Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Exact non-Markovian dynamics of N atoms in a lossy cavity shows that cooperative emission switches from a superradiant N^2 burst to subquadratic scaling (~N^1.5) as cavity memory grows, with spontaneous reabsorption of the emitted field.

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

2026-08-03 11:29 UTC pith:GJCHZ5S4

load-bearing objection Solid exact two-atom result and a clean numerical method; the headline 1.5 exponent and monotonic lambda_crit are extrapolations that need tightening before the central scaling claim is banked. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.05989 v3 pith:GJCHZ5S4 submitted 2026-01-09 quant-ph

From Superradiance to Superabsorption: An Exact Treatment of Non-Markovian Cooperative Radiation

Ignacio Gonz\'alez , \'Angel Rivas This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81V8081S22 PACS 42.50.Nn03.65.Yz
keywords superradiancesuperabsorptionnon-Markovian dynamicsTavis-Cummings modelLorentzian cavitypseudomode methodcollective emissionopen quantum systems
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.

This paper tracks exactly how N initially excited two-level atoms in a lossy cavity radiate when the standard Markovian and mean-field approximations are dropped. It claims that the dynamics splits into three regimes depending on the cavity spectral width: a Markovian superradiant burst, a critical pulsed regime, and a non-Markovian regime in which atoms reabsorb part of the emitted field—spontaneous superabsorption. The paper further claims that the critical width separating these regimes grows monotonically with N, so that adding more atoms can push a system into the memory-dominated regime. Finally, it claims that the iconic quadratic scaling of the superradiant peak degrades with system size, approaching a subquadratic law (about N^1.5) in the perfect-cavity limit. This matters because it suggests that superradiance's cooperative enhancement is self-limiting, and that non-Markovian memory can be harnessed for collective absorption without external driving.

Core claim

For N two-level atoms coupled to a Lorentzian cavity, the exact radiated intensity I(t) = -ω0 d⟨n⟩/dt reveals three spectral-width regimes separated by a critical width λcrit: for λ > λcrit the emission is a single delayed superradiant burst; at λ = λcrit the emission is pulsed, halting and resuming at finite times; for λ < λcrit the intensity becomes negative at intervals, signaling reabsorption of previously emitted photons. The authors derive a complete analytical solution for N = 2, giving the exact non-Markovian master equation and showing that at least one canonical decay rate is negative at all times—eternal non-Markovianity. For larger N they use a numerically exact method up to N =

What carries the argument

The central object is the radiated intensity I(t) and its local scaling exponent ν_m, defined through log-ratios of peak intensities at successive atom numbers. The computational machinery is the pseudomode method: the Lorentzian reservoir is replaced by a single damped bosonic mode, reducing the problem to a Tavis-Cummings-type master equation. A weak symmetry—conservation of total excitation number—block-diagonalizes the density matrix, cutting the cost to O(N^3) and enabling numerically exact results up to 10^3 emitters. For N = 2, a closed-form solution of the coupled integro-differential equations in the thermodynamic limit yields the exact master equation with three jump operators; its

Load-bearing premise

The claimed subquadratic scaling law rests on the assumption that local exponents computed at finite N (up to 1000) have already converged to their N→∞ values, and the monotonic growth of the critical width is inferred from numerical data only up to N = 100, with no rigorous error bound or proof of the infinite-N limit.

What would settle it

Compute the local scaling exponent ν_m for N beyond 1000 (e.g., 2000, 5000) using the same exact method: if the exponent does not approach 1.5 as N grows, or rises back toward 2, the perfect-cavity subquadratic claim fails. Separately, compute λcrit for N > 100; if it does not increase monotonically, the claimed cooperative enhancement of memory is incorrect.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • For fixed cavity parameters, increasing the number of atoms can move a system from the Markovian superradiant regime into the non-Markovian reabsorption regime, since the critical spectral width grows with N.
  • The standard I_max ∝ N^2 superradiant scaling is not an asymptotic law for large N in a lossy cavity; it degrades toward roughly N^1.5 in the perfect-cavity limit.
  • Spontaneous superabsorption—reabsorption without external driving—emerges naturally in the non-Markovian regime and its peak magnitude scales superlinearly with N.
  • The exact N = 2 solution provides an analytic benchmark for non-Markovian multipartite open quantum systems, including the first exact demonstration of eternal non-Markovianity in a two-qubit model.
  • Because the critical spectral width depends on N, engineering Markovian emission by tuning cavity parameters alone is insufficient; the atom number must be accounted for.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the N^1.5 asymptotic holds, it places a practical ceiling on cavity-based superradiant sources that rely on quadratic enhancement, suggesting that high-finesse cavities may be better suited for energy storage or coherent reabsorption than for maximum radiated power.
  • The monotonic λcrit(N) trend implies a cooperative enhancement of environmental memory that could be tested experimentally by fixing λ and measuring the onset of intensity revivals as the atom number is increased.
  • The same pseudomode-plus-symmetry approach could be extended to other structured reservoirs—such as photonic band gaps or multi-mode cavities—where one might observe a similar critical width and a possibly different asymptotic exponent.
  • The local-exponent method used here could be applied directly to finite-N experimental intensity data to estimate the asymptotic scaling without needing extremely large ensembles.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the spontaneous emission of N two-level atoms coupled to a common Lorentzian reservoir, going beyond Markovian and mean-field treatments. It presents an analytical solution for N=2 from the microscopic Schrödinger equation, yielding an exact non-Markovian master equation with jump operators between Dicke states and a regime of eternal non-Markovianity. For larger N, the authors map the Lorentzian reservoir to a damped pseudomode and exploit a weak symmetry to integrate the resulting Tavis–Cummings-type master equation exactly up to N=10^3. They identify three dynamical regimes (Markovian superradiant burst, critical pulsed emission, non-Markovian reabsorption/spontaneous superabsorption), report that the critical spectral width λ_crit separating these regimes increases with N, and claim that the peak-intensity scaling degrades from quadratic toward a subquadratic law, approaching the Tavis–Cummings exponent 1.5 in the perfect-cavity limit. The maximum reabsorbed intensity is also found to scale superlinearly, which the authors call spontaneous superabsorption.

Significance. If the main claims hold, this is a valuable contribution to non-Markovian collective radiation. The N=2 exact solution is a rare analytical result beyond single-excitation problems, and the pseudomode approach with weak-symmetry reduction enables exact treatment of systems far larger than is typical for non-Markovian dynamics. The predicted degradation of superradiant scaling and the emergence of spontaneous superabsorption are falsifiable and could stimulate experimental work. The paper's strengths include a self-contained derivation for N=2, a standard and well-founded pseudomode mapping, and a clear numerical method with explicit complexity statements. However, two asymptotic claims—the 1.5 power law and the monotonicity of λ_crit—are supported only by finite-N extrapolations without convergence certificates; these claims are central to the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (28), Fig. 7] The claim that the peak intensity approaches a subquadratic law with exponent ν ≈ 1.5 in the Tavis–Cummings limit rests entirely on the local logarithmic slopes ν_m computed for N up to 1000. No error bar, convergence certificate, or analytic bound is given for the N→∞ limit. Since the λ=0 Tavis–Cummings model is exactly solvable by diagonalizing an (N+1)×(N+1) matrix in the Dicke basis, the authors should verify the 1.5 exponent to much larger N (e.g., N=10^4–10^5) or provide an analytic estimate. Without this, the abstract's 'approaching a subquadratic law' is an extrapolation, not a demonstrated result.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 4.1, Fig. 5 (right)] The abstract states unconditionally that λ_crit 'increases monotonically with the number of emitters', but Sec. 4.1 explicitly qualifies this as 'at least as far as the numerical data shows' and the scan only reaches N=100. A monotonicity claim that is load-bearing for the memory-enhancement-by-cooperativity conclusion should either be proven for all N (e.g., by an analytic argument or by extending the numerical scan) or be softened in the abstract to 'increases over the range studied'.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.32)] The factorization Ξ_TL(t,t') = e^{-λt}ξ(t') is derived after 'assuming that this limit can be interchanged with time derivatives and integrals'. This interchange is a technical assumption that underpins the entire N=2 analytical solution. The manuscript should justify when this is valid for a Lorentzian reservoir (e.g., by dominated convergence or by directly verifying the resulting equations), or at least state explicitly the mathematical conditions. As written, the derivation is self-consistent but relies on an unproven regularity assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (28) / Fig. 7 caption] The definition of ν_m uses N_m and N_{m+1}, but the caption says each point is placed above N_m with N_{m+1} the next data point. For the final point N_m=1000, N_{m+1}=1001, so the quoted local exponent uses a very close pair; this should be stated explicitly to avoid overinterpreting the last data point.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (29)] The derivation of τ_R = 2/(Nγ_M) from the superoperator trace is terse. A brief explanation of how Tr(D) is computed (e.g., in the Dicke basis) would help readers verify the effective √N coupling scaling.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.44)] There is a minor inconsistency in sign conventions between Eq. (A.44) and the subsequent Laplace transform expressions; checking and harmonizing the notation would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 8] The text uses '|mintI|' in the figure caption while the body uses '|min_t I(t)|'. Please unify notation.
  5. [References] The paper cites related work on non-Markovian superradiance and pseudomode methods, but does not mention available exact results for the Tavis–Cummings model's photon-emission statistics. A short comparison with known Tavis–Cummings exact solutions would contextualize the 1.5 exponent claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction: the central derivation is self-contained; the only self-citation is background and the 1.5 exponent is a finite-size extrapolation, not a fitted input.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central results are not reductions to their own inputs. The N=2 exact solution follows from the microscopic Schrödinger equation for the system-plus-reservoir state (A.2), the thermodynamic-limit bath correlation function (A.7), and Laplace-transform manipulations, with no fitted coefficients entering the final master equation (A.60)-(A.65). The pseudomode mapping (24)-(25) is taken from standard external references [38,51-54], the Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian from [55,56], and the weak-symmetry block decomposition is a standard superoperator symmetry argument, not an author-specific uniqueness claim. The only self-citation, [36], appears in Sec. 2 and Sec. 3 as background for the common-phase assumption and single-excitation results ('we can neglect any retardation effect and assume that all atoms see the same phase for the electromagnetic cavity field [8,9,36]'; 'partial results are known by restricting the dynamics to the single-excitation subspace (see e.g. [36,39,40])'). It is not load-bearing for the many-body scaling law or the monotonicity claim. The quantities λ_crit and the local exponent ν_m (Eq. 28) are computed from the numerically integrated intensity, not imposed or fitted; the classification of a profile as 'non-Markovian' by the presence of negative intensity is explicitly noted by the authors as a proxy rather than a proof of Markovianity. The subquadratic 1.5 scaling in the Tavis-Cummings limit is an extrapolation from maxima up to N=10^3 with no convergence certificate, and the authors themselves hedge monotonicity with 'at least as far as the numerical data shows' (Sec. 4.1). That is a rigor gap about extrapolation, not a circular step: no equation is equivalent by construction to the claim it is said to predict.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model has no fitted constants: γ0 and λ are physical environment parameters, and γ0=0.001ω0 in the plots is an illustrative choice, not a fit. The central derivations are self-contained. 'Spontaneous superabsorption' names a dynamical phenomenon, not a new physical entity, and the pseudomode is a standard auxiliary representation.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Lorentzian spectral density J(ω)=(1/2π) γ0² λ/((ω-ω0)²+λ²) and exponential bath correlation f(t)=γ0²/2 e^{-λ|t|}, obtained by extending the frequency integral over the full real line (Eq. A.7).
    All analytic and pseudomode results depend on this memory kernel; any deviation from Lorentzian shape or narrow-band validity changes the dynamics.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation and common-phase Dicke coupling H_I = g(J_- a† e^{-iΔt} + h.c.) valid when all atoms see the same field phase and do not interact directly (Sec. II).
    The entire Dicke-basis and collective J_± construction assumes zero retardation and equal coupling; relaxation of this assumption changes the model substantially.
  • standard math The pseudomode replacement of the continuum reservoir by a single damped bosonic mode is exact for the Lorentzian environment (Eqs. 24-25).
    This is an established exact mapping for Lorentzian spectral densities, cited to [38,51-54]; it is not author-specific.
  • standard math The weak symmetry V=e^{i(hat n + b†b)} reduces the dynamics to the M=N sector, making the integrated dimension finite and equal to (N+1)(N+2)/2 (Sec. IV).
    Symmetry block decomposition of Lindblad master equations is standard; the initial all-excited state lies in the M=N sector.
  • ad hoc to paper In Appendix A, the thermodynamic limit can be interchanged with time derivatives and integrals, leading to the factorization Ξ_TL(t,t')=e^{-λt}ξ(t') (Eq. A.32).
    The paper explicitly assumes this interchange ('assuming that this limit can be interchanged') without a rigorous proof; it is essential to the N=2 analytical solution.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21552 in / 18252 out tokens · 197702 ms · 2026-08-03T11:29:32.050863+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Superradiance to Superabsorption: An Exact Treatment of Non-Markovian Cooperative Radiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJCHZ5S4

@misc{pith2026260105989,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Superradiance to Superabsorption: An Exact Treatment of Non-Markovian Cooperative Radiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJCHZ5S4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.05989}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We investigate the emergence of cooperative radiation phenomena in ensembles of two-level atoms coupled to a lossy resonant cavity beyond the Markovian and mean-field approximations. By deriving a complete analytical solution for the two-emitter case and employing a numerically exact method for larger ensembles, we characterize the full transition from Markovian to non-Markovian collective dynamics for systems of up to $10^3$ emitters. Our results reveal three distinct regimes: a Markovian phase exhibiting the standard superradiant burst, a non-Markovian phase featuring spontaneous superabsorption of the emitted field, and a critical regime marked by pulsed collective emission. We show that the critical spectral width separating these behaviors increases monotonically with the number of emitters, demonstrating that environmental memory effects can be enhanced by cooperativity. Finally, we find that the superradiant scaling of the peak intensity progressively degrades with increasing system size, approaching a subquadratic law in the limit of a perfect cavity. In this regime, spontaneous superabsorption emerges as a distinct manifestation of non-Markovian cooperativity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.05989 by \'Angel Rivas, Ignacio Gonz\'alez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visual representation of the physical model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Decay rate (left) and radiated intensity (right) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: From left to right: canonical decay rates for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Decay rates γ˜m(t) (non-canonical) for jump oper￾ators L˜m given by powers of J±. We see that γ˜1 remains positive for all t (left), leading to one-step decays throughout the Dicke state hierarchy (right, black arrows). The remain￾ing decay rates, associated with higher-order powers of J±, can be positive or negative depending on time, effectively re￾sulting in lowering (solid arrows) and raising (dashed a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radiated intensity (N = 50) for λ below, above and equal to the critical value λcrit (left), and λcrit/γ0 as a function of N (right). For λ > λcrit (green line) a single burst is observed. For λ < λcrit (blue line) there are times at which I < 0, indicating reabsorption of excitations by the atoms. At λ = λcrit (red line) pulsed emission without reabsorptions is observed. The value of λcrit increases monot… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Maximum reabsorbed intensity as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Constructing mode-resolved quantum optical models for emitters in photonic crystals

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    A symmetry-constrained method builds minimal photonic lattice models that preserve full position- and polarization-dependent emitter couplings and reproduce macroscopic QED at weak coupling.

  2. Constructing mode-resolved quantum optical models for emitters in photonic crystals

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5

    A constructive method combines symmetry-constrained tight-binding models with numerical photonic bands and fields to produce mode-resolved quantum-optical lattice Hamiltonians for emitters in photonic crystals.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. H. Dicke,Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  2. [2]

    G. S. Agarwal,Master-equation approach to spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. A2, 2038 (1970)

    2038

  3. [3]

    N. E. Rehler and J. H. Eberly,Superradiance, Phys. Rev. A3, 1735 (1971)

    1971

  4. [4]

    Bonifacio, P

    R. Bonifacio, P. Schwendimann, and F. Haake, Quantum Statistical Theory of Superradiance. I, Phys. Rev. A4, 302 (1971)

    1971

  5. [5]

    Bonifacio, P

    R. Bonifacio, P. Schwendimann, and F. Haake, Quantum Statistical Theory of Superradiance. II, Phys. Rev. A4, 854 (1971)

    1971

  6. [6]

    J. H. Eberly,Superradiance revisited, Am. J. Phys.40, 1374 (1972)

    1972

  7. [7]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche,Superradiance: An es- say on the theory of collective spontaneous emis- sion, Phys. Rep.93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf,Optical Coher- ence and Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139644105

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139644105 1995

  9. [9]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 2002), DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001

    arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    Skribanowitz, I

    N. Skribanowitz, I. P. Herman, J. C. MacGillivray, and M. S. Feld,Observation of Dicke Superradiance in Optically Pumped HF Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 309 (1973)

    1973

  11. [11]

    Gross, C

    M. Gross, C. Fabre, P. Pillet, and S. Haroche, Observation of Near-Infrared Dicke Superra- diance on Cascading Transitions in Atomic Sodium, Phys. Rev. Lett.36, 1035 (1976)

    1976

  12. [12]

    Pavolini, A

    D. Pavolini, A. Crubellier, P. Pillet, L. Cabaret, and S. Liberman,Experimental Evidence for Sub- radiance, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1917 (1985)

    1917

  13. [13]

    R. G. DeVoe and R. G. Brewer,Observation of Superradiant and Subradiant Spontaneous Emis- sion of Two Trapped Ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 2049 (1996)

    2049

  14. [14]

    Scheibner, T

    M. Scheibner, T. Schmidt, L. Worschech, A. Forchel, G. Bacher, T. Passow, and D. Hommel, Superradiance of quantum dots, Nat. Phys.3, 106 (2007). 14

    2007

  15. [15]

    J. A. Mlynek, A. A. Abdumalikov, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff,Observation of Dicke superradi- ance for two artificial atoms in a cavity with high decay rate, Nat. Commun.5, 5186 (2014)

    2014

  16. [16]

    Solano, P

    P. Solano, P. Barberis-Blostein, F. K. Fatemi, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston,Super-radiance reveals infinite-range dipole interactions through a nanofiber, Nat. Commun.8, 1857 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    J.-H. Kim, S. Aghaeimeibodi, C. J. K. Richard- son, R. P. Leavitt, and E. Waks,Super-radiant emission from quantum dots in a nanophotonic waveguide, Nano Lett.18, 4734 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    L. Chen, P. Wang, Z. Meng, L. Huang, H. Cai, D.-W. Wang, S.-Y. Zhu, and J. Zhang,Experi- mental Observation of One Dimensional Super- radiance Lattices in Ultracold Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 193601 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Z. Yan, J. Ho, Y.-H. Lu, S. J. Masson, A. Asenjo- Garcia, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn,Superradiant and Subradiant Cavity Scattering by Atom Ar- rays, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 253603 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    F. Dinc, I. Ercan and A. M. Bra´ nczyk,Exact Markovian and non-Markovian time dynamics in waveguide QED: collective interactions, bound states in continuum, superradiance and subradi- ance, Quantum3, 213 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Dinc and A

    F. Dinc and A. M. Bra´ nczyk,Non-Markovian super-superradiance in a linear chain of up to 100 qubits, Phys. Rev. Research1, 032042(R) (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Sinha, P

    K. Sinha, P. Meystre, E. A. Goldschmidt, F. K. Fatemi, S. L. Rolston and P. Solano,Non- Markovian Collective Emission from Macroscop- ically Separated Emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 043603 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Q-.Y. Qiu, Y. Wu, and X-.Y. L¨ u,Collective radi- ance of giant atoms in non-Markovian regime, Sci. China: Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 224212 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    R. L. Capurso, G. Calaj´ o, S. Montangero, S. Pascazio, F. V. Pepe, M. Maffei, G. Mag- nifico and P. Facchi,Superradiant decay in non- Markovian Waveguide Quantum Electrodynam- ics(2025), arXiv:2511.22332 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    John and T

    S. John and T. Quang,Collective Switching and Inversion without Fluctuation of Two-Level Atoms in Confined Photonic Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1888 (1997)

    1997

  26. [26]

    Vats and S

    N. Vats and S. John,Non-Markovian quantum fluctuations and superradiance near a photonic band edge, Phys. Rev. A58, 4168 (1998)

    1998

  27. [27]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. I. Cirac,Markovian and non-Markovian dynamics of quantum emit- ters coupled to two-dimensional structured reser- voirs, Phys. Rev. A96, 043811 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. I. Cirac,Quantum Emitters in Two-Dimensional Structured Reser- voirs in the Non-perturbative Regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 143602 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Thanopulos, V

    I. Thanopulos, V. Karanikolas, N. Iliopoulos, and E. Paspalakis,Non-Markovian spontaneous emission dynamics of a quantum emitter near a MoS2 nanodisk, Phys. Rev. B99, 195412 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    S. C. Hou, G. Q. Shuai, X. Y. Zhang, J. Shen, and X. X. Yi,Influence of initial states on mem- ory effects: A study of early-time superradiance, Phys. Rev. A109, 053708 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    De Bernardis, T

    D. De Bernardis, T. Jaako, and P. Rabl,Cavity quantum electrodynamics in the nonperturbative regime, Phys. Rev. A97, 043820 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    J. Q. Quachet al.,Superabsorption in an or- ganic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery, Sci. Adv.8, eabk3160 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Kamimura, H

    S. Kamimura, H. Hakoshima, Y. Matsuzaki, K. Yoshida and Y. Tokura,Quantum-Enhanced Heat Engine Based on Superabsorption, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 180602 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    K. D. Higgins, S. C. Benjamin, T. M. Stace, G. J. Milburn, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger,Super- absorption of light via quantum engineering, Nat. Commun.5, 4705 (2014)

    2014

  35. [35]

    Yang, S.-h

    D. Yang, S.-h. Oh, J. Han, G. Son, J. Kim, J. Kim, M. Lee, K. An,Realization of superabsorp- tion by time reversal of superradiance, Nat. Pho- tonics15, 272–276 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Gonz´ alez and A

    I. Gonz´ alez and A. Rivas,Correlated and crit- ical phenomena in multipartite quantum non- Markovianity, Phys. Rev. A111, L020204 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Rivas and S

    A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga,Open Quantum Systems. An Introduction(Springer, Heidelberg, 2011), DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-23354-8

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23354-8 2011

  38. [38]

    B. M. Garraway,Nonperturbative decay of an atomic system in a cavity, Phys. Rev. A55, 2290 (1997)

    1997

  39. [39]

    Maniscalco, F

    S. Maniscalco, F. Francica, R. L. Zaffino, N. Lo Gullo, and F. Plastina,Protecting Entanglement via the Quantum Zeno Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 090503 (2008)

    2008

  40. [40]

    Chru´ sci´ nski, S

    D. Chru´ sci´ nski, S. Hesabi, and D. Lonigro,On Markovianity and classicality in multilevel spin- boson models, Sci. Rep.13, 1518 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo,Mea- sure for the Degree of Non-Markovian Behavior of Quantum Processes in Open Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 210401 (2009)

    2009

  42. [42]

    Rivas, S

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio,En- tanglement and Non-Markovianity of Quantum Evolutions, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 050403 (2010). 15

    2010

  43. [43]

    Rivas, S

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio,Quan- tum non-Markovianity: Characterization, quan- tification and detection, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 094001 (2014)

    2014

  44. [44]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vac- chini,Colloquium: Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021002 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    L. Li, M. J. W. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman,Con- cepts of quantum non-Markovianity: A hierar- chy, Phys. Rep.759, 1 (2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    M. J. W. Hall, J. D. Cresser, L. Li and E. Andersson,Canonical form of master equations and characterization of non-Markovianity, Phys. Rev. A89, 042120 (2014)

    2014

  47. [47]

    Megier, D

    N. Megier, D. Chru´ sci´ nski, J. Piilo, and W. T. Strunz,Eternal non-Markovianity: from random unitary to Markov chain realisations, Sci. Rep.7, 6379 (2017)

    2017

  48. [48]

    A. A. Budini and J. P. Garrahan,Solvable class of non-Markovian quantum multipartite dynam- ics, Phys. Rev. A104, 032206 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    Amati,Dynamical signatures of non- Markovianity in a dissipative-driven qubit, Phys

    G. Amati,Dynamical signatures of non- Markovianity in a dissipative-driven qubit, Phys. Rev. A109, 052433 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Gul´ acsi and G

    B. Gul´ acsi and G. Burkard,Signatures of non- Markovianity of a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. B107, 174511 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Mazzola, S

    L. Mazzola, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, K.-A. Suomi- nen, and B. M. Garraway,Sudden death and sud- den birth of entanglement in common structured reservoirs, Phys. Rev. A79, 042302 (2009)

    2009

  52. [52]

    Tamascelli, A

    D. Tamascelli, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio,Nonperturbative Treatment of non- Markovian Dynamics of Open Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 030402 (2018)

    2018

  53. [53]

    Lambert, S

    N. Lambert, S. Ahmed, M. Cirio, and F. Nori, Modelling the ultra-strongly coupled spin-boson model with unphysical modes, Nat. Commun.10, 3721 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    Pleasance, B

    G. Pleasance, B. M. Garraway, and F. Petruc- cione,Generalized theory of pseudomodes for ex- act descriptions of non-Markovian quantum pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. Research2, 043058 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    Tavis and F

    M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings,Exact Solu- tion for anN-Molecule—Radiation-Field Hamil- tonian, Phys. Rev.170, 379 (1968)

    1968

  56. [56]

    Larson and T

    J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos,The Jaynes– Cummings Model and its Descendants, 2nd ed. (IOP Publishing, Bristol, 2024), DOI: 10.1088/978-0-7503-6452-2

    work page doi:10.1088/978-0-7503-6452-2 2024

  57. [57]

    Buˇ ca and T

    B. Buˇ ca and T. Prosen,A note on symmetry re- ductions of the Lindblad equation: transport in constrained open spin chains, New J. Phys.14, 073007 (2012)

    2012

  58. [58]

    Z.-X. Gong, M. Xu, M. Foss-Feig, J. K. Thomp- son, A. M. Rey, M. Holland, and A. V. Gorshkov, Steady-state superradiance with Rydberg polari- tons(2016), arXiv:1611.00797 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Freter, P

    L. Freter, P. Fowler-Wright, J. Cuerda, B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling and P. T¨ orm¨ a,Theory of dynamical superradiance in organic materials, Nanophotonics14, 5323 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    M¨ uller and W

    K. M¨ uller and W. Strunz,Genuine Quantum ef- fects in Dicke-type Models at large atom numbers, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 123602 (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Fazio, J

    R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schir` o, Many-Body Open Quantum Systems, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes99(2025). 16

    2025