Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Understanding synchronization between quantum self-sustained oscillators through coherence generation

T0 review · 2 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 For two quantum self-sustained oscillators, only conserved-excitation coherences in the joint density matrix can lock their relative phase.

desk verdict A clean, self-contained selection rule for which joint coherences drive quantum phase synchronization; the main caveat is that the rule is tied to the bare Fock/Sz phase convention, so the 'essential resource' language needs qualification. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01703 v1 pith:NCNHEX6A submitted 2025-06-02 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Mohit Kumar , Bijay Kumar Agarwalla This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantumsynchronizationrelativephasedistributioncoherenceVanderPoloscillatorspinsystemshybridexcitationconservationlocking
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

Phase synchronization between two quantum self-sustained oscillators is governed by a sharply limited set of density-matrix coherences: joint elements that preserve total excitation (or excitation difference in a hybrid spin-oscillator pair). The paper proves this by expanding the relative-phase distribution obtained from Wigner, Husimi, and phase-state representations, all of which produce the same selection rule after integrating out the global phase. The rule explains which known interactions synchronize, which do not, and why: couplings that generate the preselected coherences lock phases, while couplings that generate only other coherences leave the relative phase flat. It also shows that total coherence, mutual information, and even entanglement can grow without any phase locking, so the dominant Fourier amplitude of the relative-phase distribution, $A_{k_d}$, is the faithful synchronization measure. A reader should care because the rule turns synchronization from an observed phenomenon into an engineering criterion for choosing interactions and dissipators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relative-phase distribution $P(\phi)$ and its harmonic expansion $P(\phi)=\frac{1}{2\pi}+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_k A_k\cos(k\phi-\theta_k)$, obtained by integrating the joint Wigner, Husimi, or phase-state distribution over everything except $\phi=\phi_1-\phi_2$. The selection rule appears when the integration over the global phase $\phi_2$ enforces the conservation condition through $\int_0^{2\pi}d\phi_2\, e^{i[(n_1+n_2)-(m_1+m_2)]\phi_2}=2\pi\,\delta_{n_1+n_2,\,m_1+m_2}$; for the hybrid case the same integral yields $m_o-m_s=n_o-n_s$. The subsets $S_k=\{\langle m_1+k,m_2|\rho|m_1,m_2+k\rangle\}$ organize the contributing coherences and determine which harmonic dominates, hence the number and location of peaks in $P(\phi)$. A perturbative expansion of the coupling Liouvillian acting on the uncoupled steady state shows whether an interaction can create elements inside these subsets.

What would settle it

Measure the steady-state relative-phase distribution of two coupled Van der Pol oscillators under two-mode squeezing $V=ig_s(a_1a_2-a_1^\dagger a_2^\dagger)$. The paper predicts a flat distribution because the generated coherences all violate $m_1+m_2=n_1+n_2$; any non-flat distribution would disprove the selection rule. An independent check: prepare the maximally entangled spin state $(|1,1\rangle+|0,0\rangle+|-1,-1\rangle)/\sqrt{3}$ between two spin-1 systems and verify that $P(\phi)$ is uniform despite the entanglement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a selection rule on the joint density matrix. For two continuous-variable oscillators, only elements $\langle m_1,m_2|\rho|n_1,n_2\rangle$ with $m_1+m_2=n_1+n_2$ contribute to the relative phase distribution $P(\phi)$; for two spins the same condition holds in the $S_z$ basis; for a spin and an oscillator the condition becomes $m_o-m_s=n_o-n_s$. The derivation runs by expressing $P(\phi)$ as a sum over density-matrix elements times $\exp\{i(n_1-m_1)\phi\}$ and a factor $\exp\{i[(n_1+n_2)-(m_1+m_2)]\phi_2\}$ whose integral over $\phi_2$ is a delta function. Consequently, the coherences that enable phase locking are exactly those inside subspaces of fixed total excitation (or fixed excitation difference), partitioned into subsets $S_k$ with $m_1-n_1=k$, each subset feeding the $k$-th harmonic of $P(\phi)$. The dominant amplitude $A_{k_d}=\max_k A_k$ is proposed as a faithful synchronization measure, and the same calculation using phase states gives a weight-free version of the harmonic coefficients.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument assumes that each subsystem's phase is the bare phase variable of a coherent state, spin coherent state, or phase state, and that the unobserved global phase is uniformly distributed; with a different phase operator or dressed modes, the set of contributing coherences can change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An interaction synchronizes two continuous-variable oscillators only if its lowest-order action on the uncoupled steady state generates coherences inside the conserved-total-excitation subspaces; two-mode squeezing and correlated one-and-two-photon loss do not, which is why they leave the relative phase flat.
  • In the dissipative limit of two quantum Van der Pol oscillators, coherent exchange fails because the only candidate coherence $\langle 1,0|\rho|0,1\rangle$ decays, while the $S_2$ elements that would support locking require at least three levels per oscillator.
  • For a spin coupled to an oscillator, the total-excitation-conserving Jaynes-Cummings interaction does not synchronize, while the excitation non-conserving coupling $a^\dagger S_+ + a S_-$ does, because the latter creates the coherences obeying $m_o-m_s=n_o-n_s$.
  • Relative entropy of coherence, mutual information, and entanglement can all grow in a non-synchronizing regime, so none of them is a faithful synchronization indicator; the dominant harmonic amplitude $A_{k_d}$ is.
  • Even when the relevant coherences are present, destructive interference inside a subset $S_k$ can cancel its net contribution, as happens for symmetrically pumped coherently coupled spin-1 systems, turning a would-be unimodal distribution into a bimodal one.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same phase-averaging argument should extend to $n{:}m$ phase locking by taking $\phi=n\phi_1-m\phi_2$; the contributing coherences would then satisfy a different linear relation, so $n{:}m$ locking requires different interaction designs than the $1{:}1$ case.
  • The identification of a specific synchronization-relevant subset invites a resource theory in which coherences outside the selected subspaces are treated as free; one could define monotones that track only the relevant blocks as a sharper synchronization quantifier.
  • Experimentally, the rule suggests a direct diagnostic: measure the joint density matrix in the Fock or $S_z$ basis, read off the selected blocks, and compare the predicted $P(\phi)$ with direct phase measurements; a mismatch would expose phase-operator convention issues.
  • Because the reduced states of the oscillators stay diagonal in the Fock basis in all the synchronizing examples, the rule may also apply to dissipative synchronization without coherent driving, where the resource is purely the joint inter-subsystem coherence.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives a selection rule for the density-matrix elements that contribute to the relative phase distribution of two coupled quantum self-sustained oscillators. For two continuous-variable oscillators the contributing elements satisfy m1+m2=n1+n2 (Eq. (5)); for two spins the analogous condition is m1+m2=n1+n2 in the Sz basis (Eq. (16)); and for the hybrid oscillator–spin setup the condition is mo−ms=no−ns (Eq. (23)). The rule is obtained by changing variables to the relative phase and a global phase and integrating out the global phase with a flat measure, using the Wigner function, the Husimi Q function, and phase states; all three methods give the same selection rule. The paper then analyzes coherent and dissipative interactions that generate (or fail to generate) the selected coherences, discusses destructive interference within a subset, and compares the resulting phase localization with information-theoretic measures such as relative entropy of coherence, mutual information, and entanglement. The central derivation is self-contained and appears mathematically sound for the phase convention it adopts.

Significance. If the selection rule is interpreted with the caveat that it refers to the relative phase defined through the bare Fock/Sz phase variables and a uniformly marginalized global phase, the paper gives a clean and useful unifying explanation of when two oscillators synchronize. Its strengths are that the derivation is not fitted or circular: the rule follows from Fourier orthogonality of the global-phase integral, all three phase-distribution methods agree, and the interaction examples (coherent exchange, correlated one-photon loss, two-mode squeezing, Jaynes–Cummings-type couplings) are consistent with the rule. The paper also correctly identifies destructive interference within a coherence subset as a reason why the presence of nominally relevant coherences does not guarantee phase locking, and it shows that measures like total coherence or mutual information can be misleading indicators of synchronization. The main risk is that the paper presents the selected coherences as 'the essential quantum resource' for phase synchronization without making explicit that this resource identification is tied to a specific phase convention.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.A (Eq. (5)), Sec. III.A (Eq. (16)), Sec. IV.A (Eq. (23))] The selection rules are derived by integrating out a global phase variable with a flat measure, using the bare Fock/Sz phase variables. They characterize the marginal distribution of the difference of those bare phase variables. The manuscript, however, repeatedly calls the selected coherences 'the essential quantum resource' for phase synchronization without noting that this identification depends on the phase convention. For other legitimate phase definitions—a sum phase, Pegg–Barnett-like phase operators, or dressed-mode phases—the subset of contributing density-matrix elements changes, and the negative conclusions about interactions such as two-mode squeezing in Sec. II.B do not automatically transfer. Please qualify the resource claim explicitly in the abstract and in Secs. II.A, III.A, and IV.A, and state the precise phase convention that the selection rule refers to.
  2. [Eq. (22) vs. Appendix C, Eq. (C9)] Main-text Eq. (22) gives the coefficient of the off-diagonal sum as (2s+1)/(2π), while the same derivation in Appendix C, Eq. (C9), gives (2s+1)/(4π). Using the normalization in Eq. (19) and integrating r, θ, and φs with the flat measures indeed yields the latter coefficient. This factor of two changes the reported magnitudes of the harmonic amplitudes such as Akd, although it does not alter the selection rule or the peak locations. The main-text formula should be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (10)] The argument that coherent coupling fails in the dissipative limit uses the equality ⟨0,1|ρ|0,1⟩ = ⟨1,0|ρ|1,0⟩. This equality follows from exchange symmetry only when the local frequencies are equal (Δ=0) and when the steady state is invariant under the swap. The text states only that the rates are similar; please state the equal-frequency condition explicitly and comment on the possibility of symmetry-broken steady states.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A13)] There is a typo in the index structure: ⟨m2,m2|ρ|n1,n1⟩ should read ⟨m1,m2|ρ|n1,n2⟩. The same typo appears once more in the text following Eq. (A13).
  3. [References] References [6] and [7] are the same Acebrón et al. paper; one duplicate should be removed and the numbering adjusted.
  4. [Sec. IV.A, text after Eq. (22)] The sentence 'the contribution to the k-th comes from the subset Sk' is missing a noun; it should read 'the k-th harmonic'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the excitation-relation selection rule is derived by direct Fourier integration, and the numerical checks are consistency tests, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central claim is the selection rule m1+m2=n1+n2 for two oscillators (Eq. (5)), m1+m2=n1+n2 for two spins (Eq. (16)), and mo−ms=no−ns for the hybrid setup (Eq. (23)). Each follows by explicit expansion of the joint phase-space distribution and evaluation of the integral over the conjugate global phase variable, which vanishes by Fourier orthogonality unless the stated excitation relation holds. This is a mathematical identity obtained from the chosen definition of the relative phase, not a parameter fit, a hidden ansatz, or an assumption of the target result. The same condition is reproduced independently from Wigner functions, Husimi Q functions, and phase states, and the applications to coherent versus dissipative couplings, two-mode squeezing, and hybrid Jaynes-Cummings-type interactions are consistency checks against previously studied models rather than fitted inputs. No free parameters are introduced for the central claim, and no load-bearing self-citation is used: the cited prior work supplies standard phase-state, spin-coherent-state, and master-equation tools but not the selection rule itself. The phase-convention dependence noted in a skeptical reading, namely that the result is tied to bare Fock/Sz phase variables and flat marginalization over the conjugate phase, is a scope limitation of the chosen definition of relative phase and is explicitly acknowledged in Sec. VI when the paper discusses n:m phase locking; it does not make the derivation circular.

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

The central claim rests on standard phase-space and master-equation techniques plus the explicit convention that phases are defined through bare Fock or Sz variables. No free parameters are fitted, and no new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The open-system dynamics of the van der Pol and spin models is governed by the Lindblad master equation with local gain and loss dissipators.
    Used throughout Secs. II.B, III.B, and IV.B to generate steady states; standard for these models but unproved in the paper.
  • domain assumption Spin coherent states |theta,phi> and continuous spin phase states form valid phase-space representations for the spin phase variable.
    Introduced in Sec. III.A and Appendix B; the continuous-phase extension of discrete phase eigenstates is a modeling choice.
  • standard math The Wigner function is treated as a probability distribution for marginalizing over the relative phase.
    Used at Eq. (3) and Appendix A; negative Wigner values are not discussed, though the Husimi and phase-state routes give positive distributions.
  • standard math Integration over the global phase phi2 selects terms via the orthogonality integral of complex exponentials.
    This orthogonality is the basis of all three excitation relations in Eqs. (5), (16), and (23).
  • domain assumption Coherences are defined in the eigenbasis of the bare Hamiltonian H0; dressed-state coherences are not considered.
    Stated in the abstract and Sec. I; the selection rule is basis-dependent, a point the paper does not fully explore.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding synchronization between quantum self-sustained oscillators through coherence generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NCNHEX6A

@misc{pith2026250601703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding synchronization between quantum self-sustained oscillators through coherence generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NCNHEX6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01703}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding the origin of phase synchronization between quantum self-sustained oscillators has garnered significant interest in recent years. In this work, we study phase synchronization in three settings: between two continuous-variable oscillators, between two arbitrary quantum spins, and within a hybrid setup involving a spin and an oscillator. We derive a simple and general condition on the elements of the joint density matrix that must be satisfied for them to contribute to the relative phase distribution. In particular, we identify the subset of coherence elements in the joint density matrix that serve as key resources for enabling quantum phase synchronization. Our theory is validated against the previously proposed interaction models known to induce synchronization between the self-sustained oscillators. Moreover, our approach offers valuable insights into the relationship between phase synchronization and various information-theoretic measures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The relative phase distribution between two quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots for phase synchronization between two VdP oscillators interacting via the coherent coupling of the form [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plots for (a) absolute value of steady-state den [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Synchronization between two spin-1 systems with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synchronization between spin-1 system and a VdP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot for (a) absolute values of the steady state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Color plot for the steady state density ma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    O. V. Zhirov and D. L. Shepelyansky, Synchronization and bistability of a qubit coupled to a driven dissipative oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 014101 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [60]

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

    2014

  3. [1]

    Wigner function for the state ρ of a continuous variable oscillator is defined as W (x, p) = 1 π Z ∞ −∞ dy ⟨x − y|ρ|x + y⟩ exp(2ipy)

    Wigner F unction Single oscillator case.– In this subsection, we first discuss the Wigner function approach for the single oscillator case. Wigner function for the state ρ of a continuous variable oscillator is defined as W (x, p) = 1 π Z ∞ −∞ dy ⟨x − y|ρ|x + y⟩ exp(2ipy). (A1) 13 By expanding the density matrix in the Fock basis of harmonic oscillator, w...

    work page

  4. [2]

    In (a) and (e), we show the color plots of the absolute value of steady-state density matrix elements, for the coherent and the dissipative coupling, respectively

    (a)-(d) and via dissipative coupling of the form γD[a1 + a2] (e)-(h). In (a) and (e), we show the color plots of the absolute value of steady-state density matrix elements, for the coherent and the dissipative coupling, respectively. The Fock basis states are reordered, as done in Fig. 1(a), and the existence of off-diagonal elements within the conserved ...

    work page

  5. [3]

    As a result for Eq

    This further implies that the following populations 6 are equal, ⟨0, 1| ρ |0, 1⟩ = ⟨1, 0| ρ |1, 0⟩. As a result for Eq. (10), ⟨1, 0| ρ |0, 1⟩ decays to zero in the long-time limit, leading to no synchronization. Moreover, for two coherently coupled VdPs with identical rates, the dom- inant contribution arises from the subset S2, which in- cludes coherence...

    work page 2023

  6. [4]

    Husimi Q-F unction Single oscillator case.–The Husimi Q-function for a harmonic oscillator with a state ρ is defined as Q(α) = 1 π ⟨α| ρ |α⟩ (A18) 16 where |α⟩ is the coherent state for the harmonic oscillator and is defined as |α⟩ = e− |α|2 2 P∞ n=0 αn √ n! |n⟩. Expanding the equation for Q in terms of the Fock basis elements, we get Q(α) = 1 π ∞X m,n=0 ...

    work page

  7. [6]

    (A26) 17 Now transforming the equation in terms of the relative phase ϕ and the variable ϕ2, we get Q = 1 π2 X m1n1m2n2 ⟨m1m2|ρ|n1n2⟩ exp(−r2

    rn2+m2 2√n2!m2! exp{i(n1 − m1)ϕ1} exp{i(n2 − m2)ϕ2}. (A26) 17 Now transforming the equation in terms of the relative phase ϕ and the variable ϕ2, we get Q = 1 π2 X m1n1m2n2 ⟨m1m2|ρ|n1n2⟩ exp(−r2

    work page

  8. [7]

    rn1+m1 1√n1!m1! exp(−r2

    work page

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    rn2+m2 2√n2!m2! × exp{i(n1 − m1)ϕ} exp {i[(n1 + n2) − (m1 + m2)]ϕ2} (A27) To obtain Pq(ϕ) we integrate out r1, r2 and ϕ2 as follows Pq(ϕ) = 1 π2 X m1n1m2n2 ⟨m1m2|ρ|n1n2⟩ Z ∞ 0 dr1 r1 exp(−r2

  2. [9]

    rn1+m1 1√n1!m1! Z ∞ 0 dr2 r2 exp(−r2

  3. [10]

    (A28) Integration over ϕ2 gives us the same condition as in Eq

    rn2+m2 2√n2!m2! exp{i(n1 − m1)ϕ} Z 2π 0 dϕ2 exp {i[(n1 + n2) − (m1 + m2)]ϕ2} . (A28) Integration over ϕ2 gives us the same condition as in Eq. (A14), over the density matrix elements i.e., the elements that satisfy the following excitation relation m1 + m2 = n1 + n2 (A29) cont...

  4. [11]

    The phase states are defined as [46] |ϕ⟩ = ∞X n=0 einϕ |n⟩

    Harmonic oscillator Phase states Single oscillator case–Instead of using the Quasiprobability distributions like Wigner function and the Husimi Q distribution, we could also use harmonic oscillator phase states to plot the phase distributions. The phase states are defined as [...

  5. [12]

    Husimi Q-F unction Single spin case–The phase space distribution of a single spin could be derived from the Husimi Q function, which in this case is defined in terms of the spin coherent states |θ, ϕ⟩. For a spin- s, the spin coherent state |θ, ϕ⟩ is defined by rotating the ma...

  6. [13]

    For a spin when we talk about phase ϕ, in the classical sense, this is the angle subtended by spin vector ˆS on the x-y plane

    Spin Phase States Similar to the case of the harmonic oscillator, one could also use states with well-defined phase for the spins to find the phase distribution. For a spin when we talk about phase ϕ, in the classical sense, this is the angle subtended by spin vector ˆS on the...

  7. [14]

    Let ρ be the joint density matrix, representing an arbitrary state

    Husimi Q F unction for the hybrid setup We consider a joint system made out of a quantum harmonic oscillator and a spin. Let ρ be the joint density matrix, representing an arbitrary state. The joint Husimi Q-function is then defined as Q(r, ϕo, θs, ϕs) = 2s + 1 4π2 ⟨αo, αs| ρ ...

  8. [15]

    Phase States for the hybrid setup The joint phase distribution for the hybrid system using spin and harmonic oscillator phase states is P (ϕo, ϕs) = 2s + 1 (2π)2 ⟨ϕo, ϕs| ρ |ϕo, ϕs⟩ . (C12) Expanding ρ in the joint basis |mo, ms⟩ we get P (ϕo, ϕs) = 2s + 1 (2π)2 X monomsns ⟨mo...

  9. [16]

    Synchronizing Interactions Coherent Coupling –For coherent exchange interaction of the form V = (a† 1a2 + a1a† 2), the interaction Liouvillian is given by LI ρ = −i[a† 1a2 + a1a† 2, ρ]. (D8) Action of LI on |m1 + k, m2⟩ ⟨m1, m2 + k| creates a superposition of following operato...

  10. [17]

    Non-synchronizing Interaction Two-Mode Squeezing –For two-mode squeezing interaction of the form V = i(a1a2 − a† 1a† 2), the interaction Liou- villian is given by LI ρ = −i[i(a1a2 − a† 1a† 2), ρ]. (D12) Action of LI on |m1 + k, m2⟩ ⟨m1, m2 + k| creates a superposition of follo...

  11. [18]

    Pikovsky, M

    A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths, Synchroniza- tion: A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences, Cam- bridge Nonlinear Science Series (Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    2001

  12. [19]

    I. I. Blekhman, Synchronization in science and technology (ASME press, 1988)

    1988

  13. [20]

    Arenas, A

    A. Arenas, A. D ´ ıaz-Guilera, J. Kurths, Y. Moreno, and C. Zhou, Synchronization in complex networks, Physics Reports 469, 93 (2008)

    2008

  14. [21]

    Kuramoto, Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Tur- bulence, Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    Y. Kuramoto, Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Tur- bulence, Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  15. [22]

    Kuramoto, Cooperative dynamics of oscillator com- munity: A study based on lattice of rings, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 79, 223 (1984)

    Y. Kuramoto, Cooperative dynamics of oscillator com- munity: A study based on lattice of rings, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 79, 223 (1984)

    1984

  16. [24]

    J. A. Acebr´ on, L. L. Bonilla, C. J. P´ erez Vicente, F. Ri- tort, and R. Spigler, The kuramoto model: A simple paradigm for synchronization phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 137 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Kuramoto and Y

    Y. Kuramoto and Y. Kuramoto, Chemical turbulence (Springer, 1984)

    1984

  18. [26]

    Cveticanin, On the van der pol oscillator: An overview, Applied Mechanics and Materials 430, 3 (2013)

    L. Cveticanin, On the van der pol oscillator: An overview, Applied Mechanics and Materials 430, 3 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Dumitrescu, S

    I. Dumitrescu, S. Bachir, D. Cordeau, J.-M. Paillot, and M. Iordache, Modeling and characterization of oscillator circuits by van der pol model using parameter estimation, Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 21, 1250043 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Rompala, R

    K. Rompala, R. Rand, and H. Howland, Dynamics of three coupled van der pol oscillators with application to circadian rhythms, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 12, 794 (2007)

    2007

  21. [30]

    O. V. Zhirov and D. L. Shepelyansky, Quantum synchro- nization and entanglement of two qubits coupled to a driven dissipative resonator, Phys. Rev. B 80, 014519 (2009)

    2009

  22. [31]

    G. L. Giorgi, F. Galve, G. Manzano, P. Colet, and R. Zambrini, Quantum correlations and mutual synchro- nization, Phys. Rev. A 85, 052101 (2012)

    2012

  23. [32]

    G. L. Giorgi, F. Plastina, G. Francica, and R. Zambrini, Spontaneous synchronization and quantum correlation dynamics of open spin systems, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042115 (2013)

    2013

  24. [33]

    Walter, A

    S. Walter, A. Nunnenkamp, and C. Bruder, Quan- 27 tum synchronization of a driven self-sustained oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 094102 (2014)

    2014

  25. [34]

    Roulet and C

    A. Roulet and C. Bruder, Synchronizing the smallest pos- sible system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 053601 (2018)

    2018

  26. [35]

    G. M. Vaidya, S. B. J¨ ager, and A. Shankar, Quantum synchronization and dissipative quantum sensing, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012410 (2025)

    2025

  27. [36]

    Shen, W.-K

    Y. Shen, W.-K. Mok, C. Noh, A. Q. Liu, L.-C. Kwek, W. Fan, and A. Chia, Quantum synchronization effects induced by strong nonlinearities, Phys. Rev. A 107, 053713 (2023)

    2023

  28. [37]

    Nadolny and C

    T. Nadolny and C. Bruder, Macroscopic quantum syn- chronization effects, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 190402 (2023)

    2023

  29. [38]

    Walter, A

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

    2015

  30. [39]

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

    2013

  31. [40]

    C. W. W¨ achtler and G. Platero, Topological synchroniza- tion of quantum van der pol oscillators, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023021 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    Es’haqi-Sani, G

    N. Es’haqi-Sani, G. Manzano, R. Zambrini, and R. Fazio, Synchronization along quantum trajectories, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023101 (2020)

    2020

  33. [42]

    A. J. Sudler, J. Talukdar, and D. Blume, Driven gener- alized quantum rayleigh–van der pol oscillators: Phase localization and spectral response, Phys. Rev. E 109, 054207 (2024)

    2024

  34. [43]

    Dutta and N

    S. Dutta and N. R. Cooper, Critical response of a quan- tum van der pol oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 250401 (2019)

    2019

  35. [44]

    M. R. Jessop, W. Li, and A. D. Armour, Phase synchro- nization in coupled bistable oscillators, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013233 (2020)

    2020

  36. [45]

    Roulet and C

    A. Roulet and C. Bruder, Quantum synchronization and entanglement generation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 063601 (2018)

    2018

  37. [47]

    Nadolny, C

    T. Nadolny, C. Bruder, and M. Brunelli, Nonreciprocal synchronization of active quantum spins, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011010 (2025)

    2025

  38. [48]

    R. Tan, C. Bruder, and M. Koppenh¨ ofer, Half-integer vs. integer effects in quantum synchronization of spin sys- tems, Quantum 6, 885 (2022)

    2022

  39. [49]

    Jaseem, M

    N. Jaseem, M. Hajduˇ sek, P. Solanki, L.-C. Kwek, R. Fazio, and S. Vinjanampathy, Generalized measure of quantum synchronization, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043287 (2020)

    2020

  40. [50]

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

    2020

  41. [51]

    Liao, R.-X

    C.-G. Liao, R.-X. Chen, H. Xie, M.-Y. He, and X.-M. Lin, Quantum synchronization and correlations of two me- chanical resonators in a dissipative optomechanical sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A 99, 033818 (2019)

    2019

  42. [52]

    Koppenh¨ ofer, C

    M. Koppenh¨ ofer, C. Bruder, and A. Roulet, Quantum synchronization on the ibm q system, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023026 (2020)

    2020

  43. [53]

    Zhang, G

    M. Zhang, G. S. Wiederhecker, S. Manipatruni, A. Barnard, P. McEuen, and M. Lipson, Synchronization of micromechanical oscillators using light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 233906 (2012)

    2012

  44. [54]

    V. R. Krithika, P. Solanki, S. Vinjanampathy, and T. S. Mahesh, Observation of quantum phase synchronization in a nuclear-spin system, Phys. Rev. A 105, 062206 (2022)

    2022

  45. [55]

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

    2015

  46. [56]

    L¨ orch, S

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

    2017

  47. [57]

    Davis-Tilley and A

    C. Davis-Tilley and A. D. Armour, Synchronization of micromasers, Phys. Rev. A 94, 063819 (2016)

    2016

  48. [58]

    Ameri, M

    V. Ameri, M. Eghbali-Arani, A. Mari, A. Farace, F. Kheirandish, V. Giovannetti, and R. Fazio, Mutual information as an order parameter for quantum synchro- nization, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012301 (2015)

    2015

  49. [59]

    Koppenh¨ ofer and A

    M. Koppenh¨ ofer and A. Roulet, Optimal synchronization deep in the quantum regime: Resource and fundamental limit, Phys. Rev. A 99, 043804 (2019)

    2019

  50. [61]

    Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1: Master Equations and Fokker-Planck Equations, Physics and astronomy online library (Springer, 1998)

    H. Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1: Master Equations and Fokker-Planck Equations, Physics and astronomy online library (Springer, 1998)

    1998

  51. [62]

    T. L. Curtright, D. B. Fairlie, and C. K. Za- chos, A Concise Treatise on Quantum Mechan- ics in Phase Space (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2014) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/8870

    2014 doi

  52. [63]

    Susskind and J

    L. Susskind and J. Glogower, Quantum mechanical phase and time operator, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 49 (1964)

    1964

  53. [64]

    Lynch, The quantum phase problem: a critical review, Physics Reports 256, 367 (1995)

    R. Lynch, The quantum phase problem: a critical review, Physics Reports 256, 367 (1995)

    1995

  54. [65]

    Barak and Y

    R. Barak and Y. Ben-Aryeh, Non-orthogonal positive op- erator valued measure phase distributions of one- and two-mode electromagnetic fields, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 7, 123 (2005)

    2005

  55. [66]

    Sonar, M

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

    2018

  56. [67]

    Lee Loh and M

    Y. Lee Loh and M. Kim, Visualizing spin states using the spin coherent state representation, American Journal of Physics 83, 30 (2015)

    2015

  57. [68]

    X. M. Feng, P. Wang, W. Yang, and G. R. Jin, High- precision evaluation of wigner’s d matrix by exact diago- nalization, Phys. Rev. E 92, 043307 (2015)

    2015

  58. [69]

    Huang, Quantum discord for two-qubit x states: An- alytical formula with very small worst-case error, Phys

    Y. Huang, Quantum discord for two-qubit x states: An- alytical formula with very small worst-case error, Phys. Rev. A 88, 014302 (2013)

    2013

  59. [70]

    Henderson and V

    L. Henderson and V. Vedral, Classical, quantum and to- tal correlations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34, 6899 (2001)

    2001

  60. [71]

    Ollivier and W

    H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Quantum discord: A mea- sure of the quantumness of correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001)

    2001

  61. [72]

    Balanov, N

    A. Balanov, N. Janson, D. Postnov, and O. Sosnovtseva, Synchronization: From Simple to Complex, Springer Se- ries in Synergetics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008). 28

    2008

  62. [73]

    Thomas and M

    N. Thomas and M. Senthilvelan, Quantum synchroniza- tion in quadratically coupled quantum van der pol oscil- lators, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012422 (2022)

    2022

  63. [74]

    Goldhirsch, Phase operator and phase fluctuations of spins, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 13, 3479 (1980)

    I. Goldhirsch, Phase operator and phase fluctuations of spins, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 13, 3479 (1980)

    1980

  64. [75]

    L¨ orch, E

    N. L¨ orch, E. Amitai, A. Nunnenkamp, and C. Bruder, Genuine quantum signatures in synchronization of an- harmonic self-oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 073601 (2016)

    2016

  65. [76]

    A. C. Y. Li, F. Petruccione, and J. Koch, Perturbative approach to markovian open quantum systems, Scientific Reports 4, 4887 (2014)

    2014

  66. [77]

    Solanki, N

    P. Solanki, N. Jaseem, M. Hajduˇ sek, and S. Vinjanam- pathy, Role of coherence and degeneracies in quantum synchronization, Phys. Rev. A 105, L020401 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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