Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Spontaneous emission as a bridge from Lindbladian to nonreciprocal reservoirs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that tracing out spontaneously emitted photons converts a dissipative three-level atom into an effective non-Hermitian, nonreciprocal reservoir coupling, with a measurable bias-dependent quantum Zeno signature in the…

desk verdict A promising idea undone by a symmetry-violating mean-field approximation: the nonreciprocal term cannot arise from vacuum spontaneous emission. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00689 v1 pith:KBQUAEJE submitted 2025-08-01 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph

C. J. Bolech , T. Giamarchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph PACS 03.65.Yz42.50.-p67.85.-d
keywords spontaneousemissionnon-HermitianHamiltonianLindbladmasterequationnonreciprocaltransportquantumZenoeffectcoldatomicgasesKeldyshformalismlambdasystem
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 studies a driven three-level $\lambda$ system in which a laser couples a ground state to an excited state and the excited state spontaneously emits into an auxiliary state that quickly leaks into a reservoir. It argues that the proper steady-state description is not a Lindblad master equation alone: tracing out the emitted photon mode and the loss bath produces an effective fermionic model with a nonreciprocal coupling to the reservoir, whose asymmetry parameter is $\mathrm{enh}=1+\Gamma_{e5}/\Gamma_{5}\ge 1$. This matters because the nonreciprocity arises from the full open-system dynamics without post-selection, and it leaves an observable imprint in the atomic loss current: for $\mathrm{enh}>1$, the continuous quantum Zeno curves split and cross depending on the chemical-potential bias across the junction. The authors connect the results to existing cold-atom point-contact experiments and note that a secondary laser can tune $\mathrm{enh}$ down to one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the $\lambda$ system itself: two ground states $|g\rangle$ and $|5\rangle$, one excited state $|e\rangle$, a laser-driven stimulated transition $g\leftrightarrow e$, and a spontaneous $e\rightarrow 5$ transition whose photon mode is treated as a leaky cavity with lifetime set by $\Gamma_{e5}$. The derivation chain is: generalized rotating-frame gauge transformations that absorb the photon lifetime into complex frequencies; coherent-state mean-field replacement of the photon operators, turning the light-matter coupling into fermionic tunneling amplitudes $t_m=\lambda_m\alpha_m$; and integration of a linearized right-moving fermionic bath representing atoms that leave through state $|5\rangle$, done with a time-loop Keldysh action. The dimensionless enhancement parameter $\mathrm{enh}=1+\Gamma_{e5}/\Gamma_{5}$ encodes the ratio of photon-loss to atom-loss rates and controls the degree of nonreciprocity of the final effective hopping; the paper's computed observable is the loss current through this effective non-Hermitian junction.

What would settle it

Solve the full Lindblad master equation for the three-level atom coupled to a lossy photon mode without replacing the photon operators by c-numbers, and compute the loss current versus driving-laser intensity at several junction biases. If the curves do not split and cross in the quantum Zeno regime, the coherent-state mean-field replacement is the step that fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spontaneous emission, when driven continuously and followed by rapid atom loss, generates a non-Hermitian, nonreciprocal reservoir coupling in the effective single-particle description of a $\lambda$ system. After modelling the e to 5 photon mode as a leaky cavity with loss rate $2\Gamma_{e5}$ and replacing the photon operators by coherent-state expectation values, a space-time dependent gauge transformation into the atom-loss bath leaves an effective Hamiltonian containing $H_{55b}=t_5\,c^{\dagger}_{5b}c_5+\mathrm{enh}\,t_5^{*}\,c^{\dagger}_5 c_{5b}$ with $\mathrm{enh}=1+\Gamma_{e5}/\Gamma_{5}\ge 1$; the amplitude for returning from the bath to the auxiliary state is enhanced relative to the forward loss amplitude. The paper computes the loss current and shows that for $\mathrm{enh}>1$ the quantum Zeno suppression depends on the junction bias, with curves at different chemical-potential drops crossing between the extreme nonequilibrium limit at low laser intensity and the equilibrium curve at high intensity. This is presented as evidence that eliminating the photon degree of freedom produces an observable nonreciprocal term that a single Lindblad jump operator such as $a_{e5}c_5$ would miss.

Load-bearing premise

The photon emitted in the $e\rightarrow 5$ decay is replaced by a coherent state with a fixed complex amplitude, assuming that atom-photon correlations factorize even though the emission starts from the vacuum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the derivation is correct, continuous spontaneous emission combined with fast atom loss is an experimentally realizable source of nonreciprocal hopping that requires neither post-selection of no-jump trajectories nor a transient short-time approximation.
  • The atomic loss current as a function of laser intensity shows a continuous quantum Zeno effect; for $\mathrm{enh}>1$ the Zeno curves become bias-dependent and cross, so transport measurements can expose the effective nonreciprocity directly.
  • The asymmetry parameter is tunable: adding a weak secondary laser that drives the $e\rightarrow 5$ transition lowers $\mathrm{enh}$ toward $1$, allowing experiments to dial the degree of nonreciprocity.
  • The same three-level structure appears in lambda, vee, and cascade schemes used throughout optics, and the treatment is stated to extend to phonon-relaxation processes in solid-state systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the coherent-state replacement is the load-bearing semiclassical step; a full quantum calculation of the emitted photon mode, for example an exact small-system Lindblad simulation with a finite number of photon levels, could renormalize or alter $\mathrm{enh}$, and the bias-dependent Zeno crossing is the concrete target to compare against.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's mechanism, two dissipative channels with different rates, one eliminated before the other, may be a general recipe for generating nonreciprocity in other driven open systems, such as cavity-coupled atomic arrays or superconducting qubits with engineered decay.
  • Editorial inference: if the signature is confirmed, the measured crossing of Zeno curves would give a quantitative readout of the ratio $\Gamma_{e5}/\Gamma_5$ from steady-state transport data alone.
  • Editorial inference: the effective non-Hermitian model may exhibit exceptional points in its transport or Liouvillian spectrum; current-noise or conductance measurements could search for their signatures, a direction the paper only hints at.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a microscopic mapping from a Lindblad description of a driven Lambda system, with spontaneous emission to an untrapped state, to an effective non-Hermitian fermionic model with a nonreciprocal coupling to a reservoir. The authors replace the spontaneously emitted photon mode by a coherent-state amplitude, derive a non-Hermitian site energy and an enhancement parameter enh = 1 + Γ_e5/Γ5, match the resulting Keldysh expression to a nonreciprocal hopping H55b, and compute a loss current exhibiting a bias-dependent quantum Zeno effect. The central claim is that spontaneous emission naturally generates nonreciprocal ('non-Hermitian') couplings without post-selection.

Significance. If the mapping were correct, it would provide a concrete route from a Hermitian-plus-Lindblad description to an effective nonreciprocal transport model, with a tunable asymmetry parameter and a measurable Zeno signature. The paper is clearly written, the model is explicitly defined, and the use of Keldysh techniques for steady-state transport is appropriate. However, the central step—replacing the spontaneously emitted photon mode by a coherent amplitude—is not justified and is inconsistent with the exact Lindblad dynamics, which has a U(1) symmetry that enforces zero mean photon field. Since the nonreciprocal term and the predicted Zeno curves rely on this amplitude, the main claim is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Paragraph beginning 'At this point, we selected...' and Eqs. (11)-(12)] The coherent-state mean-field replacement a_e5 → α_e5 for the spontaneously emitted mode is invalid. In the Lindblad model with L_e5 = a_e5, the generator and the initial state are invariant under a_e5 → e^{iφ} a_e5 and c5 → e^{-iφ} c5 (with all other modes unchanged), so ⟨a_e5(t)⟩ = 0 for all times. Consequently t_e5 = λ_e5 α_e5 = 0, the e→5 transition is absent, and the nonreciprocal H55b term in Eq. (17) does not arise. The complex rotating-frame transformation in Eq. (9) is a change of variables and cannot generate a nonzero expectation value from the vacuum; the semiclassical replacement is equivalent to adding a coherent drive on the e−5 transition, i.e., stimulated rather than spontaneous emission.
  2. [Eqs. (16)-(17)] The step from the effective non-Hermitian site energy ε5 → (ε_g − ℏδ_eg) − iℏ enh Γ5 to the nonreciprocal hopping H55b = t5 c†_5b c5 + enh t*_5 c†_5 c_5b is asserted by 'match expressions' to Ref. [30] but not derived. The reader is not shown how integrating out the bath and the photon mode produces an asymmetric hopping rather than a simple loss term. Since enh is defined as 1 + Γ_e5/Γ5 in terms of two input loss rates, the bias-dependent Zeno curves in Fig. 3 are functions of model inputs; the claim of an emergent, tunable asymmetry is therefore not independently verified.
  3. [Eqs. (9)-(10)] The 'generalized gauge transformation' a_e5 → e^{-i(ω_e5−iΓ_e5)t} a_e5 and a†_e5 → e^{i(ω_e5−iΓ_e5)t} a†_e5 is not a unitary transformation for Γ_e5 > 0. It rescales creation and annihilation operators by mutually inverse factors whose modulus differs from unity, which changes the commutation relations and the vacuum sector; the authors do not justify this as a valid field redefinition in the Keldysh action. This step is used to convert photon loss into an explicit time dependence and ultimately into the nonreciprocal coupling, so it is load-bearing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Text after Eq. (15)] The word 'Marcovian' should be 'Markovian'.
  2. [Text around Eq. (10)] The word 'Lagragian' should be 'Lagrangian'.
  3. [Eq. (16)] The enhancement parameter enh is introduced only at Eq. (16); it would help to define it earlier when Γ_e5 and Γ5 are first introduced.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The terms 'anti-trapped' and 'antitrapped' are used inconsistently; please choose one form.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'nonreciprocal ("non-Hermitian") coupling' conflates two distinct concepts; non-Hermiticity and nonreciprocity are related but not identical, and a brief clarification would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central nonreciprocal coupling is assembled from an assumed coherent photon amplitude and an overlapping-author mapping, so the 'bridge' is partly circular.

  1. other [Eq. (11) to Eq. (12), paragraph beginning 'At this point, we selected the framework...']
    "At this point, we selected the framework with the ideal conditions to approximate the state of the photons by coherent states: |α⟩ = e^{αa†−α∗a}|0⟩, such that a|α⟩ = α|α⟩ ... We can now do a mean-field approximation, simply replacing the photon fields by their corresponding time-independent expectation values, a_m → ⟨a_m⟩ = α_m ... The bosons removed from the problem, we are left with a quadratic Hamiltonian for the internal transitions in a lambda system described purely by fermions with overlap matrix elements t_m = λ_m α_m."

    For the e→5 channel the paper's own Lindblad description uses L_e5 = a_e5 and starts from vacuum; this dynamics is invariant under a_e5 → e^{iφ}a_e5, c5 → e^{-iφ}c5, so the exact expectation value ⟨a_e5(t)⟩ remains zero for all times. The mean-field replacement α_e5 ≠ 0 is therefore not a consequence of the spontaneous-emission dynamics; it is a hand-inserted coherent (stimulated) amplitude. Setting t_e5 = λ_e5 α_e5 supplies the e–5 coupling, and through Γe5 that same photon mode feeds enh = 1+Γe5/Γ5 which generates the H55b nonreciprocity. The predicted nonreciprocal signature is thus built from the assumed value of α_e5 rather than derived from the model's spontaneous dynamics.

  2. self citation load bearing [Equations (16)–(17)]
    "Based on prior calculations using a time-loop Keldysh formalism extension to (asymmetric) non-Hermitian systems [30], we can match expressions to see that the case of enh > 1 corresponds to a nonreciprocal connection between 5 ⇄ 5b (see Fig. 2), H55b = t5 c†_5b c5 + enh t∗_5 c†_5 c5b"

    Reference [30] is P. Kakashvili and C. J. Bolech, and C. J. Bolech is the first author of the present paper. The central claim that the calculated complex site-energy shift ε5 → (εg−ℏδeg)−iℏ enh Γ5 must be represented as an asymmetric hopping H55b is justified entirely by 'matching expressions' to this overlapping-author paper rather than by an independent derivation in the present work. The nonreciprocal coupling, advertised as the main new result, is therefore imported from the authors' own prior Keldysh formalism instead of being derived from the Lindblad dynamics.

full rationale

The paper contains independent content: it sets up a concrete lambda-system model, performs Keldysh/reservoir integrations, and computes bias-dependent quantum-Zeno loss currents for different enh values; these calculations are not fitted to external data and are self-consistent within the assumed effective model. However, two load-bearing steps of the central claim are not independent. First, the spontaneous e→5 transition is converted into a nonreciprocal coupling only after replacing the e5 photon operator by a nonzero coherent amplitude α_e5; the exact Lindblad dynamics with L_e5=a_e5 and vacuum initial state preserves a U(1) symmetry forcing ⟨a_e5⟩=0, so the nonreciprocity enters as an input ansatz rather than as a derived consequence of spontaneous emission. Second, the identification of the resulting complex site-energy shift with the nonreciprocal Hamiltonian H55b is explicitly obtained by matching to Ref. [30], an overlapping-author paper; this makes the 'bridge from Lindbladian to nonreciprocal reservoirs' rest on a self-citation rather than on a self-contained derivation. The enh parameter itself is just a ratio of the two input loss rates Γe5 and Γ5, so the Fig. 3 curves are parametrized consequences of model inputs. The strongest claim is therefore partially circular, though not wholly so: there is a real calculation connecting the assumed effective model to transport observables.

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

The central prediction is not parameter-free: it depends on the ratio of two loss rates (Γe5/Γ5), plus junction and laser parameters chosen for the plot. The derivation relies on a mean-field coherent-state treatment of the photon field, a Markovian bath limit, and a mapping to non-Hermitian hoppings imported from prior work by the authors. No new physical particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • enh (enhancement parameter) = 1, 2, 4 in Fig. 3
    Defined as enh = 1 + Γe5/Γ5. It quantifies the nonreciprocity and is swept by hand to produce the central prediction in Fig. 3.
  • Γe5 (photon loss rate) = not specified numerically, absorbed in enh
    Input spontaneous emission rate for the e-5 transition; combined with Γ5 sets enh.
  • Γ5 (atom loss rate from |5>) = not specified, set by t_5 = 1 in Fig. 3 with Γ5 = |t5|^2 / ℏ
    Markovian loss rate of atoms in state |5> to the reservoir; sets the scale of enh.
  • t_e5 (effective e-5 coupling) = 1 in Fig. 3
    Effective Rabi coupling for the e-5 transition after the photon mean-field replacement; controls the loss current.
  • t_l, t_r (junction tunnel amplitudes) = 1/2 in Fig. 3
    Tunnel couplings connecting the reservoirs to the g state; chosen for the illustrative transport calculation.
  • Δμ (chemical potential bias) = 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 in Fig. 3
    Bias across the junction; varied to show the predicted Δμ-dependence of Iloss for enh > 1.
  • T (temperature) = 0.1 in Fig. 3
    Reservoir temperature in the Keldysh calculation; chosen for the plot.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The photon mode mediating e→5 can be modeled as a standing mode in a leaky cavity with Lindblad jump operator L = a_e5 and loss rate 2Γe5.
    Used to replace the photon term by a complex frequency in Eq. (8). This is a cavity-QED modeling choice, not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation and the Lindblad master equation are valid for the photon mode.
    Standard open quantum systems assumption invoked before Eq. (5).
  • ad hoc to paper Photon fields can be replaced by their coherent-state expectation values, factorizing atom-photon correlations.
    Justified only by 'ideal conditions' in the paragraph starting 'At this point...'; not proven for spontaneous emission from an initially empty mode.
  • ad hoc to paper The generalized gauge transformations with complex phases (e.g., c5 → e^{-i(δeg-εg/ℏ+iΓe5)t} c5) are valid field redefinitions in the Keldysh action.
    Used between Eqs. (11)-(13); these are non-unitary transformations whose validity for a non-Hermitian action is assumed.
  • domain assumption The integrated-out bath can be represented as a nonreciprocal hopping Hamiltonian via the matching to Ref. [30].
    The final mapping in Eqs. (16)-(17) is not rederived; it leans on a prior publication by the same author.
  • domain assumption The Markovian limit s_f(ω) = tanh(...) → 1 with μ5 → -∞ is taken, discarding the complex chemical potential shift.
    Eq. (15); this standard Markovian limit for a reservoir at infinite negative chemical potential is used to simplify the bath action.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spontaneous emission as a bridge from Lindbladian to nonreciprocal reservoirs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KBQUAEJE

@misc{pith2026250800689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spontaneous emission as a bridge from Lindbladian to nonreciprocal reservoirs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KBQUAEJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00689}
}
read the original abstract

We study an out-of-equilibrium quantum system in which a state connecting two reservoirs is also coupled by stimulated and spontaneous emission of photons to an antitrapped state, thus implementing particle loss. After revisiting the spontaneous emission process, we show that the proper effective description of such a system requires one to go beyond the usual Lindbladian formalism and includes a nonreciprocal (``non-Hermitian'') coupling to the reservoir modeling the untrapped state. The presence of both, the reservoirs and the nonreciprocal coupling, have observable consequences that we compute, for example, by looking at the quantum Zeno effect in the loss current. We discuss the connection of our findings to possible experiments in cold atomic gases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00689 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic depiction of the experimental setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic depiction of the purely fermionic effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Loss current as a function of driving-laser intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Controlling charge and spin currents through nonreciprocal dissipative processes

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Nonreciprocal dissipative hopping, one spatial direction per spin, plus Rashba coupling and a magnetic field, generates tunable charge and spin currents in a 2D fermionic lattice.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [30]

    Kakashvili and C

    P. Kakashvili and C. J. Bolech, Time-loop formalism for irreversible quantum problems: Steady-state transport in junctions with asymmetric dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 78, 033103 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [1]

    C. M. Bender, Making sense of non-Hermitian Hamilto- nians, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 947 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    Moiseyev, Non-Hermitian quantum mechanics(Cam- bridge University Press, New York, 2011)

    N. Moiseyev, Non-Hermitian quantum mechanics(Cam- bridge University Press, New York, 2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Non- Hermitian physics and PT symmetry, Nature Physics14, 11 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian physics, Adv. in Phys. 69, 249 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Cohen-Tanoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tanoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Processus d’interaction entre photons et atomes, 2nd ed. (EDP Sciences/CNRS ´Editions, Paris, 2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [6]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [7]

    Kamenev, Field theory of non-equilibrium systems, 2nd ed

    A. Kamenev, Field theory of non-equilibrium systems, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Localization transitions in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 570 (1996); Vortex pinning and non-Hermitian quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. B 56, 8651 (1997)

    1996

  2. [9]

    Spitzer, Interaction of Markov processes, Adv

    F. Spitzer, Interaction of Markov processes, Adv. in Math. 5, 246 (1970)

    1970

  3. [10]

    Derrida, E

    B. Derrida, E. Domany, and D. Mukamel, An exact so- lution of a one-dimensional asymmetric exclusion model with open boundaries, J. Stat. Phys. 69, 667 (1992)

    1992

  4. [11]

    McDonald, R

    A. McDonald, R. Hanai, and A. A. Clerk, Nonequilib- rium stationary states of quantum non-Hermitian lattice models, Phys. Rev. B 105, 064302 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Y. G. N. Liu, Y. Wei, O. Hemmatyar, G. G. Pyrialakos, P. S. Jung, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Complex skin modes in non-hermitian coupled laser ar- rays, Light: Sci.&App. 11, 336 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    Z. Gao, X. Qiao, M. Pan, S. Wu, J. Yim, K. Chen, B. Midya, L. Ge, and L. Feng, Two-dimensional recon- figurable non-Hermitian gauged laser array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 263801 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    O. E. ¨Orsel, J. Noh, P. Zhu, J. Yim, T. L. Hughes, R. Thomale, and G. Bahl, Giant nonreciprocity and gy- ration through modulation-induced Hatano-Nelson cou- pling in integrated photonics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 153801 (2025)

    2025

  8. [15]

    J. Tao, E. Mercado-Gutierrez, M. Zhao, and I. Spielman, Imaginary gauge potentials in a non-Hermitian spin-orbit coupled quantum gas (2025), arXiv:2504.08614 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2025

  9. [16]

    Pethick and H

    C. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    2008

  10. [17]

    Pitaevskii and S

    L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Condensa- tion (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2003)

    2003

  11. [18]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many body physics with ultracold gases, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  12. [19]

    Esslinger, Fermi-Hubbard Physics with Atoms in an Optical Lattice, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 1, 129 (2010), arXiv:1007.0012 [cond-mat.quant- gas]

    T. Esslinger, Fermi-Hubbard Physics with Atoms in an Optical Lattice, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 1, 129 (2010), arXiv:1007.0012 [cond-mat.quant- gas]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Ritsch, P

    H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical poten- tials, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 553 (2013)

    2013

  14. [21]

    Carusotto and C

    I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, Quantum fluids of light, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 299 (2013-02)

    2013

  15. [22]

    Barontini, R

    G. Barontini, R. Labouvie, F. Stubenrauch, A. Vogler, V. Guarrera, and H. Ott, Controlling the dynamics of an open many-body quantum system with localized dissipa- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 035302 (2013)

    2013

  16. [23]

    Corman, P

    L. Corman, P. Fabritius, S. H¨ ausler, J. Mohan, L. H. Dogra, D. Husmann, M. Lebrat, and T. Esslinger, Quan- tized conductance through a dissipative atomic point contact, Phys. Rev. A 100, 053605 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    Y. Zhao, Y. Tian, J. Ye, Y. Wu, Z. Zhao, Z. Chi, T. Tian, H. Yao, J. Hu, Y. Chen, and W. Chen, Universal dissi- pative dynamics in strongly correlated quantum gases, Nature Physics 21, 530 (2025). 6

    2025

  18. [25]

    Kasprzak, M

    J. Kasprzak, M. Richard, S. Kundermann, A. Baas, P. Jeambrun, J. M. J. Keeling, F. M. Marchetti, M. H. S. Acuteska, R. Andr´ e, J. L. Staehli, V. Savona, P. B. Lit- tlewood, B. Deveaud, and L. S. Dang, Bose-einstein con- densation of exciton polaritons, Nature 443, 409 (2006)

    2006

  19. [26]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise, 3rd ed. (Springer, 2004)

    2004

  20. [27]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, J. Marino, and S. Diehl, Universality in driven open quantum matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 025004 (2025)

    2025

  21. [28]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-hermitian physics, Advances in Physics 69, 249–435 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    Bosch Aguilera, A

    M. Bosch Aguilera, A. Ghermaoui, R. Vatr´ e, R. Bouganne, J. Beugnon, and F. Gerbier, Adia- batic quantum Zeno dynamics of bosonic atom pairs with large inelastic losses, Phys. Rev. A 106, 053304 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    L. Pan, X. Chen, Y. Chen, and H. Zhai, Non-Hermitian linear response theory, Nat. Phys. 16, 767 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Huang, J

    M.-Z. Huang, J. Mohan, A.-M. Visuri, P. Fabritius, M. Talebi, S. Wili, S. Uchino, T. Giamarchi, and T. Esslinger, Superfluid signatures in a dissipative quan- tum point contact, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 200404 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    We will not concern ourselves with momentum conserva- tion (that can be absorbed easily by the center-of-mass motion of the atoms and produces their recoil that we include separately) and will focus entirely on energy con- siderations

  26. [34]

    This interaction can also be arrived at by chaining to- gether two Jaynes-Cummings models [62] that share the middle state |e⟩ and carrying out the usual rotating-wave approximation to neglect the quickly oscillating counter- rotating terms

  27. [35]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level sys- tems, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  28. [36]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Comm

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

    1976

  29. [37]

    An alternative could be to impose outgoing boundary con- ditions [2] on the generated ℏωe5 photons, which could be argued would yield directly a non-Hermitian asymmetric atom process

  30. [38]

    Sometimes a rotating-wave approximation for the sys- tem is also invoked, but it can be replaced by a modified Markov approximation in a system-independent way [63]

  31. [39]

    It is well known that considering a Lindblad evolution with single-particle L-operators is equivalent to consid- ering single-particle tunneling into empty (or from full) Landauer-B¨ uttiker leads and taking the chemical poten- tial to minus (or plus) infinity in order to drop...

  32. [40]

    In that case, the von Neumann equation of motion for ρ turns to i ℏ∂tρ = ( Heff ρ − ρH † eff ) with Heff = H − i ℏ 2 P m γmL† mLm

    For sufficiently short times, one might be able to ne- glect the LmρL† m terms (quantum-jump contributions) to match experiments after post-selection of the data. In that case, the von Neumann equation of motion for ρ turns to i ℏ∂tρ = ( Heff ρ − ρH † eff ) with Heff = H − i ℏ...

  33. [41]

    Witthaut, F

    D. Witthaut, F. Trimborn, H. Hennig, G. Kordas, T. Geisel, and S. Wimberger, Beyond mean-field dy- namics in open Bose-Hubbard chains, Phys. Rev. A 83, 063608 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Alba and F

    V. Alba and F. Carollo, Noninteracting fermionic systems with localized losses: Exact results in the hydrodynamic limit, Phys. Rev. B 105, 054303 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    In general, one can associate both loss and gain; balanced in the case of stimulated processes (as in the case of PT - symmetric systems [1]) or strongly imbalanced in the case of spontaneous transitions

  36. [44]

    Using the usual replacement notation for field redefini- tions, where ψ → f [ψ] means ψ = f [ψ′] and we subse- quently drop the primes

  37. [45]

    Shah and C

    N. Shah and C. J. Bolech, Consistent bosonization- debosonization. I. A resolution of the nonequilibrium transport puzzle, Phys. Rev. B 93, 085440 (2016); C. J. Bolech and N. Shah, Consistent bosonization- debosonization. II. The two-lead Kondo problem and the fate of its none...

    2016

  38. [46]

    Ljepoja, C

    A. Ljepoja, C. J. Bolech, and N. Shah, Systematic com- pactification of the two-channel Kondo model. I. Con- sistent bosonization-debosonization approach and exact comparisons, Phys. Rev. B 110, 045108 (2024); A. Lje- poja, N. Shah, and C. J. Bolech, Systematic compact- ificat...

    2024

  39. [47]

    C. J. Bolech and T. Giamarchi, Point-contact tunneling involving low-dimensional spin-triplet superconductors, Physical Review Letters 92, 127001 (2004); Keldysh study of point-contact tunneling between superconduc- tors, Physical Review B 71, 24517 (2005)

    2004

  40. [48]

    C. J. Bolech and E. Demler, Observing Majorana bound states in p-wave superconductors using noise measure- ments in tunneling experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 237002 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    L. V. Keldysh, Diagram technique for nonequilibrium processes, J. Exptl. Theoret. Phys. (USSR) 20, 1018 (1965), [Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. 47 1515 (1964)]

    1965

  42. [50]

    Visuri, T

    A.-M. Visuri, T. Giamarchi, and C. Kollath, Nonlinear transport in the presence of a local dissipation, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013195 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Thompson and A

    F. Thompson and A. Kamenev, Field theory of many- body Lindbladian dynamics, Annals of Physics 455, 169385 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Brandes, Coherent and collective quantum optical ef- fects in mesoscopic systems, Phys

    T. Brandes, Coherent and collective quantum optical ef- fects in mesoscopic systems, Phys. Rep. 408, 315 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    L. D. Contreras-Pulido, C. Emary, T. Brandes, and R. Aguado, Non-equilibrium correlations and entangle- ment in a semiconductor hybrid circuit-QED system, New J. Phys. 15, 095008 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems, Adv. in Phys. 63, 77 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, J. Marino, and S. Diehl, Universality in driven open quantum matter (2023), 7 arXiv:2312.03073

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Given this, it could be interesting to explore the possible appearance of exceptional points that has been found in the study of quantum thermal machines [66]

    Notice that the extreme non-equilibrium junction at any finite temperature is always equivalent to an effective sin- gle Gibbsian reservoir in the infinite-temperature limit. Given this, it could be interesting to explore the possible appearance of exceptional points that has ...

  49. [57]

    Uchino, Comparative study for two-terminal transport through a lossy one-dimensional quantum wire, Phys

    S. Uchino, Comparative study for two-terminal transport through a lossy one-dimensional quantum wire, Phys. Rev. A 106, 053320 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Visuri, J

    A.-M. Visuri, J. Mohan, S. Uchino, M.-Z. Huang, T. Esslinger, and T. Giamarchi, DC transport in a dis- sipative superconducting quantum point contact, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033095 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Talebi, S

    M. Talebi, S. Wili, J. Mohan, P. Fabritius, M.-Z. Huang, and T. Esslinger, Dark state transport between unitary Fermi superfluids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 223403 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Z. K. Minev, S. O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Rein- hold, R. Guti´ errez-J´ auregui, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mir- rahimi, H. J. Carmichael, and M. H. Devoret, To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight, Nature 570, 200 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Naghiloo, M

    M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Quantum state tomography across the excep- tional point in a single dissipative qubit, Nature Physics 15, 1232 (2019); W. Chen, M. Abbasi, B. Ha, S. Er- damar, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, Decoherence- induced except...

    2019

  54. [62]

    Jaynes and F

    E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Proceedings of the IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  55. [63]

    Nathan and M

    F. Nathan and M. S. Rudner, Universal Lindblad equa- tion for open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B 102, 115109 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    T. Jin, M. Filippone, and T. Giamarchi, Generic trans- port formula for a system driven by Markovian reservoirs, Phys. Rev. B 102, 205131 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Yamamoto, M

    K. Yamamoto, M. Nakagawa, K. Adachi, K. Takasan, M. Ueda, and N. Kawakami, Theory of non-Hermitian fermionic superfluidity with a complex-valued interac- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 123601 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Khandelwal, N

    S. Khandelwal, N. Brunner, and G. Haack, Signatures of Liouvillian exceptional points in a quantum thermal machine, PRX Quantum 2, 040346 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.