Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Enhancing Optomechanical Entanglement and Mechanical Squeezing by the Synergistic Effect of Quadratic Optomechanical Coupling and Coherent Feedback

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A coherent feedback loop plus quadratic coupling lifts optomechanical entanglement fivefold and mechanical squeezing past 10 dB.

desk verdict Plausible standard-formalism numerical proposal for optomechanical entanglement and squeezing via QOC plus coherent feedback; the central claims need a stability check and a physical mapping of g1/g2 before they fully land. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.04732 v3 pith:PLHARKX2 submitted 2025-10-06 quant-ph

Ya-Feng Jiao , Ruo-Chen Wang , Jing-Xue Liu , Hui-Lai Zhang , Ya-Chuan Liang , Yan Wang , Le-Man Kuang , Hui Jing This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords cavityoptomechanicsoptomechanicalentanglementmechanicalsqueezingquadraticcouplingcoherentfeedbacklogarithmicnegativitymembrane-in-the-middlesteady-statenonclassicality
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 tunable ingredients—the sign of quadratic optomechanical coupling and a coherent feedback loop—can jointly reshape the stability regime of a membrane-in-cavity optomechanical system, allowing effective coupling strengths that would otherwise drive the system into instability. With positive quadratic coupling and suitable feedback parameters, steady-state optomechanical entanglement reaches a logarithmic negativity around 0.2, roughly five times the value without these ingredients. With negative quadratic coupling, the same architecture yields mechanical squeezing beyond the 3 dB limit over a broad parameter range, reaching above 10 dB under optimized conditions. If correct, this offers an all-optical route to macroscopic nonclassical states without backaction-evading measurements or engineered reservoirs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 4×4 steady-state covariance matrix of the linearized membrane-cavity system, obtained from the Lyapunov equation. The two expressions that do the physical work are the effective mechanical frequency Ω_m = ω_m − 2g2|α_s|^2 and the feedback-modified cavity decay rate κ̃ = κ_tot − 2√(κ1κ2)r_B cos θ; together they convert the sign of the quadratic coupling and the feedback phase into direct control over the stability regime, decoherence rate, and effective optomechanical coupling strength. Quantum effects are quantified by the logarithmic negativity E_N for entanglement and the mechanical quadrature variance S_j for squeezing.

What would settle it

Solve the original nonlinear quantum Langevin equations without dropping fluctuation products for the parameters used in Figs. 3(d) and 4(f) and check whether a stable physical steady state with E_N ≈ 0.2 and S_q > 10 dB exists; if the only solutions lie on or beyond the Routh-Hurwitz stability boundary, the linearized prediction is not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the effective mechanical frequency Ω_m = ω_m − 2g2|α_s|^2 changes with the sign of the quadratic coupling g2: positive g2 softens the membrane, negative g2 stiffens it. The coherent feedback loop separately modifies the effective cavity decay rate κ̃ = κ_tot − 2√(κ1κ2)r_B cos θ and the effective detuning. Tuning these controls moves the stability boundary, permitting a larger effective optomechanical coupling λ before the system becomes unstable. Solving the linearized quantum Langevin equations and the Lyapunov equation for the steady-state covariance matrix, the paper shows that positive g2 with feedback yields optomechanical entanglement E_N ≈ 0.2, about five

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the linear and quadratic couplings as freely tunable parameters, but in the membrane-in-cavity geometry both are fixed by the same reflectivity and equilibrium position, and the linearized equations are trusted exactly where the system is closest to instability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Positive quadratic coupling combined with coherent feedback lifts steady-state optomechanical entanglement to about five times the level of a bare linear-coupling system.
  • Negative quadratic coupling alone already exceeds the 3 dB mechanical squeezing limit; adding feedback with r_B = 0.8 and θ = 0 pushes the squeezing above 10 dB and broadens the usable detuning range.
  • The feedback loop can reduce the effective cavity decay rate to below 25% of its bare value, directly slowing the decoherence that limits steady-state nonclassicality.
  • The sign of the quadratic coupling acts as a switch: positive values favor entanglement, negative values favor squeezing, so a single tunable setup can serve both tasks.
  • The protocol does not require backaction-evading measurements or reservoir engineering; it relies only on optical pumping, a membrane, and a coherent feedback path.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An open question is whether the specific (g1, g2) pairs used in the figures can be realized by a single membrane reflectivity and equilibrium position; the paper treats the couplings as independently adjustable even though both derive from the same geometry.
  • The predicted enhancements sit near the boundary of the linearized stability regime, so a full nonlinear treatment that retains fluctuation products could reveal whether the reported values are robust or an artifact of linearization.
  • The same stability-reconfiguration mechanism may extend to other optomechanical tasks, such as ground-state cooling or quantum state transfer, by choosing the sign of the quadratic coupling and feedback phase to shift the instability boundary advantageously.
  • A direct experimental test could scan the feedback phase θ and membrane position q0 and look for the predicted periodic increase in output squeezing, which would be a distinctive signature of this mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a membrane-in-cavity optomechanical system with both linear and quadratic optomechanical couplings, embedded in a coherent feedback loop. After linearizing the quantum Langevin equations, the authors compute the steady-state covariance matrix from the Lyapunov equation and use it to evaluate logarithmic negativity and mechanical squeezing. They report that positive quadratic coupling, combined with coherent feedback, enhances optomechanical entanglement by roughly a factor of five (E_N up to about 0.2), while negative quadratic coupling with feedback yields mechanical squeezing above 10 dB, beyond the 3 dB limit. The claimed mechanism is that the synergistic control of quadratic coupling and feedback reshapes the stability region so that stronger effective optomechanical coupling can be accessed before instability.

Significance. If the reported results are valid, the paper would present an all-optical, steady-state route to nonclassical mechanical states in a standard membrane-in-cavity geometry, with quantitatively large entanglement and squeezing. The theoretical framework is standard and the derivations are presented clearly. The paper is, however, a numerical parameter study rather than a parameter-free prediction, and its central claims rest on two assumptions that are not verified: the stability of the linearized system at the optimized operating points, and the physical realizability of the scanned (g1, g2) combinations. These are correctable with additional analysis, so the underlying idea is worth pursuing, but the current evidence does not yet establish the headline numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III and Eq. (17); Figs. 3(d)/(f) and 4(f)] The central claim that QOC plus coherent feedback 'reconfigures the stability regime' is never supported by a stability analysis. The Lyapunov equation (17) yields a physical steady-state covariance matrix only when the matrix A in Eq. (15) is Hurwitz, yet no Routh-Hurwitz condition or eigenvalue calculation is reported. The text itself states that E_N reaches its maximum near the instability point, so the optimized parameters in Figs. 3(d)/(f) and 4(f) are exactly where a small parameter error could take the system outside the stable domain. If those points are unstable, the plotted E_N>0.2 and S_q>10 dB are not steady-state results. Please report the stability boundary for the linearized system and the stability margin (e.g., the largest real part of the eigenvalues of A) for every optimized parameter set, and restrict plotted regions to the stable domain.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (3) vs. parameter choices in Figs. 3-4] The numerical scans vary g2/g1 as an independent parameter while fixing g1=1351.38 Hz, but Eq. (3) shows that both g1 and g2 are determined by the same membrane reflectivity R_m, mode number, cavity length, and equilibrium position q0. It is not demonstrated that the pairs (fixed g1; g2/g1 in the range 10^-5 to 10^-3) used in Figs. 3 and 4 can be realized by any single physical geometry, nor that the implied variations of R_m and q0 are compatible with the assumptions used in deriving Eq. (3). Please provide the explicit (R_m, q0) mapping for the scanned values or discuss a separate mechanism that makes the linear and quadratic couplings independently tunable. Without this, the reported enhanced parameter region may be physically inaccessible.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (8); Sec. III] The linearization leading to Eq. (8) neglects products of fluctuation operators, but the paper does not check that these products are small at the plotted maxima. Near instability, the mechanical response is resonantly enhanced, so fluctuation amplitudes can grow and invalidate the linearized treatment. The covariance matrix computed from Eq. (17) is a property of the linearized system and cannot by itself certify the validity of the linearization. Please report the mean photon and phonon numbers and the relevant variances for the optimized points, and indicate the regime where the linearized equations are quantitatively justified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 3 and 4 captions/labels] Several axis labels and panel annotations are garbled in the figures, e.g., '2/g155' instead of a clear g2/g1 or g2/g1 x10^-5. Please regenerate the figures with clean, readable labels.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (10)] The decomposition of the feedback-modified input field into r_B and t_B should state explicitly that t_B is real and nonnegative, and define the sign convention; otherwise the superposition in Eq. (10) is ambiguous.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4 parameters] The main text should explicitly note that the numerical parameters for the squeezing results differ from those in Sec. III (κ1/2π=2.25 MHz, κ2/2π=0.75 MHz, T=1 mK), rather than only stating this in the figure caption.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (6)] The statement that α_s can be taken real by choosing a suitable phase reference should be justified in one sentence, since the feedback phase θ and the detuning Δ both enter the optical response.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the claimed entanglement and squeezing enhancements are computed from a self-contained linearized-Langevin/Lyapunov model with scanned parameters, not from fitted or redefined target quantities.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the Hamiltonian (4) and QLEs (5), the paper linearizes around the steady-state means (6)-(8), includes coherent feedback via the standard input-output relation and beam-splitter field relation (9)-(12), and then solves the Lyapunov equation (17) for the steady-state covariance matrix. Entanglement E_N (18) and squeezing S_j (20) are evaluated from that covariance matrix. No parameter is fitted to E_N or S_q; the quantities g2/g1, r_B, and theta are scanned, which is parameter optimization rather than data fitting. The sign-dependent mechanisms (mechanical softening/stiffening via Omega_m = omega_m - 2g2|alpha_s|^2 and cavity-decay suppression via kappa_tilde) are illustrated in Fig. 2 before the target quantities are computed, but the E_N and S_q values themselves are numerical outputs of the solved equations, not inputs. Citations to the authors' previous works appear only as introductory context and are not load-bearing ingredients; the model and stability-related mechanisms rely on independent references, e.g., Refs. [86]-[89], [25], [64], and [90]. The skeptical concerns about the joint realizability of g1 and g2 from Eq. (3) and the absence of an explicit stability boundary near the reported maxima are physical-realizability and numerical-verification issues, not circularity: they do not make any prediction equal to an input by construction. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard linearized optomechanics plus several domain assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The main parametric freedom is in the coupling strengths, feedback coefficients, and thermal parameters, which are scanned to produce the reported enhancements.

free parameters (6)
  • linear coupling g1 = 1351.38 Hz
    Chosen by hand as an 'experimentally feasible' value; not derived from cavity/membrane parameters (Eq. 3) in the paper.
  • quadratic coupling ratio g2/g1 = ranges 0 to 6×10^-5 (entanglement) and 0 to -15×10^-3 (squeezing)
    Scanned to optimize E_N and S_q; central results depend on these chosen values.
  • feedback reflection r_B = 0 to 0.8
    Scanned; stronger feedback (up to 0.8) yields larger enhancements.
  • feedback phase θ = 0 to 2π, optimum θ=0 (squeezing) and θ=3π/2 (entanglement)
    Scanned; periodic dependence of results.
  • bath temperature T = 10 mK (entanglement), 1 mK (squeezing)
    A low temperature is chosen to reduce thermal noise; the >10 dB squeezing claim specifically relies on T=1 mK.
  • cavity decay rates κ1, κ2 = 1.5 MHz each (entanglement); 2.25 MHz and 0.75 MHz (squeezing)
    Different asymmetric decays are used in the squeezing section; the feedback-modified decay rate depends on these values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linearization of QLEs: neglect of higher-order fluctuation terms δa†δa, δa†δq, δaδq, δqδq (Eq. 8)
    Central to all numerical results; no check that fluctuation amplitudes remain small near the instability points where E_N and S_q peak.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous, effectively lossless coherent feedback: output field fed back with delay negligible compared with cavity lifetime (Sec. II around Eq. 10)
    Justified by a 5-cm cavity estimate from Ref [25]; the paper's own cavity length L is unspecified, so applicability to the chosen κ values is not demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper g1 and g2 can be tuned independently (Sec. II Eq. (3) vs. parameter choices in Figs. 3-4)
    Eq. (3) links both couplings to the same R_m and q0; the paper fixes g1 and freely varies g2/g1 across orders of magnitude without showing a geometry that realizes each pair.
  • domain assumption Markovian approximation for the mechanical Brownian noise (Sec. II after Eq. 5)
    Valid for high-Q membranes; stated by the authors.
  • domain assumption Stability of the drift matrix A for all plotted points (Secs. III-IV)
    The Lyapunov solution is only physical if A is stable; no Routh-Hurwitz analysis or stability region is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Optomechanical Entanglement and Mechanical Squeezing by the Synergistic Effect of Quadratic Optomechanical Coupling and Coherent Feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PLHARKX2

@misc{pith2026251004732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Optomechanical Entanglement and Mechanical Squeezing by the Synergistic Effect of Quadratic Optomechanical Coupling and Coherent Feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PLHARKX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.04732}
}
abstract

In this paper, we investigate how to achieve strong optomechanical entanglement and mechanical squeezing in a membrane-embedded cavity optomechanical system incorporating a coherent feedback loop, where the membrane interacts with the cavity mode through both linear and quadratic optomechanical couplings. This hybrid optomechanical architecture offers a flexible tunability of intrinsic system parameters, thereby enabling controlled stiffening or softening of the mechanical mode through adjusting quadratic optomechanical coupling, as well as effective modulation of the cavity decay rate via feedback control. More importantly, the synergistic interplay effect allows for a strategic reconfiguration of the system's stability regime, which in turn permits the presence of significantly enhanced effective optomechanical coupling strengths before entering the unstable regime. Exploiting these unique features, we showcase that optomechanical entanglement can be substantially enhanced with positive coupling sign and suitable feedback parameters, while strong mechanical squeezing beyond the $3$dB limit is simultaneously achieved over a broad parameter range with negative coupling sign, reaching squeezing degree above $10$dB under optimized conditions. Our proposal, establishing an all-optical method for generating highly entangled or squeezed states in cavity optomechanical systems, opens up a new route to explore macroscopic quantum effects and to advance quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.04732 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of a membrane-embedded COM sys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The influence of QOC and coherent feedback on system pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Enhancement of optomechanical entanglement via the synergistic effect of QOC and coherent feedback. (a,b) The logarithmic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Enhancement of mechanical squeezing via the synergistic effect of QOC and coherent feedback. The mechanical quadrature squeezing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Optomechanical systems with a Fano membrane in the middle

    physics.optics 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A Fano membrane in the middle of a Fabry-Pérot cavity creates narrow hybrid optical modes that enable ground-state sideband cooling despite an unresolved bare cavity linewidth.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

  2. [2]

    U. L. Andersen, T. Gehring, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, 30 years of squeezed light generation, Phys. Scr.91, 053001 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn, Quantum technology: the second quantum revolution, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A361, 1655 (2003)

    2003

  4. [4]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    U. L. Andersen, G. Leuchs, and C. Silberhorn, Continuous- variable quantum information processing, Laser & Photon. Rev. 4, 337 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V . Vedral, The classical-quantum boundary for correlations: Discord and re- lated measures, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1655 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Y . Xia, A. R. R. Agrawal, C. M. M. Pluchar, A. J. J. Brady, Z. Liu, Q. Zhuang, D. J. J. Wilson, and Z. Zhang, Entanglement-enhanced optomechanical sensing, Nat. Photon. 17, 470 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Q.-Y . He, L. Rosales-Z ´arate, G. Adesso, and M. D. Reid, Se- cure Continuous Variable Teleportation and Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen Steering, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 180502 (2015)

    2015

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, H.-O

    X. Zhang, H.-O. Li, G. Cao, M. Xiao, G.-C. Guo, and G.-P. Guo, Semiconductor quantum computation, Natl. Sci. Rev.6, 32 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Wang, L.-K

    X.-L. Wang, L.-K. Chen, W. Li, H.-L. Huang, C. Liu, C. Chen, Y .-H. Luo, Z.-E. Su, D. Wu, Z.-D. Li, H. Lu, Y . Hu, X. Jiang, C.-Z. Peng, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, Y .-A. Chen, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental Ten-Photon Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 210502 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    H.-N. Dai, B. Yang, A. Reingruber, X.-F. Xu, X. Jiang, Y .-A. Chen, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Generation and detection of atomic spin entanglement in optical lattices, Nat. Phys.12, 783 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    X.-Y . Luo, Y . Yu, J.-L. Liu, M.-Y . Zheng, C.-Y . Wang, B. Wang, J. Li, X. Jiang, X.-P. Xie, Q. Zhang, X.-H. Bao, and J.-W. Pan, Postselected Entanglement between Two Atomic Ensem- bles Separated by 12.5 km, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 050503 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Phys. Rep.509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Est `eve, C

    J. Est `eve, C. Gross, A. Weller, S. Giovanazzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Squeezing and entanglement in a Bose-Einstein condensate, Nature (London)455, 1216 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    T. P. Purdy, P.-L. Yu, R. W. Peterson, N. S. Kampel, and C. A. Regal, Strong Optomechanical Squeezing of Light, Phys. Rev. X3, 031012 (2013). 9

    2013

  8. [16]

    Wang and A

    Y .-D. Wang and A. A. Clerk, Reservoir-Engineered Entangle- ment in Optomechanical Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 253601 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Jiao, Y .-L

    Y .-F. Jiao, Y .-L. Zuo, Y . Wang, W. Lu, J.-Q. Liao, L.-M. Kuang, and H. Jing, Tripartite Quantum Entanglement with Squeezed Optomechanics, Laser & Photon. Rev.18, 2301154

  10. [18]

    Y .-F. Jiao, J. Wang, D.-Y . Wang, L. Tang, Y . Wang, Y .-L. Zuo, W.-S. Bao, L.-M. Kuang, and H. Jing, Phase-selective tripartite entanglement and asymmetric Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steer- ing in squeezed optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A112, 012421 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Lai, J.-Q

    D.-G. Lai, J.-Q. Liao, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Noise- Tolerant Optomechanical Entanglement via Synthetic Mag- netism, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 063602 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Liu, Y .-F

    J.-X. Liu, Y .-F. Jiao, Y . Li, X.-W. Xu, Q.-Y . He, and H. Jing, Phase-Controlled Asymmetric Optomechanical Entanglement against Optical Backscattering, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 230312 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Liu, J.-Y

    J.-X. Liu, J.-Y . Yang, T.-X. Lu, Y .-F. Jiao, and H. Jing, Phase- controlled robust quantum entanglement of remote mechanical oscillators, Phys. Rev. A109, 023519 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Lai, Y .-H

    D.-G. Lai, Y .-H. Chen, W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Tripartite optomechanical entanglement via optical-dark-mode control, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033112 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Huang, D.-G

    J. Huang, D.-G. Lai, and J.-Q. Liao, Thermal-noise-resistant optomechanical entanglement via general dark-mode control, Phys. Rev. A106, 063506 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Riste, M

    D. Riste, M. Dukalski, C. A. Watson, G. de Lange, M. J. Tiggel- man, Y . M. Blanter, K. W. Lehnert, R. N. Schouten, and L. Di- Carlo, Deterministic entanglement of superconducting qubits by parity measurement and feedback, Nature (London)502, 350 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    J. Li, G. Li, S. Zippilli, D. Vitali, and T. Zhang, Enhanced en- tanglement of two different mechanical resonators via coherent feedback, Phys. Rev. A95, 043819 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    D. Miki, N. Matsumoto, A. Matsumura, T. Shichijo, Y . Sugiyama, K. Yamamoto, and N. Yamamoto, Generating quantum entanglement between macroscopic objects with con- tinuous measurement and feedback control, Phys. Rev. A107, 032410 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    M. Ho, E. Oudot, J.-D. Bancal, and N. Sangouard, Witnessing Optomechanical Entanglement with Photon Counting, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 023602 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Wang, X.-Y

    M. Wang, X.-Y . L¨u, Y .-D. Wang, J. Q. You, and Y . Wu, Macro- scopic Quantum Entanglement in Modulated Optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A94, 053807 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Hu, L.-T

    C.-S. Hu, L.-T. Shen, Z.-B. Yang, H. Wu, Y . Li, and S.-B. Zheng, Manifestation of Classical Nonlinear Dynamics in Op- tomechanical Entanglement with a Parametric Amplifier, Phys. Rev. A100, 043824 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Yang, T.-X

    J. Yang, T.-X. Lu, M. Peng, J. Liu, Y .-F. Jiao, and H. Jing, Multi-field-driven optomechanical entanglement, Opt. Express 32, 785 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Jiao, S.-D

    Y .-F. Jiao, S.-D. Zhang, Y .-L. Zhang, A. Miranowicz, L.-M. Kuang, and H. Jing, Nonreciprocal Optomechanical Entan- glement against Backscattering Losses, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 143605 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Jiao, J.-X

    Y .-F. Jiao, J.-X. Liu, Y . Li, R. Yang, L.-M. Kuang, and H. Jing, Nonreciprocal Enhancement of Remote Entanglement between Nonidentical Mechanical Oscillators, Phys. Rev. Applied18, 064008 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Y .-F. Jiao, J. Wang, Q. Zhang, H. Lin, and H. Jing, Nonreciprocal quantum optics: New effects and ap- plications in quantum sensing, Fundamental Research https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2024.12.018 (2025)

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Mari and J

    A. Mari and J. Eisert, Gently Modulating Optomechanical Sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 213603 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Han, D.-Y

    X. Han, D.-Y . Wang, C.-H. Bai, W.-X. Cui, S. Zhang, and H.- F. Wang, Mechanical squeezing beyond resolved sideband and weak-coupling limits with frequency modulation, Phys. Rev. A 100, 033812 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    F. Yang, M. Fu, B. Bosnjak, R. H. Blick, Y . Jiang, and E. Scheer, Mechanically Modulated Sideband and Squeezing Effects of Membrane Resonators, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 184301 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    L¨u, J.-Q

    X.-Y . L¨u, J.-Q. Liao, L. Tian, and F. Nori, Steady-state mechan- ical squeezing in an optomechanical system via Duffing nonlin- earity, Phys. Rev. A91, 013834 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Huang and A

    S. Huang and A. Chen, Mechanical squeezing in a dissipative optomechanical system with two driving tones, Phys. Rev. A 103, 023501 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Ruskov, K

    R. Ruskov, K. Schwab, and A. N. Korotkov, Squeezing of a nanomechanical resonator by quantum nondemolition measure- ment and feedback, Phys. Rev. B71, 235407 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Szorkovszky, A

    A. Szorkovszky, A. C. Doherty, G. I. Harris, and W. P. Bowen, Mechanical Squeezing via Parametric Amplification and Weak Measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 213603 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Szorkovszky, G

    A. Szorkovszky, G. A. Brawley, A. C. Doherty, and W. P. Bowen, Strong thermomechanical squeezing via weak mea- surement, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 184301 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Huang, D.-G

    J. Huang, D.-G. Lai, and J.-Q. Liao, Controllable generation of mechanical quadrature squeezing via dark-mode engineering in cavity optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A108, 013516 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Zhang, Y .-X

    J. Zhang, Y .-X. Liu, and F. Nori, Cooling and squeezing the fluctuations of a nanomechanical beam by indirect quantum feedback control, Phys. Rev. A79, 052102 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Vinante and P

    A. Vinante and P. Falferi, Feedback-Enhanced Parametric Squeezing of Mechanical Motion, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 207203 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    P. Rabl, A. Shnirman, and P. Zoller, Generation of squeezed states of nanomechanical resonators by reservoir engineering, Phys. Rev. B70, 205304 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    M. J. Woolley and A. A. Clerk, Two-mode squeezed states in cavity optomechanics via engineering of a single reservoir, Phys. Rev. A89, 063805 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Bai and J.-H

    S.-Y . Bai and J.-H. An, Generating Stable Spin Squeezing by Squeezed-Reservoir Engineering, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 083602 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity op- tomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Rocheleau, T

    T. Rocheleau, T. Ndukum, C. Macklin, J. Hertzberg, A. Clerk, and K. Schwab, Preparation and detection of a mechanical res- onator near the ground state of motion, Nature (London)463, 72 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    A. D. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Wei- des, J. Wenner, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Quantum ground state and single-phonon control of a mechanical res- onator, Nature (London)464, 697 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    L. Du, J. Monsel, W. Wieczorek, and J. Splettstoesser, Coher- ent feedback control for cavity optomechanical systems with a frequency-dependent mirror, Phys. Rev. A111, 013506 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Xiong, L.-G

    H. Xiong, L.-G. Si, X.-Y . L¨u, X.-X. Yang, and Y . Wu, Review of cavity optomechanics in the weak-coupling regime: from lin- earization to intrinsic nonlinear interactions, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.58, 1 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Rabl, Photon Blockade Effect in Optomechanical Systems, Phys

    P. Rabl, Photon Blockade Effect in Optomechanical Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 063601 (2011). 10

    2011

  46. [54]

    C. Zhai, R. Huang, H. Jing, and L.-M. Kuang, Mechanical switch of photon blockade and photon-induced tunneling, Opt. Express27, 27649 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Xie, C.-G

    H. Xie, C.-G. Liao, X. Shang, M.-Y . Ye, and X.-M. Lin, Phonon blockade in a quadratically coupled optomechanical system, Phys. Rev. A96, 013861 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Zheng, T.-S

    L.-L. Zheng, T.-S. Yin, Q. Bin, X.-Y . L ¨u, and Y . Wu, Single-photon-induced phonon blockade in a hybrid spin- optomechanical system, Phys. Rev. A99, 013804 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    L¨u, L.-L

    X.-Y . L¨u, L.-L. Zheng, G.-L. Zhu, and Y . Wu, Single-Photon- Triggered Quantum Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. Applied9, 064006 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Zhu, X.-Y

    G.-L. Zhu, X.-Y . L ¨u, L.-L. Zheng, Z.-M. Zhan, F. Nori, and Y . Wu, Single-photon-triggered quantum chaos, Phys. Rev. A 100, 023825 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Quantum State Transfer and Entanglement Distribution among Distant Nodes in a Quantum Network, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 3221 (1997)

    1997

  52. [60]

    T. A. Palomaki, J. W. Harlow, J. D. Teufel, R. W. Simmonds, and K. W. Lehnert, Coherent state transfer between itinerant microwave fields and a mechanical oscillator, Nature (London) 495, 210 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    Marinkovi ´c, A

    I. Marinkovi ´c, A. Wallucks, R. Riedinger, S. Hong, M. As- pelmeyer, and S. Gr ¨oblacher, Optomechanical Bell Test, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 220404 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    H. Yu, L. McCuller, M. Tse, N. Kijbunchoo, L. Barsotti, N. Mavalvala, and L. S. Collaboration, Quantum correlations between light and the kilogram-mass mirrors of LIGO, Nature (London)583, 43 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Vitali, S

    D. Vitali, S. Gigan, A. Ferreira, H. R. B ¨ohm, P. Tombesi, A. Guerreiro, V . Vedral, A. Zeilinger, and M. Aspelmeyer, Op- tomechanical Entanglement between a Movable Mirror and a Cavity Field, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 030405 (2007)

    2007

  56. [64]

    Genes, A

    C. Genes, A. Mari, P. Tombesi, and D. Vitali, Robust Entan- glement of a Micromechanical Resonator with Output Optical Fields, Phys. Rev. A78, 032316 (2008)

    2008

  57. [65]

    Ghobadi, S

    R. Ghobadi, S. Kumar, B. Pepper, D. Bouwmeester, A. I. Lvovsky, and C. Simon, Optomechanical Micro-Macro Entan- glement, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 080503 (2014)

    2014

  58. [66]

    E. E. Wollman, C. U. Lei, A. J. Weinstein, J. Suh, A. Kron- wald, F. Marquardt, A. A. Clerk, and K. C. Schwab, Quantum squeezing of motion in a mechanical resonator, Science349, 952 (2015)

    2015

  59. [67]

    G. S. Agarwal and S. Huang, Strong mechanical squeezing and its detection, Phys. Rev. A93, 043844 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Marti, U

    S. Marti, U. von Lupke, O. Joshi, Y . Yang, M. Bild, A. Oma- hen, Y . Chu, and M. Fadel, Quantum squeezing in a nonlinear mechanical oscillator, Nat. Phys.20, 1448 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    Riedinger, S

    R. Riedinger, S. Hong, R. A. Norte, J. A. Slater, J. Shang, A. G. Krause, V . Anant, M. Aspelmeyer, and S. Gr ¨oblacher, Non- classical correlations between single photons and phonons from a mechanical oscillator, Nature (London)530, 313 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    T. A. Palomaki, J. D. Teufel, R. W. Simmonds, and K. W. Lehn- ert, Entangling Mechanical Motion with Microwave Fields, Sci- ence342, 710 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    J. Chen, M. Rossi, D. Mason, and A. Schliesser, Entanglement of propagating optical modes via a mechanical interface, Nat. Commun.11, 943 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    Barzanjeh, E

    S. Barzanjeh, E. S. Redchenko, M. Peruzzo, M. Wulf, D. P. Lewis, G. Arnold, and J. M. Fink, Stationary entangled radia- tion from micromechanical motion, Nature (London)570, 480 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damsk ¨agg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, M. Asjad, A. A. Clerk, F. Massel, M. J. Woolley, and M. A. Sillanp¨a¨a, Stabilized entanglement of massive mechanical os- cillators, Nature (London)556, 478 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Kotler, G

    S. Kotler, G. A. Peterson, E. Shojaee, F. Lecocq, K. Cicak, A. Kwiatkowski, S. Geller, S. Glancy, E. Knill, R. W. Sim- monds, J. Aumentado, and J. D. Teufel, Direct observation of deterministic macroscopic entanglement, Science372, 622 (2021)

    2021

  67. [75]

    Mercier de L ´epinay, C

    L. Mercier de L ´epinay, C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, M. J. Woolley, and M. A. Sillanp¨a¨a, Quantum mechanics–free subsystem with mechanical oscillators, Science372, 625 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    Riedinger, A

    R. Riedinger, A. Wallucks, I. Marinkovi ´c, C. L ¨oschnauer, M. Aspelmeyer, S. Hong, and S. Gr ¨oblacher, Remote quantum entanglement between two micromechanical oscillators, Nature (London)556, 473 (2018)

    2018

  69. [77]

    Dassonneville, R

    R. Dassonneville, R. Assouly, T. Peronnin, A. Clerk, A. Bien- fait, and B. Huard, Dissipative Stabilization of Squeezing Be- yond 3 dB in a Microwave Mode, PRX Quantum2, 020323 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Beating the 3 dB Limit for Intracavity Squeezing and Its Application to Nondemolition Qubit Readout, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 123602 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    Kustura, C

    K. Kustura, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, A. d. l. R. Sommer, N. Meyer, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, Mechanical Squeezing via Unstable Dynamics in a Microcavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 143601 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    C. U. Lei, A. J. Weinstein, J. Suh, E. E. Wollman, A. Kronwald, F. Marquardt, A. A. Clerk, and K. C. Schwab, Quantum Non- demolition Measurement of a Quantum Squeezed State Beyond the 3 dB Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 100801 (2016)

    2016

  73. [81]

    W. Jia, V . Xu, K. Kuns, M. Nakano, L. Barsotti, M. Evans, N. Mavalvala, and L. S. Collaboration, Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quan- tum limit, Science385, 1318 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Kamba, N

    M. Kamba, N. Hara, and K. Aikawa, Quantum squeezing of a levitated nanomechanical oscillator, Science389, 1225 (2025)

    2025

  75. [83]

    Zhang and Z

    L. Zhang and Z. Song, Modification on static responses of a nano-oscillator by quadratic optomechanical couplings, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.57, 880 (2014)

    2014

  76. [84]

    Xuereb and M

    A. Xuereb and M. Paternostro, Selectable linear or quadratic coupling in an optomechanical system, Phys. Rev. A87, 023830 (2013)

    2013

  77. [85]

    Zhang and H.-Y

    L. Zhang and H.-Y . Kong, Self-sustained oscillation and har- monic generation in optomechanical systems with quadratic couplings, Phys. Rev. A89, 023847 (2014)

    2014

  78. [86]

    Bhattacharya, H

    M. Bhattacharya, H. Uys, and P. Meystre, Optomechanical trap- ping and cooling of partially reflective mirrors, Phys. Rev. A77, 033819 (2008)

    2008

  79. [87]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise(Springer, Berlin, 2000)

    2000

  80. [88]

    G. S. Agarwal,Quantum optics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013)

    2013

  81. [89]

    Adesso, A

    G. Adesso, A. Serafini, and F. Illuminati, Extremal entangle- ment and mixedness in continuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. A70, 022318 (2004)

    2004

  82. [90]

    Ghorbani, A

    N. Ghorbani, A. Motazedifard, and M. H. Naderi, Effects of quadratic optomechanical coupling on bipartite entanglements, mechanical ground-state cooling, and mechanical quadrature squeezing in an electro-optomechanical system, Phys. Rev. A 111, 013524 (2025)

    2025

  83. [91]

    Zhang, Y

    R. Zhang, Y . Fang, Y .-Y . Wang, S. Chesi, and Y .-D. Wang, Strong mechanical squeezing in an unresolved-sideband op- tomechanical system, Phys. Rev. A99, 043805 (2019)

    2019

  84. [92]

    Yu, Y .-F

    H.-Y . Yu, Y .-F. Jiao, J. Wang, F. Li, B. Yin, T. Jiang, Q.-R. Liu, H. Jing, and K. Wei, Strong Molecule-Light Entanglement with 11 Molecular Cavity Optomechanics, arXiv:2505.21227

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.