Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 108 references

Cat-state-like non-Gaussian entanglement in magnon systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two magnons coupled by a collective loss channel and pumped above the parametric-stability threshold settle into an entangled cat-like state (fidelity 0.93), certified by Bell's inequality after a modular-variable projection (Q≈2.58).

desk verdict Solid numerical demonstration of a magnon-based dissipative cat-state entanglement scheme, but the 'steady state' claim outruns the evidence; worth refereeing with specific requests for stationarity checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03239 v1 pith:IAECUINS submitted 2025-09-03 quant-ph

Zeyu Zhang , Clemens Gneiting , Zheng-Yang Zhou , Ai-Xi Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords magnonentanglementcatstatesnon-GaussianparametricunstableregimeBellinequalitymodularvariablesdissipativecouplingKerrnonlinearity
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 tries to establish that two magnon modes, each driven by a two-photon pump beyond the parametric-stability threshold and dressed by a Kerr nonlinearity, can be stabilized by a shared loss channel into a steady entangled cat-like state. This matters because magnons are natural links in hybrid quantum systems, and entanglement in the non-Gaussian, multiphoton regime is a resource that Gaussian-state methods cannot supply. The paper also establishes a detection route: because cat-like states evade covariance-matrix criteria, it projects the continuous-variable state onto an effective spin space with modular variables, where Bell's inequality certifies the entanglement with Q≈2.58, above the classical bound of 2. Numerically, the state reaches fidelity 0.93 to the target state, and the scheme tolerates cross-talk coupling up to about g≈1.35 while requiring single-photon loss below about 0.008Δ.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the engineered collective loss channel $\hat L_c=\sqrt{\gamma_c}(\hat b_1+\hat b_2)$, produced by a third lossy cavity mode coupled to both magnons. Its defining action on two-mode coherent product states is the identity that carries the argument: the same-phase products $|\alpha\rangle|\alpha\rangle$ and $|-\alpha\rangle|-\alpha\rangle$ have nonzero eigenvalues $2\sqrt{\gamma_c}\alpha$ and $-2\sqrt{\gamma_c}\alpha$, while the opposite-phase products $|\alpha\rangle|-\alpha\rangle$ and $|-\alpha\rangle|\alpha\rangle$ are dark states. The two dark components are exactly the terms of the target entangled state, so dissipation removes the unwanted same-phase population and stabilizes the wanted superposition. The detection side is carried by the modular-variable projection: with grid spacing $l_p^{\rm opt}=2\sqrt{2}|\alpha|$, the two coherent components of each mode land in separate grid cells; tracing out the modular part and grouping grid indices by parity converts the continuous-variable state into an effective spin state on which the Bell qualifier can be evaluated.

What would settle it

Extend the integration of the master equation (8) with S=1.8, K=1.2, γc=5 far beyond t=20 and monitor the fidelity to Eq. (11), the optimal amplitude α, and the population outside the two dark components: if the fidelity decays, α drifts, or population leaks into other coherent components, the stabilization claim is false. A sharper test is to check directly whether the target state satisfies the steady-state condition, i.e. whether the right-hand side of Eq. (8) vanishes when ρ is set to the ideal entangled cat state for the parameters used.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that the collective loss channel $\hat L_c=\sqrt{\gamma_c}(\hat b_1+\hat b_2)$ acts as a dark-state filter on pairs of coherent states: it removes the same-phase components $|\alpha\rangle|\alpha\rangle$ and $|-\alpha\rangle|-\alpha\rangle$ while leaving the cross terms $|\alpha\rangle|-\alpha\rangle$ and $|-\alpha\rangle|\alpha\rangle$ untouched. Consequently the open-system dynamics approaches the entangled cat state $|\psi\rangle_{\rm ent}=(|\alpha\rangle|-\alpha\rangle+|-\alpha\rangle|\alpha\rangle)/\sqrt{2+\epsilon_{\rm ent}}$, with maximum numerically observed fidelity 0.93. The paper then shows that the entanglement can be detected: decomposing the momentum quadrature into a grid index and a cell remainder, tracing out the remainder, and grouping even and odd grid indices maps the continuous state to a two-qubit state, on which Bell's inequality yields Q≈2.58. The same numerics give practical limits: cross-talk coupling is tolerated up to g≈1.35, and single-photon loss up to γs≈0.008Δ.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the assumption that the coherent parametric-pump and Kerr dynamics confine the system to the two-dimensional subspace spanned by $|\alpha\rangle|-\alpha\rangle$ and $|-\alpha\rangle|\alpha\rangle$ for a single fixed amplitude α, so that the collective loss channel alone selects the entangled pair; the paper shows numerical approach to fidelity 0.93 up to t=20, but does not prove long-time confinement or stationarity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A steady non-Gaussian entangled state of two magnons can be prepared without measurement feedback, using only parametric pumping, Kerr nonlinearity, and a lossy coupling channel.
  • The entanglement is not just present in the continuous-variable state; it survives projection to an effective qubit space, and the projected Bell qualifier Q≈2.58 certifies it.
  • The stabilization is robust to coherent cross-talk coupling up to roughly one third of the collective loss rate, so the scheme does not require perfect isolation of the two magnon modes.
  • Single-photon loss above about 0.008Δ suppresses the Bell violation, so the tolerable loss is low but well defined for experiments.
  • The same modular-projection detection strategy applies to other non-Gaussian entangled states built from coherent components, including grid-encoded bosonic states with more complicated structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The reported fidelity saturates at 0.93 and the dark-subspace argument is checked only through t=20, so the true steady state may be close to, but not exactly, the ideal state (11); a full master-equation eigen-analysis would settle whether the asymptotic state is exactly of that form and whether the optimal amplitude α is renormalized by the pump and Kerr terms.
  • Editorial inference: Because Bell violation is a sufficient but not necessary entanglement witness, the numerical threshold γs≈0.008Δ likely underestimates the loss rate at which entanglement itself disappears; a witness adapted to the projected two-qubit state, such as the partial transpose, would give a less conservative boundary.
  • Editorial inference: The mechanism is not specific to magnons; any bosonic platform with a parametric pump, Kerr nonlinearity, and a symmetric loss channel should exhibit the same dark-subspace stabilization, and a direct test would be to measure the asymptotic fidelity to Eq. (11) as γc is varied.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scheme to generate non-Gaussian, cat-state-like entanglement between two magnon modes in the parametric unstable regime, using a collective loss channel. It first shows numerically that a single magnon with two-photon pumping and Kerr nonlinearity can generate transient cat states (Sec. II.A, Fig. 2). For two magnons, it introduces a collective dissipative coupling L_c = sqrt(γc)(b1 + b2) and claims that the steady state approximates the entangled cat state (|α⟩|−α⟩ + |−α⟩|α⟩)/√2 with maximum fidelity 0.93 (Sec. II.B, Fig. 4). To certify entanglement, the authors use a modular-variable projection that maps the continuous-variable state to an effective spin state (Sec. II.C), and then apply a Bell inequality, obtaining Q ≈ 2.58 > 2 (Fig. 6). They also study robustness to crosstalk coupling and single-photon loss, reporting a tolerable crosstalk strength g < 1.35 and a single-photon loss threshold γs ≤ 0.008 (Secs. III.B and III.C).

Significance. If the steady-state claim can be rigorously established, the work provides a relatively simple dissipative mechanism for generating and detecting non-Gaussian entanglement in magnonic systems, extending beyond the commonly studied Gaussian regime. The modular-variable detection method is a valid and generalizable approach: because the projection is local, a Bell violation in the effective spin space is a rigorous entanglement witness for the continuous-variable state. The paper includes concrete numerical simulations and identifies specific parameter thresholds. The main significance is currently limited by the lack of a proof or long-time verification that the target cat state is indeed the steady state of the dissipative dynamics, and by the manual calibration of the cat amplitude α that enters the detection scheme.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.B, Eqs. (6)-(11), Fig. 4] The central claim that the entangled cat state (11) is a steady state of the master equation (8) is not supported. Equation (10) only verifies that two of the four product coherent states are annihilated by L_c, but the kernel of L_c is infinite-dimensional, and the Hamiltonian (6), in particular the two-photon pump S(b1^2 + b1†^2 + ...) and the Kerr terms, does not map the two-dimensional subspace spanned by |α⟩|−α⟩ and |−α⟩|α⟩ into itself. The fidelity shown in Fig. 4 is calculated only up to t = 20 and is described as 'towards a maximum at 0.93'; no saturation, no long-time steady-state check, and no verification of dρ/dt ≈ 0 at the target state are provided. The authors should either prove that the subspace is dynamically invariant or decoherence-free, or provide an extended-time simulation with a quantitative steady-state error, or otherwise characterize the actual steady state. Without this, the subsequent Bell-threshold results are conditional on an unproven premise.
  2. [II.B-II.C, Eqs. (11) and (15), Figs. 4 and 6] The target amplitude α = 1.4i is hand-picked, and the modular grid spacing l_p^opt = 2√2|α| in Eq. (15), the grouping into even/odd grid indices, and the resulting Bell qualifier Q ≈ 2.58 all depend on this choice. Since the dynamics do not by construction fix a unique α, and the fidelity is only 0.93 so that the actual state contains other components, the reported entanglement detection is calibrated to the chosen α. The authors should either derive α self-consistently from the Hamiltonian parameters, or report the sensitivity of Q and the fidelity to α and l_p (for example, by scanning α around 1.4i and showing that Q > 2 persists over a reasonable range). This is needed to support the claim that the scheme provides robust conditions for generating catlike entanglement.
  3. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C2)-(C5)] The adiabatic elimination of the lossy cavity mode contains a sign error. From the Heisenberg equation (C2), the steady-state solution should be a = (-ig(b1+b2) + sqrt(2γc) C_in)/γc, not (ig(b1+b2) + sqrt(2γc) C_in)/γc as written in Eq. (C3). With the sign as printed, the subsequent equation of motion for b1 would acquire a +g^2/γc term, i.e., anti-damping, instead of the collective damping term in Eq. (C4), so the derivation of the central dissipative channel L_c = sqrt(γc)(b1+b2) is internally inconsistent as presented. The sign should be corrected and the derivation checked to ensure it yields the stated Lindblad operator.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'cat-state-like throughout states' appears to be a typo; it should likely read 'cat-state-like states' or similar.
  2. [Figure captions 4, 6, 7, 8, 9] The phrase 'Note the the parameters' appears in several figure captions; 'the the' should be 'the'.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The word 'nonliner' should be 'nonlinear'.
  4. [II.C] The word 'vertified' should be 'verified'.
  5. [II.C and Appendix E] The relation between the Bell observables in Eq. (12) and the table of observables in Appendix E is not explicitly stated; the authors should clarify which Bell state the chosen observables in Eq. (12) are optimized for, to avoid confusion for the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the Bell test is applied to an independently simulated dissipative state, and the shared alpha in the target state and grid spacing is a detector design choice, not a derivation.

full rationale

The central chain is self-contained at the level of numerical simulation. The paper defines the target entangled cat state (11) with amplitude alpha and then fixes the modular-variable grid spacing (15) as l_opt = 2*sqrt(2)|alpha|, so the detector is matched to the expected state; this is a calibration choice, not a circular derivation. The Bell violation Q approximately 2.58 is obtained by first evolving the full Lindblad master equation (8) with the Hamiltonian (6) and collective loss L_c, and the modular-variable projection is local (each mode is independently binned, traced, and parity-grouped), so a projected Bell violation is a valid entanglement witness for the original continuous-variable state. The value alpha = 1.4i is hand-picked as a benchmark rather than fitted and then renamed a prediction; the fidelity and Q are computed from the simulated state, not imposed by construction. Parameter scans for crosstalk g and single-photon loss gamma_s are separate numerical experiments. Self-citations [80-86, 99, 109] provide the modular-variable technique and a related DOPO result, but the magnon model, the dissipative-coupling derivation, and the numerics are independently presented here, with no load-bearing unverified uniqueness claim. The unsupported stationarity assertion (only t <= 20 is shown) and the use of a single working point are completeness or robustness concerns, not circular reductions.

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

The central demonstration rests on hand-chosen values of S, K, γc, and α that are not derived from microscopic YIG parameters; on adiabatic elimination approximations in Appendices B and C; and on the unproven assertion that the target cat state is the steady state of the Lindblad equation. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • S/Δ = 1.8
    Two-photon pump strength in units of Δ. Chosen by hand in Sec. II B to place the system in the parametric unstable regime and produce cat-like states.
  • K/Δ = 1.2
    Kerr coefficient in units of Δ. Chosen by hand in Sec. II B and in Fig. 2 to make the evolution non-Gaussian and support cat states.
  • γc/Δ = 5
    Collective loss rate in units of Δ. Chosen by hand in Sec. II B to suppress same-phase components while leaving the opposite-phase entangled components as a dark state.
  • α (target cat amplitude) = 1.4i
    Set by hand in Sec. II B to define the target entangled cat state. This same α determines the modular grid spacing l_opt = 2√2|α|. It is not derived from S, K, or γc.
  • Fock truncation N = 15
    Numerical cutoff used in QuTiP simulations. Chosen without a stated convergence analysis; could affect reported fidelities and Bell values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Adiabatic elimination of the driven cavity mode is valid when cavity detuning is large (Δc ≫ g), yielding the effective magnon Hamiltonian in Eq. (B6).
    Used in Appendix B to derive Eq. (4). Validity is assumed and not numerically checked near the parameter region where S/Δ = 1.8 exceeds the stability threshold.
  • domain assumption The collective loss channel is exactly L_c = sqrt(γc)(b1 + b2) with no additional Hamiltonian corrections or noise-induced drifts after eliminating the third cavity.
    Appendix C assumes strong cavity loss and neglects input-noise terms to obtain Eq. (C5). This idealized Lindblad form is then used in all simulations.
  • standard math A local modular-variable projection followed by partial tracing cannot create entanglement; a Bell violation in the effective spin space therefore certifies entanglement of the original continuous-variable state.
    Underlies Sec. II C (Eqs. (16)-(18)). This is a standard property of local CPTP maps.
  • domain assumption The parametric unstable regime is characterized by the instability condition Δ < 2S given in Appendix A, and the dynamics remain well described by the truncated Fock space.
    Used to justify the choice S = 1.8, Δ = 1. No analytical control of truncation errors is provided beyond the numerical plots.
  • ad hoc to paper The target entangled cat state is (approximately) the steady state of the Lindblad equation.
    Asserted after Fig. 4 without proof. The target state is not an eigenstate of the coherent Hamiltonian (6), so stationarity is nontrivial and unsupported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cat-state-like non-Gaussian entanglement in magnon systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IAECUINS

@misc{pith2026250903239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cat-state-like non-Gaussian entanglement in magnon systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IAECUINS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03239}
}
read the original abstract

Magnons can serve as a bridge between spin, phonon, and photon systems, which renders them suitable for constructing hybrid systems. An important application of such hybrid systems is generating entanglement between different platforms. As magnons can support a broad variety of states, e.g., Fock states, squeezed states, or coherent states, and hybrid states can be produced with cavities or spins, there are many different kinds of entangled states in magnon systems. In this paper, we consider the entanglement of cat-state-like throughout states, which can be generated in magnon systems with parametric pumps beyond the parametric stable intensities. However, estimating the entanglement in such states is challenging due to their multiphoton and non-Gaussian properties. Here, we apply a modular variable-based projection, which maps the catlike states to spin states, preserving the encoded information. After the projection, Bell's inequality is employed to detect the entanglement in the effective spin states. Our numerical analysis provides the conditions for generating catlike entanglement in magnon systems and can be conveniently extended to other entangled states that may be formed by magnon and spin systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of a single-mode cavity magnon system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Numerical verification of single-mode cat state generation with different nonliner pump phases. The parameters are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Illustration of the dissipatively coupled two-mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Illustration of modular-variable-based projection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Time evolution of the entanglement qualifier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Wigner function of the reduced system state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Relation between the highest achievable values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Xiang, S

    Z.-L. Xiang, S. Ashhab, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Hybrid quantum circuits: Superconducting circuits interacting with other quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 623 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    Forn-D´ ıaz, L

    P. Forn-D´ ıaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Ultrastrong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025005 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Frisk Kockum, A

    A. Frisk Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between 11 light and matter, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 19 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    O. O. Soykal and M. E. Flatt´ e, Strong Field Interactions between a Nanomagnet and a Photonic Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 077202 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Huebl, C

    H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, F. Hocke, M. Greifenstein, A. Marx, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, High Cooperativity in Coupled Microwave Resonator Ferrimagnetic Insulator Hybrids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 127003 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Hybridizing Ferromagnetic Magnons and Microwave Photons in the Quantum Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 083603 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Strongly Coupled Magnons and Cavity Microwave Photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 156401 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    Goryachev, W

    M. Goryachev, W. G. Farr, D. L. Creedon, Y. Fan, M. Kostylev, and M. E. Tobar, High-Cooperativity Cavity QED with Magnons at Microwave Frequencies, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2, 054002 (2014)

    2014

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    L. Bai, M. Harder, Y. P. Chen, X. Fan, J. Q. Xiao, and C.-M. Hu, Spin Pumping in Electrodynamically Coupled Magnon-Photon Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 227201 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Y. Cao, P. Yan, H. Huebl, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and G. E. W. Bauer, Exchange magnon-polaritons in microwave cavities, Phys. Rev. B 91, 094423 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Zhang, X.-M

    D. Zhang, X.-M. Wang, T.-F. Li, X.-Q. Luo, W. Wu, F. Nori, and J. Q. You, Cavity quantum electrodynamics with ferromagnetic magnons in a small yttrium-iron-garnet sphere, npj Quantum Information 1, 15014 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, A. Gloppe, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics, Applied Physics Express 12, 070101 (2019)

    2019

  5. [14]

    H. Yuan, Y. Cao, A. Kamra, R. A. Duine, and P. Yan, Quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science, Physics Reports 965, 1 (2022), quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science

    2022

  6. [15]

    Cherepanov, I

    V. Cherepanov, I. Kolokolov, and V. L’vov, The saga of YIG: Spectra, thermodynamics, interaction and relaxation of magnons in a complex magnet, Physics Reports 229, 81 (1993)

    1993

  7. [16]

    Sirdeshmukh, K

    L. Sirdeshmukh, K. Krishna Kumar, S. Bal Laxman, A. Rama Krishna, and G. Sathaiah, Dielectric properties and electrical conduction in yttrium iron garnet (YIG), Bulletin of Materials Science 21, 219 (1998)

    1998

  8. [17]

    Sharma, J

    V. Sharma, J. Saha, S. Patnaik, and B. K. Kuanr, Synthesis and characterization of yttrium iron garnet (YIG) nanoparticles - Microwave material, AIP Advances 7, 056405 (2016)

    2016

  9. [18]

    R.-C. Shen, J. Li, Z.-Y. Fan, Y.-P. Wang, and J. Q. You, Mechanical Bistability in Kerr-modified Cavity Magnomechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 123601 (2022)

    2022

  10. [19]

    Yang, W.-J

    Z.-B. Yang, W.-J. Wu, J. Li, Y.-P. Wang, and J. Q. You, Steady-entangled-state generation via the cross- kerr effect in a ferrimagnetic crystal, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012419 (2022)

    2022

  11. [20]

    K. Di, X. Wang, H. Xia, Y. Zhao, A. Cheng, Y. Liu, and J. Du, Macroscopic entanglement between ferrimagnetic magnons and atoms via crossed optical cavity (2023), arXiv:2312.11864

    2023 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Wang, G.-Q

    Y.-P. Wang, G.-Q. Zhang, D. Zhang, T.-F. Li, C.- M. Hu, and J. Q. You, Bistability of Cavity Magnon Polaritons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 057202 (2018)

    2018

  13. [22]

    Z.-X. Liu, H. Xiong, and Y. Wu, Magnon blockade in a hybrid ferromagnet-superconductor quantum system, Phys. Rev. B 100, 134421 (2019)

    2019

  14. [23]

    Li, Y.-P

    J. Li, Y.-P. Wang, W.-J. Wu, S.-Y. Zhu, and J. You, Quantum Network with Magnonic and Mechanical Nodes, PRX Quantum 2, 040344 (2021)

    2021

  15. [24]

    Xu, X.-K

    D. Xu, X.-K. Gu, H.-K. Li, Y.-C. Weng, Y.-P. Wang, J. Li, H. Wang, S.-Y. Zhu, and J. Q. You, Quantum Control of a Single Magnon in a Macroscopic Spin System, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 193603 (2023)

    2023

  16. [25]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, and Y. Nakamura, Resolving quanta of collective spin excitations in a millimeter-sized ferromagnet, Science Advances 3, e1603150 (2017)

    2017

  17. [26]

    Lachance-Quirion, S

    D. Lachance-Quirion, S. P. Wolski, Y. Tabuchi, S. Kono, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Entanglement- based single-shot detection of a single magnon with a superconducting qubit, Science 367, 425 (2020)

    2020

  18. [27]

    H. Y. Yuan, S. Zheng, Z. Ficek, Q. Y. He, and M.-H. Yung, Enhancement of magnon-magnon entanglement inside a cavity, Phys. Rev. B 101, 014419 (2020)

    2020

  19. [28]

    S. P. Wolski, D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Kono, A. Noguchi, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Dissipation-Based Quantum Sensing of Magnons with a Superconducting Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 117701 (2020)

    2020

  20. [29]

    Zhang and J

    G.-Q. Zhang and J. Q. You, Higher-order exceptional point in a cavity magnonics system, Phys. Rev. B 99, 054404 (2019)

    2019

  21. [30]

    Elyasi, Y

    M. Elyasi, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, Resources of nonlinear cavity magnonics for quantum information, Phys. Rev. B 101, 054402 (2020)

    2020

  22. [31]

    Sun, S.-S

    F.-X. Sun, S.-S. Zheng, Y. Xiao, Q. Gong, Q. He, and K. Xia, Remote Generation of Magnon Schr¨ odinger Cat State via Magnon-Photon Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 087203 (2021)

    2021

  23. [32]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A One-Way Quantum Computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  24. [33]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  25. [34]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, Quantum computers, Nature 464, 45 (2010)

    2010

  26. [35]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  27. [36]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  28. [37]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nature Photonics 5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  29. [38]

    Qi and J

    S.-F. Qi and J. Jing, Generation of Bell and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states from a hybrid qubit- photon-magnon system, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022624 (2022). 12

    2022

  30. [39]

    Ren, J.-k

    Y.-l. Ren, J.-k. Xie, X.-k. Li, S.-l. Ma, and F.-l. Li, Long- range generation of a magnon-magnon entangled state, Phys. Rev. B 105, 094422 (2022)

    2022

  31. [40]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  32. [41]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nature Photonics 12, 724 (2018)

    2018

  33. [42]

    Zhuang, Z

    Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, Distributed quantum sensing using continuous-variable multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032329 (2018)

    2018

  34. [43]

    C. D. Marciniak, T. Feldker, I. Pogorelov, R. Kaubruegger, D. V. Vasilyev, R. van Bijnen, P. Schindler, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and T. Monz, Optimal metrology with programmable quantum sensors, Nature 603, 604 (2022)

    2022

  35. [44]

    E. Waks, A. Zeevi, and Y. Yamamoto, Security of quantum key distribution with entangled photons against individual attacks, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052310 (2002)

    2002

  36. [45]

    T. Durt, D. Kaszlikowski, J.-L. Chen, and L. C. Kwek, Security of quantum key distributions with entangled qudits, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032313 (2004)

    2004

  37. [46]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  38. [47]

    Shannon, E

    K. Shannon, E. Towe, and O. K. Tonguz, On the Use of Quantum Entanglement in Secure Communications: A Survey (2020), arXiv:2003.07907

    2020 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Tan and J

    H. Tan and J. Li, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen entanglement and asymmetric steering between distant macroscopic mechanical and magnonic systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013192 (2021)

    2021

  40. [49]

    Y.-T. Chen, L. Du, Y. Zhang, and J.-H. Wu, Perfect transfer of enhanced entanglement and asymmetric steering in a cavity-magnomechanical system, Phys. Rev. A 103, 053712 (2021)

    2021

  41. [50]

    Li, S.-Y

    J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, and G. S. Agarwal, Magnon-Photon- Phonon Entanglement in Cavity Magnomechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 203601 (2018)

    2018

  42. [51]

    Adesso, F

    G. Adesso, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, F. Illuminati, and L. A. M. Souza, Optimal estimation of losses at the ultimate quantum limit with non-Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 79, 040305(R) (2009)

    2009

  43. [52]

    Straka, A

    I. Straka, A. Predojevi´ c, T. Huber, L. c. v. Lachman, L. Butschek, M. Mikov´ a, M. Miˇ cuda, G. S. Solomon, G. Weihs, M. Jeˇ zek, and R. Filip, Quantum non- Gaussian Depth of Single-Photon States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 223603 (2014)

    2014

  44. [53]

    Konno, A

    S. Konno, A. Sakaguchi, W. Asavanant, H. Ogawa, M. Kobayashi, P. Marek, R. Filip, J.-I. Yoshikawa, and A. Furusawa, Nonlinear Squeezing for Measurement- Based Non-Gaussian Operations in Time Domain, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 024024 (2021)

    2021

  45. [54]

    M. G. Genoni and M. G. A. Paris, Quantifying non- Gaussianity for quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052341 (2010)

    2010

  46. [55]

    Hosseinidehaj and R

    N. Hosseinidehaj and R. Malaney, Entanglement generation via non-Gaussian transfer over atmospheric fading channels, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062336 (2015)

    2015

  47. [56]

    Furrer and W

    F. Furrer and W. J. Munro, Repeaters for continuous- variable quantum communication, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032335 (2018)

    2018

  48. [57]

    J. Lee, J. Park, and H. Nha, Quantum non-Gaussianity and secure quantum communication, npj Quantum Information 5, 49 (2019)

    2019

  49. [58]

    Azimi Mousolou, Y

    V. Azimi Mousolou, Y. Liu, A. Bergman, A. Delin, O. Eriksson, M. Pereiro, D. Thonig, and E. Sj¨ oqvist, Magnon-magnon entanglement and its quantification via a microwave cavity, Phys. Rev. B 104, 224302 (2021)

    2021

  50. [59]

    Evrard, V

    A. Evrard, V. Makhalov, T. Chalopin, L. A. Sidorenkov, J. Dalibard, R. Lopes, and S. Nascimbene, Enhanced Magnetic Sensitivity with Non-Gaussian Quantum Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 173601 (2019)

    2019

  51. [60]

    X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. Borregaard, S. Izumi, M. V. Larsen, T. Gehring, M. Christandl, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Distributed quantum sensing in a continuous-variable entangled network, Nature Physics 16, 281 (2020)

    2020

  52. [61]

    Y. Xia, W. Li, Q. Zhuang, and Z. Zhang, Quantum- Enhanced Data Classification with a Variational Entangled Sensor Network, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021047 (2021)

    2021

  53. [62]

    S. S. Szigeti, O. Hosten, and S. A. Haine, Improving cold-atom sensors with quantum entanglement: Prospects and challenges, Applied Physics Letters 118, 140501 (2021)

    2021

  54. [63]

    Colombo, E

    S. Colombo, E. Pedrozo-Pe˜ nafiel, A. F. Adiyatullin, Z. Li, E. Mendez, C. Shu, and V. Vuleti´ c, Time-reversal- based quantum metrology with many-body entangled states, Nature Physics 18, 925 (2022)

    2022

  55. [64]

    T. J. Bartley and I. A. Walmsley, Directly comparing entanglement-enhancing non-Gaussian operations, New Journal of Physics 17, 023038 (2015)

    2015

  56. [65]

    Y.-S. Ra, A. Dufour, M. Walschaers, C. Jacquard, T. Michel, C. Fabre, and N. Treps, Non-Gaussian quantum states of a multimode light field, Nature Physics 16, 144 (2020)

    2020

  57. [66]

    Walschaers, Non-Gaussian Quantum States and Where to Find Them, PRX Quantum 2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, Non-Gaussian Quantum States and Where to Find Them, PRX Quantum 2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  58. [67]

    Leibfried, E

    D. Leibfried, E. Knill, S. Seidelin, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. Chiaverini, D. B. Hume, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, R. Reichle, and D. J. Wineland, Creation of a six-atom ‘Schr¨ odinger cat’ state, Nature 438, 639 (2005)

    2005

  59. [68]

    Gao, C.-Y

    W.-B. Gao, C.-Y. Lu, X.-C. Yao, P. Xu, O. G¨ uhne, A. Goebel, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Z. Peng, Z.-B. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental demonstration of a hyper- entangled ten-qubit Schr¨ odinger cat state, Nature Physics 6, 331 (2010)

    2010

  60. [69]

    Y.-H. Chen, W. Qin, X. Wang, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Shortcuts to Adiabaticity for the Quantum Rabi Model: Efficient Generation of Giant Entangled Cat States via Parametric Amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 023602 (2021)

    2021

  61. [70]

    B. S. Cirel’son, Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality, Letters in Mathematical Physics 4, 93 (1980)

    1980

  62. [71]

    Aspect, J

    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982)

    1982

  63. [72]

    J. D. Franson, Bell inequality for position and time, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2205 (1989)

    1989

  64. [73]

    Gneiting and K

    C. Gneiting and K. Hornberger, Bell Test for the Free Motion of Material Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 260503 (2008). 13

    2008

  65. [74]

    Haroche and J.-M

    S. Haroche and J.-M. Raimond, Exploring the quantum: atoms, cavities, and photons (Oxford university press, 2006)

    2006

  66. [75]

    Ogawa, M

    T. Ogawa, M. Ueda, and N. Imoto, Generation of the Schr¨ odinger-cat state by continuous photodetection, Phys. Rev. A 43, 6458 (1991)

    1991

  67. [76]

    Brune, E

    M. Brune, E. Hagley, J. Dreyer, X. Maˆ ıtre, A. Maali, C. Wunderlich, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Observing the Progressive Decoherence of the “Meter” in a Quantum Measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4887 (1996)

    1996

  68. [77]

    Del´ eglise, I

    S. Del´ eglise, I. Dotsenko, C. Sayrin, J. Bernu, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Reconstruction of non-classical cavity field states with snapshots of their decoherence, Nature 455, 510 (2008)

    2008

  69. [78]

    Aspect, Bell’s inequality test: more ideal than ever, Nature 398, 189 (1999)

    A. Aspect, Bell’s inequality test: more ideal than ever, Nature 398, 189 (1999)

    1999

  70. [79]

    M. A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, C. A. Sackett, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detection, Nature 409, 791 (2001)

    2001

  71. [80]

    Aharonov, H

    Y. Aharonov, H. Pendleton, and A. Petersen, Modular variables in quantum theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 2, 213 (1969)

    1969

  72. [81]

    Gneiting and K

    C. Gneiting and K. Hornberger, Detecting Entanglement in Spatial Interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 210501 (2011)

    2011

  73. [82]

    M. A. D. Carvalho, J. Ferraz, G. F. Borges, P.-L. de Assis, S. P´ adua, and S. P. Walborn, Experimental observation of quantum correlations in modular variables, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032332 (2012)

    2012

  74. [83]

    Gneiting and K

    C. Gneiting and K. Hornberger, Nonlocal Young tests with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-correlated particle pairs, Phys. Rev. A 88, 013610 (2013)

    2013

  75. [84]

    J. C. G. Biniok, P. Busch, and J. Kiukas, Uncertainty in the context of multislit interferometry, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022115 (2014)

    2014

  76. [85]

    Ketterer, A

    A. Ketterer, A. Keller, T. Coudreau, and P. Milman, Testing the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality using observables with arbitrary spectrum, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012106 (2015)

    2015

  77. [86]

    A. S. Arora and A. Asadian, Proposal for a macroscopic test of local realism with phase-space measurements, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062107 (2015)

    2015

  78. [87]

    Zare Rameshti, S

    B. Zare Rameshti, S. Viola Kusminskiy, J. A. Haigh, K. Usami, D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Nakamura, C.-M. Hu, H. X. Tang, G. E. Bauer, and Y. M. Blanter, Cavity magnonics, Physics Reports 979, 1 (2022), cavity Magnonics

    2022

  79. [88]

    Zhang, Z

    G.-Q. Zhang, Z. Chen, W. Xiong, C.-H. Lam, and J. Q. You, Parity-symmetry-breaking quantum phase transition via parametric drive in a cavity magnonic system, Phys. Rev. B 104, 064423 (2021)

    2021

  80. [89]

    Zhang, Y

    G. Zhang, Y. Wang, and J. You, Theory of the magnon kerr effect in cavity magnonics, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 62, 987511 (2019)

    2019

  81. [90]

    Reiter and A

    F. Reiter and A. S. Sørensen, Effective operator formalism for open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 85, 032111 (2012)

    2012

  82. [91]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Proposal of ensemble qubits with two-atom decay, New Journal of Physics 26, 033006 (2024)

    2024

  83. [92]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, H. Jing, and F. Nori, Generating Long-Lived Macroscopically Distinct Superposition States in Atomic Ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 093602 (2021)

    2021

  84. [93]

    G. S. Agarwal, R. R. Puri, and R. P. Singh, Atomic Schr¨ odinger cat states, Phys. Rev. A56, 2249 (1997)

    1997

  85. [94]

    Grimm, N

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Stabilization and operation of a kerr-cat qubit, Nature 584, 205 (2020)

    2020

  86. [95]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open- source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  87. [96]

    W. K. Wootters, A Wigner-function formulation of finite-state quantum mechanics, Annals of Physics 176, 1 (1987)

    1987

  88. [97]

    A. C. Dada, J. Leach, G. S. Buller, M. J. Padgett, and E. Andersson, Experimental high-dimensional two- photon entanglement and violations of generalized bell inequalities, Nature Physics 7, 677 (2011)

    2011

  89. [98]

    B. M. Terhal, Bell inequalities and the separability criterion, Physics Letters A 271, 319 (2000)

    2000

  90. [99]

    Z.-Y. Zhou, C. Gneiting, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Coherent-cluster-state generation in networks of degenerate optical parametric oscillators, Phys. Rev. A 108, 023704 (2023)

    2023

  91. [100]

    Pantaleoni, B

    G. Pantaleoni, B. Q. Baragiola, and N. C. Menicucci, Modular Bosonic Subsystem Codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 040501 (2020)

    2020

  92. [101]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  93. [102]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test local Hidden-Variable Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  94. [103]

    J. S. Bell, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments, in John S Bell on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics , pp. 74–83

  95. [104]

    J. S. Bell, Bertlmann’s Socks and the Nature of Reality, Journal de Physique Colloques 42, C2 (1981)

    1981

  96. [105]

    Ashhab and F

    S. Ashhab and F. Nori, Qubit-oscillator systems in the ultrastrong-coupling regime and their potential for preparing nonclassical states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 042311 (2010)

    2010

  97. [106]

    W. F. Braasch, O. D. Friedman, A. J. Rimberg, and M. P. Blencowe, Wigner current for open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 100, 012124 (2019)

    2019

  98. [107]

    R. Y. Teh, P. D. Drummond, and M. D. Reid, Overcoming decoherence of Schr¨ odinger cat states formed in a cavity using squeezed-state inputs, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043387 (2020)

    2020

  99. [108]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Advances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 365 (2020)

    2020

  100. [109]

    Z.-Y. Zhou, C. Gneiting, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Generating and detecting entangled cat states in dissipatively coupled degenerate optical parametric oscillators, Phys. Rev. A 104, 013715 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.