Macroscopic entanglement of three magnon modes in three cavities via optical parametric amplifier

Guo-Qiang Zhang; Ying Zhou

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Macroscopic entanglement of three magnon modes in three cavities via optical parametric amplifier

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Three magnon modes in three coupled microwave cavities can be prepared in steady-state bipartite and tripartite entanglement using the nonlinearity of a single optical parametric amplifier, with entanglement increasing with the amplifier…

desk verdict Standard OPA entanglement formalism extended to three cavities and three magnon modes; the configuration is new, the derivation is standard, but the numerical core is not checkable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01721 v2 pith:IGWGJDPY submitted 2025-06-02 quant-ph

Ying Zhou , Guo-Qiang Zhang This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords cavitymagnonicsmagnonentanglementtripartiteopticalparametricamplifierYIGspherecontinuous-variableGaussianstatelogarithmicnegativityLyapunovequation

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 a concrete cavity-magnon QED setup in which three YIG-sphere magnon modes, each coupled linearly to its own microwave cavity mode, become entangled in the steady state because one of the cavities contains an optical parametric amplifier (OPA). The authors show that both pairwise (bipartite) and genuine three-way (tripartite) entanglement, quantified respectively by logarithmic negativity and minimum residual contangle, grow with the OPA nonlinear strength $G$, vanish at $G=0$, and survive up to bath temperatures around 200 mK. They also show that placing an OPA in each cavity enhances the entanglement further. If correct, this gives an experimentally feasible route to macroscopic tripartite entanglement of three magnon modes without relying on magnetostriction or Kerr nonlinearities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the optical parametric amplifier nonlinearity, a two-photon (squeezing) drive of strength $G$ acting on cavity 1, written as $iG(a_1^{\dagger 2}e^{-i\omega_d t}-a_1^2 e^{i\omega_d t})$ before moving to the rotating frame. Around the large steady-state amplitudes produced by the OPA and the two linear drives, the quantum fluctuations are governed by a linearized 12-mode drift matrix $A$ and solved through the Lyapunov equation $AV+VA^T=-D$ for the $12\times12$ covariance matrix. From that covariance matrix, bipartite entanglement is read off as logarithmic negativity $E_N$ and tripartite entanglement as the minimum residual contangle $\tau_R^{\min}$; positivity of either measure signals genuine entanglement. The cavity-cavity couplings $J_{12}$ and $J_{23}$ and the three magnon-cavity beam-splitter couplings $g_j$ carry the squeezing from the OPA into all three magnon modes.

What would settle it

Build the three-cavity, three-YIG-sphere system with the paper's parameters ($g_j/2\pi=20$ MHz, $\kappa_j/2\pi=5$ MHz, $\gamma_j/2\pi=1$ MHz, $J_{12}=J_{23}=2\pi\times12$ MHz, $G/2\pi=4.5$ MHz, $T=20$ mK) and reconstruct the magnon covariance matrix from the cavity output fields; if any predicted logarithmic negativity or the minimum residual contangle comes out zero at the detunings where the theory gives a positive value, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using experimentally feasible parameters (cavity frequency $2\pi\times10$ GHz, magnon-cavity coupling $g_j/2\pi=20$ MHz, cavity decay $\kappa_j/2\pi=5$ MHz, magnon decay $\gamma_j/2\pi=1$ MHz, cavity-cavity couplings $J_{12}=J_{23}=2\pi\times 12$ MHz), the paper finds a stable steady state in which the covariance matrix of the six-mode system, obtained from the Lyapunov equation for the linearized quantum Langevin equations, has positive logarithmic negativity $E_{m_1m_2}$, $E_{m_1m_3}$, $E_{m_2m_3}$ and positive minimum residual contangle $\tau_R^{\min}$. With a single OPA at $G/2\pi=4.5$ MHz the maxima are $E_{m_1m_2}\approx0.150$, $E_{m_1m_3}\approx0.148$, $E_{m_2m_3}\approx0.071$, and $\tau_R^{\min}\approx0.010$; inserting OPAs into all three cavities at $G/2\pi=2.6$ MHz raises $E_{m_1m_3}$ to $0.217$, $E_{m_2m_3}$ to $0.201$, and $\tau_R^{\min}$ to $0.045$, while $E_{m_1m_2}$ redistributes downward. The mechanism is that the OPA squeezes cavity mode 1; the linear beam-splitter couplings transfer that squeezing through the cavity network to the magnon modes, and the system's Gaussian steady state carries genuine tripartite magnon entanglement. Apart from the OPA nonlinearity, no additional nonlinear factors are introduced.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that each YIG magnon mode is an ideal harmonic Kittel mode coupled to its cavity only through the linear magnetic-dipole term, so all extra YIG nonlinearities—magnetostriction, Kerr, higher-order spin-wave effects—are negligible at the chosen OPA drive strengths and detunings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With one OPA in cavity 1, all three magnon modes reach a steady state with nonzero pairwise and genuine tripartite entanglement; no entanglement appears at $G=0$.
Increasing the OPA nonlinear strength $G$ increases all entanglement measures, so the OPA acts as the tunable entanglement source.
Multiplexing OPAs into all three cavities improves the maximum tripartite entanglement from about 0.010 to 0.045 and raises the directly relevant bipartite maxima, at the cost of some redistribution between magnon pairs.
The predicted entanglement is robust against thermal noise and survives to about 200 mK, consistent with standard dilution-refrigerator operation.
Because the system remains in a low-lying excitation regime (mean occupancies between 10 and 1000, far below the total spin number $\sim3.5\times10^{16}$), the Holstein-Primakoff harmonic description stays valid.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the same three-cavity chain should generalize to longer chains: a single squeezed drive at one end plus nearest-neighbour linear couplings is in principle enough to entangle all magnon nodes in an $N$-cavity array, with the achievable entanglement decaying with distance.
Editorial inference: the observed redistribution of $E_{m_1m_2}$ into $E_{m_1m_3}$ and $E_{m_2m_3}$ when the third OPA is added is a direct signature of monogamy of entanglement; quantifying the residual contangle against the monogamy inequality could test whether the tripartite state saturates the entanglement-sharing bound.
Editorial inference: because the entanglement is temperature-robust and controlled by an external drive, the scheme is a candidate for a scalable magnonic quantum-network node, where the three YIG spheres serve as stationary registers and the cavity photons as bus modes; a testable next step is to verify entanglement in the output microwave fields via heterodyne tomography rather than only in the
Editorial inference: an experimentally cleaner variant might replace the three separate OPAs by one squeezed microwave source split among the cavities, which would test whether the enhancement seen with multiplexed OPAs comes from the total injected squeezing power or from the local nonlinearity at each cavity.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick read of arXiv:2506.01721. The new thing is the geometry: three cavities, three YIG spheres, one OPA in cavity 1 and then multiplexed OPAs. Previous OPA work in cavity magnonics stops at one or two cavities, so the three-cavity, three-magnon configuration is genuinely new, and tripartite magnon entanglement is a natural next step.

What it does well: it uses the standard linearized quantum Langevin approach with a Lyapunov equation for the covariance matrix, computes logarithmic negativity and residual contangle, and checks that G=0 gives zero entanglement. Parameters are taken from known experiments (YIG, 10 GHz, g~20 MHz, kappa~5 MHz, gamma~1 MHz). Stability is checked via drift-matrix eigenvalues, which is often skipped but matters here because the OPA drive can push the system unstable.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, Eq. (6), the 12x12 drift matrix, is garbled in the text; a reviewer cannot reconstruct it unambiguously. No code or data files are included, so the plotted entanglement maxima are not independently reproducible. That is the main verification gap. Second, the paper neglects all YIG nonlinearities except the OPA (no Kerr, no magnetostriction). This is the standard approximation in the subfield, but it is not quantified — at the detunings and OPA strengths used, the neglected terms could matter, and a strong OPA drive may excite higher-order effects. Third, the "complementary distribution" explanation for why E_12 drops when the third OPA is added is hand-wavy, and the detunings are also changed in that comparison, so the attribution is not clean.

None of this sinks the central claim. The formalism is standard, the G=0 check is a good sanity check, and the predicted steady-state entanglements are plausible. The paper is a legitimate extension, not a paradigm shift. A serious referee could verify the numerics if the drift matrix were clean; as written, I would accept it for review but require revision: fix Eq. (6), release code or data (or at least a table of key covariance entries), and add a paragraph estimating the size of neglected YIG nonlinearities.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. I would probably cite it if I worked in cavity magnonics, because it is a concrete blueprint for a three-mode experiment.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a three-cavity cavity-magnon system in which three YIG magnon modes are coupled to three microwave cavities, with one or more optical parametric amplifiers providing nonlinearity, and two cavity-cavity linear couplings. Working in the standard quantum Langevin framework, the authors linearize the dynamics around the steady state, solve the Lyapunov equation for the covariance matrix, and compute logarithmic negativity and minimum residual contangle. They report that bipartite and tripartite magnon entanglements increase with OPA strength and with multiplexed OPA drives, and that the entanglements survive up to about 200 mK. The central claim is a steady-state tripartite entangled state of three macroscopic magnon modes.

Significance. If correct, the result would be a nontrivial extension of two-magnon entanglement schemes to three modes, and the multiplexed OPA enhancement is a plausible and practical strategy. The paper follows the standard cavity-magnon QLE formalism, uses parameters from experimental literature, and includes a G=0 sanity check (Fig. 4), which supports internal consistency. The main limitation is that the printed equations—especially the drift matrix in Eq. (6)—are too garbled for independent verification, and no code or numerical data are provided, so the quantitative predictions cannot be checked from the manuscript alone.

major comments (4)

[§2, Eq. (6)] The drift matrix A in Eq. (6) is printed as a scrambled 12×12 array, with entries such as '00 000 0000' and '0 0 000 00' that cannot be unambiguously assigned to the quadrature vector f(t). Because the covariance matrix V is obtained by solving the Lyapunov equation (7) with this A, all reported entanglements in Figs. 3–7 are not independently reproducible from the printed equations. Please provide a clean, explicitly indexed drift matrix, and ideally the code or data used to generate the figures.
[§2, Eqs. (1)–(3)] The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) and the quantum Langevin equations in Eq. (3) are heavily garbled; for example, the OPA term in Eq. (1) is rendered as '†22it it i G a e aeωω− −' and several terms in the first QLE line are unassigned. Since the drift matrix A is constructed from these equations, the illegibility is load-bearing for the central claim. Please retypeset these equations with unambiguous notation and verify that the linearization and the 2G terms are correctly implemented.
[§2, after Eq. (1)] The text states that 'apart from the OPA nonlinearity, no additional nonlinear factors are introduced.' The neglect of YIG magnetostrictive and Kerr nonlinearities is not quantitatively justified at the chosen parameters (e.g., G=4.5 MHz, Ω2=Ω3=2π×1 MHz). Since the predicted entanglement originates from the OPA nonlinearity and the linearized dynamics, please estimate the effective strengths of these neglected nonlinearities at the operating point, or explicitly identify the parameter regime where they are negligible.
[§3, Fig. 2] The steady-state mean photon and magnon numbers are presented only as plots, and the equations used to compute them are not given. The linearization and Holstein-Primakoff approximation are justified by the mean numbers being between 10 and 1000, but this cannot be checked without the explicit steady-state equations. Please include the steady-state equations or provide the underlying numerical data.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction] The word 'polaritions' should be 'polaritons'.
[Introduction] The phrase 'the system must posses s two key elements' contains a typo; it should be 'possesses'.
[Fig. 7 caption] The detuning notation '11 0am∆= ∆=' is ambiguous; please clarify which detunings are zero for each curve.
[Data availability] Since no code or numerical tables are provided, the statement that data 'may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request' is not sufficient for reproducibility; consider depositing code and data for the main figures.
[Abstract and Sec. 4] The claim that entanglements are 'robust against bath temperature' should be qualified, since Fig. 7 only shows survival up to about 200 mK.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the entanglement predictions are numerical outputs of an explicitly specified linearized model with parameters taken from prior experiments.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the Hamiltonian (Eq. (1)/(2)) specifies the cavity-magnon couplings, cavity-cavity couplings, and OPA drive; Eq. (3) gives the quantum Langevin equations; linearization yields the drift matrix A (Eq. (6)); the steady-state covariance matrix is obtained by solving the Lyapunov equation (Eq. (7)); and the logarithmic negativity and minimum residual contangle are evaluated from this covariance matrix with standard formulas (Eqs. (8)-(9)). No parameter is fitted to reproduce a target entanglement value: the parameters (omega_a/2pi = omega_m/2pi = 10 GHz, g_j/2pi = 20 MHz, kappa_j/2pi = 5 MHz, gamma_j/2pi = 1 MHz, J12/2pi = J23/2pi = 12 MHz, T = 20 mK) are stated as experimentally realizable and cited to prior experimental literature. The G = 0 case returning no entanglement is a consistency check of the model, not an input. The choice of detunings that maximize entanglement is parameter optimization, not circular fitting. The paper's own prior works [19,20] are cited only as examples of OPA-generated entanglement in magnon-cavity systems, not as the justification for the present calculation; the central result depends on the explicit model and standard Lyapunov/covariance machinery. Concerns that Eq. (6) is hard to parse and that no code or data are provided are reproducibility/verification issues, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the ideal harmonic magnon model and on a stable Gaussian steady state. The free parameters are experimental inputs or chosen optimization points, not parameters fitted to the target entanglement values. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)

OPA strength G = 2π × 4.5 MHz single OPA; 2π × 2.6 MHz multiplexed OPAs.
This is the nonlinear drive strength that produces the reported entanglements; it is chosen by hand and is not fitted to data.
Magnon-cavity coupling g_j = 2π × 20 MHz.
Strong-coupling value taken from prior experiments; it is a design input, not a fitted parameter.
Cavity decay rates κ_j = 2π × 5 MHz.
Taken from experimental values, and lower κ increases entanglement, so the choice is favorable.
Magnon damping γ_j = 2π × 1 MHz.
Experimental YIG damping value used in all figures.
Cavity-cavity coupling J12 and J23 = 2π × 12 MHz.
Chosen as linear inter-cavity couplings within experimental reach.
Drive Rabi frequencies Ω2, Ω3 = 2π × 1 MHz.
Drive amplitudes for cavities 2 and 3, set to produce mean occupancies above 10.
Detunings Δ_a1, Δ_m1 and related asymmetries = Varied per figure; e.g., Δ_a1 = 2π × 10 MHz, Δ_m1 = 2π × 10 MHz in Fig. 4.
Detunings are scanned and then selected at values that maximize entanglement; this is parameter optimization, not a principled prescription.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation for cavity-magnon and cavity-cavity couplings is valid.
Invoked in Sec. 2 before Eq. (2); relies on coupling strengths being much smaller than mode frequencies and near resonance.
domain assumption Holstein-Primakoff transformation reduces YIG spin operators to bosonic magnon modes and the weak-excitation linearization is valid.
Sec. 2 after Fig. 2: mean occupancies below 1000 against total spin about 3.5×10^16 justify the low-lying excitation assumption.
standard math The quantum noise is Markovian and Gaussian, so the system state is fully characterized by a 12×12 covariance matrix from a Lyapunov equation.
Used in Eqs. (4) to (7); this is the standard open-quantum-system treatment.
ad hoc to paper YIG nonlinearities other than the OPA, such as magnetostrictive and Kerr nonlinearities, are negligible.
Sec. 2 states no additional nonlinear factors are introduced; this omission is load-bearing because real YIG has both magnetostriction and Kerr nonlinearity.
domain assumption The OPA is an ideal parametric amplifier with no extra noise or loss beyond cavity decay.
The Hamiltonian Eq. (2) contains only the ideal iG(a^2 - a†^2) term; practical parametric amplifiers add noise and gain saturation.
domain assumption The chosen parameters correspond to a stable steady state whenever entanglement is reported.
The paper says all results are in steady state guaranteed by negative eigenvalues of the drift matrix, but the blank regions in Fig. 4 show stability is not guaranteed globally and entanglement maxima are reported only where stable.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Macroscopic entanglement of three magnon modes in three cavities via optical parametric amplifier." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IGWGJDPY

@misc{pith2026250601721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Macroscopic entanglement of three magnon modes in three cavities via optical parametric amplifier},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IGWGJDPY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01721}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a scheme to generate bipartite and tripartite entanglements of three magnon modes in a three-cavity system using a nonlinear optical parametric amplifier (OPA). The three magnon modes in three YIG spheres are respectively placed inside three cavities near the maximum magnetic fields of the cavities and coupled to cavity modes via linear magnetic dipole interaction. Additionally, linear coupling interaction exists between two cavities. Using experimentally feasible parameters, we demonstrate that OPA can prepare the three magnon modes in a steady-state entangled state, bipartite and tripartite entanglements increase with the nonlinear interaction strength of OPA. An alternative approach to enhance quantum entanglement involves multiplexed OPA inputs. By employing individual OPA for each cavity, we observe a significant improvement in entanglement generation. All the entanglements are robust against bath temperature.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

[1]

Cavity magnomechanics: From classical to quantum

X. Zuo, Z.- Y . Fan, H. Qian, et al., “Cavity magnomechanics: From classical to quantum”, New J. Phys. 26 (3), 031201 (2024)

work page 2024
[2]

On the theory of ferromagnetic resonance absorption

C. Kittel, “On the theory of ferromagnetic resonance absorption”, Phys. Rev. 73 (2), 155-161 (1948)

work page 1948
[3]

High cooperativity in coupled microwave resonator ferrimagnetic insulator hybrids

H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, et al ., “High cooperativity in coupled microwave resonator ferrimagnetic insulator hybrids”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (12), 127003 (2013)

work page 2013
[4]

Hybridizing ferromagnetic magnons and microwave photons in the quantum limit

Y . Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, et al ., “Hybridizing ferromagnetic magnons and microwave photons in the quantum limit”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (8), 083603 (2014)

work page 2014
[5]

Strongly coupled magnons and cavity microwave photons

X. Zhang, C.- L. Zou, L. Jiang, et al., “Strongly coupled magnons and cavity microwave photons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (15), 156401 (2014)

work page 2014
[6]

High-cooperativity cavity qed with magnons at microwave frequencies

M. Goryachev, W. G. Farr, D. L. Creedon, et al ., “High-cooperativity cavity qed with magnons at microwave frequencies”, Phys. Rev. Applied 2 (5), 054002 (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

Spin pumping in electrodynamically coupled magnon -photon systems

L. Bai, M. Harder, Y . P. Chen, et al., “Spin pumping in electrodynamically coupled magnon -photon systems”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (22), 227201 (2015)

work page 2015
[8]

Cavity quantum electrodynamics with ferromagnetic magnons in a small yttrium-iron-garnet sphere

D. Zhang, X.-M. Wang, T.-F. Li, et al., “Cavity quantum electrodynamics with ferromagnetic magnons in a small yttrium-iron-garnet sphere”, npj Quantum Inf. 1 (1), 15014 (2015)

work page 2015

Show all 51 references

[9]

Ultrahigh cooperativity interactio ns between magnons and resonant photons in a yig sphere

J. Bourhill, N. Kostylev, M. Goryachev, et al ., “Ultrahigh cooperativity interactio ns between magnons and resonant photons in a yig sphere”, Phys. Rev. B 93 (14), 144420 (2016)

2016
[10]

Superstrong coupling of a microwave cavity to yttrium iron garnet magnons

N. Kostylev, M. Goryachev, M. E. Tobar, “Superstrong coupling of a microwave cavity to yttrium iron garnet magnons”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 108 (6), 062402 (2016)

2016
[11]

Magnon-photon-phonon entanglement in cavity magnomechanics

J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, G. S. Agarwal, “Magnon-photon-phonon entanglement in cavity magnomechanics”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (20), 203601 (2018)

2018
[12]

Microwave-optics entanglement via cavity optomagnomechanics

Z. -Y. Fan, L. Qiu, S. Gröblacher, et al ., “Microwave-optics entanglement via cavity optomagnomechanics”, Laser Photonics Rev. 17 (12), 2200866 (2023)

2023
[13]

Entangling the vibrational modes of two massive ferromagnetic spheres using cavity magnomechanics

J. Li, S. Gröblacher, “Entangling the vibrational modes of two massive ferromagnetic spheres using cavity magnomechanics”, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6 (2), 024005 (2021)

2021
[14]

Entangling two magnon modes via magnetostrictive interaction

J. Li, S.-Y . Zhu, “Entangling two magnon modes via magnetostrictive interaction”, New J. Phys. 21 (8), 085001 (2019)

2019
[15]

Magnetostrictively induced stationary entanglement between two microwave fields

M. Yu, H. Shen, J. Li, “Magnetostrictively induced stationary entanglement between two microwave fields”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (21), 213604 (2020)

2020
[16]

Einstein -podolsky-rosen entanglement and asymmetric steering between distant macroscopic mechanical and magnonic systems

H. Tan, J. Li, “Einstein -podolsky-rosen entanglement and asymmetric steering between distant macroscopic mechanical and magnonic systems”, Phys. Rev. Res. 3 (1), 013192 (2021)

2021
[17]

Quantum entanglement between two magnon m odes via kerr nonlinearity driven far from equilibrium

Z. Zhang, M. O. Scully, G. S. Agarwal, “Quantum entanglement between two magnon m odes via kerr nonlinearity driven far from equilibrium”, Phys. Rev. Res. 1 (2), 023021 (2019)

2019
[18]

Deterministic quantum entanglement between macroscopic ferrite samples

J. M. P . Nair, G. S. Agarwal, “Deterministic quantum entanglement between macroscopic ferrite samples”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 117 (8), 084001 (2020)

2020
[19]

Nonlinear pumping induced multipartite entanglement in a hybrid magnon cavity qed system

Y. Zhou, S.-Y. X i e, C.-J. Zhu, et al., “Nonlinear pumping induced multipartite entanglement in a hybrid magnon cavity qed system”, Phys. Rev. B 106 (22), 224404 (2022)

2022
[20]

Entangling two cavity modes and squeezing magnon mode via parametric down- conversion

Y. Zhou, J.-P. Xu, S.-Y . Xie, “Entangling two cavity modes and squeezing magnon mode via parametric down- conversion”, J. Phys. B - At. Mol. Opt. 55 (20), 205503 (2022)

2022
[21]

Enhancement of magnon –magnon entanglement in cavity magnomechanics with an optical parametric amplifier

H. -J. Du, X. -Y. M a, J .-L. Guo, “Enhancement of magnon –magnon entanglement in cavity magnomechanics with an optical parametric amplifier”, Quantum Inf. Process. 23 (6), 198 (2024)

2024
[22]

Maximum enhancement of entanglement in cavity magnomechanics

A. Lakhfif, A. Hidki, A. Slaoui, et al., “Maximum enhancement of entanglement in cavity magnomechanics”, Phys. Lett. A 518, 129678 (2024)

2024
[23]

Enhanced maximum entanglement between two microwave fields in the cavity magnomechanics with an optical parametric amplifier

A. Hidki, Y .-L. Ren, A. Lakhfif, et al., “Enhanced maximum entanglement between two microwave fields in the cavity magnomechanics with an optical parametric amplifier”, Phys. Lett. A 463, 128667 (2023)

2023
[24]

Entanglement enhancement through magnon squeezing and optical parametric amplifier in cavity magnomechanics

A. Hidki, A. Lakhfif, N. Benrass, et al ., “Entanglement enhancement through magnon squeezing and optical parametric amplifier in cavity magnomechanics”, Chin. J. Phys. 90, 319-328 (2024)

2024
[25]

Magnon squeezing by two -tone driving of a qubit in cavity -magnon-qubit systems

Q. Guo, J. Cheng, H. Tan, et al ., “Magnon squeezing by two -tone driving of a qubit in cavity -magnon-qubit systems”, Phys. Rev. A 108 (6), 063703 (2023)

2023
[26]

Squeezed states of magnons and phonons in cavity magnomechanics

J. Li, S.- Y . Zhu, G. S. Agarwal, “Squeezed states of magnons and phonons in cavity magnomechanics”, Phys. Rev. A 99 (2), 021801(R) (2019)

2019
[27]

Strong squeezing of microwave output fields via reservoir-engineered cavity magnomechanics

H. Qian, X. Zuo, Z.-Y. Fan, et al., “Strong squeezing of microwave output fields via reservoir-engineered cavity magnomechanics”, Phys. Rev. A 109 (1), 013704 (2024)

2024
[28]

Magnon squeezing via reservoir-engineered optomagnomechanics

Z.-Y. Fan, H.-B. Zhu, H.-T. Li, et al., “Magnon squeezing via reservoir-engineered optomagnomechanics”, APL Photonics 9 (10), 100804 (2024)

2024
[29]

Bistability of cavity magnon polaritons

Y.-P. Wang, G.-Q. Zhang, D.-k. Zhang, et al., “Bistability of cavity magnon polaritons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (5), 057202 (2018)

2018
[30]

Cavity mediated manipulation of distant spin currents using a cavity - magnon-polariton

L. Bai, M. Harder, P. Hyde, et al ., “Cavity mediated manipulation of distant spin currents using a cavity - magnon-polariton”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (21), 217201 (2017)

2017
[31]

Magnon dark modes and gradient memory

X. Zhang, C. -L. Zou, N. Zhu, et al., “Magnon dark modes and gradient memory”, Nat. Commun. 6 (1), 8914 (2015)

2015
[32]

Parity-symmetry-breaking quantum phase transition via parametric drive in a cavity magnonic system

G. -Q. Zhang, Z. Chen, W. Xiong, et al ., “Parity-symmetry-breaking quantum phase transition via parametric drive in a cavity magnonic system”, Phys. Rev. B 104 (6), 064423 (2021)

2021
[33]

Observation of the exceptional point in cavity magnon -polaritons

D. Zhang, X. -Q. Lu o, Y.-P. Wang, et al., “Observation of the exceptional point in cavity magnon -polaritons”, Nat. Commun. 8 (1), 1368 (2017)

2017
[34]

Higher-order exceptional point in a cavity magnonics sys tem

G. -Q. Zhang, J. Q. Y ou, “Higher-order exceptional point in a cavity magnonics sys tem”, Phys. Rev. B 99 (5), 054404 (2019)

2019
[35]

Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics

D. Lachance -Quirion, Y . Tabuchi, A. Gloppe, et al ., “Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics”, Appl. Phys. Express 12 (7), 070101 (2019)

2019
[36]

Hybrid magnonics: Ph ysics, circuits, and applications for coherent information processing

Y. Li, W. Zhang, V. Tyberkevych, et al ., “Hybrid magnonics: Ph ysics, circuits, and applications for coherent information processing”, J. Appl. Phys. 128 (13), 130902 (2020)

2020
[37]

Cavity magnonics

B. Zare Rameshti, S. Viola Kusminskiy, J. A. Haigh, et al., “Cavity magnonics”, Phys. Rep. 979, 1-61 (2022)

2022
[38]

Quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science

H. Y. Yuan, Y. Cao, A. K amra, et al ., “Quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science”, Phys. Rep. 965, 1-74 (2022)

2022
[39]

Quantum network with magnonic and mechanical nodes

J. Li, Y .-P. Wa ng, W.-J. Wu, et al., “Quantum network with magnonic and mechanical nodes”, PRX Quantum 2 (4), 040344 (2021)

2021
[40]

Cavity magnomechanics

X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, et al., “Cavity magnomechanics”, Sci. Adv. 2 (3), e1501286 (2016)

2016
[41]

Quantum langevin equation

R. Benguria, M. Kac, “Quantum langevin equation”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46 (1), 1-4 (1981)

1981
[42]

Gardiner, P

C. Gardiner, P. Zoller, Quantum noise: A handbook of mar kovian and non -markovian quantum stochastic methods with applications to quantum optics. Springer V erlag: Berlin, 2004

2004
[43]

Optomechanical entanglement between a movable mirror and a cavity field

D. Vitali, S. Gigan, A. Ferreira, et al., “Optomechanical entanglement between a movable mirror and a cavity field”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (3), 030405 (2007)

2007
[44]

P . C. Parks, V. Hahn, Stability theory. Prentice Hall: New York, 1993

1993
[45]

Computable measure of entanglement

G. Vidal, R. F. Werner, “Computable measure of entanglement”, Phys. Rev. A 65 (3), 032314 (2002)

2002
[46]

Logarithmic negativity: A f ull entanglement monotone that is not convex

M. B. Plenio, “Logarithmic negativity: A f ull entanglement monotone that is not convex”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (9), 090503 (2005)

2005
[47]

Continuous variable tangle, monogamy inequality, and entanglement sharing in gaussian states of continuous variable systems

G. Adesso, F. Illuminati, “Continuous variable tangle, monogamy inequality, and entanglement sharing in gaussian states of continuous variable systems”, New J. Phys. 8 (1), 15 (2006)

2006
[48]

Entanglement in continuous -variable systems: Recent advances and current perspectives

G. Adesso, F. Illuminati, “Entanglement in continuous -variable systems: Recent advances and current perspectives”, J. Phys. A - Math. Theor. 40 (28), 7821 (2007)

2007
[49]

Macroscopic distant magnon -mode entanglement via a squeezed drive

K. Ullah, M. T. Naseem, E. M. zgür, “Macroscopic distant magnon -mode entanglement via a squeezed drive”, Phys. Rev. A 110 (6), 063715 (2024)

2024
[50]

Enhancement of magnon -magnon entanglement in a double cavity-magnon system by optical parametric amplifier

B. Noureddine, H. Abdelkader, D. H. Nabil, “Enhancement of magnon -magnon entanglement in a double cavity-magnon system by optical parametric amplifier”, Russ. Phys. J. 67 (6), 829-837 (2024)

2024
[51]

Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet

T. Holstein, H. Primakoff, “Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet”, Phys. Rev. 58 (12), 1098-1113 (1940)

1940

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Cavity magnomechanics: From classical to quantum

X. Zuo, Z.- Y . Fan, H. Qian, et al., “Cavity magnomechanics: From classical to quantum”, New J. Phys. 26 (3), 031201 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [2]

On the theory of ferromagnetic resonance absorption

C. Kittel, “On the theory of ferromagnetic resonance absorption”, Phys. Rev. 73 (2), 155-161 (1948)

work page 1948

[3] [3]

High cooperativity in coupled microwave resonator ferrimagnetic insulator hybrids

H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, et al ., “High cooperativity in coupled microwave resonator ferrimagnetic insulator hybrids”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (12), 127003 (2013)

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Hybridizing ferromagnetic magnons and microwave photons in the quantum limit

Y . Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, et al ., “Hybridizing ferromagnetic magnons and microwave photons in the quantum limit”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (8), 083603 (2014)

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Strongly coupled magnons and cavity microwave photons

X. Zhang, C.- L. Zou, L. Jiang, et al., “Strongly coupled magnons and cavity microwave photons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (15), 156401 (2014)

work page 2014

[6] [6]

High-cooperativity cavity qed with magnons at microwave frequencies

M. Goryachev, W. G. Farr, D. L. Creedon, et al ., “High-cooperativity cavity qed with magnons at microwave frequencies”, Phys. Rev. Applied 2 (5), 054002 (2014)

work page 2014

[7] [7]

Spin pumping in electrodynamically coupled magnon -photon systems

L. Bai, M. Harder, Y . P. Chen, et al., “Spin pumping in electrodynamically coupled magnon -photon systems”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (22), 227201 (2015)

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Cavity quantum electrodynamics with ferromagnetic magnons in a small yttrium-iron-garnet sphere

D. Zhang, X.-M. Wang, T.-F. Li, et al., “Cavity quantum electrodynamics with ferromagnetic magnons in a small yttrium-iron-garnet sphere”, npj Quantum Inf. 1 (1), 15014 (2015)

work page 2015