Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Boundary-induced Phases in the Dissipative Dicke Lattice Model

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Open boundary conditions forbid a homogeneous superradiant steady state in the dissipative Dicke lattice at any finite size N≥3.

desk verdict The no-homogeneous-SRP theorem for OBC finite Dicke lattices is sound; the paper's weaker spot is claiming the N=3 phase zoo persists to larger N without demonstrating it. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10296 v1 pith:OKKWPRAO submitted 2025-08-14 quant-ph

Peng-Fei Wei , Yilun Xu , Fengxiao Sun , Qiongyi He , Peter Rabl , Zhihai Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords dissipativeDickelatticesuperradiantphasetransitionopenboundaryconditionsmean-fieldtheorybistabilitytristabilityfinite-sizeeffectsquantumoptics
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 an array of lossy optical cavities, each coupled to an atomic ensemble and connected to neighbors by photon hopping—a Dicke lattice. It claims that whether the chain is closed into a ring or left open changes the physics radically: under periodic boundaries a uniform superradiant steady state exists, while under open boundaries no homogeneous superradiant steady state exists for any finite length N≥3; instead a collection of asymmetric, translation-symmetry-broken superradiant phases appears. The authors work out the full steady-state phase diagram for N=3, find bistable and tristable regions that have no closed-ring counterpart, and confirm the inhomogeneity persists numerically up to N=50. This matters because near-term experimental Dicke lattices are small and finite, so boundary conditions are not an edge effect but a phase-shaping knob.

What carries the argument

The machine is the steady-state version of the mean-field equations (Eq. (6)): for a cavity photon ⟨c_j⟩, loss and detuning are balanced by hopping from neighboring sites plus the atomic source term. At a boundary site there is one hopping partner; at a bulk site there are two. Assuming a uniform photon amplitude C and setting the time derivatives to zero, the real parts give −κ Re(C)+(ω_c−ξ) Im(C)=0 at sites 1 and N, and −κ Re(C)+(ω_c−2ξ) Im(C)=0 in the bulk. These two equations cannot both hold for ξ≠0 unless C=0, which is the mechanism that kills the homogeneous superradiant state. The same mean-field equations, supplemented by spin conservation and the Routh–Hurwitz stability criterion,

What would settle it

In an N=3 open-boundary lattice (λ=0) with ξ=0.2ω and g=0.6ω, measure the steady-state cavity fields: if ⟨c₁⟩=⟨c₂⟩=⟨c₃⟩≠0 for any initial state, the claimed absence of a homogeneous superradiant phase fails. The paper's own numerical prediction is the opposite—the edge and middle amplitudes differ—making this a direct experimental check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms: in the dissipative Dicke lattice with open boundary conditions (λ=0), a spatially homogeneous superradiant phase is completely absent, irrespective of system size. The analytic argument sets all photon amplitudes equal, ⟨c₁⟩=⋯=⟨c_N⟩=C, and shows that the steady-state equation at a boundary site (one hopping neighbor) demands −κ Re(C)+(ω_c−ξ) Im(C)=0, while a bulk site (two hopping neighbors) demands −κ Re(C)+(ω_c−2ξ) Im(C)=0; both cannot hold unless C=0, so the uniform superradiant state dies. Numerically, with open boundaries and starting from a homogeneous initial condition in a lattice with N=50, the steady state has edge sites deviating

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the mean-field steady-state equations in the large-ensemble limit (N_a→∞) with atomic spontaneous emission neglected; if quantum correlations or atomic decay matter in the small systems the paper targets, the homogeneous phase the argument rules out could reappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, every superradiant steady state of a finite open Dicke lattice is spatially inhomogeneous; homogeneous order should appear only when the chain is closed or effectively infinite.
  • The critical coupling under open boundaries carries a finite-size fingerprint through ω_{O,1}=ω_c−2ξ cos[π/(N+1)], most visible when ξ<(ω_c−κ)/2; threshold measurements could see this size dependence directly.
  • Open boundaries extend the region where the normal phase is dynamically stable: for N=3 and ω_c/2<ξ<ω_c/√2, a periodic chain never settles while an open chain relaxes to the normal phase.
  • Multistability (bistable and tristable regions) makes the observed phase depend on preparation history, not only on the coupling g and hopping ξ.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural knob the paper leaves implicit: varying the boundary coupling λ between 0 and ξ should interpolate continuously between the open- and periodic-boundary phase diagrams, turning boundary-induced phase selection into a direct experimental control.
  • The same boundary-versus-bulk coordination argument should generalize to square or cubic Dicke lattices, where edge and corner sites have fewer neighbors; the paper suggests this extension but does not prove it.
  • All conclusions come from semiclassical mean-field equations, so exact small-system calculations with quantum fluctuations would show whether the sharp multistable boundaries survive—a testable question the paper leaves open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the dissipative Dicke lattice model—a chain of N resonators, each coupled to an atomic ensemble, with nearest-neighbor photon hopping—under periodic (PBC) and open (OBC) boundary conditions. Using a mean-field steady-state formulation, the authors numerically map the N=3 phase diagram and identify, under OBC, a series of inhomogeneous superradiant phases (labeled O1–O4), multiple bistable phases, and a tristable phase, whereas PBC supports a homogeneous superradiant phase, an inhomogeneous phase, and a bistable region. The central analytic claim is that a spatially homogeneous superradiant steady state is impossible under OBC for finite N≥3; the argument compares the real-part photon equations at the boundary and bulk sites. The paper also derives boundary-condition-dependent critical couplings and stability ranges for the normal phase. The abstract and conclusion further state that the OBC-induced 'zoo' of phases persists for larger finite lattices, supported only by a single N=50 boundary-layer profile and an N=6 inset.

Significance. If the N=3 results are correct, the paper provides a clean demonstration that boundary conditions can qualitatively alter the stationary phase structure of a dissipative lattice model, which is relevant for near-term cavity and circuit-QED arrays. The analytic no-homogeneous-SRP proof is simple, parameter-free, and machine-checkable; it does not rely on any fit to data. The numerical phase diagrams are detailed and internally consistent with the analytic stability conditions. However, the broader significance claimed in the abstract—that the entire multi-phase 'zoo' survives for larger N—is not established by the evidence. Only inhomogeneity for N>3 is demonstrated, not the same phase taxonomy, multistability, or phase boundaries. This gap limits the paper's impact until either additional finite-size phase diagrams are provided or the claim is appropriately weakened.

major comments (2)
  1. [Open boundary effects for finite N≥3; Fig. 4(a)] The analytic proof in this section only rules out a spatially homogeneous SRP under OBC. It does not establish that the specific OBC phase structure found for N=3 (configurations O1–O4, phases E–I, and tristability) persists for N>3. The only N>3 numerical evidence is Fig. 4(a), which shows a boundary-layer profile for N=50 and an N=6 inset at a single parameter point (ξ=0.2ω, g=0.6ω). This demonstrates inhomogeneity, but not the same phase taxonomy, multistability, or phase boundaries. The statement that 'these exotic features induced by OBC persist in lattices with larger, yet still finite, numbers of sites' is therefore an extrapolation. Please provide phase diagrams or stability maps for N=4,5,6 (even in the SM), or explicitly restrict the persistence claim to inhomogeneity of the steady state.
  2. [Open boundary effects for finite N≥3; Conclusion] The proof says 'ruling out ... for any finite N.' The contradiction uses both boundary sites and at least one bulk site j=2,...,N-1. For N=2 there is no bulk site; the two boundary equations are identical and do not force Re⟨c⟩=Im⟨c⟩=0. Thus the statement is only established for N≥3. The Conclusion's unqualified 'irrespective of system size' is accordingly too strong and, as far as the manuscript shows, may be false for N=2. Please add the N≥3 qualification wherever the absence claim appears.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (6) and proof paragraph] The real-part equations used in the proof omit the atomic source term. Although this is correct because the source term is purely imaginary, the manuscript should state this explicitly. Otherwise the reader may mistakenly think that spin homogeneity or site-independence of ⟨S±_j⟩ is being assumed.
  2. [References] References [19] and [50] are identical (Baden et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020408 (2014)). Please merge them.
  3. [Fig. 4(a)] The caption calls the plotted quantity the 'steady-state order parameter,' but the text says it is the value at t=400/ω. Please clarify that this is a long-time value and, ideally, include a convergence check showing that a longer evolution does not change the result.
  4. [Abstract] Minor wording: 'experimental achievable systems' should be 'experimentally achievable systems.'
  5. [Conclusion] The phrase 'irrespective of system size' should be qualified as 'for finite lattices with N≥3,' consistent with the proof section (see major comment).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic homogeneous-SRP exclusion is derived from the model equations, and the phase diagrams are numerical solutions of the same model; self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The central claims are self-contained. The proof that no homogeneous superradiant steady state exists under OBC for finite N uses only the steady-state real-part equations from Eq. (6): for equal photon amplitudes the boundary equation gives -κ Re<c_j> + (ω_c - ξ) Im<c_j> = 0 while the bulk equation gives -κ Re<c_j> + (ω_c - 2ξ) Im<c_j> = 0, so with ξ>0 both Im and Re vanish; the atomic source term is purely imaginary and drops out of these real-part equations, so no spin-homogeneity assumption is needed. The critical couplings in Eq. (7) are derived analytically in the SM from the model's dispersion and linear stability, not fitted to data. The OBC phase zoo for N=3 is obtained by numerical solution of the same mean-field equations, and the N=50/N=6 results support the absence of homogeneity but are an extrapolation for the detailed phase taxonomy, which is a correctness/scope issue, not circularity. Self-citations [30,35] are used for context (prior Dicke lattice/dimer studies) and for the N→∞ limit comparison; they are not load-bearing for the paper's novel finite-N boundary-induced phases. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Thus no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The paper introduces no new fitting parameters and no new entities. All model parameters (ω_a, ω_c, κ, ξ, g) are inputs from the Dicke lattice framework. The central claim relies on standard mean-field and Lindblad assumptions, plus numerical completeness of the stationary-state search.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation in the thermodynamic limit N_a→∞ replaces operator products by expectation values.
    Used to derive Eq. (6); standard for Dicke-type models but assumes negligible quantum fluctuations.
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with only photonic loss κ; atomic spontaneous emission is neglected.
    Stated at Eq. (5); omission could affect multistability in realistic platforms.
  • domain assumption All stable steady states are captured by numerically setting d⟨O⟩/dt=0 and applying the Routh-Hurwitz criterion.
    The phase diagrams in Figs. 2 and 3 depend on the completeness of the numerical root finding.
  • standard math Spin conservation |⟨S^-_j⟩|^2 + ⟨S^z_j⟩^2 = N_a^2/4 holds for each site.
    Used in the text after Eq. (6); exact for collective spin operators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boundary-induced Phases in the Dissipative Dicke Lattice Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OKKWPRAO

@misc{pith2026250810296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boundary-induced Phases in the Dissipative Dicke Lattice Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OKKWPRAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10296}
}
read the original abstract

The superradiant phase transition in the dissipative Dicke lattice model, driven by on-site collective atom-photon interactions and inter-site photon hopping, is a cornerstone of nonequilibrium quantum many-body physics. However, little is still known about the influence of boundaries in experimental achievable systems of finite size. Here we investigate the dissipative superradiant phase transition in the Dicke lattice model with a small number of sites and reveal a striking sensitivity of this model to the nature of the boundary conditions. Specifically, we find that under open boundary conditions a whole zoo of superradiant phases with broken translational symmetry appears, which is not observed in the corresponding infinite lattice system. Our results demonstrate the crucial influence of boundary effects on the stationary phases of dissipative lattice models, which offers intriguing new opportunities for studying these phenomena in near term experimental realizations of such models in quantum optics and circuit QED.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10296 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the open Dicke lattice model. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Phase diagram and (b) its characterization for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) The steady-state order parameter ⟨cj ⟩/ √ Na for a Dicke lattice with N = 50 with PBC (empty circles) and OBC (stars). Insets show the corresponding results for N = 3 and N = 6 with ξ = 0.2ω and g = 0.6ω. (b,c) The critical coupling strength as a function of the photon hopping ξ/ω for different system sizes N, under (b) periodic and (c) open boundary conditions, with the vertical dashed gray line representing ξ … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of the order parameters ⟨cj ⟩/ √ Na for (a) periodic boundary conditions (PBC) and (b) open boundary conditions (OBC). Here, ξ = 0.6ω, g = 0.3ω, and N = 3. Other parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Center for Quantum Sciences and School of Physics, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China

    work page

  2. [2]

    State Key Laboratory for Mesoscopic Physics, School of Physics, Frontiers Science Center for Nano-optoelectronics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

    work page

  3. [3]

    Beijing Academy of Quantum Information Sciences, Beijing 100193, China

    work page

  4. [4]

    Collaborative Innovation Center of Extreme Optics, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, China

    work page

  5. [5]

    Walther-Meißner-Institut, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 85748 Garching, Germany

    work page

  6. [6]

    Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen, TUM School of Natural Sciences, Physics Department, 85748 Garching, Germany

    work page

  7. [7]

    However, little is still known about the influence of boundaries in ex- perimental achievable systems of finite size

    Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology (MCQST), 80799 Munich, Germany The superradiant phase transition in the dissipative Dicke lattice model, driven by on-site col- lective atom-photon interactions and inter-site photon hopping, is a cornerstone of nonequilibrium quantum many-body physics. However, little is still known about the influence of ...

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    S. L. Sondhi, S. M. Girvin, J. P. Carini, and D. Shahar, Continuous quantum phase transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 315 (1997)

    1997

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions, Phys

    S. Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions, Phys. World,12, 33 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    S. J. Gu, S. S. Deng, Y. Q. Li, and H. Q. Lin, Entan- glement and Quantum Phase Transition in the Extended Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 086402 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    A. D. Greentree, C. Tahan, J. H. Cole, and L. C. Hollen- berg, Quantum phase transitions of light, Nature Physics 2, 856 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    X. Y. Feng, G. M. Zhang, and T. Xiang, Topologi- cal Characterization of Quantum Phase Transitions in a Spin-1/2 Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 087204 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Yoshioka, A

    T. Yoshioka, A. Koga, and N. Kawakami, Quantum Phase Transitions in the Hubbard Model on a Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 036401 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Wang and A

    Y. Wang and A. V. Chuubukov, Quantum phase tran- sition in the Yukawa-SYK model, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033048 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Serwatka, R

    T. Serwatka, R. G. Melko, A. Burkov, and P. N. Roy, Quantum Phase Transition in the One-Dimensional Wa- ter Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 026201 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

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

    1954

  9. [17]

    Hepp and E

    K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, On the superradiant phase tran- sition for molecules in a quantized radiation field: The Dicke maser model, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)76, 360 (1973)

    1973

  10. [18]

    Y. K. Wang and F. T. Hioe, Phase transition in the Dicke model of superradiance, Phys. Rev. A7, 831 (1973)

    1973

  11. [19]

    Emary and T

    C. Emary and T. Brandes, Quantum chaos triggered by precursors of a quantum phase transition: The Dicke model, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 044101 (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    Emary and T

    C. Emary and T. Brandes, Chaos and the quantum phase transition in the Dicke model, Phys. Rev. E67, 066203 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    D. Nagy, G. K´ onya, G. Szirmai, and P. Domokos, Dicke- Model Phase Transition in the Quantum Motion of a Bose-Einstein Condensate in an Optical Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 130401 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Superradiant

    A. Baksic and C. Ciuti, Controlling Discrete and Con- tinuous Symmetries in “Superradiant” Phase Transitions with Circuit QED Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 173601 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    M. J. Hwang, R. Puebla, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum Phase Transition and Universal Dynamics in the Rabi Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 180404 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    M. Liu, S. Chesi, Z. J. Ying, X. Chen, H. G. Luo, and 6 H. Q. Lin, Universal Scaling and Critical Exponents of the Anisotropic Quantum Rabi Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 220601 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Baumann, C

    K. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Dicke quantum phase transition with a superfluid gas in an optical cavity, Nature464, 1301 (2010)

    2010

  18. [27]

    Klinder, H

    J. Klinder, H. Kebler, M. R. Bakhtiari, M. Thorwart, and A. Hemmerich, Observation of a Superradiant Mott Insulator in the Dicke-Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 230403 (2015)

    2015

  19. [28]

    M. L. Cai, Z. D. Liu, W. D. Zhao, Y. K. Wu, Q. X. Mei, Y. Jiang, L. He, X. Zhang, Z. C. Zhou, and L. M. Duan, Observation of a quantum phase transition in the quan- tum Rabi model with a single trapped ion, Nat. Commun. 12, 1126 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Chen, Z. Wu, J. Wang, J. Fan, S. Deng, and H. Wu, Observation of a superradiant quantum phase transition in an intracavity degenerate Fermi gas, Science 373, 1359 (2021)

    2021

  21. [30]

    Z. Wu, J. Fan, X. Zhang, J. Qi, and H. Wu, Signatures of Prethermalization in a Quenched Cavity-Mediated Long- Range Interacting Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 243401 (2023)

    2023

  22. [31]

    Keeling, M

    J. Keeling, M. J. Bhaseen, and B. D. Simons, Collec- tive Dynamics of Bose-Einstein Condensates in Optical Cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 043001 (2010)

    2010

  23. [32]

    Kirton and J

    P. Kirton and J. Keeling, Suppressing and Restoring the Dicke Superradiance Transition by Dephasing and Decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 123602 (2017)

    2017

  24. [33]

    Soriente, T

    M. Soriente, T. Donner, R. Chitra, and O. Zilbergerg, Dissipation-Induced Anomalous Multicritical Phenom- ena, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 183603 (2018)

    2018

  25. [34]

    E. I. Rodr ´ ıguez Chiacchio and A. Nunnenkamp, Dissipation-induced instabilities of a spinor Bose- Einstein condensate inside an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 193605 (2019)

    2019

  26. [35]

    De Filippis, A

    G. De Filippis, A. de Candia, G. Di Bello, C. A. Perroni, L. M. Cangemi, A. Nocera, M. Sassetti, R. Fazio, and V. Cataudella, Signatures of dissipation driven quantum phase transition in Rabi model, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 210404 (2023)

    2023

  27. [36]

    E. I. R. Chiacchio, A. Nunnenkamp, and M. Brunelli, Nonreciprocal Dicke model, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 113602 (2023)

    2023

  28. [37]

    L. J. Zou, D. Marcos, S. Diehl, S. Putz, J. Schmiedmayer, J. Majer, and P. Rabl, Implementation of the Dicke Lat- tice Model in Hybrid Quantum System Arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 023603 (2014)

    2014

  29. [38]

    M. J. Hwang, R. Puebla, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum Phase Transition in the Finite Jaynes-Cummings Lattice Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 123602 (2016)

    2016

  30. [39]

    Y. Y. Zhang, Z. X. Hu, L. Fu, H. G. Luo, H. Pu, and X. F. Zhang, Quantum Phases in a Quantum Rabi Triangle, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 063602 (2021)

    2021

  31. [40]

    D. F. Padilla, H. Pu, G. J. Cheng and Y. Y. Zhang, Understanding the Quantum Rabi Ring Using Analogies to Quantum Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 183602 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    Zhao and M

    J. Zhao and M. J. Hwang, Frustrated Superradiant Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 163601 (2022)

    2022

  33. [42]

    Y. Xu, F. X. Sun, W. Zhang, Q. He, and H. Pu, Phase Transition and Multistability in Dicke Dimer, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 233604 (2024)

    2024

  34. [43]

    Vivek, D

    G. Vivek, D. Mondal, S. Chakraborty, and S. Sinha, Self-Trapping Phenomenon, Multistability and Chaos in Open Anisotropic Dicke Dimer, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 113404 (2025)

    2025

  35. [44]

    J. W. Luo, B. Wang, and Z. L. Xiang, Quantum phase transitions in a Dicke trimer with both photon and atom hoppings, arXiv: 2502.10839 (2025)

    2025

  36. [45]

    See Supplemental Materials

  37. [46]

    E. X. DeJesus and C. Kaufman, Routh-Hurwitz criterion in the examination of eigenvalues of a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations, Phys. Rev. A35, 5288 (1987)

    1987

  38. [47]

    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

  39. [48]

    K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. Bar- berena, E. Jordan, A. Maria Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Quantum-enhanced sensing of displacements and electric fields with two-dimensional trapped-ion crystals, Science 373, 673 (2021)

    2021

  40. [49]

    Nataf and C

    P. Nataf and C. Ciuti, No-go theorem for superradiant quantum phase transitions in cavity QED and counter- example in circuit QED, Nat. Commun.1, 1 (2010)

    2010

  41. [50]

    A. A. Houck, H. E. T¨ ureci, and J. Koch, On-chip quan- tum simulation with superconducting circuits, Nat. Phys. 8, 292 (2012)

    2012

  42. [51]

    Zhang, E

    X. Zhang, E. Kim, D. K. Mark, S. Choi, and O. Painter, A superconducting quantum simulator based on a photonic-bandgap metamaterial, Science379, 278 (2023)

    2023

  43. [52]

    Niemczyk, F

    T. Niemczyk, F. Deppe, H. Huebl, E. P. Menzel, F. Hocke, M. J. Schwarz, J. J. G.-Ripoll, D. Zueco, T. Hum- mer, E. Solano, A. Marx, and R. Gross, Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime, Nat. Phys.6, 772 (2010)

    2010

  44. [53]

    F.-Dlaz, J

    P. F.-Dlaz, J. J. Garcla-Ripoll, B. Peropadre, J.-L. Or- giazzi, M. A. Yurtalan, R. Belyansky, C. M. Wilson, and A. Lupascu, Ultrastrong coupling of a single artificial atom to an electromagnetic continuum in the nonper- turbative regime, Nat. Phys.13, 39 (2017)

    2017

  45. [54]

    Yoshihara, T

    F. Yoshihara, T. Fuse, S. Ashhab, K. Kakuyanagi, S. Saito, and K. Semba, Superconducting qubit-oscillator circuit beyond the ultrastrong-coupling regime, Nat. Phys.13, 44 (2017)

    2017

  46. [55]

    Vrajitoarea, R

    A. Vrajitoarea, R. Belyansky, R. Lundgren, S. Whit- sitt, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. A. Houck, Ultrastrong light-matter interaction in a multimode photonic crystal, arXiv: 2209.14972 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  47. [56]

    S. D. Hogan, J. A. Agner, and F. Merkt, T. Thiele, S. Fil- ipp, and A. Wallraff, Driving Rydberg-Rydberg Transi- tions from a Coplanar MicrowaveWaveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 063004 (2012)

    2012

  48. [57]

    M. P. Baden, K. J. Arnold, A. L. Grimsmo, S. Parkins, and M. D. Barrett, Realization of the Dicke Model Us- ing Cavity-Assisted Raman Transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020408 (2014)

    2014

  49. [58]

    D. Yu, A. Landra, M. M. Valado, C. Hufnagel, L. C. Kwek, L. Amico, and R. Dumke, Superconducting res- onator and Rydberg atom hybrid system in the strong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. A94, 062301 (2016)

    2016

  50. [59]

    Garcia , M

    S. Garcia , M. Stammeier, J. Deiglmayr, F. Merkt, 7 and A. Wallraff, Single-Shot Nondestructive Detection of Rydberg-Atom Ensembles by Transmission Measurement of a Microwave Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 193201 (2019)

    2019

  51. [60]

    A. A. Morgan and S. D. Hogan, Coupling Rydberg Atoms to Microwave Fields in a Superconducting Copla- nar Waveguide Resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 193604 (2020)

    2020

  52. [61]

    Zwettler, G

    T. Zwettler, G. D. Pace, F. Marijanovic , S. Chattopad- hyay, T. B¨ uhler C.-M. Halati ,L. Skolc, L. Tolle, V. Hel- son, G. Bolognini , A. Fabre, S. Uchino, T. Giamarchi, E. Demler, and J. P. Brantut, Nonequilibrium Dynamics of Long-Range Interacting Fermions, Phys. Rev. X15, ...

    2025

  53. [62]

    Wilde , M.l Kaiser, M

    B. Wilde , M.l Kaiser, M. Reinschmidt, A. Gunther, D. Koelle , J. Fort´ agh, R. Kleiner , and D. Bothner, Super- conducting on-chip microwave cavity for tunable hybrid systems with optically trapped Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 064016 (2025)

    2025

  54. [63]

    Zhang, Q

    Y. Zhang, Q. Wu, S. L. Su, Q. Lou, and C. Shan, Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics Effects with Nitrogen Vacancy Center Spins Coupled to Room Temperature Microwave Resonators, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 253601 (2022)

    2022

  55. [64]

    D. I. Schuster, A. P. Sears, E. Ginossar, L. DiCarlo, L. Frunzio, J. J. L. Morton2, H. Wu, G. A. D. Briggs, and B. B. Buckley, High-Cooperativity Coupling of Electron- Spin Ensembles to Superconducting Cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 140501 (2010)

    2010

  56. [65]

    Y. Kubo, F. R. Ong, P. Bertet, D. Vion, V. Jacques, D. Zheng, A. Dr´ eau, J.-F. Roch, A. Auffeves, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, M. F. Barthe, P. Bergonzo, and D. Esteve, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 140502 (2010)

    2010

  57. [66]

    Ams¨ uss, Ch

    R. Ams¨ uss, Ch. Koller, T. N¨ obauer, S. Putz, S. Rot- ter, K. Sandner, S. Schneider, M. Schramb¨ ock, G. Stein- hauser, H. Ritsch, J. Schmiedmayer, and J. Majer, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 060502 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.