Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Electron dynamics induced by quantum cat-state light

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 This paper claims that electron dynamics under weak coupling to Schrödinger-cat light is exactly a $P$-weighted average of trajectory density matrices, with the interference terms producing a new 'interferential' non-Hermitian dynamics…

desk verdict Solid weak-coupling effective theory for electron dynamics under cat-state light, with a real but bounded soft spot in how far the approximation's validity is tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16801 v2 pith:W7SBRVR7 submitted 2025-01-28 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics

Shohei Imai , Atsushi Ono , Naoto Tsuji This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics
keywords quantumlightSchrödingercatstateSudarshan–GlauberPrepresentationnon-Hermitiandynamicsexternal-fieldapproximationtwo-qubitDickemodelelectronentanglementinterference
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 proposes an effective theory for electrons driven by light prepared in a Schrödinger cat state, valid when the electron–photon coupling is weak. It claims that the reduced electron density matrix is exactly an average of trajectory density matrices weighted by the Sudarshan–Glauber $P$ distribution of the photon field, with each trajectory evolving under a Hamiltonian in which the photon operator is replaced by a classical field $\alpha_0(t)$. The central new result is that the interference terms of the cat state make the effective Hamiltonian act identically on the ket and bra sides of the trajectory density matrix, $\mathrm{i}\partial_t \rho_\alpha = \mathcal{H}_\alpha \rho_\alpha - \rho_\alpha \mathcal{H}_\alpha$, a form the authors call interferential non-Hermitian dynamics, distinct from the dissipative form $\mathcal{H}\rho - \rho\mathcal{H}^\dagger$. If correct, quantum interference of light is transferred to electrons as a complex-valued electromagnetic field, producing electron quantum superpositions and entanglement that classical light cannot create. The authors validate the theory against full electron–photon simulations in a two-qubit Dicke model.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Sudarshan–Glauber $P$ representation combined with a path-integral Born approximation. Any photon initial state is written as a diagonal mixture of coherent states weighted by $P(\alpha)$; after tracing out photons and dropping electron back-action (the external-field or Born approximation), the electron density matrix becomes a $P$-weighted average of independent von Neumann trajectories, each driven by the free classical field $\alpha_0(t) = \alpha e^{-i\omega t}$. For the cat state, $P(\alpha)$ has two delta-function terms plus two interference terms built from generalized delta functions, and the interference terms assign $\alpha$ and $\bar\alpha$ opposite phases, turning the trajectory Hamiltonian non-Hermitian. That replacement rule — the asymmetric assignment of $\alpha$ and $\bar\alpha$ in the interference terms — is the device that transfers optical quantum interference into electron dynamics.

What would settle it

Compute the trace distance between the full electron–photon simulation and the external-field approximation for the two-qubit Dicke model at a coupling larger than $10^{-3}$, e.g. $g = 10^{-2}$, in the same parameter regime; if the distance grows faster than $\sim g^4$ or the interferential contribution to the single-electron excitation $|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle\langle\uparrow\downarrow|$ turns positive, the central claim fails. Alternatively, measure the entanglement negativity between two non-interacting electrons under cat-state light: if no negativity appears, the predicted transfer of quantum interference is absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the weak-coupling regime, electron dynamics driven by quantum light in a cat state is fully captured by equations (8) and (9): $\hat{\rho}_e(t) \approx \int d^2\alpha\, P(\alpha)\,\hat{\rho}_{e,\alpha}(t)$ with $\mathrm{i}\partial_t \hat{\rho}_{e,\alpha}(t) = [\hat{H}_e[g\alpha_0(t)], \hat{\rho}_{e,\alpha}(t)]$. For cat-state light the quasiprobability $P(\alpha)$ contains interference terms that map $\alpha$ and $\bar\alpha$ to different values, so the effective electric field becomes complex and the Hamiltonian in the trajectory equation is non-Hermitian. The authors emphasize that this non-Hermiticity is of a different kind from the usual open-system Lindblad-type dynamics: the same $\mathcal{H}_\alpha$ acts on both sides of $\rho_\alpha$ without Hermitian conjugation, so the trajectory density matrix itself becomes non-Hermitian while its trace stays conserved, and only the $P$-weighted average restores a Hermitian electron density matrix. This interferential non-Hermitian dynamics is shown to generate electron entanglement and to suppress single-electron excitations, and the effective theory reproduces full simulations of the two-qubit Dicke model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the external-field approximation: the photon trajectory is replaced by its free solution with the electron–photon coupling set to zero, neglecting the back-action of electrons on the photon field; the paper notes this holds for small coupling and mild excitation, and checks it numerically only at $g = 10^{-3}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under weak coupling, electron dynamics under cat-state light is completely described by $P$-weighted classical trajectories, so large-scale quantum-light-driven simulations reduce to solving individual von Neumann equations.
  • Cat-state light can entangle non-interacting electrons, something classical coherent light cannot do under local operations and classical communication.
  • The interference terms give a negative contribution to single-electron excitation, suppressing it while enabling coherent biexciton (two-electron) generation.
  • The effective theory is more accurate for cat-state light than for coherent light, with trace distance scaling as $g^4$ versus $g^3$.
  • The approach extends to any photon state with analytic free-field dynamics, promising cheaper simulations of quantum-light-driven condensed matter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to apply the same interferential non-Hermitian mechanism to other nonclassical states such as squeezed vacuum or Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill states, where the $P$ function also has off-diagonal structure; predicting the effective complex fields for those states is a direct follow-up.
  • Outside the weak-coupling or weak-excitation regime the trajectory density matrices may lose positivity, so a completely positive version of the effective dynamics that still preserves the interference structure is an open problem the authors flag.
  • The predicted entanglement generation suggests a practical resource: irradiating non-interacting electron systems with cat-state light as a way to create electronic entanglement without direct coupling, which could be tested in semiconductor exciton systems.
  • The $g^4$ versus $g^3$ scaling implies that, surprisingly, the more nonclassical the light, the better the semiclassical trajectory picture works; this could guide when quantum-light effects must be treated beyond external fields.
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 develops an effective theory for electron dynamics driven by a photon field prepared in a Schrödinger-cat state. Using the Sudarshan–Glauber P representation and a path-integral formulation, the authors derive that, within a weak-coupling (external-field) approximation, the reduced electron density matrix is a P-weighted average of trajectory-resolved density matrices, each obeying the von Neumann equation with the photon field replaced by a free classical trajectory [Eqs. (8)–(9)]. For cat-state light, the singular part of the P function produces interference terms in which the effective Hamiltonian becomes non-Hermitian in a new way, i ∂ρ = Hρ − ρH, unlike the conventional dissipative form Hρ − ρH†. The authors call this 'interferential non-Hermitian dynamics.' They validate the theory against full electron–photon simulations of a two-qubit Dicke model, showing agreement in the density-matrix dynamics and in the generated electron entanglement, and they report a trace-distance scaling of g⁴ for cat light versus g³ for coherent light. A supplemental material compares the approach with the generalized P-representation formalism and provides a first-Born estimate of the back-action effects.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a computationally cheap and physically transparent effective description of quantum-light-driven electron dynamics that goes beyond both the Markov approximation and classical-light reduction. The identification of 'interferential non-Hermitian dynamics' as a distinct class of open-system behavior is a genuinely novel conceptual contribution, and the predicted g⁴ error scaling for cat light is a falsifiable, parameter-free statement. The paper is careful in stating its limitations, especially the weakness of the external-field approximation and the lack of a general complete-positivity guarantee, and it provides numerical validation in a few-electron model. The derivation has no fitted parameters, and the comparison with the generalized P representation is a useful check. These strengths make the paper worthy of publication, provided the validity regime of the central approximation is better quantified and some derivational steps are made explicit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Formalism, between Eqs. (5) and (8)]
  2. [Eq. (11) and the derivation of the interferential non-Hermitian dynamics]
  3. [Outlook]
minor comments (4)
  1. [Formalism, after Eq. (9)]
  2. [Fig. 1(b) inset and Supplemental Material, Eq. (S.9)]
  3. [Eq. (12)]
  4. [Fig. 2]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eqs. (8)-(9) are derived from the full light-matter Hamiltonian via the external-field (Born) approximation and the standard Sudarshan-Glauber P representation, then benchmarked against unmodified full simulations with no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The central formulas (8)-(9) are not assumed. The paper starts from the full Hamiltonian (1), expands the initial photon state in the Sudarshan-Glauber P representation (2), writes the reduced electron density matrix as a Keldysh path integral over photon trajectories (4)-(5), and then applies the Born/external-field approximation: setting the coupling gamma to zero in the action (5) yields the free-photon trajectory alpha0(tau) (6)-(7), which is inserted into the electron equation of motion to obtain rho_e(t) ≈ ∫ d²alpha P(alpha) rho_{e,alpha}(t) with i d_t rho_{e,alpha} = [H_e[gamma alpha0(t)], rho_{e,alpha}]. The target result is therefore an output of a standard reduction, not an input. The cat-state interference terms (11) are inserted after the general derivation, and the non-Hermitian 'interferential' form i d rho = H rho - rho H follows algebraically from alpha and ar{alpha} ceasing to be complex conjugates in those terms; it is a consequence, not a premise. The numerical validation against full two-qubit Dicke simulations uses the same fixed physical parameters and no parameters fitted to the full data; the g^4 versus g^3 trace-distance scaling in Fig. 2 is a numerical finding, and the first-Born estimate in the Supplemental Material is an explanatory perturbation calculation, not a fit. The comparison with the generalized P-representation theory of Ref. [28] is a benchmark between two candidate effective theories, and the paper explicitly shows analytically that they can differ (Eqs. (S.9) vs (18)) and uses the full simulation to distinguish them. The limitations the paper itself states—'this approximation is valid when the electron–photon coupling constant γ is small and when the electron system is not in a highly nonequilibrium state' and the Outlook remark that positivity 'may no longer be preserved' outside the weak-coupling/weak-excitation regime—are honest caveats about the uncontrolled external-field approximation, not signs of circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The derivation is self-contained apart from standard, externally established representations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data; the numerical example uses hand-chosen model parameters (g=10^-3, alpha0=0.5 and 0.8, photon cutoff 100) that are not free parameters of the derivation. The load-bearing assumptions are the P representation and the Born approximation, both standard but nontrivial. No new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the complex-valued field and non-Hermitian rho_alpha are auxiliary mathematical objects arising from the P distribution.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Sudarshan-Glauber P representation exists for arbitrary initial photon states, including cat states, using generalized delta functions when needed.
    Invoked in Eq. (2) via Refs. [34-36]; standard result, but for cat states it is distributional rather than an ordinary function.
  • domain assumption Born approximation: setting g=0 in the action (5) and using the free photon trajectory alpha0(tau) for all trajectories, neglecting back-action.
    This enters between Eqs. (5) and (8); the paper states that it is valid for small g and near-equilibrium electrons. It is the main restriction on the central claim.
  • domain assumption Initial electron-photon separability rho_e(0) tensor rho_p(0).
    Assumed before Eq. (5); required for the P-distribution average to factor cleanly.
  • domain assumption Normal ordering of bosonic operators in H_e and H_p.
    Stated after Eq. (1); needed for the replacement rule (a, a-dagger) to (alpha, alpha-bar).
  • domain assumption The two-qubit Dicke model is a faithful stand-in for electron dynamics under the tested conditions.
    Used only in the numerical validation; the central derivation is model-independent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron dynamics induced by quantum cat-state light." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W7SBRVR7

@misc{pith2026250116801,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron dynamics induced by quantum cat-state light},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W7SBRVR7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16801}
}
abstract

We present an effective theory for describing electron dynamics driven by an optical external field in a Schr\"{o}dinger's cat state. We show that the reduced electron density matrix evolves as an average over trajectories $\{\rho_\alpha\}$ weighted by the Sudarshan--Glauber $P$ distribution $P(\alpha)$ in the weak light--matter coupling regime. Each trajectory obeys an equation of motion, $\mathrm{i} \partial_t\rho_\alpha=\mathcal{H}_{\alpha} \rho_\alpha-\rho_\alpha\mathcal{H}_{\alpha}$, where an effective Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha}$ becomes non-Hermitian due to quantum interference of light. The optical quantum interference is transferred to electrons through the asymmetric action between the ket and bra state vectors in $\rho_{\alpha}$. This non-Hermitian dynamics differs from the conventional one observed in open quantum systems, described by $\mathrm{i} \partial_t\rho=\mathcal{H}\rho-\rho \mathcal{H}^\dagger$, which has complex conjugation in the second term. We confirm that the reduced, trajectory-resolved effective theory agrees with full electron-photon simulations for the few-electron Dicke model, thereby validating the interferential non-Hermitian description in the weak-coupling regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16801 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Dynamics of the two-body density matrix ˆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Trace distance between the density matrices of the fu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Macroscopic Schr\"{o}dinger-cat states of nonequilibrium electrons induced by cat-state optical driving and projective measurements on the light field

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Projective measurements on cat-state light can restore macroscopic Schrödinger-cat states in many-electron systems even when the light's two components are classically distinguishable.

  2. Multiphysics Analysis of Cryogenically Cooled Photocathode in a CW SRF Injector cavity

    physics.acc-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A coupled two-temperature and electromagnetic-thermal analysis predicts a cryocooled copper photocathode can run at 2 W laser power in a CW SRF injector, with cathode cooling, not cavity loss, as the limiting factor.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Schr ¨odinger, Die gegenw ¨artige Situation in der Quanten- mechanik, Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935)

    E. Schr ¨odinger, Die gegenw ¨artige Situation in der Quanten- mechanik, Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935)

    work page 1935

  2. [2]

    D. J. Wineland, Nobel Lecture: Superposition, entanglemen t, and raising Schr¨odinger’s cat, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1103 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Fr ¨owis, P

    F. Fr ¨owis, P. Sekatski, W. D¨ ur, N. Gisin, and N. Sangouard, Macroscopic quantum states: Measures, fragility, and impl e- mentations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025004 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    It is therefore esse ntial to theoretically investigate cases where these approximat ions break down, as the positivity may no longer be preserved in such regimes

    and (9)] preserve both the trace and positivity of the electron density matrix in the we ak- coupling and weak-excitation regimes. It is therefore esse ntial to theoretically investigate cases where these approximat ions break down, as the positivity may no longer be preserved in such regimes. This underscores the critical role of the coup led dynamics be...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Aberg, Quantifying Superposition, arXiv:quant-ph/0612146

    J. Aberg, Quantifying Superposition, arXiv:quant-ph/0612146

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Stahlke, Quantum interference as a resource for quantum speedup, Phys

    D. Stahlke, Quantum interference as a resource for quantum speedup, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022302 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Theurer, N

    T. Theurer, N. Killoran, D. Egloff, and M. B. Plenio, Resource Theory of Superposition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 230401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Outlook—Our effective theory opens two promising av- enues for future research

    and (9)] remains valid as long as the electron–photon coupling constant /u1D6FE is small and the induced electric current and current fluctuations are small. Outlook—Our effective theory opens two promising av- enues for future research. The first focuses on the broad rang e of quantum light states. Exploring other quantum superpose d states, such as the bri...

    work page

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    This non-Hermiticity differs from what is typically ob- served in Markovian open systems, as the assumed equa- tion of motion takes a different form

    becomes non-Hermitian due to the breakdown of the Hermitian conjugacy between /u1D6FCand /u1D6FC. This non-Hermiticity differs from what is typically ob- served in Markovian open systems, as the assumed equa- tion of motion takes a different form. Let us write the sys- tem’s den...

  2. [10]

    Shimizu, Y

    A. Shimizu, Y . Matsuzaki, and A. Ukena, Necessity of Super- position of Macroscopically Distinct States for Quantum Co m- putational Speedup, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 82, 054801 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Stammer, J

    P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, A. Maxwell, T. Lamprou, A. Ord ´o˜nez, M. F. Ciappina, P. Tzallas, and M. Lewen- stein, Quantum Electrodynamics of Intense Laser-Matter Interactions: A Tool for Quantum State Engineering, PRX Quantum 4, 010201 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    by the complex-valued electric field /u1D438 /u1D6FC 1, /u1D6FC 2 (/u1D461) ≡ i/u1D6FE/u1D714[/u1D6FC1 exp(−i/u1D714/u1D461) − /u1D6FC2 exp(i/u1D714/u1D461)] . Since the Hamiltonian be- comes independent for each electron, we can obtain the elec- tron state vectors under the co...

  5. [13]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Lewenstein, M

    M. Lewenstein, M. F. Ciappina, E. Pisanty, J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, T. Lamprou, and P. Tzallas, Generation of opti- cal Schr ¨odinger cat states in intense laser–matter interactions, Nat. Phys. 17, 1104 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Rivera-Dean, P

    J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, E. Pisanty, T. Lamprou, P. Tzallas, M. Lewenstein, and M. F. Ciappina, New schemes for creating large optical Schr ¨odinger cat states using strong laser fields, J. Comput. Electron. 20, 2111 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Cruz-Rodriguez, D

    L. Cruz-Rodriguez, D. Dey, A. Freibert, and P. Stam- mer, Quantum phenomena in attosecond science, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 691 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Lamprou, P

    T. Lamprou, P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, N. Tsatrafyllis, M. F. Ciappina, M. Lewenstein, and P. Tzallas, Generation of non- classical and entangled light states using intense laser-m atter interactions, arXiv:2410.17452

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gonoskov, R

    I. Gonoskov, R. Sondenheimer, C. H¨ unecke, D. Kartashov, U. Peschel, and S. Gr ¨afe, Nonclassical light generation and control from laser-driven semiconductor intraband excita tions, Phys. Rev. B 109, 125110 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Dahan, G

    R. Dahan, G. Baranes, A. Gorlach, R. Ruimy, N. Rivera, and I. Kaminer, Creation of Optical Cat and GKP States Using Shaped Free Electrons, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031001 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Konno, W

    S. Konno, W. Asavanant, F. Hanamura, H. Nagayoshi, K. Fukui, A. Sakaguchi, R. Ide, F. China, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, H. Terai, K. Takase, M. Endo, P. Marek, R. Filip, P. van Loock, and A. Fu- 6 rusawa, Logical states for fault-tolerant quantum computa tion with propagating light, ...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Stammer, T

    P. Stammer, T. Fern ´andez Martos, M. Lewen- stein, and G. Rajchel-Mieldzio ´c, Metrological ro- bustness of high photon number optical cat states, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 045047 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    M. Kira, S. W. Koch, R. P. Smith, A. E. Hunter, and S. T. Cundiff, Quantum spectroscopy with Schr ¨odinger-cat states, Nat. Phys. 7, 799 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Lamprou, J

    T. Lamprou, J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, M. Lewenstein, and P. Tzallas, Nonlinear Optics Using Intense Optical Coheren t State Superpositions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 013601 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    K. E. Dorfman, F. Schlawin, and S. Mukamel, Nonlin- ear optical signals and spectroscopy with quantum light, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 045008 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Mukamel, M

    S. Mukamel, M. Freyberger, W. Schleich, M. Bellini, A. Za- vatta, G. Leuchs, C. Silberhorn, R. W. Boyd, L. L. S ´anchez- Soto, A. Stefanov, M. Barbieri, A. Paterova, L. Krivitsky, S. Shwartz, K. Tamasaku, K. Dorfman, F. Schlawin, V . San- doghdar, M. Raymer, A. Marcus, O. Varn...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Lamprou, I

    T. Lamprou, I. Liontos, N. C. Papadakis, and P. Tzallas, A per - spective on high photon flux nonclassical light and applicat ions in nonlinear optics, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 8, e42 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Lysne and P

    M. Lysne and P. Werner, Nonlinear optical processes in cavit y light-matter systems, Phys. Rev. B 104, 035209 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Advances in QED with intense background fields, Phys. Rep. 1010, 1 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Sennary, J

    M. Sennary, J. Rivera-Dean, M. ElKabbash, V . Pervak, M. Lewenstein, and M. T. Hassan, Ultrafast Quantum Optics and Communication, arXiv:2412.08881

  22. [30]

    Gorini, A

    V . Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Com- pletely positive dynamical semigroups of /u1D441-level systems, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  23. [31]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups, Commun

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

    1976

  24. [32]

    Gorlach, M

    A. Gorlach, M. E. Tzur, M. Birk, M. Kr¨ uger, N. Rivera, O. Co- hen, and I. Kaminer, High-harmonic generation driven by quan- tum light, Nat. Phys. 19, 1689 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Even Tzur, M

    M. Even Tzur, M. Birk, A. Gorlach, M. Kr¨ uger, I. Kaminer, and O. Cohen, Photon-statistics force in ultrafast electron dynamics, Nat. Photonics 17, 501 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Khalaf and I

    M. Khalaf and I. Kaminer, Compton scattering driven by intense quantum light, Sci. Adv. 9, eade0932 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Rasputnyi, Z

    A. Rasputnyi, Z. Chen, M. Birk, O. Cohen, I. Kaminer, M. Kr¨ uger, D. Seletskiy, M. Chekhova, and F. Tani, High-harmonic generation by a bright squeezed vacuum, Nat. Phys. 20, 1960 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Even Tzur and O

    M. Even Tzur and O. Cohen, Motion of charged particles in bright squeezed vacuum, Light Sci. Appl. 13, 41 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    S. Wang, X. Lai, and X. Liu, Attosecond pulse synthesis from high-order harmonic generation in intense squeezed li ght, arXiv:2406.10443

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    E. C. G. Sudarshan, Equivalence of Semiclassical and Quan- tum Mechanical Descriptions of Statistical Light Beams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 277 (1963)

    1963

  31. [39]

    R. J. Glauber, Coherent and Incoherent States of the Radiati on Field, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  32. [40]

    R. A. Brewster and J. D. Franson, Generalized delta functions and their use in quantum optics, J. Math. Phys. 59, 012102 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Localization Tran- sitions in Non-Hermitian Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 570 (1996)

    1996

  34. [42]

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

    1998

  35. [43]

    D. C. Brody, Biorthogonal quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 47, 035305 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Sza´nkowski, Introduction to the theory of open quantum sys- tems, SciPost Phys

    P. Sza´nkowski, Introduction to the theory of open quantum sys- tems, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 68, 68 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Felski, A

    A. Felski, A. Beygi, C. Karapoulitidis, and S. P. Klevansky, Three perspectives on entropy dynamics in a non-Hermitian two-state system, arXiv:2404.03492

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in Spontaneous Radiation Processes, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  39. [47]

    I. I. Rabi, Space Quantization in a Gyrating Magnetic Field, Phys. Rev. 51, 652 (1937)

    1937

  40. [48]

    Hanamura, Giant two-photon absorption due to excitonic molecule, Solid State Commun

    E. Hanamura, Giant two-photon absorption due to excitonic molecule, Solid State Commun. 88, 1073 (1993)

    1993

  41. [49]

    Ficek and R

    Z. Ficek and R. Tana ´s, Entangled states and collective nonclas- sical effects in two-atom systems, Phys. Rep. 372, 369 (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    G.-x. Li, K. Allaart, and D. Lenstra, Entanglement between t wo atoms in an overdamped cavity injected with squeezed vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 69, 055802 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    S. A. Chilingaryan and B. M. Rodr ´ıguez- Lara, The quantum Rabi model for two qubits, J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 46, 335301 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Combescot and S.- Y

    M. Combescot and S.- Y . Shiau, Biexcitons, in Excitons and Cooper Pairs (Oxford University Press, 2015) pp. 340–350

    2015

  45. [53]

    A. B. A. Mohamed, H. Eleuch, and C. H. R. Ooi, Non-locality Correlation in T wo Driven Qubits Inside an Open Coherent Cavity: Trace Norm Distance and Maximum Bell Function, Sci. Rep. 9, 19632 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    A.-B. A. Mohamed, A. ur Rahman, A.-H. Abdel-Aty, F. S. Al-Duais, and H. Eleuch, Quantum memory and coherence dy- namics of two qubits interacting with a coherent cavity unde r intrinsic decoherence, Opt. Quantum Electron. 54, 783 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Eshun, O

    A. Eshun, O. Varnavski, J. P. Villabona-Monsalve, R. K. Burdick, and T. Goodson, Entangled Photon Spectroscopy, Acc. Chem. Res. 55, 991 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices, Phys

    A. Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  49. [57]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separabil- ity of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions, Phys. Lett. A 223, 1 (1996)

    1996

  50. [58]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    P. D. Drummond and C. W. Gardiner, Gen- eralised P-representations in quantum optics, J. Phys. A. Math. Gen. 13, 2353 (1980)

    1980

  53. [61]

    See Supplemental Material for discussions on the generalized /u1D443 representation and photon-mediated electron–electron in terac- tions

  54. [62]

    K. Y . Spasibko, D. A. Kopylov, V . L. Krutyanskiy, T. V . Murzina, G. Leuchs, and M. V . Chekhova, Multiphoton Ef- fects Enhanced due to Ultrafast Photon-Number Fluctuation s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 223603 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Manceau, K

    M. Manceau, K. Y . Spasibko, G. Leuchs, R. Filip, and M. V . Chekhova, Indefinite-Mean Pareto Pho- ton Distribution from Amplified Quantum Noise, 7 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 123606 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  57. [65]

    Electron dynamics induced by quantum cat-state light

    A. D’ Abbruzzo, D. Farina, and V . Giovannetti, Recov- ering Complete Positivity of Non-Markovian Quan- tum Dynamics with Choi-Proximity Regularization, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031010 (2024) . arXiv:2501.16801v1 [quant-ph] 28 Jan 2025 Supplemental Material for “Electron dynamics indu...

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    We can clearly see the deviation between Eq

    in the main text. We can clearly see the deviation between Eq. ( S.9) and Eq. ( 18), and our results [Eq. ( 18)] correctly reproduce the full-system simulations, as shown in the inset of Fig. 1(b). When a time-evolving electronic state is expressed as an an- alytic function of...

Pith tools

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