—one continuous, one discontinuous.

desk verdict A DQD-cavity lasing paper with solid mean-field numerics and a nice photon-population derivation, but the 'quantum phase transition' label outruns the finite-system evidence and needs reframing or a proper scaling analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10997 v2 pith:II7PYGNA submitted 2025-01-19 cond-mat.mes-hall

Lei-Lei Nian , Yi-Cheng Wang , Jin-Yi Wang , Long Xiong , Bo Zheng , Jing-Tao Lü This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords dissipativequantumphasetransitiondoubledotcircuitelectrodynamicsphotonstatisticsbistabilitymicromaserLang-Firsovtransformationlasingthreshold
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 predicts that an electrically driven double quantum dot coupled to a microwave cavity—a circuit version of the Rabi model—can undergo genuine quantum phase transitions in its photon statistics, without the deep strong light-matter coupling usually required. At the one-photon resonance, increasing the electron-photon coupling continuously changes the emitted light from a thermal state to a coherent state, with a power-law divergence at the critical coupling. At the two-photon resonance, a cubic mean-field equation produces three steady states, two of them stable, so the system jumps discontinuously from superbunched emission (photons arriving in strong bursts) to coherent emission. The order of the transition and the critical coupling can be tuned by the electric bias and the dot-electrode tunneling rates, and the current through the device carries a fingerprint of the transition. This would put a laser's quantum phase transition under electrical control.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a Lindblad master equation for a double quantum dot coupled to a single cavity mode and two voltage-biased electrodes, with a capacitive electron-photon coupling term. A Lang-Firsov transformation (a displacement of the cavity field conditioned on the dot state) turns the Hamiltonian into one where the $n$-photon processes appear explicitly as powers of the coupling; expanding it to first order yields the one-photon Jaynes-Cummings-like coupling $J_1 = 2t_d g_c / \omega_c$, and to second order the two-photon coupling $J_2 = 2t_d g_c^2 / \omega_c^2$. The mean-field description comes from a cumulant expansion of the electron-photon correlations, which, after eliminating the electronic degrees of freedom, reduces the steady-state photon number to a quadratic equation for one photon and a cubic equation for two photons. The cubic equation's three roots—two stable, one unstable—are the bistability behind the discontinuous transition. A separate Scully-Lamb-style rate equation for the photon population gives analytic photon-number distributions that confirm the continuous thermal-to-Poisson crossover for one photon and the two-peaked distribution for two photons.

What would settle it

Measure, in a double quantum dot coupled to a microwave cavity at the two-photon resonance ($\varepsilon_d = 2\omega_c$), the steady-state photon number and $g^{(2)}(0)$ while sweeping $g_c$ through the predicted window; with the paper's representative parameters ($\omega_c/2\pi \approx 7.5$ GHz, $\kappa_c/2\pi \approx 0.5$ MHz, $\Gamma_{Le}/2\pi = \Gamma_{Rg}/2\pi \approx 75$ MHz, $t_d/2\pi \approx 225$ MHz) the first-order transition is predicted at $g_c/2\pi \approx 280$ MHz. The claim would be falsified by observing only smooth, continuous changes in exact numerics without mean-field decoupling, or by the absence of a discontinuous jump in photon number, a peak in $g^{(2)}(0)$, and a bimodal Wigner function. For the one-photon resonance, the corresponding falsifier is the absence of the power-law scaling of photon number near the predicted critical coupling $g_c/2\pi \approx 188$ MHz.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dissipative quantum phase transitions exist in the lasing regime of a circuit Rabi model driven by electron tunneling. Concretely: for one-photon interaction, the steady state of the cavity crosses a continuous (second-order) transition from thermal to coherent photon emission, characterized by a critical exponent and a peak in the pseudo-capacity. For two-photon interaction, the effective third-order photon nonlinearity yields a first-order (discontinuous) transition from a superbunched state, where photons arrive in strong bursts, to a coherent state, with a bistable window in mean-field theory and a sharp peak in the second-order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ near the transition. The paper further argues that multiphoton processes with $n>2$ also give first-order transitions, and that the dc tunneling current through the double quantum dot can serve as an experimental fingerprint. None of this requires deep strong coupling, and both the order and critical coupling are controllable by the level detuning and the tunneling rates.

Load-bearing premise

The sharp two-photon transition and its bistability rest on the mean-field cumulant factorization of electron-photon correlations; the paper itself notes that for two or more photons high-order correlations cannot be simply decoupled, and that exact numerics make the mean-field steady states only metastable, so if the factorization is uncontrolled in the critical range the discontinuity could smooth out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A double quantum dot micromaser operated at the one-photon resonance should show a continuous thermal-to-coherent crossover in the cavity emission as the electron-photon coupling crosses a critical value, with the photon number scaling as a power of the reduced coupling.
  • At the two-photon resonance, the emission should switch abruptly from superbunched to coherent, with a mean-field bistable window and a sharp peak in $g^{(2)}(0)$ where the two branches coexist.
  • Tuning the dot-electrode tunneling rate or the dot level splitting moves the critical coupling, so the transition's location and even its order can be set by gate voltages.
  • The dc tunneling current through the double quantum dot should exhibit a feature at the transition, giving an all-electrical readout of the photon phase transition.
  • The same mechanism, extended to multiphoton processes, predicts first-order transitions for $n>2$, although the mean-field treatment is no longer controlled there.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the mean-field metastability suggests that time-resolved photon counting near the two-photon transition would show telegraph-type switching between the superbunched and coherent branches, since the paper's exact numerics return only a weighted average of the two metastable states.
  • Going beyond the paper, the electric-field tunability of the critical coupling could be used as a voltage-controlled photon-statistics switch, turning a source abruptly from bunched to coherent emission; this device function is not discussed in the paper.
  • Going beyond the paper, measuring the finite-frequency current noise of the device would be a more sensitive probe of the transition than the dc current, because the switching dynamics between the two branches would appear as a noise peak.
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 double quantum dot (DQD) coupled to a single cavity mode and driven by electrode tunneling, modeled by a Lindblad master equation. It claims that one-photon electron-photon interaction gives a continuous (second-order) dissipative quantum phase transition from thermal to coherent photon emission, while two-photon interaction gives a discontinuous (first-order) transition from superbunched to coherent emission accompanied by bistability. The authors support these claims with exact Lindblad numerics, mean-field equations obtained by cumulant factorization, an analytic Scully-Lamb-type photon population analysis, Wigner-function snapshots, and a proposed detection via the tunneling current. They also provide experimentally feasible parameters for the predicted critical couplings.

Significance. If established, the claimed dissipative quantum phase transitions in an electrically driven single-mode cavity would be a notable extension of lasing-threshold physics to genuine critical phenomena, with a potentially useful electrical fingerprint. The paper has concrete strengths: the exact Lindblad steady-state numerics and the mean-field equations are mutually consistent where compared; the photon-population analysis produces the expected thermal-to-coherent and superbunched-to-coherent behaviors from a first-principles rate equation with no free parameters besides the critical exponent beta; and the experimental parameters are realistic for current DQD-cavity devices. However, the central QPT claim is not yet supported: the system is a finite zero-dimensional cavity whose exact steady state is analytic in the coupling, and the discontinuous two-photon transition relies on an uncontrolled mean-field factorization that the authors themselves concede fails for n>=2. The significance is therefore conditional on a demonstrated thermodynamic or scaling limit and on controlled approximations.

major comments (3)
  1. [One-photon interaction, Fig. 1(b,c)] The claim of a second-order quantum phase transition is not backed by a scaling analysis in any limit. For a single cavity mode with finite photon-number truncation, the Lindblad steady state is analytic in gc, so a true non-analytic transition requires a limit such as kappa_c -> 0 or an infinite photon-number cutoff. The presented evidence is a power-law fit and a pseudocapacity peak at a single value kappa_c = 7.5e-5 omega_c, with no scaling collapse as the cutoff or kappa_c is varied. Without such a demonstration, the continuous behavior may be a finite-size crossover rather than a phase transition.
  2. [Two- and multi-photon interaction, Eq. (6) and Fig. 2(a)] The discontinuous two-photon transition and the associated bistability rest entirely on the cubic mean-field equation (6), obtained by cumulant factorization of electron-photon correlations. The paper itself states that for n>=2 the high-order joint correlations 'cannot be simply decoupled', and that the exact numerics, with quantum fluctuations, render the mean-field steady states metastable and return only a weighted average. Consequently, Fig. 2(a) does not exhibit a true discontinuity, and no smallness parameter or convergence check is given to justify the factorization in the relevant gc range. The first-order transition is therefore not established.
  3. [Photon population, Eqs. (7)-(9) and Fig. 4(d)] The analytic critical-point conditions K{1}=kappa_c and G{2}(1)=kappa_c are derived from the simplified Scully-Lamb rate equation (7) with a specific form of the gain G{2}(M), not from the exact Lindblad steady state. The mapping of this rate-equation transition to the exact model is not demonstrated; for example, at gc=0.036, near the claimed two-photon transition, the exact Wigner function in Fig. 2(c) shows a bimodal distribution rather than a sharp jump. The photon-population results are corroborative only if the rate-equation approximation is justified in the same parameter regime, which is not provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Model and Method, Eq. (2a)] There is a typographical/notational error: Eq. (2a) contains 'g|e><0|' and 'g|0><g|', which appear to be mis-rendered versions of the transformed operators (likely \(\tilde{c}|e\rangle\langle 0|\) and \(\tilde{c}|0\rangle\langle g|\)); this should be corrected for readability.
  2. [Introduction] The word 'Linbdlad' should be 'Lindblad' in the model-method description.
  3. [Fig. 2(c) caption] The caption of Fig. 2(c) is garbled in the manuscript ('cc ω03.0' etc.) and should be rewritten to clearly list the coupling values used in each panel.
  4. [One-photon interaction, Fig. 1(c)] The fitted critical exponent beta is presented without error bars or a description of the fitting procedure and data range; this information should be provided for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: critical points are derived analytically from the stated master equation, and the only numerical fit (the exponent beta) is diagnostic, not used to construct the transitions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The input is the Lindblad master equation (1) with stated parameters (Gamma_Le, Gamma_Rg, kappa_c, t_d, g_c, epsilon_d). The Lang-Firsov transformation and rotating-wave reduction yield the effective couplings J_1 = 2 t_d g_c / omega_c and J_2 = 2 t_d g_c^2 / omega_c^2, from which the mean-field equations (5) and (6) and the photon-population rate equation (7) are derived rather than fitted. The critical conditions K{1} = kappa_c and G{2}(1) = kappa_c follow algebraically from the stationary solutions of these equations; they are not matched to numerical data. The only numerically extracted quantity is the scaling exponent beta in Fig. 1(c), which is used diagnostically as evidence of the continuous character of the one-photon transition, not as an input that creates the transition. The self-citations ([40], [42], [66]) appear in lists of prior work on photon statistics and resonance tunneling and are not load-bearing for the QPT claim. The passages acknowledging that quantum fluctuations render the mean-field steady states metastable and that for n > 2 the mean-field theory may no longer be applicable are explicit caveats about the sharpness and validity of the first-order transition; they concern correctness or evidence strength, not circularity. No step in the paper reduces a prediction to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced; all model parameters are physical inputs. The only fitted quantity is the diagnostic critical exponent beta. The main unverified assumptions are the truncation of the Lang-Firsov expansion and the mean-field factorization of correlations, which are what produce the sharper phase-transition predictions.

free parameters (1)
  • Critical exponent beta = Not quoted; stated to vary with Gamma_Rg (weak universality)
    Extracted from power-law fits to the numerical mean photon number in Fig. 1(c); used as evidence for a continuous transition, but not required for the mean-field bifurcation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation and the Lindblad master equation, Eq. (1), accurately describe the DQD-cavity dynamics.
    Standard treatment for weakly coupled system-bath; used to compute all steady-state quantities in the paper.
  • domain assumption The Lang-Firsov transformation and truncation of the exponential to n-th order in gc/omega_c captures the n-photon processes; higher-order terms are negligible.
    Needed for the two-photon and multiphoton predictions; plausible for the proposed gc/omega_c near 0.08, but the letter provides no estimate of the truncation error.
  • domain assumption The rotating-wave approximation reduces the QRM to an effective Jaynes-Cummings model with couplings J1=2td*gc/omega_c and J2=2td*gc^2/omega_c^2.
    Used in deriving the mean-field equations (5) and (6); requires near resonance and weak coupling.
  • ad hoc to paper The cumulant expansion that factorizes electron-photon correlations is valid for the parameter ranges studied.
    No convergence check is provided. The authors themselves note that quantum fluctuations render the mean-field steady states metastable and that exact numerics give a weighted average, undermining the factorization in the bistable regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dissipative quantum phase transitions in electrically driven lasers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/II7PYGNA

@misc{pith2026250110997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dissipative quantum phase transitions in electrically driven lasers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/II7PYGNA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10997}
}
read the original abstract

Embedding quantum dot circuits into microwave cavities has emerged as a novel platform for controlling photon emission statistics by electrical means. With such a circuit version of the Rabi model, we reveal previously undefined quantum phase transitions in electrically driven lasing regimes, which do not require deep strong light-matter couplings. For one-photon interaction, the scaling analysis indicates that the system undergoes a continuous phase transition from thermal to coherent photon emissions. Going beyond this, a discontinuous quantum phase transition from superbunched to coherent states in two-photon processes, accompanied by the bistability within a mean-field theory, is predicted. Both the order of phase transitions and the critical electron-photon coupling can be easily controlled by an electric field, while the tunneling current can be used as a fingerprint of such transitions. Our prediction, along with its extension to multiphoton processes, represents a key step towards accessing lasing phase transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Sketch of a DQD capacitively coupled to a cav [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Mean photon number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Mean photon number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a-b) Photon state transitions in one- and two-photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rabi, On the process of space quantization, Phys

    I. Rabi, On the process of space quantization, Phys. Rev. 49, 324 (1936)

    1936

  2. [2]

    I. I. Rabi, Space quantization in a gyrating magnetic field, Phys. Rev. 51, 652 (1937)

    1937

  3. [3]

    Braak, Integrability of the rabi model, Phys

    D. Braak, Integrability of the rabi model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 100401 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Forn-D ´ ıaz, L

    P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Ultrastrong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025005 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, Comparison of quan- tum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Proc. IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  6. [6]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum optics (Cam- bridge university press, 1997)

    1997

  7. [7]

    Tong, J.-H

    Q.-J. Tong, J.-H. An, L. Kwek, H.-G. Luo, and C. Oh, Simulating zeno physics by a quantum quench with su- perconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. A 89, 060101 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    K. M. Birnbaum, A. Boca, R. Miller, A. D. Boozer, T. E. Northup, and H. J. Kimble, Photon blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom, Nature 436, 87 (2005)

    2005

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Vogel and D.-G

    W. Vogel and D.-G. Welsch,Quantum optics(John Wiley & Sons, 2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

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

    2012

  3. [11]

    Z.-Y. Xue, J. Zhou, and Z. Wang, Universal holonomic quantum gates in decoherence-free subspace on supercon- ducting circuits, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022320 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y.-x. Liu, and F. Nori, Microwave photonics with superconducting quantum circuits, Phys. Rep. 718, 1 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Xue, F.-L

    Z.-Y. Xue, F.-L. Gu, Z.-P. Hong, Z.-H. Yang, D.-W. Zhang, Y. Hu, and J. You, Nonadiabatic holonomic quan- tum computation with dressed-state qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl. 7, 054022 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Flick, M

    J. Flick, M. Ruggenthaler, H. Appel, and A. Rubio, Atoms and molecules in cavities, from weak to strong 6 coupling in quantum-electrodynamics (qed) chemistry, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 3026 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Ashhab, Superradiance transition in a system with a single qubit and a single oscillator, Phys

    S. Ashhab, Superradiance transition in a system with a single qubit and a single oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 87, 013826 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Hwang, R

    M.-J. Hwang, R. Puebla, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum phase transition and universal dynamics in the rabi model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 180404 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Cai, Z.-D

    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, Observation of a quantum phase transition in the quan- tum rabi model with a single trapped ion, Nat. commun. 12, 1126 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Z. Wu, C. Hu, T. Wang, Y. Chen, Y. Li, L. Zhao, X.- Y. L¨ u, and X. Peng, Experimental quantum simulation of multicriticality in closed and open rabi model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 173602 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Hwang, P

    M.-J. Hwang, P. Rabl, and M. B. Plenio, Dissipative phase transition in the open quantum rabi model, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013825 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    De Filippis, A

    G. De Filippis, A. de Candia, G. Di Bello, C. Per- roni, L. Cangemi, A. Nocera, M. Sassetti, R. Fazio, and V. Cataudella, Signatures of dissipation driven quantum phase transition in rabi model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 210404 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    G. Lyu, K. Kottmann, M. B. Plenio, and M.-J. Hwang, Multicritical dissipative phase transitions in the anisotropic open quantum rabi model, Phys. Rev. Re- search 6, 033075 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Yoshihara, T

    F. Yoshihara, T. Fuse, S. Ashhab, K. Kakuyanagi, S. Saito, and K. Semba, Superconducting qubit–oscillator circuit beyond the ultrastrong-coupling regime, Nat. Phys. 13, 44 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    N. K. Langford, R. Sagastizabal, M. Kounalakis, C. Dickel, A. Bruno, F. Luthi, D. J. Thoen, A. Endo, and L. DiCarlo, Experimentally simulating the dynam- ics of quantum light and matter at deep-strong coupling, Nat. Commun. 8, 1715 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Frisk Kockum, A

    A. Frisk Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 19 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    W. Qin, A. F. Kockum, C. S. Mu˜ noz, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Quantum amplification and simulation of strong and ultrastrong coupling of light and matter, Phys. Rep. 1078, 1 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    K. D. Petersson, L. W. McFaul, M. D. Schroer, M. Jung, J. M. Taylor, A. A. Houck, and J. R. Petta, Circuit quan- tum electrodynamics with a spin qubit, Nature 490, 380 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Kurizki, P

    G. Kurizki, P. Bertet, Y. Kubo, K. Mølmer, D. Pet- rosyan, P. Rabl, and J. Schmiedmayer, Quantum tech- nologies with hybrid systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 3866 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Burkard, M

    G. Burkard, M. J. Gullans, X. Mi, and J. R. Petta, Superconductor–semiconductor hybrid-circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 129 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Lambert, Y.-N

    N. Lambert, Y.-N. Chen, and F. Nori, Unified single- photon and single-electron counting statistics: From cav- ity qed to electron transport, Phys. Rev. A 82, 063840 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    P.-Q. Jin, M. Marthaler, J. H. Cole, A. Shnirman, and G. Sch¨ on, Lasing and transport in a quantum-dot res- onator circuit, Phys. Rev. B 84, 035322 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    J. Jin, M. Marthaler, P.-Q. Jin, D. Golubev, and G. Sch¨ on, Noise spectrum of a quantum dot–resonator lasing circuit, New J. Phys. 15, 025044 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Marthaler, Y

    M. Marthaler, Y. Utsumi, and D. S. Golubev, Lasing in circuit quantum electrodynamics with strong noise, Phys. Rev. B 91, 184515 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    S. M. Tabatabaei and N. Jahangiri, Lasing in a coupled hybrid double quantum dot-resonator system, Phys. Rev. B 101, 115135 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    B. K. Agarwalla, M. Kulkarni, and D. Segal, Photon statistics of a double quantum dot micromaser: Quan- tum treatment, Phys. Rev. B 100, 035412 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Rastelli and M

    G. Rastelli and M. Governale, Single atom laser in normal-superconductor quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B100, 085435 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Y.-Y. Liu, J. Stehlik, C. Eichler, M. Gullans, J. M. Tay- lor, and J. Petta, Semiconductor double quantum dot micromaser, Science 347, 285 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Parzefall and L

    M. Parzefall and L. Novotny, Optical antennas driven by quantum tunneling: a key issues review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 112401 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Ros lawska, C

    A. Ros lawska, C. C. Leon, A. Grewal, P. Merino, K. Kuhnke, and K. Kern, Atomic-scale dynamics probed by photon correlations, ACS Nano 14, 6366 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    L.-L. Nian, T. Wang, Z.-Q. Zhang, J.-S. Wang, and J.- T. L¨ u, Effective control of photon statistics from elec- troluminescence by fano-like interference effect, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 8721 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Avriller, Q

    R. Avriller, Q. Schaeverbeke, T. Frederiksen, and F. Pis- tolesi, Photon-emission statistics induced by electron tunneling in plasmonic nanojunctions, Phys. Rev. B 104, L241403 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    L.-L. Nian, B. Zheng, and J.-T. L¨ u, Electrically driven photon statistics engineering in quantum-dot circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. B 107, L241405 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Gullans, Y.-Y

    M. Gullans, Y.-Y. Liu, J. Stehlik, J. R. Petta, and J. M. Taylor, Phonon-assisted gain in a semiconductor double quantum dot maser, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 196802 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Okazaki, I

    Y. Okazaki, I. Mahboob, K. Onomitsu, S. Sasaki, and H. Yamaguchi, Gate-controlled electromechanical back- action induced by a quantum dot, Nat. Commun. 7, 11132 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Karlewski, A

    C. Karlewski, A. Heimes, and G. Sch¨ on, Lasing and transport in a multilevel double quantum dot system cou- pled to a microwave oscillator, Phys. Rev. B 93, 045314 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Y.-Y. Liu, T. Hartke, J. Stehlik, and J. R. Petta, Phase locking of a semiconductor double-quantum-dot single- atom maser, Phys. Rev. A 96, 053816 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Cassidy, A

    M. Cassidy, A. Bruno, S. Rubbert, M. Irfan, J. Kammhu- ber, R. Schouten, A. Akhmerov, and L. Kouwenhoven, Demonstration of an ac josephson junction laser, Science 355, 939 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Cottet, M

    A. Cottet, M. C. Dartiailh, M. M. Desjardins, T. Cubaynes, L. C. Contamin, M. Delbecq, J. J. Vien- not, L. E. Bruhat, B. Dou¸ cot, and T. Kontos, Cavity qed with hybrid nanocircuits: from atomic-like physics to condensed matter phenomena, J. Phys.: Condens. Mat- ter 29, 433002 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Y.-Y. Liu, J. Stehlik, C. Eichler, X. Mi, T. Hartke, M. Gullans, J. Taylor, and J. R. Petta, Threshold dy- 7 namics of a semiconductor single atom maser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 097702 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Y.-Y. Liu, J. Stehlik, X. Mi, T. Hartke, M. Gullans, and J. R. Petta, On-chip quantum-dot light source for quantum-device readout, Phys. Rev. Appl. 9, 014030 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Mantovani, A

    M. Mantovani, A. D. Armour, W. Belzig, and G. Rastelli, Dynamical multistability in a quantum-dot laser, Phys. Rev. B 99, 045442 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Purkayastha, M

    A. Purkayastha, M. Kulkarni, and Y. N. Joglekar, Emer- gent pt symmetry in a double-quantum-dot circuit qed setup, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043075 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Y.-Y. Liu, J. Stehlik, M. Gullans, J. M. Taylor, and J. R. Petta, Injection locking of a semiconductor double- quantum-dot micromaser, Phys. Rev. A 92, 053802 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Y. Wen, N. Ares, F. Schupp, T. Pei, G. Briggs, and E. Laird, A coherent nanomechanical oscillator driven by single-electron tunnelling, Nat. Phys. 16, 75 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    H. J. Carmichael, Breakdown of photon blockade: A dis- sipative quantum phase transition in zero dimensions, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031028 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    Hwang and M

    M.-J. Hwang and M. B. Plenio, Quantum phase transi- tion in the finite jaynes-cummings lattice systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 123602 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  50. [58]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems (Oxford University Press on Demand, 2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    H. J. Carmichael, Statistical methods in quantum op- tics 1: master equations and Fokker-Planck equations (Springer Science &amp; Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    T. Frey, P. Leek, M. Beck, A. Blais, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraff, Dipole coupling of a double quantum dot to a microwave resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 046807 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    Scarlino, D

    P. Scarlino, D. J. Van Woerkom, A. Stockklauser, J. V. Koski, M. C. Collodo, S. Gasparinetti, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin,et al., All-microwave control and dispersive readout of gate-defined quantum dot qubits in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Le...

    2019

  54. [62]

    Clerk, K

    A. Clerk, K. Lehnert, P. Bertet, J. Petta, and Y. Naka- mura, Hybrid quantum systems with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nat. Phys. 16, 257 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Brandes and N

    T. Brandes and N. Lambert, Steering of a bosonic mode with a double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 67, 125323 (2003)

    2003

  56. [64]

    Lambert and F

    N. Lambert and F. Nori, Detecting quantum-coherent nanomechanical oscillations using the current-noise spec- trum of a double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 78, 214302 (2008)

    2008

  57. [65]

    Santamore, N

    D. Santamore, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, Vibrationally mediated transport in molecular transistors, Phys. Rev. B 87, 075422 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    Wang, Z.-Q

    J.-Y. Wang, Z.-Q. Zhang, and L.-L. Nian, Current- induced local heating and extractable work in nonthermal vibrational excitation, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235402 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Xu and M

    C. Xu and M. G. Vavilov, Full counting statistics of pho- tons emitted by a double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 88, 195307 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    Brandes and B

    T. Brandes and B. Kramer, Spontaneous emission of phonons by coupled quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3021 (1999)

    1999

  61. [69]

    G. D. Mahan, Many-particle physics(Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    Lambert, F

    N. Lambert, F. Nori, and C. Flindt, Bistable photon emission from a solid-state single-atom laser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216803 (2015)

    2015

  63. [71]

    Chlouba and T

    T. Chlouba and T. Novotn` y, On the lack of intrinsic bistability of photon emission in a double quantum dot micromaser, J. Stat. Mech. 2019, 104009 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    The Supplemental Material also contains Ref

    See the Supplemental Material for details on the Hamilto- nian under rotating-wave approximation, the elimination of electronic degrees of freedom, the photon population, and the estimation of existing experimental parameters. The Supplemental Material also contains Ref. [76–81]

  65. [73]

    Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, J

    R. Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 17, 1100 (1962)

    1962

  66. [74]

    Bonifacio and L

    R. Bonifacio and L. Lugiato, Photon statistics and spec- trum of transmitted light in optical bistability, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 1023 (1978)

    1978

  67. [75]

    Drummond and D

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

    1980

  68. [76]

    M. Reid, K. J. McNeil, and D. F. Walls, Unified approach to multiphoton lasers and multiphoton bistability, Phys. Rev. A 24, 2029 (1981)

    1981

  69. [77]

    Lu, F.-X

    N. Lu, F.-X. Zhao, and J. Bergou, Nonlinear theory of a two-photon correlated-spontaneous-emission laser: A co- herently pumped two-level–two-photon laser, Phys. Rev. A 39, 5189 (1989)

    1989

  70. [78]

    Lu, Q-function approach to a two-photon laser, Phys

    N. Lu, Q-function approach to a two-photon laser, Phys. Rev. A 42, 6756 (1990)

    1990

  71. [79]

    Bergou, C

    J. Bergou, C. Benkert, L. Davidovich, M. O. Scully, S. Zhu, and M. S. Zubairy, Double two-photon correlated- spontaneous-emission lasers as bright sources of squeezed light, Phys. Rev. A 42, 5544 (1990)

    1990

  72. [80]

    J. J. Binney, N. J. Dowrick, A. J. Fisher, and M. E. New- man, The theory of critical phenomena: an introduction to the renormalization group (Oxford University Press, 1992)

    1992

  73. [81]

    Vojta, Quantum phase transitions, Rep

    M. Vojta, Quantum phase transitions, Rep. Prog. Phys. 66, 2069 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.