Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Manifestations of flow topology in a quantum driven-dissipative system

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a frequency-resolved chirality spectrum extracts the local winding of quantum fluctuations around each stable fixed point, and that these spectral signatures survive deep in the quantum regime even when classical attr

desk verdict Semiclassical numerics are solid, but the deep-quantum 'new phases' claim is not supported: the peak-to-fixed-point mapping is asserted and sign flips in zeta can be generic avoided-crossing effects. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16486 v1 pith:YMQ2DQ6Q submitted 2025-08-22 quant-ph

Kilian Seibold , Greta Villa , Javier del Pino , Oded Zilberberg This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords flowtopologychiralityspectrumdriven-dissipativeKerroscillatorLiouvillianquantumtrajectoriesdissipativephasetransitionWignerfunctionregression
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 asks whether the flow topology of semiclassical phase-space dynamics—how many attractors a driven resonator has and whether trajectories spiral clockwise or counterclockwise around them—survives in the fully quantum steady state. It claims that a frequency-resolved chirality spectrum, built from the causal response of trajectory winding, does retain that topology: the number of peaks counts stable fixed points and each peak's sign gives the fixed-point chirality. Because these spectral features persist in the deep quantum regime even when quantum fluctuations erase the classical attractors, the paper predicts phase boundaries that are invisible to the usual Liouvillian-gap closing criterion. If correct, this provides an experimentally accessible probe of flow topology in superconducting and photonic platforms, with consequences for quantum error correction and sensing.

What carries the argument

The chirality spectrum ζ(Ω) (Eq. 5) is the central object: a retarded response function of the phase-space winding operator Y(τ)X(0)−X(τ)Y(0), evaluated in the steady state. Its spectral peaks are tied to stable fixed points of the semiclassical Gross-Pitaevskii flow—peak number counts attractors, peak sign encodes chirality, and peak frequency and width give the Bogoliubov excitation spectrum. In the deep quantum regime, the spectral decomposition ζ(Ω)=Σ_{k>0} w_k/(iΩ−λ_k) links each peak to a Liouvillian eigenmode, so the winding information can be read off from the master equation even without well-defined classical trajectories.

What would settle it

Compute ζ(Ω) along a parameter path where the graph index changes but no new stable fixed point appears—for example, a saddle-connection reconnection within phase 5β—and check whether the number of peaks stays constant despite the topological change; if it does, the spectrum fails to witness connectivity changes encoded in the graph invariant. Experimentally, a heterodyne measurement of a Kerr resonator in the deep quantum regime (ℵ=1) that shows no chirality peak flipping sign across the avoided crossing at ∆/U≈2 in Fig. 4 would contradict the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the chirality spectrum ζ(Ω)=∫e^{iΩτ}⟨Y(τ)X(0)−X(τ)Y(0)⟩_ss dτ extracts the local winding of quantum fluctuations around each stable fixed point. Away from bifurcations, each non-degenerate fluctuation mode produces one peak; peak positions and widths give the Bogoliubov frequencies near the fixed point, and the peak sign gives clockwise or counterclockwise chirality, reproducing the face colors of the graph invariant. The paper demonstrates this explicitly for the driven-dissipative Kerr oscillator along parameter cuts crossing phases 1, 3α, 3β, and 5β, and uses the quantum regression theorem to decompose ζ(Ω) into Liouvillian eigenmodes. This decomposition shows th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every non-degenerate fluctuation mode of the quantum steady state produces one peak in the chirality spectrum, with the peak's sign giving the chirality of one stable classical fixed point; if that one-to-one correspondence breaks down in the deep quantum regime, the proposed phase diagnostics inherit the failure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The chirality spectrum serves as a quantum witness of the classical graph invariant: counting peaks and reading their signs labels the flow-topology phase without requiring full state reconstruction.
  • Phase boundaries can be diagnosed in the deep quantum regime even when the Liouvillian gap does not close, expanding the conventional notion of dissipative phase transitions.
  • The observable is directly accessible through heterodyne detection of the output field, making the predicted signatures testable in current circuit-QED and photonic experiments.
  • Wigner-function tomography provides complementary signatures: the number and shape of lobes track attractors and basins of attraction, although ensemble averaging washes out the local chirality that ζ(Ω) recovers.
  • The results motivate multimode generalizations and bosonic error-correction codes designed around flow-topology phases, as the authors note in their outlook.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implicit consequence is that ζ(Ω) could serve as a continuous order parameter for flow-topology transitions: sign changes or peak rearrangements in the spectrum mark the transition, and spectral weights may quantify how much quantum mixing blurs the classical landscape.
  • The assumption that each non-degenerate fluctuation mode yields exactly one peak is likely to need refinement near degeneracies; the deep-quantum mixed spectral features suggest that the one-to-one correspondence softens, so a quantitative separation criterion for 'non-degenerate' would sharpen the diagnostic.
  • A natural extension is to test the chirality spectrum in coupled resonator arrays, where the graph invariant encodes richer saddle-connectivity changes; the method should generalize as long as the semiclassical flow remains Morse–Smale in structure.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a driven-dissipative Kerr resonator and asks whether the topological structure of the semiclassical phase-space flow — the number, stability, chirality, and connectivity of fixed points — leaves observable signatures in the quantum non-equilibrium steady state. Using Liouvillian diagonalization, Monte Carlo quantum trajectories, Wigner functions, and the quantum regression theorem, the authors define a frequency-resolved chirality spectrum ζ(Ω) in Eq. (5) and claim that, away from bifurcations, each stable classical fixed point produces one peak whose sign encodes the local winding. They report that in the semiclassical regime (ℵ=20) the spectrum reproduces the expected peak structure and Bogoliubov frequencies; at ℵ=10 the features persist but the transitions become crossovers with mixed spectral features; and at ℵ=1, using the spectral decomposition Eq. (8), they observe chirality flips at avoided crossings without Liouvillian gap closing. From this they conclude that flow topology manifests in the quantum regime and predict new phases beyond the standard Liouvillian-gap criterion.

Significance. If established, the chirality spectrum would be an experimentally accessible witness of phase-space flow topology and would extend the conventional Liouvillian-gap paradigm for dissipative phase transitions. The semiclassical numerical evidence — Wigner lobes tracking classical attractors, and ζ(Ω) peaks matching Bogoliubov frequencies — is genuinely convincing and is the paper's main strength. The proposal is also falsifiable through heterodyne detection. However, the step from response-spectrum features to topological invariants is not fully demonstrated: the one-to-one peak-to-fixed-point correspondence is asserted rather than derived, the trajectory formula (7) is not benchmarked against the exact spectral decomposition, and the deep-quantum 'new phases' are not given an invariant definition. These gaps are load-bearing for the central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Chirality sensitive response function, Eq. (5) and Eq. (8)] The statement after Eq. (5) that 'each non-degenerate fluctuation mode produces a peak in ζ(Ω), so the number of peaks coincides with the number of stable FPs' is asserted without proof. Equation (8), ζ(Ω)=Σ_{k>0} w_k/(iΩ−λ_k), shows explicitly that peaks and their signs are controlled by the Liouvillian weights w_k. These weights can change sign or reshuffle at avoided crossings, so a peak count or sign flip in ζ(Ω) need not correspond to a change in classical flow topology; it could be a truncation- or weight-dependent response feature. The manuscript itself reports at ℵ=10 that the transition 'smoothers into a crossover' and that 'mixed spectral features from both 3α and 3β can appear at fixed Δ/U.' A concrete test would be to compute ζ(Ω) via Eq. (8) for increasing Hilbert-space truncation and to show that the peak multiplicities and sign pattern are stable; otherwise the diagnostic
  2. [Quantum jump trajectories, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) is introduced with 'From this trajectory viewpoint, the chirality spectrum (5) can be written as...' but no derivation is given. It is not obvious that averaging products of trajectory expectation values, Y_r(t)X_r(t+τ)−X_r(t)Y_r(t+τ), reproduces the exact steady-state two-time correlation ⟨Y(τ)X(0)−X(τ)Y(0)⟩_ss in Eq. (5). The quantum regression theorem justifies the spectral decomposition Eq. (8); it does not by itself justify Eq. (7). Since Figs. 3(c)–(h) rely on Eq. (7), the authors should either derive it from the unravelling or benchmark it against Eq. (8) in a parameter regime where both can be evaluated.
  3. [Deep-quantum regime and Fig. 4] The claim that 'all these transitions occur without a Liouvillian gap closing' and therefore constitute 'new phases' is not supported by an invariant definition. The topological graph index of Ref. [47] is defined for classical flows, and the paper states that in the deep quantum limit Wigner peaks no longer match semiclassical fixed points. A chirality flip in ζ(Ω) at an avoided crossing (e.g., Δ/U=2 in Fig. 4) may simply reflect a rearrangement of Liouvillian eigenvector weights, not a change in a topological invariant. The sentence 'A comprehensive analysis of the implications is left for future work' concedes that the phase criterion is incomplete. Please either define a truncation-independent and basis-independent invariant for the deep-quantum regime or moderate the 'new phases' claim.
  4. [Graph invariant and connectivity] The chirality spectrum, as defined, carries information about the number of stable fixed points and their local winding, but not about their connectivity. In the graph-index classification, phases with the same number and chirality of attractors can still differ in how the attractors are connected to saddles (e.g., 5α versus 5β in Ref. [47]). Therefore ζ(Ω) is at most a partial witness of the graph invariant, and the statement that it 'compactly encodes the essential ingredients of the graph invariant' overstates the observable's content. The manuscript should acknowledge this limitation explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says '(e) Same as (d), corresponding to (c)' where it appears the intended reference is to panel (b) or a different panel. Please check the cross-references.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The scaling transformation lists U and F but not G. Since G is a two-photon drive amplitude and all figures use G=0.4, state explicitly whether G is also rescaled or held fixed in the scaled units.
  3. [Notation for ℵ] The parameter ℵ is introduced only as 'the scaling parameter.' A few sentences explaining its physical meaning (e.g., effective occupation/large-photon-number limit) would help the reader understand the semiclassical limit before Eq. (4).
  4. [Reference [47]] The graph-index classification is imported from Ref. [47], which is an arXiv preprint. If not yet published, please provide a self-contained summary in an appendix or cite a published version, since the manuscript's phase diagram and terminology rely on it.
  5. [Eq. (8)] The definition of w_k has a typographical or notational issue: the left and right eigenvector overlaps should be ordered consistently. Please double-check the expression for w_k.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quantum chirality-spectrum computation is independent of the classical phase diagram; the only concern is reliance on the authors' prior graph-index classification, which is a dependency rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The chirality spectrum ζ(Ω) is computed from the Lindblad master equation (Eq. 2) and the quantum regression theorem (Eq. 8), with no parameters fitted to the classical phase diagram. The peaks at Bogoliubov frequencies emerge from the quantum dynamics, and the comparison to classical fixed points is a genuine test, not an input. The classical phase diagram itself is imported from Ref. [47], a preprint by the same group, but it is used as a reference classification rather than to force the quantum result; the quantum calculation is logically independent and could in principle disagree. The assertion that 'each non-degenerate fluctuation mode produces a peak' is a physical hypothesis, not a definitional identity. The paper honestly notes limitations: at ℵ=10 the transition 'smoothens into a crossover' and 'mixed spectral features from both 3α and 3β can appear', and at ℵ=1 'Wigner peaks no longer match semiclassical FPs'. These weaken the robustness claim but do not constitute circularity. The minor self-citation dependency justifies a slightly nonzero score, but the central derivation is self-contained.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities such as particles or forces. Its central assumptions are the validity of the prior graph-index classification (Ref. [47]) and the one-to-one mapping between quantum response peaks and classical fixed points, which is asserted rather than derived.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The graph invariant and phase diagram of Ref. [47] correctly classify the topology of the semiclassical flow.
    Used throughout to define phases 1, 3alpha, 3beta, 5alpha, 5beta and to identify 'topological transitions'; not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption In the semiclassical limit, the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (3) is the correct mean-field description of the Lindblad dynamics (2).
    Standard mean-field approximation, stated in the text around Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Individual quantum trajectories follow classical streamlines and encode the flow topology (residence times, local chirality, rare jumps between basins).
    Asserted in the section 'Chirality sensitive response function' and used to motivate zeta(Omega); not proven in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The number of peaks in zeta(Omega) coincides with the number of stable fixed points, with each peak corresponding to a Bogoliubov mode.
    Stated without derivation: 'each non-degenerate fluctuation mode produces a peak in zeta(Omega), so the number of peaks coincides with the number of stable FPs.' This is load-bearing for the phase diagnostics.
  • standard math The quantum regression theorem allows expressing zeta(Omega) as a sum over Liouvillian eigenmodes, and the weights w_k do not cancel the topological information.
    Eq. (8) uses the quantum regression theorem; the non-cancellation of weights is assumed but not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Manifestations of flow topology in a quantum driven-dissipative system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMQ2DQ6Q

@misc{pith2026250816486,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Manifestations of flow topology in a quantum driven-dissipative system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMQ2DQ6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16486}
}
read the original abstract

In driven-dissipative bosonic systems, the interplay between coherent driving, inter-particle interactions and dissipation leads to a rich variety of non-equilibrium stationary states (NESS). In the semiclassical limit, the flow topology of phase-space dynamics governs the stability and structure of these dynamical phases. Consequently, topological transitions occur when the number of NESS, their chirality, or their connectivity changes, reflecting global reorganization in the system's dynamical phase-space landscape. Here, we study the corresponding topological signatures in a driven-dissipative quantum Kerr oscillator. Employing a Lindblad master equation and quantum trajectory methods, we reveal that quantum dynamics retain key topological features of the underlying classical flows, with clear signatures accessible via quantum state tomography and linear response. In this manner, we predict new phases that are not signaled by Liouvillian gap closing, thereby generalizing the conventional criteria for diagnosing phase transitions. Our findings position phase-space flow topology as a powerful tool to identify and control robust quantum phases, enabling advances in error correction and sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16486 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Quantum Dynamical Signatures of Topological Flow Transitions in Limit Cycle Phases

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new topological invariant built from fixed points and limit cycles classifies dynamical phases of a nonlinear quantum oscillator, exposing transitions the Liouvillian spectrum misses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [47]

    Villa, J

    G. Villa, J. Del Pino, V. Dumont, G. Rastelli, M. Michałek, A. Eichler, and O. Zilberberg, arXiv:2406.16591 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    J. A. Hertz, Phys. Rev. B14, 1165 (1976)

    1976

  3. [2]

    Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2011)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    Schinz and F

    H. Schinz and F. Schwabl, J Low Temp Phys88, 347–371 (1992)

    work page 1992

  5. [4]

    E. K. Dahl and A. Sudbo, Phys. Rev. B75, 144504 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [5]

    C. A. R. Sá de Melo, M. Randeria, and J. R. Engelbrecht, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 3202 (1993)

    work page 1993

  7. [6]

    Schmidt and J

    S. Schmidt and J. Koch, ANNALEN DER PHYSIK525, 395 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [7]

    Fitzpatrick, N

    M. Fitzpatrick, N. M. Sundaresan, A. C. Y. Li, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X7, 011016 (2017)

    2017

Show all 81 references
  1. [8]

    L. M. Sieberer, S. D. Huber, E. Altman, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 195301 (2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, A. W. W. Lud- wig, V. Lebedev, and M. Feigel’man, inAIP Conference Proceedings(AIP, 2009)

    2009

  3. [10]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  4. [11]

    B. A. Bernevig, Topological insulators and topological superconductors (Princeton university press, 2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015005 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Frankel, The geometry of physics: an introduction (Cambridge university press, 2011)

    T. Frankel, The geometry of physics: an introduction (Cambridge university press, 2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    Dalibard, F

    J. Dalibard, F. Gerbier, G. Juzeli¯ unas, and P. Öhberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1523 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zil- berberg, and I. Carusotto, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015006 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Porras and S

    D. Porras and S. Fernandez-Lorenzo, Physical Review Letters 122, 143901 (2019), arXiv:1812.01348 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    C. C. Wanjura, M. Brunelli, and A. Nunnenkamp, Nature Communications 11, 3149 (2020)

    2020

  11. [18]

    Wan and X.-Y

    L.-L. Wan and X.-Y. Lü, Physical Review Letters130, 203605 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Bartolo, F

    N. Bartolo, F. Minganti, W. Casteels, and C. Ciuti, Phys. Rev. A 94, 033841 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Biella, N. Bartolo, and C. Ciuti, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042118 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Soriente, T

    M. Soriente, T. L. Heugel, K. Omiya, R. Chitra, and O. Zilberberg, Physical Review Research3, 023100 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Minganti, V

    F. Minganti, V. Savona, and A. Biella, Quantum7, 1170 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    Beaulieu, F

    G. Beaulieu, F. Minganti, S. Frasca, V. Savona, S. Fe- licetti, R. D. Candia, and P. Scarlino, Nat Commun16, 1954 (2025)

    1954

  17. [24]

    Esposito, U

    M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 1665 (2009)

    2009

  18. [25]

    Rivas and S

    A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga,Open Quantum Systems: An Introduction (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  19. [26]

    T. L. Heugel, A. Eichler, R. Chitra, and O. Zilberberg, SciPost Physics Core6, 053 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    T. L. Heugel, R. Chitra, A. Eichler, and O. Zilberberg, Physical Review E109, 064308 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Margiani, O

    G. Margiani, O. Ameye, O. Zilberberg, and A. Eichler, arXiv:2504.04254 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Vicentini, F

    F. Vicentini, F. Minganti, R. Rota, G. Orso, and C. Ciuti, Physical Review A97, 013853 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  24. [31]

    Eichler and O

    A. Eichler and O. Zilberberg,Classical and quantum para- metric phenomena (Oxford University Press, 2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    Chávez-Carlos, D

    J. Chávez-Carlos, D. Garrido-Ramírez, A. J. V. Car- mona, V. S. Batista, C. A. Trallero-Herrero, F. Pérez- Bernal, M. A. Bastarrachea-Magnani, and L. F. Santos, arXiv:2407.14590 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Iyama, T

    D. Iyama, T. Kamiya, S. Fujii, H. Mukai, Y. Zhou, T. Na- gase, A. Tomonaga, R. Wang, J.-J. Xue, S. Watabe, S. Kwon, and J.-S. Tsai, Nat Commun15, 86 (2024)

    2024

  27. [34]

    Tomita, S

    T. Tomita, S. Nakajima, I. Danshita, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Sci Adv3, 10.1126/sciadv.1701513 (2017)

    2017 doi

  28. [35]

    Carusotto and C

    I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 299 (2013)

    2013

  29. [36]

    T. Fink, A. Schade, S. Höfling, C. Schneider, and A. Imamoglu, Nature Phys14, 365–369 (2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    Flurin, V

    E. Flurin, V. V. Ramasesh, S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. S. Martin, N. Y. Yao, and I. Siddiqi, Phys. Rev. X7, 031023 (2017)

    2017

  31. [38]

    W. Wang, Y. Wu, Y. Ma, W. Cai, L. Hu, X. Mu, Y. Xu, Z.-J. Chen, H. Wang, Y. P. Song, H. Yuan, C.-L. Zou, 7 L.-M. Duan, and L. Sun, Nat Commun10, 4382 (2019)

    2019

  32. [39]

    L. D. Burkhart, J. D. Teoh, Y. Zhang, C. J. Ax- line, L. Frunzio, M. Devoret, L. Jiang, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, PRX Quantum2, 030321 (2021)

    2021

  33. [40]

    W. Cai, Y. Ma, W. Wang, C.-L. Zou, and L. Sun, Funda- mental Research 1, 50 (2021)

    2021

  34. [41]

    Peyruchat, R

    L. Peyruchat, R. H. Rodriguez, J.-L. Smirr, R. Leone, and i. m. c. O. Girit, Phys. Rev. X14, 041041 (2024)

    2024

  35. [42]

    A. J. Kollár, Nature Phys20, 1859 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    E. M. Kessler, G. Giedke, A. Imamoglu, S. F. Yelin, M. D. Lukin, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A86, 012116 (2012)

    2012

  37. [44]

    Wang and R

    P. Wang and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. A103, 013306 (2021)

    2021

  38. [45]

    Minganti, I

    F. Minganti, I. I. Arkhipov, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, New J. Phys.23, 122001 (2021)

    2021

  39. [46]

    Verstraelen, R

    W. Verstraelen, R. Rota, V. Savona, and M. Wouters, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 022037 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    A. A. Oshemkov and V. V. Sharko, Sb. Math.189, 1205 (1998)

    1998

  41. [49]

    Dalibard, Y

    J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, Physical Review Letters 68, 580 (1992)

    1992

  42. [50]

    Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quan- tum Optics: Lectures Presented at the Université Libre de Bruxelles October 28 to November 4, 1991(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1993)

    H. Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quan- tum Optics: Lectures Presented at the Université Libre de Bruxelles October 28 to November 4, 1991(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1993)

    1991

  43. [51]

    Reinhold, S

    P. Reinhold, S. Rosenblum, W.-L. Ma, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nat. Phys.16, 822 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    S. Kwon, S. Watabe, and J.-S. Tsai, npj Quantum Infor- mation 8, 40 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Slussarenko and G

    S. Slussarenko and G. J. Pryde, Applied Physics Reviews 6, 10.1063/1.5115814 (2019)

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Dong and I

    D. Dong and I. Petersen, IET Control Theory & Applica- tions 4, 2651 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    J.Košata, A.Leuch, T.Kästli,andO.Zilberberg,Physical Review Research 4, 033177 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Seibold, O

    K. Seibold, O. Ameye, and O. Zilberberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 060401 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Breuer and F

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

    2007

  50. [58]

    Košata, J

    J. Košata, J. del Pino, T. L. Heugel, and O. Zilberberg, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 6 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Breiding and S

    P. Breiding and S. Timme, inLect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), Vol. 10931 LNCS (Springer, 2018) pp. 458–465

    2018

  52. [60]

    Dumont, M

    V. Dumont, M. Bestler, L. Catalini, G. Margiani, O. Zil- berberg, and A. Eichler, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043012 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    See Supplemental Material for more details

  54. [62]

    Dykman and M

    M. Dykman and M. Krivoglaz, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications104, 480 (1980)

    1980

  55. [63]

    P. D. Drummond and D. F. Walls, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General13, 725 (1980)

    1980

  56. [64]

    Seibold, R

    K. Seibold, R. Rota, and V. Savona, Physical Review A 101, 033839 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Seibold, R

    K. Seibold, R. Rota, F. Minganti, and V. Savona, Physical Review A 105, 053530 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    T. L. Heugel, M. Biondi, O. Zilberberg, and R. Chitra, Physical review letters123, 173601 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Fox,Quantum optics, repr

    M. Fox,Quantum optics, repr. ed., Oxford master series in physics No. 15 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford [u.a.], 2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    Soriente, T

    M. Soriente, T. Donner, R. Chitra, and O. Zilberberg, Physical Review Letters120, 183603 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    R. Dum, A. S. Parkins, P. Zoller, and C. W. Gardiner, Physical Review A46, 4382 (1992)

    1992

  62. [70]

    R. Dum, P. Zoller, and H. Ritsch, Physical Review A45, 4879 (1992)

    1992

  63. [71]

    Mølmer, Y

    K. Mølmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, Journal of the Optical Society of America B10, 524 (1993)

    1993

  64. [72]

    M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, Reviews of Modern Physics 70, 101 (1998)

    1998

  65. [73]

    Weber, A

    S. Weber, A. Chantasri, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, K. W. Murch, and I. Siddiqi, Nature511, 570 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    Naghiloo, D

    M. Naghiloo, D. Tan, P. M. Harrington, P. Lewalle, A. N. Jordan, and K. W. Murch, Physical Review A96, 053807 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    Z. K. Minev, S. O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Gutiérrez-Jáuregui, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H. J. Carmichael, and M. H. Devoret, Nature570, 200 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    A. N. Jordan and I. A. Siddiqi,Quantum Measurement: Theory and Practice(Cambridge University Press, 2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Roberts and A

    D. Roberts and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. X10, 021022 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, P

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, P. Six, L. Bretheau, A. Sarlette, M.Mirrahimi, P.Rouchon,andB.Huard,PhysicalReview X 6, 011002 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Labay-Mora, A

    A. Labay-Mora, A. Mercurio, V. Savona, G. L. Giorgi, and F. Minganti, Chiral cat code: Enhanced error correction induced by higher-order nonlinearities (2025)

    2025

  73. [81]

    Guillaud, J

    J. Guillaud, J. Cohen, and M. Mirrahimi, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 72 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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