Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 5 cited by

In the cavity-Ising model, a single endpoint shows second-order criticality from one side and first-order from the other

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-05 10:14 UTC pith:5UYB362B

load-bearing objection The exact phase diagram is solid, but the 'new class of phase transition' claim doesn't hold: the UCEP is a standard critical endpoint, not a new paradigm. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.04391 v2 pith:5UYB362B submitted 2025-09-04 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Unilateral Criticality and Phase Transition in the Cavity-Ising Model

Zeyu Rao , Xiaoshui Lin , Xiwang Luo , Guangcan Guo , Han Pu , Ming Gong This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords unilateral criticalitycavity-Ising modelsuperradiant phase transitiontricritical pointZ2 symmetrytransverse-field Ising modelquantum phase transitionentanglement entropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to establish that the zero-temperature cavity-coupled transverse Ising chain with Z2 symmetry supports a new kind of phase-transition point, which the authors call a unilateral critical endpoint (UCEP). At this point, two order parameters behave differently: the staggered magnetization vanishes continuously while the cavity-field amplitude jumps by a finite amount. Approaching the point from one direction gives second-order signatures—logarithmically divergent transverse susceptibility and entanglement entropy—while approaching from the other direction gives a first-order jump with no divergence. If correct, this is a qualitatively different multicritical object from the critical endpoints previously catalogued, because the first-order jump does not shrink to zero at the endpoint. The authors also provide a one-parameter minimal free-energy form that reproduces the UCEP and a tricritical point, and they show the UCEP disappears at any finite temperature.

Core claim

The central claim is that the zero-temperature phase diagram of the Hamiltonian H=ωa†a + Σ_i (J σz_i σz_{i+1} + (g/√N)(a+a†)σx_i + By σy_i) contains three phases—paramagnetic-normal, paramagnetic-superradiant, and antiferromagnetic-normal—whose transition lines meet at two special points: a conventional tricritical point and a UCEP at (B̃y,g̃)=(1,1.38288). The UCEP is defined by the coexistence condition ϵ_g(h̃)|_{h̃=h̃0}=ϵ_g(h̃)|_{h̃=1} with ϵ'_g(h̃0)=0, so the ground-state energy has a local minimum and a nonanalytic point at equal energy. As B̃y→1⁻ the transverse susceptibility and entanglement entropy diverge logarithmically (χ⊥∼−½ ln|B̃y−1|, S∼−(1/12) ln|B̃y−1|), while as B̃y→1⁺ they st

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dimensionless ground-state energy density ϵ_g(h̃)=h̃²/g̃²−|h̃−1| E(−4h̃/(h̃−1)²), obtained after tracing out the cavity field, rotating spins to absorb By, mapping the spin chain by Jordan-Wigner to free fermions, and taking the thermodynamic limit so the saddle-point integral becomes exact. At the UCEP, the combination h̃=√(B̃y²+α̃²) makes the energy in Eq. (8) have equal values at h̃=h̃0 and at h̃=1, and the small-α̃ expansion carries the universal logarithmic term (1/16) ln(α̃²)α̃⁴. The minimal model f=c1(α̃²+c2)+(α̃²+c2)²ln|α̃²+c2| encodes the same one-sided criticality with only two parameters and reproduces both the UCEP and the tricritical point.

Load-bearing premise

The central new-class claim rests on the assumption that no already-known classification of critical endpoints allows a first-order line to end at a point where its order-parameter jump stays finite; if such an endpoint is already covered by existing theory, the model's phase diagram would still stand but the 'qualitatively new class' claim would not.

What would settle it

Compute the order-parameter jump Δα̃ exactly at the UCEP in the thermodynamic-limit solution and check whether it remains nonzero as g̃→g̃_B; if Δα̃→0 at the endpoint, then point B is an ordinary critical endpoint and the unilateral-criticality claim fails. Alternatively, finite-size extrapolation of the transverse susceptibility on both sides of B̃y=1 at g̃=1.38288 would detect whether the logarithmic divergence is truly one-sided or an artifact of the saddle-point limit.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • At zero temperature, crossing the UCEP from low B̃y gives diverging transverse susceptibility and entanglement entropy; crossing from high B̃y gives none, even though both crossings pass through the same point.
  • The UCEP is accompanied by a finite jump in the cavity-field order parameter α̃ at exactly the same place where the spin order parameter m_s goes continuously to zero, coupling the two transitions into a single event.
  • A two-parameter free energy f=c1(α̃²+c2)+(α̃²+c2)² ln|α̃²+c2| is sufficient to reproduce the UCEP and the tricritical point, so the structure should reappear in any model whose low-energy mode has the same h̃∼B̃y+α̃²/2 relationship.
  • At finite temperature the UCEP disappears and only the normal-superradiant transition survives; a tricritical point remains for temperatures below T_c≈J/(1.14299 k_B).
  • Superconducting-qubit chains in a transmission-line resonator and Rydberg-atom arrays in a cavity are proposed as experimental platforms where the predicted phase diagram and one-sided criticality could be tested.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the minimal free energy captures the universality class, then unilateral criticality should be observable in any system where the tuning field enters the gap as h∼c2+α̃²; candidate platforms include other cavity-QED lattice models with nonlocal photon-mediated coupling.
  • The one-sided logarithmic divergence of the transverse susceptibility could be exploited as a directional quantum sensor: the same control parameter would yield a divergent response on one side and a switch-like jump on the other, giving an intrinsic asymmetry that a conventional critical point lacks.
  • The paper does not analyze cavity loss or other dissipation; since the UCEP is a zero-temperature equilibrium feature, a natural test is whether a dissipative steady-state version preserves the finite jump, or whether the finite-order jump becomes a dynamical bistability instead.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a one-dimensional transverse Ising chain coupled to a single cavity mode, Eq. (1). Using a coherent-state/saddle-point representation and a Jordan-Wigner transformation, the authors obtain the exact zero-temperature energy density Eq. (5) and minimize it over the photon amplitude. They find three phases (PSR, PN, AFN), two second-order boundaries and one first-order boundary, meeting at a tricritical point C and at a point B, which they call a unilateral critical endpoint (UCEP), at (\tilde B_y,\tilde g)=(1,1.38288). At B, the staggered spin order parameter m_s vanishes continuously while the superradiant order parameter \tilde\alpha jumps; the transverse susceptibility and entanglement entropy diverge logarithmically on one side only. A minimal free energy, Eq. (10), is proposed to describe the endpoint, and the finite-temperature phase diagram is sketched. The abstract and conclusion assert that this endpoint constitutes a qualitatively new class of phase transition.

Significance. The exact saddle-point/Jordan-Wigner solution and the explicit energy minimization are solid, and the quantitative match between the minimal model and the exact coordinates of B and C (within about 0.01%) is a genuine strength. If the model-specific phase diagram is correct, the paper provides a clean exact example of an asymmetric critical endpoint in a cavity-QED spin model, with explicit one-sided logarithmic divergences. However, the claim of a new universality class is not supported by the analysis presented; it appears to rest on a mischaracterization of critical-endpoint theory. The value of the paper at present lies in the exact phase diagram rather than in the asserted new paradigm.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 5, Eq. (8)-(10), Figs. 1-2] The paper's central distinguishing criterion is that at a UCEP the jump of \tilde\alpha remains finite, whereas 'unlike critical endpoints previously studied, where the jump of the first-order phase transition tends to zero.' This is not a valid distinction. In the standard critical-endpoint theory of Fisher and Upton (Ref. [82]), it is the order parameter associated with the critical direction that vanishes at the endpoint; other order parameters may retain a finite discontinuity. In the present model, m_s is exactly that critical order parameter (it vanishes at B), and \tilde\alpha is the noncritical one. The one-sided logarithmic divergence of \chi_\perp and S, and the effective free energy Eq. (10) with a finite-\tilde\alpha local minimum crossing the nonanalytic point, are generic signatures of a critical endpoint after integrating out the critical mode. The manuscript must either p
  2. [Abstract; Sec. 5; Conclusion] The assertion that the UCEP 'is not captured by existing paradigms' is not supported by an actual comparison. The only engagement with the critical-endpoint literature is a single sentence plus citations [82-84]; the possibility that point B is a conventional critical endpoint with a finite noncritical order-parameter jump is not addressed. Similarly, the relation to Griffiths' classification of higher-order critical points (Ref. [73]) is not discussed. Because the paper's headline claim depends on this taxonomy point, the authors should either prove a precise distinction (e.g., a different set of critical exponents or a different phase-diagram topology) or explicitly classify B as a critical endpoint and reframe the contribution accordingly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Finite-temperature effect] The text refers to 'Fig. 3(a) and (b)' and 'Fig. 3(c)' when discussing finite-temperature results, but Fig. 3 has only panels (a)-(b); the finite-temperature panels are in Fig. 4. Please correct the cross-references.
  2. [Model and Hamiltonian] Typo: 'Moodel' should be 'Model'.
  3. [Eq. (5) and text after Eq. (3)] The notation \tilde\alpha^2 \equiv 4\alpha^2 g^2/(N J^2) is introduced only later; defining it near Eq. (5) would help the reader follow the dimensionless energy density.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the phase diagram follows from exact energy minimization; the minimal free energy is a post-hoc consistency check, and self-citations are background.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and not circular. The phase diagram follows from the exact ground-state energy: Eq. (5) comes from a Jordan-Wigner solution of the model, and each special point is located by an explicit condition—Eq. (6) for point A, Eq. (7) for the TCP, and Eq. (8) for the UCEP—with the quoted numerical values obtained by solving those equations, not by assuming the transition-line pattern. The one-sided criticality shown in Fig. 2 and the logarithmic divergences of the transverse susceptibility and entanglement entropy are computed from the exact solution. The minimal free energy Eq. (10) is introduced after the fact as a 'minimal description,' with c1 and c2 matched to the expansion Eq. (9); the statement that Eq. (10) reproduces the UCEP/TCP locations is a consistency check rather than a fitted input that generates the exact phase diagram. Self-citations (Refs. [34-36,46,50,51]) are background or methodological and are not load-bearing; no phase boundary or critical exponent is imported from those citations. The assertion that the UCEP is a qualitatively new class is a comparison/classification claim relative to known critical endpoints, not a circular reduction: even if that comparison is debatable, it would be a scientific-correctness issue, not a case of Eq. X reducing to Eq. Y by construction. No step renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted: all phase diagram locations (g̃_A, g̃_B, g̃_C, etc.) are computed from the exact free energy. The Landau coefficients c1 and c2 are derived from the model expansion, not fitted. No new physical entities are postulated. The central claim rests on standard saddle-point, Jordan-Wigner, and Landau techniques plus the specific Hamiltonian.

axioms (5)
  • standard math The saddle-point approximation for the cavity coherent-state field is exact in the thermodynamic limit.
    Invoked in Section 'Partition function' (Eq. (2) and following text): the integral over α is carried out by saddle point, exact as N→∞. Standard for Dicke-type models (Refs [2,3,46]).
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner transformation maps the spin chain with transverse field to free fermions.
    Used in Section 'Ground-state phase diagram' point (1), Eq. (4), for By=0 and then by spin rotation for general By.
  • standard math The spin rotation R=exp(i σz φ/2) with tan φ = By/(2αg/√N) exactly maps H(α) to a transverse-field Ising model with field sqrt(h²+By²).
    Section 'Ground-state phase diagram' point (3): this unitary preserves σz σz coupling and leads to h̃ = sqrt(Bỹ²+α̃²).
  • domain assumption A continuous transition between two phases that both break the same Z2 symmetry would require two sequential symmetry breakings, which is not allowed; hence the AFN-PSR transition is first order.
    Section 'Symmetry' and point (1): argued to classify the transition between PSR and AFN as first order. Standard Landau/group-theoretic argument.
  • ad hoc to paper The free-energy form f=c1(α̃²+c2)+(α̃²+c2)² ln|α̃²+c2| captures the universal behavior of the UCEP.
    Section 'Unilateral critical endpoint' Eq. (10); chosen to match the model expansion and argued to be generic, but the universality is not proven.

pith-pipeline@v1.4.0-alltime-deepseek-medium · 14609 in / 24022 out tokens · 207884 ms · 2026-08-05T10:14:24.105585+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unilateral Criticality and Phase Transition in the Cavity-Ising Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5UYB362B

@misc{pith2026250904391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unilateral Criticality and Phase Transition in the Cavity-Ising Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5UYB362B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04391}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Superradiant phase transitions from cavity light-matter coupling have been widely explored across platforms. Here, we report a unilateral critical endpoint (UCEP) and a tricritical point (TCP) in the phase diagram of the cavity-coupled transverse Ising model with $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry. At zero temperature, we demonstrate that this model hosts three phases separated by two second-order and one first-order transitions. These lines intersect at a TCP and a UCEP, the latter not captured by existing phase-transition paradigms. The UCEP displays one-sided criticality: approaching the point from one side, the system behaves as a second-order transition, while from the other side it is first-order. Correspondingly, two order parameters, respectively, undergo the first- and the second-order phase transitions at the same point. We construct a minimal description of UCEP with the density of the free energy $f = c_{1}(\tilde{\alpha}^{2}+c_{2})+(\tilde{\alpha}^{2}+c_{2})^{2}\ln{\vert\tilde{\alpha}^{2}+c_{2}\vert}$, with the UCEP at $(c_{1},c_{2})=(1/e,0)$ and $\tilde{\alpha}$ being the order parameter. We further map the finite-temperature phase diagram and perform a symmetry analysis. By unifying first- and second-order signatures in a single, direction-dependent endpoint, the UCEP introduces a qualitatively new class of phase transition and may have applications in fields such as quantum measurement and quantum sensing. This work also provides an intriguing platform for exploring novel critical phenomena in cavity-coupled many-body systems with or without dissipation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04391 by Guangcan Guo, Han Pu, Ming Gong, Xiaoshui Lin, Xiwang Luo, Zeyu Rao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) shows the zero-temperature phase diagram in the (B˜ y, g˜) plane with three phases: PSR, PN, and AFN. The PN phase is Z2 symmetric, while both PSR and AFN break the Z2 symmetry. Two order parameters charac￾terize these phases α ≡ ⟨aˆ⟩, ms ≡ P i ⟨(−1)iσ z i ⟩/N, which arise from the Dicke normal-superradiant and the Ising paramagnetic-antiferromagnetic transitions, re￾spectively. We examine these three … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) The order parameters across the UCEP, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) The density of free energy in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The schematic phase diagram at finite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Folds of one curve: the superradiant phase diagram of Dicke modes with interacting matter

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Superradiant first-order transitions in Dicke models with interacting matter are folds of one equation of state from the matter's magnetization response rather than crossings of disjoint sheets.

  2. Dicke materials as a resource for quantum squeezing

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Magnetic materials described by an effective Dicke model exhibit perturbatively stable ground-state squeezing near a superradiant transition, providing a resource for quantum metrology and entanglement witnessing.

  3. Amplified response of cavity-coupled quantum-critical systems

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    Direct bilinear coupling of a cavity photon mode to the order-parameter fluctuations of a quantum-critical Ising magnet drives the superradiance threshold to zero at the quantum critical point.

  4. Quantum criticality of the ferromagnetic Dicke-Ising model

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Landau theory applied to the ferromagnetic Dicke-Ising model captures a tricritical point between second- and first-order transitions driven by virtual nearest-neighbor double spin-flip processes, establishing the mod...

  5. Universal classification of continuous phase transitions with two order parameters

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Classifies two-order-parameter systems into categories based on free-energy coupling terms, each yielding different phase diagrams and critical scalings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (3) into a spinless fermion model [68–70], which can be solved analytically by writingHin the momentum space [67–70]

    Jordan-Wigner transformation will transformHin Eq. (3) into a spinless fermion model [68–70], which can be solved analytically by writingHin the momentum space [67–70]. In this way, the cavity-Ising model is mapped to a model in whichp-wave superconducting fermions couple to a cavity, with ground-state energy Eg =ωα 2 − N 2π Z π −π dkΩ k,(4) with the spec...

  2. [2]

    Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses,

    R. H. Dicke, “Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses,” Phys. Rev.93, 99–110 (1954)

    1954

  3. [3]

    Phase transition in the Dicke model of superradiance,

    Y. K. Wang and F. T. Hioe, “Phase transition in the Dicke model of superradiance,” Phys. Rev. A7, 831– 836 (1973)

    1973

  4. [4]

    Phase transitions in some generalized Dicke models of superradiance,

    F. T. Hioe, “Phase transitions in some generalized Dicke models of superradiance,” Phys. Rev. A8, 1440–1445 (1973)

    1973

  5. [5]

    Exact so- lution for ann-molecule—radiation-field hamiltonian,

    Michael Tavis and Frederick W. Cummings, “Exact so- lution for ann-molecule—radiation-field hamiltonian,” Phys. Rev.170, 379–384 (1968)

    1968

  6. [6]

    Effect of antiresonant atom-field interactions on phase transitions in the Dicke model,

    G. Comer Duncan, “Effect of antiresonant atom-field interactions on phase transitions in the Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. A9, 418–421 (1974)

    1974

  7. [7]

    Behavior of the par- tition function of Dicke type models in the limit of a large number of atoms,

    V. N. Popov and S. A. Fedotov, “Behavior of the par- tition function of Dicke type models in the limit of a large number of atoms,” Theor. Math. Phys.51, 363– 371 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    The func- tional integration method and diagram technique for spin systems,

    Victor Nikolaevich Popov and S. A. Fedotov, “The func- tional integration method and diagram technique for spin systems,” Sov. Phys. JETP67, 535–541 (1988)

    1988

  9. [9]

    Adequacy of the Dicke model in cavity QED: A counter-no-go state- ment,

    Andr´ as Vukics and Peter Domokos, “Adequacy of the Dicke model in cavity QED: A counter-no-go state- ment,” Phys. Rev. A86, 053807 (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    Phase transitions, two-level atoms, and theA 2 term,

    K. Rza˙ zewski, K. W´ odkiewicz, and W. ˙Zakowicz, “Phase transitions, two-level atoms, and theA 2 term,” Phys. Rev. Lett.35, 432 (1975)

    1975

  11. [11]

    Realization of the Dicke model using cavity-assisted Raman transi- tions,

    Markus P. Baden, Kyle J Arnold, Arne L Grimsmo, Scott Parkins, and Murray D. Barrett, “Realization of the Dicke model using cavity-assisted Raman transi- tions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 020408 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    Dicke-model phase transition in the quantum motion of a Bose-Einstein condensate in an optical cavity,

    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

  13. [13]

    Proposed realization of the Dicke-model quantum phase transition in an optical cavity QED system,

    F Dimer, B Estienne, AS Parkins, and HJ Carmichael, “Proposed realization of the Dicke-model quantum phase transition in an optical cavity QED system,” Phys. Rev. A75, 013804 (2007)

    2007

  14. [14]

    Dicke quantum phase transition with a superfluid gas in an optical cavity,

    Kristian Baumann, Christine Guerlin, Ferdinand Bren- necke, and Tilman Esslinger, “Dicke quantum phase transition with a superfluid gas in an optical cavity,” Nature464, 1301–1306 (2010)

    2010

  15. [15]

    Chaos and the quan- tum phase transition in the Dicke model,

    Clive Emary and Tobias Brandes, “Chaos and the quan- tum phase transition in the Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. E67, 066203 (2003)

    2003

  16. [16]

    On the superradiant phase transition for molecules in a quantized radiation field: the Dicke maser model,

    Klaus Hepp and Elliott H Lieb, “On the superradiant phase transition for molecules in a quantized radiation field: the Dicke maser model,” Ann. Phys.76, 360–404 (1973)

    1973

  17. [17]

    Quantum chaos trig- gered by precursors of a quantum phase transition: the Dicke model,

    Clive Emary and Tobias Brandes, “Quantum chaos trig- gered by precursors of a quantum phase transition: the Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 044101 (2003)

    2003

  18. [18]

    Quan- tum phase transition in the Dicke model with critical and noncritical entanglement,

    L. Bakemeier, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, “Quan- tum phase transition in the Dicke model with critical and noncritical entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A85, 043821 (2012)

    2012

  19. [19]

    Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission,

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, “Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission,” Phys. Rep.93, 301–396 (1982)

    1982

  20. [20]

    Critical expo- nent of a quantum-noise-driven phase transition: The 6 open-system Dicke model,

    D. Nagy, G. Szirmai, and P. Domokos, “Critical expo- nent of a quantum-noise-driven phase transition: The 6 open-system Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. A84, 043637 (2011)

    2011

  21. [21]

    Critical exponent of quan- tum phase transitions driven by colored noise,

    D. Nagy and P. Domokos, “Critical exponent of quan- tum phase transitions driven by colored noise,” Phys. Rev. A94, 063862 (2016)

    2016

  22. [22]

    Exploring symmetry breaking at the Dicke quantum phase transition,

    K. Baumann, R. Mottl, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, “Exploring symmetry breaking at the Dicke quantum phase transition,” Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 140402 (2011)

    2011

  23. [23]

    Dynamical phase transition in the open Dicke model,

    Jens Klinder, Hans Keßler, Matthias Wolke, Ludwig Mathey, and Andreas Hemmerich, “Dynamical phase transition in the open Dicke model,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.112, 3290–3295 (2015)

    2015

  24. [24]

    Nonequilibrium phase transition in a spin-1 Dicke model,

    Zhang Zhiqiang, Chern Hui Lee, Ravi Kumar, K. J. Arnold, Stuart J. Masson, A. S. Parkins, and M. D. Barrett, “Nonequilibrium phase transition in a spin-1 Dicke model,” Optica4, 424–429 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Dicke-model simulation via cavity-assisted Raman transitions,

    Zhiqiang Zhang, Chern Hui Lee, Ravi Kumar, K. J. Arnold, Stuart J. Masson, A. L. Grimsmo, A. S. Parkins, and M. D. Barrett, “Dicke-model simulation via cavity-assisted Raman transitions,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 043858 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical potentials,

    Helmut Ritsch, Peter Domokos, Ferdinand Brennecke, and Tilman Esslinger, “Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical potentials,” Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 553 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Ver- ification of a many-ion simulator of the Dicke model through slow quenches across a phase transition,

    A. Safavi-Naini, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. G. Bohnet, M. G¨ arttner, K. A. Gilmore, J. E. Jordan, J. Cohn, J. K. Freericks, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, “Ver- ification of a many-ion simulator of the Dicke model through slow quenches across a phase transition,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 040503 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    Digital-analog quantum simulation of generalized Dicke models with superconducting cir- cuits,

    Lucas Lamata, “Digital-analog quantum simulation of generalized Dicke models with superconducting cir- cuits,” Sci. Rep.7, 43768 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Digital quantum Rabi and Dicke models in superconducting circuits,

    Antonio Mezzacapo, U Las Heras, JS Pedernales, L Di- Carlo, E Solano, and L Lamata, “Digital quantum Rabi and Dicke models in superconducting circuits,” Sci. Rep. 4, 7482 (2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    Experimentally simulating the dynamics of quantum light and matter at deep-strong coupling,

    Nathan K Langford, Ramiro Sagastizabal, Marios Kounalakis, Christian Dickel, Alessandro Bruno, Flo- rian Luthi, David J Thoen, Akira Endo, and Leonardo DiCarlo, “Experimentally simulating the dynamics of quantum light and matter at deep-strong coupling,” Nat. Commun.8, 1715 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    Experimental quantum sim- ulation of superradiant phase transition beyond no-go theorem via antisqueezing,

    Xi Chen, Ze Wu, Min Jiang, Xin-You Lu, Xinhua Peng Peng, and Jiangfeng Du, “Experimental quantum sim- ulation of superradiant phase transition beyond no-go theorem via antisqueezing,” Nat. Commun.12, 6281 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Observation of Dicke cooperativity in magnetic interactions,

    Xinwei Li, Motoaki Bamba, Ning Yuan, Qi Zhang, Yage Zhao, Maolin Xiang, Kai Xu, Zuanming Jin, Wei Ren, Guohong Ma, Shixun Cao, Dmitry Turchinovich, and Junichiro Kono, “Observation of Dicke cooperativity in magnetic interactions,” Science361, 794 – 797 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Quantum simulation of an extended dicke model with a magnetic solid,

    Nicolas Marquez Peraca, Xinwei Li, Jaime M. Moya, Kenji Hayashida, Dasom Kim, Xiaoxuan Ma, Kelly J. Neubauer, Diego Fallas Padilla, Chien-Lung Huang, Pengcheng Dai, Andriy H. Nevidomskyy, Han Pu, Emilia Morosan, Shixun Cao, Motoaki Bamba, and Junichiro Kono, “Quantum simulation of an extended dicke model with a magnetic solid,” Communications Materials5, ...

    2024

  34. [34]

    Obser- vation of the magnonic dicke superradiant phase tran- sition,

    Dasom Kim, Sohail Dasgupta, Xiaoxuan Ma, Joong- Mok Park, Hao-Tian Wei, Xinwei Li, Liang Luo, Jacques Doumani, Wanting Yang, Di Cheng, Richard H. J. Kim, Henry O. Everitt, Shojiro Kimura, Hiroyuki Nojiri, Jigang Wang, Shixun Cao, Motoaki Bamba, Kaden R. A. Hazzard, and Junichiro Kono, “Obser- vation of the magnonic dicke superradiant phase tran- sition,” ...

    2025

  35. [35]

    Tricritical Dicke model with and without dissipation,

    Diego Fallas Padilla and Han Pu, “Tricritical Dicke model with and without dissipation,” Phys. Rev. A108, 033706 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Emergent universality in a quantum tricritical Dicke model,

    Youjiang Xu and Han Pu, “Emergent universality in a quantum tricritical Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 193201 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    Mul- ticriticality and quantum fluctuation in a generalized Dicke model,

    Youjiang Xu, Diego Fallas Padilla, and Han Pu, “Mul- ticriticality and quantum fluctuation in a generalized Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. A104, 043708 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Quantum Phase Transition and Universal Dy- namics in the Rabi Model,

    Myung-Joong Hwang, Ricardo Puebla, and Martin B. Plenio, “Quantum Phase Transition and Universal Dy- namics in the Rabi Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 180404 (2015)

    2015

  39. [39]

    Signatures of Dissipation Driven Quantum Phase Transition in Rabi Model,

    G. De Filippis, A. de Candia, G. Di Bello, C. A. Per- roni, 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

  40. [40]

    Quantum Phase Transi- tions for an Integrable Quantum Rabi-like Model with Two Interacting Qubits,

    R. Grimaudo, A. S. Magalh˜ aes de Castro, A. Messina, E. Solano, and D. Valenti, “Quantum Phase Transi- tions for an Integrable Quantum Rabi-like Model with Two Interacting Qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 043602 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Univer- sal Scaling and Critical Exponents of the Anisotropic Quantum Rabi Model,

    Maoxin Liu, Stefano Chesi, Zu-Jian Ying, Xiaosong Chen, Hong-Gang Luo, and Hai-Qing Lin, “Univer- sal Scaling and Critical Exponents of the Anisotropic Quantum Rabi Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 220601 (2017)

    2017

  42. [42]

    Excited-state quantum phase transition in the Rabi model,

    Ricardo Puebla, Myung-Joong Hwang, and Martin B. Plenio, “Excited-state quantum phase transition in the Rabi model,” Phys. Rev. A94, 023835 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    Quantum Simulation of the Quantum Rabi Model in a Trapped Ion,

    Dingshun Lv, Shuoming An, Zhenyu Liu, Jing-Ning Zhang, Julen S. Pedernales, Lucas Lamata, Enrique Solano, and Kihwan Kim, “Quantum Simulation of the Quantum Rabi Model in a Trapped Ion,” Phys. Rev. X 8, 021027 (2018)

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    The quantum Rabi model: solution and dynamics,

    Qiongtao Xie, Honghua Zhong, Murray T Batchelor, and Chaohong Lee, “The quantum Rabi model: solution and dynamics,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.50, 113001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Integrability of the Rabi Model,

    D. Braak, “Integrability of the Rabi Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 100401 (2011)

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    Superradiance transition in a system with a single qubit and a single oscillator,

    S. Ashhab, “Superradiance transition in a system with a single qubit and a single oscillator,” Phys. Rev. A87, 013826 (2013)

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    Universality class and exact phase boundary in the superradiant phase transition,

    Wei-Feng Zhuang, Bin Geng, Hong-Gang Luo, Guang- Can Guo, and Ming Gong, “Universality class and exact phase boundary in the superradiant phase transition,” Phys. Rev. A104, 053308 (2021)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Cavity Quantum Eliashberg Enhancement of Super- conductivity,

    Jonathan B. Curtis, Zachary M. Raines, Andrew A. Allocca, Mohammad Hafezi, and Victor M. Galitski, “Cavity Quantum Eliashberg Enhancement of Super- conductivity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 167002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Cavity-mediated electron-photon superconductivity,

    Frank Schlawin, Andrea Cavalleri, and Dieter Jaksch, “Cavity-mediated electron-photon superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 133602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Breakdown of topological protection by cavity vacuum fields in the integer quantum hall ef- fect,

    Felice Appugliese, Josefine Enkner, Gian Lorenzo Paravicini-Bagliani, Mattias Beck, Christian Reichl, 7 Werner Wegscheider, Giacomo Scalari, Cristiano Ciuti, and J´ erˆ ome Faist, “Breakdown of topological protection by cavity vacuum fields in the integer quantum hall ef- fect,” Science375, 1030–1034 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Dynamic phase tran- sitions of a driven Ising chain in a dissipative cavity,

    Xi-Wang Luo, Yu-Na Zhang, Xingxiang Zhou, Guang- Can Guo, and Zheng-Wei Zhou, “Dynamic phase tran- sitions of a driven Ising chain in a dissipative cavity,” Phys. Rev. A94, 053809 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Quantum phase tran- sition of nonlocal Ising chain with transverse field in a resonator,

    Yu-Na Zhang, Xi-Wang Luo, Guang-Can Guo, Zheng- Wei Zhou, and Xingxiang Zhou, “Quantum phase tran- sition of nonlocal Ising chain with transverse field in a resonator,” Phys. Rev. B90, 094510 (2014)

    work page 2014

  53. [53]

    Phase transi- tions and Heisenberg limited metrology in an Ising chain interacting with a single-mode cavity field,

    Søren Gammelmark and Klaus Mølmer, “Phase transi- tions and Heisenberg limited metrology in an Ising chain interacting with a single-mode cavity field,” New Jour- nal of Physics13, 053035 (2011)

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    Bound polariton states in the Dicke–Ising model,

    Juan Rom´ an-Roche, ´Alvaro G´ omez-Le´ on, Fernando Luis, and David Zueco, “Bound polariton states in the Dicke–Ising model,” Nanophotonics14, 2053–2064 (2025)

    work page 2053

  55. [55]

    Linear response theory for cavity QED materials at arbitrary light-matter coupling strengths,

    Juan Rom´ an-Roche, ´Alvaro G´ omez-Le´ on, Fernando Luis, and David Zueco, “Linear response theory for cavity QED materials at arbitrary light-matter coupling strengths,” Physical Review B111(2025), 10.1103/physrevb.111.035156

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.111.035156 2025

  56. [56]

    Quantum phase diagrams of Dicke- Ising models by a wormhole algorithm,

    Anja Langheld, Max H¨ ormann, and Kai Phillip Schmidt, “Quantum phase diagrams of Dicke- Ising models by a wormhole algorithm,” (2024), arXiv:2409.15082 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    The free energyFis independent of the sign ofJ

    WhenJ <0, the antiferromagnetic-normal (AFN) phase will turn to a ferromagnetic-normal (FN) phase, and the whole phase diagram is unchanged. The free energyFis independent of the sign ofJ

    work page

  58. [58]

    Simulating quantum spin models using Rydberg-excited atomic ensembles in magnetic micro- trap arrays,

    Shannon Whitlock, Alexander W Glaetzle, and Pe- ter Hannaford, “Simulating quantum spin models using Rydberg-excited atomic ensembles in magnetic micro- trap arrays,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.50, 074001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    Towards quantum simulation with circular Rydberg atoms,

    T. L. Nguyen, J. M. Raimond, C. Sayrin, R. Corti˜ nas, T. Cantat-Moltrecht, F. Assemat, I. Dotsenko, S. Gleyzes, S. Haroche, G. Roux, Th. Jolicoeur, and M. Brune, “Towards quantum simulation with circular Rydberg atoms,” Phys. Rev. X8, 011032 (2018)

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    Glassy Dynamics in a Disordered Heisenberg Quantum Spin System,

    A. Signoles, T. Franz, R. Ferracini Alves, M. G¨ arttner, S. Whitlock, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, “Glassy Dynamics in a Disordered Heisenberg Quantum Spin System,” Phys. Rev. X11, 011011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Controlling spin exchange interactions of ultracold atoms in optical lattices,

    L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, “Controlling spin exchange interactions of ultracold atoms in optical lattices,” Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 090402 (2003)

    work page 2003

  62. [62]

    Spin transport in a tunable Heisenberg model realized with ultracold atoms,

    Paul Niklas Jepsen, Jesse Amato-Grill, Ivana Dimitrova, Wen Wei Ho, Eugene Demler, and Wolfgang Ketterle, “Spin transport in a tunable Heisenberg model realized with ultracold atoms,” Nature588, 403–407 (2020)

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Engineered nearest-neighbor interactions with doubly modulated optical lattices,

    Hongzheng Zhao, Johannes Knolle, and Florian Mintert, “Engineered nearest-neighbor interactions with doubly modulated optical lattices,” Phys. Rev. A 100, 053610 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Superfluid, Mott- insulator, and mass-density-wave phases in the one- dimensional extended Bose-Hubbard model,

    Ramesh V. Pai and Rahul Pandit, “Superfluid, Mott- insulator, and mass-density-wave phases in the one- dimensional extended Bose-Hubbard model,” Phys. Rev. B71, 104508 (2005)

    work page 2005

  65. [65]

    Towards analog quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories with trapped ions,

    Zohreh Davoudi, Mohammad Hafezi, Christopher Mon- roe, Guido Pagano, Alireza Seif, and Andrew Shaw, “Towards analog quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories with trapped ions,” Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023015 (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Mean-field theory of superradiant phase transition in complex networks,

    Andrei Yu. Bazhenov, Dmitriy V. Tsarev, and Alexan- der P. Alodjants, “Mean-field theory of superradiant phase transition in complex networks,” Phys. Rev. E 103, 062309 (2021)

    work page 2021

  67. [67]

    Numerically exact solution to the finite-size Dicke model,

    Qing-Hu Chen, Yu-Yu Zhang, Tao Liu, and Ke-Lin Wang, “Numerically exact solution to the finite-size Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. A78, 051801 (2008)

    2008

  68. [68]

    (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    Subir Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  69. [69]

    Statistical mechanics of the XY model. i,

    Eytan Barouch, Barry M. McCoy, and Max Dresden, “Statistical mechanics of the XY model. i,” Phys. Rev. A2, 1075–1092 (1970)

    work page 1970

  70. [70]

    816 (Springer, 2010)

    John B Parkinson and Damian JJ Farnell,An introduc- tion to quantum spin systems, Vol. 816 (Springer, 2010)

    work page 2010

  71. [71]

    940 (Springer, 2017)

    Fabio Franchiniet al.,An introduction to integrable techniques for one-dimensional quantum systems, Vol. 940 (Springer, 2017)

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    Generalized scaling hypothesis in multicomponent sys- tems. i. classification of critical points by order and scaling at tricritical points,

    T. S. Chang, Alex Hankey, and H. Eugene Stanley, “Generalized scaling hypothesis in multicomponent sys- tems. i. classification of critical points by order and scaling at tricritical points,” Phys. Rev. B8, 346–364 (1973)

    work page 1973

  73. [73]

    Geometric predictions of scaling at tricritical points,

    Alex Hankey, H. Eugene Stanley, and T. S. Chang, “Geometric predictions of scaling at tricritical points,” Phys. Rev. Lett.29, 278–281 (1972)

    work page 1972

  74. [74]

    Phase diagrams and higher-order critical points,

    Robert B. Griffiths, “Phase diagrams and higher-order critical points,” Phys. Rev. B12, 345–355 (1975)

    work page 1975

  75. [75]

    Renormalization-group calculation of the critical-point exponentηfor a critical point of arbitrary order,

    G. F. Tuthill, J. F. Nicoll, and H. E. Stanley, “Renormalization-group calculation of the critical-point exponentηfor a critical point of arbitrary order,” Phys. Rev. B11, 4579–4582 (1975)

    work page 1975

  76. [76]

    Scaling approach to tricritical phase transitions,

    Eberhard K. Riedel, “Scaling approach to tricritical phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 675–678 (1972)

    work page 1972

  77. [77]

    Differ- ential renormalization-group generators for static and dynamic critical phenomena,

    T.S Chang, D.D Vvedensky, and J.F Nicoll, “Differ- ential renormalization-group generators for static and dynamic critical phenomena,” Phys. Rep.217, 279–360 (1992)

    work page 1992

  78. [78]

    Thermodynamics near the two- fluid critical mixing point in He 3 - He 4,

    Robert B. Griffiths, “Thermodynamics near the two- fluid critical mixing point in He 3 - He 4,” Phys. Rev. Lett.24, 715–717 (1970)

    work page 1970

  79. [79]

    Dissipation-induced anomalous multicritical phenom- ena,

    M. Soriente, T. Donner, R. Chitra, and O. Zilberberg, “Dissipation-induced anomalous multicritical phenom- ena,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 183603 (2018)

    work page 2018

  80. [80]

    Universal critical behavior in the Dicke model,

    O. Casta˜ nos, E. Nahmad-Achar, R. L´ opez-Pe˜ na, and J. G. Hirsch, “Universal critical behavior in the Dicke model,” Phys. Rev. A86, 023814 (2012)

    work page 2012

Showing first 80 references.