Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Bridging the classical and quantum regimes in a dissipative Ising chain

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dissipative Ising chain averaged over cluster partitions obeys a Lindblad equation with an interpolated Hamiltonian, producing an antiferromagnetic phase between classical limit cycles and quantum ferromagnetic order.

desk verdict Worth a look for its translationally invariant interpolation model, but the derivation of the effective Hamiltonian has a load-bearing gap that needs a closure assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23096 v2 pith:VV4IVPGK submitted 2025-05-29 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Zhenming Zhang , Haowei Li , Wei Yi This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords dissipativeIsingchainLindbladmasterequationensembleaverageclustermodellimitcycleantiferromagneticsteadystateHopfbifurcationRydberggases
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 tries to establish a single theoretical description that connects two well-studied limits of a dissipative Ising chain: the classical mean-field regime, where the long-time dynamics show limit cycles, and the fully quantum regime, where the system settles into a ferromagnetic steady state. It does so by averaging the Lindblad dynamics over all possible cluster partitions, assuming the partition probabilities are translation-invariant. This yields an effective coherent Hamiltonian with one interpolation parameter, $\lambda$, that measures the amount of quantum correlation. For a representative parameter set, the paper finds three dynamical phases as $\lambda$ grows: a limit-cycle phase, a spontaneously antiferromagnetic steady state, and a ferromagnetic steady state, with Hopf bifurcations marking the boundaries. The authors expect this to give a qualitatively correct picture of dissipative Rydberg gases at intermediate temperatures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ensemble-averaged cluster model: each cluster partition of the chain keeps intra-cluster bonds quantum while replacing inter-cluster bonds by their mean-field decoupled form, and the density matrix evolves under the probability-weighted average of the Lindblad dynamics of all partitions. The key device is the translation-invariance condition on the partition probabilities, under which the per-bond weight of exact versus mean-field interaction collapses to a single parameter $\lambda$. This interpolating Hamiltonian is what carries the argument: at $\lambda=0$ it reduces to the classical nonlinear equations of motion, at $\lambda=1$ to the quantum master equation, and at intermediate values it produces the spontaneously symmetry-broken antiferromagnetic steady state.

What would settle it

Measure the steady-state and long-time dynamics of a small dissipative Rydberg array, or simulate the exact finite-temperature Lindblad dynamics of a microscopic thermal-bath model, sweeping the effective temperature from the classical to the quantum limit; if the antiferromagnetic steady state does not appear between the limit-cycle and ferromagnetic regimes (or the $\lambda$ boundaries found at $\Omega=1.5$, $\Delta=2$, $V=5$ shift beyond what the interpolation can absorb), the ensemble-average interpolation is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Invoking an ensemble-average formalism over all $2^N$ partitions of the nearest-neighbor bonds of a one-dimensional dissipative Ising chain, and assuming a translation-invariant partition probability, the authors derive an effective Lindblad master equation whose coherent Hamiltonian is $H_{\rm eff}=H_0+\lambda\sum_i h_{i,i+1}+(1-\lambda)\sum_i h^{\rm MF}_{i,i+1}$, where $h_{i,i+1}$ is the exact interaction and $h^{\rm MF}_{i,i+1}$ its mean-field decoupled version. The parameter $\lambda$ varies smoothly from $0$, where the equations of motion are the classical nonlinear mean-field equations, to $1$, where the full quantum master equation is recovered. Studying $\Omega=1.5$, $\Delta=2$, $V=5$ on a six-site periodic chain, the paper reports a limit-cycle phase for $\lambda\lesssim0.17$, an antiferromagnetic steady state for $0.17\lesssim\lambda\lesssim0.43$, and a ferromagnetic steady state for $\lambda\gtrsim0.43$. The AFM-FM transition is signaled by a peak in the steady-state correlation function and, for larger $\lambda$, by a peak in the entanglement negativity; the LC-AFM transition is a Hopf bifurcation, preceded at larger $V$ by period-doubling and near-chaotic frequency spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the ensemble-average assumption that the true density-matrix evolution equals the weighted average of the evolutions within every cluster partition, together with the imposed translation symmetry of the partition probabilities; if a real finite-temperature Rydberg gas does not follow this averaging, the interpolated phase diagram is not guaranteed to be physical.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interpolation is right, lowering the temperature of a dissipative Rydberg gas should first convert persistent limit-cycle oscillations into an antiferromagnetic steady state through a Hopf bifurcation, before the system orders ferromagnetically.
  • The predicted $\lambda$ window for the antiferromagnetic phase should be observable as a regime where adjacent sites have alternating Rydberg occupations but the chain still reaches a time-independent steady state.
  • In the quantum regime, the AFM-FM transition should be detectable through a peak in the correlation function $C_r$ and, for sufficiently large $\lambda$, a peak in the entanglement negativity, even though the correlation length does not diverge.
  • At stronger interactions ($V=9$), the model predicts a richer nonlinear sequence—near-chaotic dynamics, period-doubled limit cycles, single-frequency limit cycles, then the AFM steady state—as quantum correlation increases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ensemble-average construction suggests a concrete experimental handle: if $\lambda$ correlates with temperature, then a vapor-cell or array experiment sweeping temperature should see the three phases appear in order; measuring the Rydberg population variance over time would locate the Hopf boundary without needing single-site resolution.
  • The same translation-invariant averaging trick could be applied to two- and three-dimensional dissipative Ising models, where cluster mean-field methods have struggled to preserve lattice symmetry, potentially yielding analogous intermediate phases.
  • A microscopic derivation of the partition probability $P(C_j)$ from a finite-temperature reservoir would turn $\lambda$ into a calculable function of temperature and would test the interpolation's validity; the paper does not provide such a derivation.
  • The predicted AFM phase may be sensitive to the periodic-boundary and small-system assumptions (N=6, 8), so checking whether the $\lambda$ window persists as N grows would be a natural finite-size study.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a one-parameter family of effective Hamiltonians for a dissipative Ising chain, claimed to interpolate between the classical mean-field limit (λ=0) and the fully quantum coherent limit (λ=1). The authors motivate the interpolation by considering an ensemble of cluster partitions and averaging over them under an assumed translation-invariant distribution. The resulting Lindblad master equation is then solved numerically for small chains (N=6 and N=8) with parameters Ω=1.5, Δ=2, and V ranging from 1.5 to 9. For V=5 they report a limit-cycle phase for λ≲0.17, an antiferromagnetic steady state for 0.17≲λ≲0.43, and a ferromagnetic steady state for λ≳0.43; they also examine correlation functions, entanglement negativity, and frequency spectra to characterize the transitions and the disappearance of limit cycles.

Significance. The interpolated Hamiltonian in Eq. (11) is simple, translationally invariant, and exactly recovers the classical and quantum limits, which makes it a potentially useful phenomenological tool for studying dissipative Rydberg chains. The numerical study is clearly presented, with the code deposited (Ref. [60]) and the data openly available, so the reported phase diagrams are reproducible. The paper honestly acknowledges the absence of a microscopic finite-temperature theory. However, as discussed in the major comments, the advertised derivation from the ensemble-average assumption is not complete, and some of the phase-transition claims outrun the small-system numerics. If the model is reframed as a phenomenological interpolation, the core numerical observations remain of interest, but the strength of the central 'bridging' claim is reduced.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (5)-(11)] The derivation of H_eff is not a logical consequence of Assumption 1. Under an ensemble average over partitions, each partition C_j would have its own state ρ_j, and the mean fields in h^MF_{i,i+1} (Eq. (5)) should be evaluated on that partition's state; the global evolution would then be ρ = Σ_j P(C_j)ρ_j and dρ/dt = Σ_j P(C_j)L_j[ρ_j]. Equation (8) instead applies each L_j to the same averaged state ρ, which silently imposes the closure that all partitions share identical mean fields. Equations (9)-(11) therefore define a new interpolated model, not a derived consequence of the stated ensemble-average picture. The two prescriptions agree only at the endpoints λ=0 and λ=1. This is the central step of the paper, so the authors must either promote the closure to an explicit assumption with a physical justification, or re-frame the paper around the interpolated model as a phenomenological starting point.
  2. [Section II, paragraph after Eq. (11)] The identification of λ as a measure of quantum correlation and the statement that intermediate λ provides a 'qualitatively correct description' of dissipative Rydberg gases at finite temperatures are not backed by any microscopic relation between λ and temperature; the authors explicitly defer a finite-temperature theory to future work. Because this identification is what turns the model from an abstract interpolation into a physical bridge, the abstract and introduction overstate the result. Please either supply a concrete mechanism (for example, a thermal ensemble over partitions with a temperature-dependent P(C_j)) or explicitly label the intermediate regime as phenomenological in the abstract and introduction.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 2, and Section IV, Fig. 3] The phase boundaries and the AFM-FM transition are extracted from N=6 dynamics (with one additional N=8 correlation curve), and no finite-size scaling or convergence analysis is shown. The discontinuities in ∂_dD are demonstrated for a single chain length, and the 'algebraic decay' asserted from Fig. 3(b) rests on at most a few lattice separations (r ≤ 4 for N=8). Since the paper uses the language of 'phase transition' and 'quantum criticality', please provide a finite-size analysis (for example N=4, 6, 8, 10) showing that the phase boundaries stabilize and that the correlation and negativity signatures indeed sharpen rather than being finite-size crossovers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (14)] The negativity definition sums negative eigenvalues from both odd-site and even-site partial transposes; the authors should clarify why both are summed and how this differs from the standard bipartite negativity, especially for the AFM state where odd and even sublattices are inequivalent.
  2. [Section II, Assumptions 1 and 2] The family of distributions P(C_j) realizing a given λ is never specified. The derivation only uses the marginal λ, but the text should state explicitly that the effective Hamiltonian is independent of the detailed partition distribution, otherwise the reader may expect that the full distribution matters.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'give way to to' in the Introduction; 'extensively studies' in Section II; 'identitifed' in the Fig. 4 caption; and 'F or' in the affiliation line.
  4. [Section V, Fig. 4(b)] The label 'near-chaotic phase' (nC) is not established by the data; the spectrum shown is broad, but no Lyapunov exponents or other chaos diagnostics are provided. Suggest replacing it with a more neutral descriptor such as 'broadband nonperiodic'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the interpolated Hamiltonian follows algebraically from the stated ensemble-average assumption, and the phase diagram is computed, not fitted; the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained in the sense that the interpolated Hamiltonian (11) is obtained by substituting the partition Hamiltonians (6) into the ensemble-averaged Liouvillian (8); this is algebra rather than fitting. The parameter λ is defined as the translation-invariant probability that a bond is kept quantum, so the interpolation between the classical (λ=0) and quantum (λ=1) limits is built into the averaging assumption. That makes the interpolation 'by construction' in a definitional sense, but the paper's substantive results—the LC/AFM/FM phase diagram, the Hopf and period-doubling bifurcations, and the correlation and negativity signatures—are computed numerically from this model with no fitted parameter, and they do not reduce to the inputs. The only self-citation (Ref. 41) supports a standard statement about product-state mean-field dynamics and is not load-bearing for the phase diagram. The paper explicitly flags the absence of a microscopic finite-temperature justification; that is a limitation on physical relevance, not a circularity. The skeptical concern that Eq. (8) applies partition-specific Liouvillians to the averaged density matrix rather than to partition-specific states is a derivation-gap or closure issue, not a circular reduction: the computed phase boundaries are not the input assumptions. Overall, the paper is a well-defined numerical study of an explicitly assumed interpolated model, so the circularity score is low.

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

The model rests on two explicit assumptions (ensemble average over partitions and translational symmetry of the partition distribution) plus the standard Born-Markov approximation. The parameter lambda is free and not derived from microscopic physics; the temperature connection is an additional asserted expectation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • lambda (interpolation parameter)
    Defined as the translationally invariant marginal probability that a bond is treated exactly (Sec. II). It is a free knob interpolating between lambda=0 (classical mean-field) and lambda=1 (quantum). No microscopic formula ties it to temperature or correlation strength.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The density matrix evolution is the ensemble average of evolutions under all cluster partitions (assumption 1, Sec. II).
    This is the core modeling assumption that produces the interpolation; it is not derived from the microscopic Rydberg Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The partition probability distribution is translationally invariant: P(C_j)=P(C'_j) (assumption 2, Sec. II).
    Motivated by the symmetry of the two limits, but imposed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption The Born-Markov approximation justifies the Lindblad form at finite temperature (Sec. II, citing Ref. 52).
    Standard open-quantum-systems assumption, accepted for dissipative Rydberg atoms.
  • ad hoc to paper Quantum correlations are increasingly suppressed at higher temperatures, so lambda can serve as a qualitative finite-temperature parameter (Sec. II, after Eq. 11).
    This is an expectation stated in the paper; no quantitative relation between lambda and temperature is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging the classical and quantum regimes in a dissipative Ising chain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VV4IVPGK

@misc{pith2026250523096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging the classical and quantum regimes in a dissipative Ising chain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VV4IVPGK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23096}
}
read the original abstract

We study the long-time dynamics of a dissipative Ising chain with varying quantum correlation. Invoking an ensemble-average formalism, and assuming spatial translation symmetry, we show that the dynamics can be described by a Lindblad master equation with an interpolated coherent Hamiltonian. In the classical limit, the interpolation Hamiltonian leads to a set of nonlinear equations of motion, where limit cycles can emerge in the long-time dynamics. In the quantum limit, by contrast, the system approaches a ferromagnetic steady state at long times. In between the two extremes, the discrete spatial translation symmetry can be spontaneously broken, as an antiferromagnetic steady state emerges, bridging the classical and quantum regimes. In particular, we illustrate how the classical limit-cycle behavior gradually disappears with the increase of quantum correlation. Since our model in the two extremes respectively applies to a dissipative Rydberg gas in the high- and zero-temperature limits, we expect it to provide a qualitatively correct description of dissipative Rydberg gases at interim temperatures, and shed light on the fate of limit cycles in a quantum open system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23096 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration and typical dynamics of the dy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a)(b) Numerically evaluated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Frequency spectrum of the long-time density matrix, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [60]

    Bridging the classical and quantum regimes in a dissipative Ising chain

    Z. Zhang, Code for Figures in arXiv:2505.23096, Zenodo (2025), doi:10.5281/zenodo.16939297

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd ed., 2011)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd ed., 2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [2]

    G. B. Mbeng, A. Russomanno, and G. E. Santoro, The quantum Ising chain for beginners, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes82(2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Zhang, S

    V . Zhang, S. Ostermann, O. Rubies-Bigorda, and S. F. Yelin, Emergent limit cycles, chaos, and bistability in driven- dissipative atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. Research7, 013144 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    Morigi, J

    G. Morigi, J. Eschner, C. Cormick, Y . Lin, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Dissipative quantum control of a spin chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 200502 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    C. Ates, B. Olmos, J. P. Garrahan, and I. Lesanovsky, Dynam- ical phases and intermittency of the dissipative quantum Ising model, Phys. Rev. A85, 043620 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [6]

    J. Jin, A. Biella, O. Viyuela, C. Ciuti, R. Fazio, and D. Rossini, Phase diagram of the dissipative quantum Ising model on a square lattice, Phys. Rev. B98, 241108 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Shibata and H

    N. Shibata and H. Katsura, Dissipative quantum Ising chain as a non-Hermitian Ashkin-Teller model, Phys. Rev. B99, 224432 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    J. T. Barreiro, M. Müller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, C. F. Roos, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, An open-system quantum simulator with trapped ions, Nature 470, 486–491 (2011)

    2011

  2. [9]

    Schneider, D

    C. Schneider, D. Porras, and T. Schaetz, Experimental quantum simulations of many-body physics with trapped ions, Rep. Prog. Phys.75, 024401 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    P. P. Orth, I. Stanic, and K. Le Hur, Dissipative quantum Ising model in a cold-atom spin-boson mixture, Phys. Rev. A77, 051601(R) (2008)

    2008

  4. [11]

    Schwager, J

    H. Schwager, J. I. Cirac, and G. Giedke, Dissipative spin chains: Implementation with cold atoms and steady-state properties, Phys. Rev. A87, 022110 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum infor- mation with Rydberg atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2313–2363 (2010)

    2010

  6. [13]

    Zhang, D.-S

    Z.-Y . Zhang, D.-S. Ding, and B.-S. Shi, Review of quantum simulation based on Rydberg many-body system, Chin. Phys. B30, 020307 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individu- ally controlled Rydberg atoms, Nat. Phys.16, 132–142 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. De Léséleuc, T. Macrì, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Tunable two-dimensional arrays of single Rydberg atoms for realizing quantum Ising models, Nature534, 667–670 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Zeiher, J

    J. Zeiher, J. Y . Choi, A. Rubio-Abadal, T. Pohl, R. Van Bijnen, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Coherent many-body spin dynamics in a long-range interacting Ising chain, Phys. Rev. X7, 041063 7 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Šibalic, C

    N. Šibalic, C. G. Wade, C. S. Adams, K. J. Weatherill, and T. Pohl, Driven-dissipative many-body systems with mixed power-law interactions: Bistabilities and temperature-driven nonequilibrium phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A94, 011401(R) (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    N. R. de Melo, C. G. Wade, N. Šibalic, J. M. Kondo, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, Intrinsic optical bistability in a strongly driven Rydberg ensemble, Phys. Rev. A93, 063863 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Cabot, G

    A. Cabot, G. Giorgi, and R. Zambrini, Nonequilibrium transi- tion between dissipative time crystals, PRX Quantum5, 030325 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    C.-K. Chan, T. E. Lee, and S. Gopalakrishnan, Limit-cycle phase in driven-dissipative spin systems, Phys. Rev. A91, 051601(R) (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    Landa, M

    H. Landa, M. Schiró, and G. Misguich, Correlation-induced steady states and limit cycles in driven dissipative quantum sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B102, 064301 (2020)

    2020

  15. [22]

    T. E. Lee, H. Häffner, and M. C. Cross, Antiferromagnetic phase transition in a nonequilibrium lattice of Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A84, 031402(R) (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    C. Carr, R. Ritter, C. G. Wade, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weather- ill, Nonequilibrium phase transition in a dilute Rydberg ensem- ble, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 113901 (2013)

    2013

  17. [24]

    Urvoy, F

    A. Urvoy, F. Ripka, I. Lesanovsky, D. Booth, J. Shaffer, T. Pfau, and R. Löw, Strongly correlated growth of Rydberg aggregates in a vapor cell, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 203002 (2015)

    2015

  18. [25]

    D.-S. Ding, H. Busche, B.-S. Shi, G.-C. Guo, and C. S. Adams, Phase diagram and self-organizing dynamics in a thermal en- semble of strongly interacting Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. X10, 021023 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Wadenpfuhl and C

    K. Wadenpfuhl and C. S. Adams, Emergence of synchroniza- tion in a driven-dissipative hot Rydberg vapor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 143002 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    X. Wu, Z. Wang, F. Yang, R. Gao, C. Liang, M. K. Tey,et al., Dissipative time crystal in a strongly interacting Rydberg gas, Nat. Phys.20, 1389 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    D.-S. Ding, Z. Bai, Z.-K. Liu, B.-S. Shi, G.-C. Guo, W. Li, and C. S. Adams, Ergodicity breaking from Rydberg clusters in a driven-dissipative many-body system, Sci. Adv.10, eadl5893 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    Liu, L.-H

    B. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, Q.-F. Wang, Y . Ma, T.-Y . Han, J. Zhang, Z.-Y . Zhang, S.-Y . Shao, Q. Li, H.-C. Chen, B.-S. Shi, and D.- S. Ding, Higher-order and fractional discrete time crystals in Floquet-driven Rydberg atoms, Nat. Commun.15, 9730 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Liu, L.-H

    B. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, Q.-F. Wang, Y . Ma, T.-Y . Han, J. Zhang, Z.-Y . Zhang, S.-Y . Shao, Q. Li, H.-C. Chen, B.-S. Shi, and D.- S. Ding, Bifurcation of time crystals in driven and dissipative Rydberg atomic gas, Nat. Commun.16, 1419 (2025)

    2025

  24. [31]

    K. D. Wu, C. Xie, C. F. Li, G. C. Guo, C. L. Zou, and G. Y . Xi- ang, Nonlinearity-enhanced continuous microwave detection based on stochastic resonance, Sci. Adv.10, eado8130 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    Wilczek, Quantum Time Crystals, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Quantum Time Crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 160401 (2012)

    2012

  26. [33]

    Sacha and J

    K. Sacha and J. Zakrzewski, Time crystals: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 016401 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Marcuzzi, E

    M. Marcuzzi, E. Levi, S. Diehl, J. P. Garrahan, and I. Lesanovsky, Universal nonequilibrium properties of dissipa- tive Rydberg gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 210401 (2014)

    2014

  28. [35]

    Gammaitoni, P

    L. Gammaitoni, P. Hänggi, P. Jung, and F. Marchesoni, Stochas- tic resonance, Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 223–287 (1998)

    1998

  29. [36]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  30. [37]

    J. Yuan, W. Yang, M. Jing, H. Zhang, Y . Jiao, W. Li,et al., Quantum sensing of microwave electric fields based on Ryd- berg atoms, Rep. Prog. Phys.86, 106001 (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    Ashida, Z

    Y . Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian Physics, Adv. Phys.69, 249–435 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    J. A. Lourenço, G. Higgins, C. Zhang, M. Hennrich, and T. Macrì, Non-Hermitian dynamics andPT-symmetry break- ing in interacting mesoscopic Rydberg platforms, Phys. Rev. A 106, 023309 (2022)

    2022

  33. [40]

    T. E. Lee, H. Häffner, and M. C. Cross, Collective quantum jumps of Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 023602 (2012)

    2012

  34. [41]

    H. Li, K. Sun, and W. Yi, Collective quantum stochastic res- onance in Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Research6, L042046 (2024)

    2024

  35. [42]

    Yamamoto, Correlated cluster mean-field theory for spin systems, Phys

    D. Yamamoto, Correlated cluster mean-field theory for spin systems, Phys. Rev. B79, 144427 (2009)

    2009

  36. [43]

    J. Jin, A. Biella, O. Viyuela, L. Mazza, J. Keeling, R. Fazio, and D. Rossini, Cluster mean-field approach to the steady-state phase diagram of dissipative spin systems, Phys. Rev. X6, 031011 (2016)

    2016

  37. [44]

    Huybrechts and M

    D. Huybrechts and M. Wouters, Cluster methods for the de- scription of a driven-dissipative spin model, Phys. Rev. A99, 043841 (2019)

    2019

  38. [45]

    Li and J

    X. Li and J. Jin, Nonuniform phases in the geometrically frustrated dissipative XYZ model, Phys. Rev. B103, 035127 (2021)

    2021

  39. [46]

    X. Li, Y . Li, and J. Jin, Synchronization of persistent oscilla- tions in spin systems with nonlocal dissipation, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032219 (2023)

    2023

  40. [47]

    Höning, D

    M. Höning, D. Muth, D. Petrosyan, and M. Fleischhauer, Steady-state crystallization of Rydberg excitations in an opti- cally driven lattice gas, Phys. Rev. A87, 023401 (2013)

    2013

  41. [48]

    Weimer, Variational principle for steady states of dissipa- tive quantum many-body systems, Phys

    H. Weimer, Variational principle for steady states of dissipa- tive quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 040402 (2015)

    2015

  42. [49]

    S. H. Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos (Perseus Books, Cambridge, 1994)

    1994

  43. [50]

    Hoening, W

    M. Hoening, W. Abdussalam, M. Fleischhauer, and T. Pohl, Antiferromagnetic long-range order in dissipative Rydberg lat- tices, Phys. Rev. A90, 021603(R) (2014)

    2014

  44. [51]

    Letscher, D

    F. Letscher, D. Petrosyan, and M. Fleischhauer, Many-body dy- namics of holes in a driven, dissipative spin chain of Rydberg superatoms, New J. Phys.19, 113014 (2017)

    2017

  45. [52]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, 2002)

    2002

  46. [53]

    Weimer, M

    H. Weimer, M. Müller, I. Lesanovsky, P. Zoller, and H. P. Büch- ler, A Rydberg quantum simulator, Nature Physics6, 382–388 (2010)

    2010

  47. [54]

    W. Lee, M. Kim, H. Jo, Y . Song, and J. Ahn, Coherent and dis- sipative dynamics of entangled few-body systems of Rydberg atoms, Physical Review A99, 043404 (2019)

    2019

  48. [55]

    M. Ali, N. A. Kamar, A. Seif, and M. Maghrebi, Signatures of Quantum Phase Transitions in Driven Dissipative Spin Chains, arXiv:2405.20518 (2024)

    2024

  49. [56]

    D. Nagy, G. Szirmai, and P. Domokos, Critical exponent of a quantum-noise-driven phase transition: The open-system Dicke model, Phys. Rev. A84, 043637 (2011)

    2011

  50. [57]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  51. [58]

    Y . A. Lee and G. Vidal, Entanglement negativity and topologi- cal order, Phys. Rev. A88, 042318 (2013)

    2013

  52. [59]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2010). 8

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.