Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Benchmarking quantum phase-space methods for near-resonant light propagation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The truncated Wigner approximation systematically deviates from positive-P simulations when the atom–light interaction strengthens and when optical reservoir noise becomes significant, defining a practical validity window for the cheaper me

desk verdict Useful derivation of a Jordan-Schwinger-based PPR and a TWA comparison, but the central claim that TWA fails is only a claim about disagreement with an unvalidated PPR reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.17660 v3 pith:47YFWKJR submitted 2026-02-19 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Mojdeh S. Najafabadi , Joel F. Corney , Luis Sanchez Soto , Gerd Leuchs This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords truncatedWignerapproximationpositivePrepresentationJordan-Schwingermappingnear-resonantlightpropagationquadraturesqueezingopticalreservoirnoisestochasticdifferentialequationsphase-spacebenchmarking
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

This paper tries to establish when the numerically cheap truncated Wigner approximation (TWA) can replace the more expensive positive-P phase-space method in simulations of near-resonant light propagating through a two-level atomic medium. Using a Jordan–Schwinger mapping to put atoms into bosonic form, the authors derive matching stochastic equations for both methods and compare their predictions for quadrature squeezing of the transmitted pulse. They find that at moderate atomic densities and without a reservoir all methods agree; at higher densities and when an optical reservoir with thermal photons is present, TWA systematically deviates. A sympathetic reader would care because TWA is far cheaper, and the paper gives a concrete warning plus a benchmark-based way to know when it is valid.

What carries the argument

The Jordan–Schwinger mapping expresses each two-level atom's Pauli operators as products of two bosonic ladder operators, so collective atomic operators become quadratic bosonic terms and both the positive-P and Wigner phase-space formulations can be applied without higher-order corrections from noncanonical atomic commutation relations. The comparison is carried by two sets of Itô stochastic differential equations, with a squeezing ratio defined against a shape-matched local oscillator as the observable; a block-diagonal diffusion matrix and the non-unique noise factorization (diffusion gauge) determine how PPR sampling behaves. The TWA's load-bearing simplification is that interaction-indu

What would settle it

A concrete check: for a small few-mode version of the same model, solve the exact Lindblad master equation (or run quantum trajectories) at the highest atomic density and reservoir occupation used here; if TWA matches the exact squeezing ratio while PPR deviates, the claimed TWA failure is an artifact of the reference, while if TWA deviates from the exact result as well, the paper's warning is confirmed. A direct squeezing measurement in a near-resonant hollow-core fiber at densities around 3.7 × 10^22 m^-3 with a thermal reservoir would also settle which phase-space prediction is physical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a resonant two-level medium with a guided optical mode and radiative reservoir, the paper's central claim is that TWA—capturing quantum fluctuations only through noise in the initial Wigner distribution and neglecting higher-order derivatives—agrees with both positive-P implementations in the weakly coupled, short-propagation regime, but fails to reproduce the squeezing ratio when the interaction is stronger or the reservoir has significant thermal occupation. The disagreement shows up as a systematic offset rather than sampling error, and it grows with propagation length. The paper presents the agreement region as a practical validity criterion: within the overlap of PPR and TWA results

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison treats the positive-P simulations as the reference truth, yet the paper itself notes PPR can suffer from instabilities at long times and its noise factorization is non-unique, so if that reference is biased, the TWA discrepancies could be partly artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TWA can be used with confidence for moderate coupling and short propagation in this setup, cutting sampling cost relative to PPR by orders of magnitude.
  • The observed agreement zone gives an operational rule: run PPR and TWA side by side; where they overlap, the predictions are robust, and the PPR marks the temporal window of TWA validity.
  • In dense media or with a thermal reservoir, simulations should use PPR (or another exact method) because TWA's initial-noise-only treatment misses cumulative interaction effects.
  • The framework extends to other nonclassical radiation phenomena, including antibunching, self-induced transparency solitons, and quadrature squeezing in hollow-core waveguides.
  • Adding collisional damping (flagged as future work) will require new stochastic terms, and the same benchmarking approach can map TWA validity in that regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's benchmark does not compare PPR against an independent exact solution; if the chosen PPR noise factorization is biased, some of the observed TWA deviations could be artifacts of the reference method rather than genuine TWA failures.
  • A natural extension is to translate the qualitative boundary — stronger coupling, longer propagation, thermal reservoir — into a dimensionless criterion (for example, accumulated optical density or nonlinear phase) that predicts TWA breakdown without needing to run both methods.
  • Since diffusion-gauge freedom can shift noise between stochastic variables, a gauge-optimized variant of the TWA might extend the cheap method's validity, an idea the paper leaves implicit.
  • The same benchmarking logic could be applied to other observables such as photon statistics or higher-order correlation functions, where TWA may deviate even earlier than it does in the squeezing ratio.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper derives two sets of stochastic differential equations for near-resonant light propagation through an ensemble of two-level atoms, using the Jordan–Schwinger mapping to treat atomic degrees of freedom as bosonic modes. One formulation is based on the positive-P representation (PPR) and the other on the truncated Wigner approximation (TWA). Both are derived in the presence of an optical reservoir. The authors benchmark TWA against two PPR variants (a new PPR and the earlier Drummond–Raymer PPR_DR) by computing the squeezing ratio of the propagated optical field. The central claim is that the three methods agree at moderate atomic densities under unitary evolution, but TWA shows systematic deviations at higher densities and when reservoir-induced noise is significant. The paper therefore proposes PPR as a practical indicator of the temporal/parameter regime in which TWA remains valid.

Significance. If established, the central result would provide a practically useful validity criterion for TWA in a realistic light–matter propagation problem, and the new Jordan–Schwinger-based PPR formulation would be a valuable tool that avoids the large-N restriction of earlier collective-operator treatments. The derivation of explicit SDEs for both methods with the same physical model is a useful methodological contribution, and the comparison involves no fitted parameters, so the risk of reverse-engineered predictions is low. However, the headline claim that TWA 'exhibits noticeable deviations' is only as strong as the reliability of the PPR reference in the relevant regime. The paper itself acknowledges PPR instabilities and the diffusion-gauge ambiguity, and it concedes in Sec. VII that outside the overlap region an independent benchmark is needed. The current manuscript therefore provides a consistency map between stochastic methods, but the stronger claim of TWA failure is not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. VI] The central claim that TWA exhibits 'noticeable deviations' at higher densities and with reservoir noise is operationalized solely as disagreement with PPR. However, PPR is not validated against any independent exact solution in the deviation regime. Section III explicitly states that PPR 'may suffer from instabilities at long times,' and Sec. VI discusses the diffusion-gauge freedom, noting that different factorizations of D can produce quite different stochastic trajectories and boundary-term behavior. Figures 1 and 2 show that PPR and PPR_DR sampling errors grow with density and reservoir noise — precisely the regime where TWA deviations are claimed. Without an independent check (e.g., a small-system exact master-equation solution, a few-mode exact calculation, or a non-phase-space method), the observed excursion is evidence only that the stochastic methods no longer agree, not that T
  2. [Sec. VII] The concluding statement that 'the PPR provides a practical indicator of the temporal regime over which the TWA remains valid' goes beyond what the benchmark can establish. The paper itself admits in the same section that outside the overlap region 'it becomes difficult to assess the validity of approximate methods, particularly the TWA, without an independent benchmark.' This admission directly undercuts the stronger claim. To make the 'practical indicator' statement defensible, the authors need to show that PPR is itself accurate in the regime where TWA deviates, or at least provide numerical evidence that boundary terms are negligible and sampling is unbiased. Otherwise the conclusion should be limited to a statement about consistency among the methods.
  3. [Sec. VI, diffusion-gauge paragraph] The discussion of diffusion gauge is a strength, but it also highlights a specific technical risk: the new PPR and PPR_DR use different noise factorizations, and Section VI reports growing sampling errors for both in the high-density/reservoir regime. The paper should address whether the observed TWA deviation could be affected by a gauge-induced bias in the PPR reference. At minimum, the authors should test the stability of their conclusions under an alternative gauge choice that shifts noise between the field and atomic variables, as described in the text, or report the variance of the PPR results across gauges. Without such a test, the benchmark's central negative result remains vulnerable to the acknowledged gauge dependence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figures 1–2 and captions] The legend and text use 'PPR D' and 'PPR_DR' inconsistently. Please unify the notation (e.g., PPR_DR) in the figures and captions.
  2. [Eq. (4.2)] The detuning for the atomic polarization equation dβ1n/dt is written as (1/2)Δω_ν β1n, but elsewhere the detuning is Δ_ν. Please check and correct the notation.
  3. [Sec. VII, first paragraph] The text says 'formulated within the truncated PPR and the TWA.' The PPR is not truncated; this should be 'within the positive PPR and the truncated Wigner approximation (TWA).'
  4. [Reference [22]] The word 'ourth' should be 'fourth'.
  5. [Sec. VI, parameter paragraph] The sentence 'The atomic transition is described by a Voigt spectral profile centered at atoms are modeled with a Voigt spectral profile' contains a duplicated phrase. Please rewrite.
  6. [Eq. (4.3)] The notation (F_{α_j^*})^* is confusing; the noise for the conjugate field is defined via the same real Wiener increments, so please clarify the complex-conjugation convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the PPR/TWA comparison is derived from the same master equation via independent, non-fitted stochastic mappings; the TWA-deviation claim is a benchmark result, not a definitional identity.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a numerical benchmark between the positive-P representation (PPR), a PPR variant due to Drummond and Raymer, and the truncated Wigner approximation (TWA). The stochastic equations for all three methods are derived in the paper from the same master equation using standard phase-space correspondence rules, with no parameters fitted to the target output. The TWA is obtained by neglecting higher-than-second-order derivatives, while the PPR is an exact stochastic representation up to the diffusion-gauge choice. The claim that TWA deviates from PPR at stronger interaction strengths or with reservoir noise is therefore a comparison of two independently formulated stochastic dynamics, not a prediction that is equivalent by construction to an input. There are self-citations to the authors' earlier PPR applications, but these are not load-bearing: the PPR equations used here are re-derived in the present paper, and the Drummond-Raymer benchmark is external. The paper does rely on PPR as the reference standard, and the reader's concern that PPR itself is not validated against an independent exact solution marks a genuine correctness/validity limitation, which the authors explicitly acknowledge in Section VII ('without an independent benchmark'). But that is a matter of benchmark trustworthiness, not circular reasoning. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained and the circularity score is zero.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; all numerical inputs are physical scenario parameters. The main structural assumptions are the Jordan-Schwinger bosonization, the standard rotating-wave/dipole and Markovian-reservoir approximations, the TWA truncation itself, and the reduction to 1D single-mode propagation. No new particles, forces, or unobserved entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Jordan-Schwinger bosonic mapping represents collective spin-1/2 operators exactly, with physical states having one boson per atom and total boson number preserved by the dynamics.
    Used in Sec. II to derive the bosonic interaction Hamiltonian (2.6). The Wigner initial sampling in Sec. VI introduces fluctuations in boson number, so the physical subspace is only approximately enforced.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave and dipole approximations hold, and the atom-field coupling g is identical for all atoms and independent of frequency and wavevector.
    Invoked in Sec. II around Eqs. (2.2)-(2.3); standard but restricts the model to ideal two-level atoms.
  • domain assumption Atoms couple to a Markovian optical reservoir with Lindblad form (2.8), valid for dilute media without local-field corrections.
    The master equation (2.7)-(2.8) in Sec. II is the starting point for both PPR and TWA reservoir noise.
  • ad hoc to paper Third- and higher-order derivatives in the Wigner equation can be truncated, with initial Wigner sampling capturing leading interaction-induced quantum fluctuations.
    This is the TWA itself, introduced in Sec. IV; the paper acknowledges it fails for stronger interactions and reservoir noise.
  • domain assumption Continuum/SVEA/paraxial single-mode 1D propagation with retarded time and photon-flux field is valid.
    Sec. V transforms the discrete lattice equations to 1D propagation; transverse effects are dropped and full 3D atomic densities are replaced with a 1D line density.
  • domain assumption Wigner initial-condition noise correlations in Eqs. (6.2)-(6.3) correctly sample vacuum and thermal fluctuations for both field and atomic bosonic modes.
    Used in Sec. VI to initialize TWA trajectories; depends on the bosonic mapping and large occupation numbers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking quantum phase-space methods for near-resonant light propagation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/47YFWKJR

@misc{pith2026260217660,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking quantum phase-space methods for near-resonant light propagation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/47YFWKJR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.17660}
}
read the original abstract

We study the dynamics of light interacting with a near-resonant atomic medium using the truncated Wigner and positive P phase-space representations. The atomic degrees of freedom are described using the Jordan-Schwinger mapping. The dynamics is first analyzed under unitary evolution and subsequently in the presence of an optical reservoir. While both approaches capture the main features of the light-matter dynamics, we find that the truncated Wigner approximation exhibits noticeable deviations for stronger interaction strengths and when reservoir-induced noise becomes significant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17660 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Calculation of the squeezing ratio for the optimum angle of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references

  1. [1]

    V. I. Tatarskii, The Wigner representation in quantum mechan- ics, Sov. Phys. Usp.26, 311 (1983)

    1983

  2. [2]

    Hillery, R

    M. Hillery, R. F. O. Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. Wigner, Distribution functions in physics: Fundamentals, Phys. Rep. 106, 121 (1984)

    1984

  3. [3]

    N. L. Balazs and B. K. Jennings, Wigner’s function and other distribution functions in mock phase spaces, Phys. Rep.104, 347 (1984)

    1984

  4. [4]

    Lee, Theory and application of the quantum phase-space distribution functions, Phys

    H.-W. Lee, Theory and application of the quantum phase-space distribution functions, Phys. Rep.259, 147 (1995)

    1995

  5. [5]

    F. E. Schroek,Quantum Mechanics on Phase Space(Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    A. M. Ozorio de Almeida, The Weyl representation in classical and quantum mechanics, Phys. Rep.295, 265 (1998)

    1998

  7. [7]

    W. P. Schleich,Quantum Optics in Phase Space(Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    C. K. Zachos, D. B. Fairlie, and T. L. Curtright, eds.,Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space(World Scientific, Singapore, 2005)

    2005

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Weinbub and D

    J. Weinbub and D. K. Ferry, Recent advances in Wigner function approaches, Appl. Phys. Rev.5, 041104 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    R. P. Rundle and M. J. Everitt, Overview of the phase space formulation of quantum mechanics with application to quantum technologies, Adv. Quantum Technol.4, 2100016 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    N. G. V. Kampen,Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chem- istry, 3rd ed. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise, 3rd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

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

    2007

  6. [14]

    Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equi- librium, Phys

    E. Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equi- librium, Phys. Rev.40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  7. [15]

    R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field, Phys. Rev.131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  8. [16]

    E. C. G. Sudarshan, Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 277 (1963)

    1963

  9. [17]

    Husimi, Some formal properties of the density matrix, Proc

    K. Husimi, Some formal properties of the density matrix, Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Jpn.22, 264 (1940)

    1940

  10. [18]

    Kano, A new phase-space distribution function in the statis- tical theory of the electromagnetic field, J

    Y. Kano, A new phase-space distribution function in the statis- tical theory of the electromagnetic field, J. Math. Phys.6, 1913 (1965)

    1913

  11. [19]

    S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. J. Milburn, Interpretation for a positive𝑃representation, Phys. Rev. A43, 1153 (1991)

    1991

  12. [20]

    Haken,The Fokker-Planck equation, 2nd ed

    H. Haken,The Fokker-Planck equation, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1996)

    1996

  13. [21]

    D. F. Walls and G. J.Milburn,Quantum Optics, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    C. W. Gardiner,Handbook of Stochastic Methods, ourth ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    P. D. Drummond and C. W. Gardiner, Generalised𝑃- representations in quantum optics, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.13, 2353 (1980)

    1980

  16. [24]

    Gilchrist, C

    A. Gilchrist, C. W. Gardiner, and P. D. Drummond, Positive𝑃 representation: Application and validity, Phys. Rev. A55, 3014 (1997)

    1997

  17. [25]

    Schack and A

    R. Schack and A. Schenzle, Positive𝑃representation, Phys. Rev. A44, 682 (1991)

    1991

  18. [26]

    P. D. Drummond and D. F. Walls, Quantum theory of optical bistability. i. nonlinear polarisability model, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.13, 725 (1980)

    1980

  19. [27]

    S. J. Carter, P. D. Drummond, M. D. Reid, and R. M. Shelby, Squeezing of quantum solitons, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1841 (1987)

    1987

  20. [28]

    J. F. Corney, J. Heersink, R. Dong, V. Josse, P. D. Drummond, G. Leuchs, and U. L. Andersen, Simulations and experiments on polarization squeezing in optical fiber, Phys. Rev. A78, 023831 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Deuar and P

    P. Deuar and P. D. Drummond, Stochastic gauges in quantum dynamics for many-body simulations, Comp. Phys. Commun. 142, 442 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    Deuar and P

    P. Deuar and P. D. Drummond, First-principles quantum dynam- ics in interacting Bose gases: I. the positive𝑃representation, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.39, 1163 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    Deuar and P

    P. Deuar and P. D. Drummond, Correlations in a BEC collision: First-principles quantum dynamics with 150 000 atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 120402 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    P. B. Blakie, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, R. J. Ballagh, and C. W. Gardiner, Dynamics and statistical mechanics of ultra-cold Bose gases using𝑐-field techniques, Adv. Phys.57, 363 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Polkovnikov, Phase space representation of quantum dynam- ics, Ann

    A. Polkovnikov, Phase space representation of quantum dynam- ics, Ann. Phys.325, 1790 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    M. J. Steel, M. K. Olsen, L. I. Plimak, P. D. Drummond, S. M. Tan, M. J. Collett, D. F. Walls, and R. Graham, Dynamical quantum noise in trapped Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A58, 4824 (1998)

    1998

  27. [35]

    Sinatra, C

    A. Sinatra, C. Lobo, and Y. Castin, The truncated Wigner method for Bose-condensed gases: limits of validity and ap- plications1, J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Opt. Phys.35, 3599 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Dagvadorj, J

    G. Dagvadorj, J. M. Fellows, S. Matyja ´skiewicz, F. M. Marchetti, I. Carusotto, and M. H. Szyma´nska, Nonequilibrium phase transition in a two-dimensional driven open quantum sys- tem, Phys. Rev. X5, 041028 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Comaron, G

    P. Comaron, G. Dagvadorj, A. Zamora, I. Carusotto, N. P. Proukakis, and M. H. Szyma´nska, Dynamical critical exponents in driven-dissipative quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 095302 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Hosseinabadi, O

    H. Hosseinabadi, O. Chelpanova, and J. Marino, User-friendly truncated Wigner approximation for dissipative spin dynamics, PRX Quantum6, 030344 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    P. D. Drummond and A. D. Hardman, Simulation of quantum effects in Raman-active waveguides, EPL21, 279 (1993)

    1993

  32. [40]

    L. I. Plimak, M. K. Olsen, M. Fleischhauer, and M. J. Col- lett, Beyond the Fokker-Planck equation: Stochastic simulation of complete Wigner representation for the optical parametric oscillator, Europhys. Lett.56, 372 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    S. E. Hoffmann, J. F. Corney, and P. D. Drummond, Hybrid phase-space simulation method for interacting Bose fields, Phys. Rev. A78, 013622 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    M. K. Olsen and A. S. Bradley, Numerical representation of quantum states in the positive-𝑃and Wigner representations, Opt. Commun.282, 3924 (2009). 9

    2009

  35. [43]

    J. F. Corney and M. K. Olsen, Non-Gaussian pure states and positive Wigner functions, Phys. Rev. A91, 023824 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    P. D. Drummond and M. G. Raymer, Quantum theory of prop- agation of nonclassical radiation in a near-resonant medium, Phys. Rev. A44, 2072 (1991)

  37. [45]

    R. E. Slusher, Self-induced transparency, Prog. Opt.12, 53 (1974)

    1974

  38. [46]

    M. S. Najafabadi, L. L. S ´anchez-Soto, J. F. Corney, N. Kalinin, A. A. Sorokin, and G. Leuchs, Quantum squeezing via self- induced transparency in a photonic crystal fiber, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023142 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    M. S. Najafabadi, J. F. Corney, L. L. S ´anchez-Soto, N. Y. Joly, and G. Leuchs, Squeezing via self-induced transparency in mercury-filled photonic crystal fibers, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B42, 749 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Jordan, Der Zusammenhang der symmetrischen und linearen Gruppen und das Mehrk¨orperproblem, Z

    P. Jordan, Der Zusammenhang der symmetrischen und linearen Gruppen und das Mehrk¨orperproblem, Z. Phys.94, 531 (1935)

    1935

  41. [49]

    Schwinger,On angular momentum, Tech

    J. Schwinger,On angular momentum, Tech. Rep. (US Atomic Energy Commission, 1952)

    1952

  42. [50]

    Allen and J

    L. Allen and J. H. Eberly,Optical Resonance and Two-Level Atoms(Dover, New York, 1975)

    1975

  43. [51]

    Lee and Y

    R.-K. Lee and Y. Lai, Quantum squeezing and correlation of self-induced transparency solitons, Phys. Rev. A80, 033839 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    G. D. Roston and F. S. Obaid, Exact analytical formula for Voigt spectral line profile, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.94, 255 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    Deuar and P

    P. Deuar and P. D. Drummond, Gauge𝑝representations for quantum-dynamical problems: Removal of boundary terms, Phys. Rev. A66, 033812 (2002)

    2002

  46. [54]

    P. D. Drummond and P. Deuar, Quantum dynamics with stochas- tic gauge simulations, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt.5, S281 (2003)

    2003

  47. [55]

    W¨ uster, J

    S. W¨ uster, J. F. Corney, J. M. Rost, and P. Deuar, Quantum dynamics of long-range interacting systems using the positive- 𝑃and gauge-𝑝representations, Phys. Rev. E96, 013309 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.