pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05747 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Kinetic Uncertainty Relation in Collective Dissipative Quantum Many-Body Systems

Hayato Yunoki , Yoshihiko Hasegawa This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords kinetic uncertainty relationcollective dissipationmany-body quantum systemsboundary time crystalsprecision boundsmean-field approximationquantum fluctuationsnonequilibrium processes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Collective dissipation in many-body quantum systems lets precision scale with particle number.

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

The paper analytically derives a kinetic uncertainty relation for many-body systems with collective dissipation, a model of boundary time crystals that previously lacked such bounds beyond single-particle cases. Using a mean-field approximation, it obtains explicit lower bounds on relative fluctuations in terms of physical rates and shows a cooperative mechanism where interactions make those bounds tighten as particle number N grows. This matters for nanoscale engineering and nonequilibrium processes because it supplies the first precision limits that improve rather than saturate with system size. The bounds are checked numerically in stationary, critical, and time-crystal regimes.

Core claim

We analytically formulate a kinetic uncertainty relation for a many-body system undergoing collective dissipation. By applying a mean-field approximation, we derive lower bounds for relative fluctuations expressed in terms of clear physical quantities. Our analysis identifies a cooperative enhancement mechanism, demonstrating that collective interactions allow the precision to scale with the number of particles. We validate these findings through numerical simulations across the stationary, critical, and boundary time crystal phases.

What carries the argument

A mean-field kinetic uncertainty relation that supplies lower bounds on relative fluctuations in collective dissipative dynamics, expressed via dissipation rates and observables.

If this is right

  • Precision in nonequilibrium quantum measurements can improve proportionally with particle number N when collective dissipation is present.
  • Explicit bounds on fluctuations become available in terms of dissipation rates for boundary time crystal models.
  • The same scaling holds across stationary, critical, and time-crystal phases according to the derived relation.
  • Engineering of nanoscale devices can exploit many-body collective effects to surpass single-particle precision limits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The N-scaling may extend to other open many-body systems if a comparable mean-field closure exists.
  • Quantum sensor designs could deliberately engineer collective dissipation to obtain the reported precision gain.
  • Links to thermodynamic uncertainty relations in larger open systems could yield unified bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The mean-field approximation accurately captures the dynamics of the collective dissipative many-body system for arbitrary particle number N.

What would settle it

A numerical or laboratory measurement in a collective dissipative system at large N where the product of relative fluctuations and the relevant kinetic quantity falls below the mean-field-derived bound would disprove the scaling claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05747 by Hayato Yunoki, Yoshihiko Hasegawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the kinetic uncertainty re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Time dependence of the relative fluctuation and the theoretical lower bounds for a fixed particle number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. System size scaling of the relative fluctuation and the theoretical lower bounds at a fixed measurement time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Attaining the ultimate precision remains a central objective in the engineering of nanoscale systems and the investigation of nonequilibrium processes. While thermodynamic and kinetic uncertainty relations establish fundamental precision bounds, prior derivations in the quantum regime have remained confined to single-body systems. Consequently, the ultimate precision limits for interacting many-body systems have been unknown. In this Letter, we analytically formulate a kinetic uncertainty relation for a many-body system undergoing collective dissipation, a paradigmatic model of boundary time crystals. By applying a mean-field approximation, we derive lower bounds for relative fluctuations expressed in terms of clear physical quantities. Our analysis identifies a cooperative enhancement mechanism, demonstrating that collective interactions allow the precision to scale with the number of particles. We validate these findings through numerical simulations across the stationary, critical, and boundary time crystal phases. Our work presents the first theoretical description of precision bounds in collective dissipative quantum many-body systems for an arbitrary particle number $N$, providing a solid foundation for designing future quantum technologies that exploit many-body phenomena.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper derives a kinetic uncertainty relation (KUR) for collective dissipative quantum many-body systems (boundary time crystals) under a mean-field approximation. It obtains lower bounds on relative fluctuations in terms of physical quantities and identifies a cooperative mechanism allowing precision to scale with particle number N. Results are checked numerically across stationary, critical, and boundary time-crystal phases, with the claim that the description holds for arbitrary N.

Significance. If the mean-field step can be equipped with explicit validity bounds, the work would establish the first analytical KUR for interacting many-body open quantum systems and demonstrate how collective dissipation can improve metrological precision beyond single-particle limits. The numerical survey across phases and the explicit scaling statement are concrete strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (mean-field derivation of the KUR): the lower bound on relative fluctuations is obtained after replacing the many-body master equation by its mean-field closure; no error estimate, fluctuation correction, or radius of validity in N is supplied. Because the abstract asserts results “for an arbitrary particle number N” and the scaling claim is load-bearing, the absence of this control is a central gap.
  2. [§4, Fig. 3] §4 and Fig. 3 (numerical validation across phases): the reported scaling of precision with N is shown only within the mean-field dynamics; no direct comparison to exact diagonalization for moderate N (e.g., N≤10) or to finite-N corrections is given, leaving open whether the cooperative enhancement survives when quantum fluctuations are restored.
minor comments (2)
  1. The notation for the collective decay rate and the mean-field order parameter is introduced without a compact table of symbols; a short nomenclature table would improve readability.
  2. [Eq. (12)] Eq. (12) defines the relative fluctuation; the subsequent sentence claims it is “parameter-free,” yet the expression still depends on the steady-state magnetization obtained from the mean-field equations—clarify whether this dependence is intended.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important aspects regarding the mean-field approximation and its validation, which we address below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (mean-field derivation of the KUR): the lower bound on relative fluctuations is obtained after replacing the many-body master equation by its mean-field closure; no error estimate, fluctuation correction, or radius of validity in N is supplied. Because the abstract asserts results “for an arbitrary particle number N” and the scaling claim is load-bearing, the absence of this control is a central gap.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our derivation relies on the mean-field approximation and that rigorous error bounds for finite N are not provided. Such bounds are challenging to obtain for general open quantum systems and would require advanced techniques like those from quantum information theory or large deviation principles, which are beyond the current scope. The mean-field limit is exact in the thermodynamic limit, and our claims are intended in that context. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly state that the KUR and scaling hold under the mean-field approximation, and discuss the expected validity for large but finite N based on literature. revision: partial

  2. Referee: §4 and Fig. 3 (numerical validation across phases): the reported scaling of precision with N is shown only within the mean-field dynamics; no direct comparison to exact diagonalization for moderate N (e.g., N≤10) or to finite-N corrections is given, leaving open whether the cooperative enhancement survives when quantum fluctuations are restored.

    Authors: This is a fair point. While exact solutions for small N are possible, the focus of the paper is on the analytical mean-field result and its numerical confirmation within that framework for large N. However, to address this, we can perform additional exact diagonalization for small N (up to N=8 or so) and include a comparison showing that the precision scaling is approximately preserved, with corrections vanishing as N increases. This will be added as a new panel or supplementary figure in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Deriving explicit error estimates and a radius of validity for the mean-field closure as a function of N.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: analytical derivation via mean-field is independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper derives the kinetic uncertainty relation analytically by applying a mean-field approximation to the collective dissipative model, expressing lower bounds on relative fluctuations in terms of physical quantities such as dissipation rates and interaction strengths. These bounds are then checked numerically across phases. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or load-bearing self-citation by construction; the mean-field step is an explicit approximation whose validity is separate from the algebraic derivation itself. The result for arbitrary N is presented as following from the approximated equations rather than being presupposed.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The derivation depends on the applicability of the mean-field approximation to the collective dissipation model; no free parameters or new entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation is valid for the paradigmatic boundary time crystal model of collective dissipation
    Invoked to obtain analytic bounds for arbitrary particle number N.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5467 in / 1149 out tokens · 99403 ms · 2026-05-10T18:57:34.174882+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, Thermodynamic Uncer- tainty Relation for Biomolecular Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 158101 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    T. R. Gingrich, J. M. Horowitz, N. Perunov, and J. L. England, Dissipation Bounds All Steady-State Current Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 120601 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    J. M. Horowitz and T. R. Gingrich, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations constrain non-equilibrium fluctua- tions, Nat. Phys.16, 15 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    J. P. Garrahan, Simple bounds on fluctuations and un- certainty relations for first-passage times of counting ob- servables, Phys. Rev. E95, 032134 (2017). 8

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Di Terlizzi and M

    I. Di Terlizzi and M. Baiesi, Kinetic uncertainty relation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.52, 02LT03 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Erker, M

    P. Erker, M. T. Mitchison, R. Silva, M. P. Woods, N. Brunner, and M. Huber, Autonomous Quantum Clocks: Does Thermodynamics Limit Our Ability to Measure Time?, Phys. Rev. X7, 031022 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Guarnieri, G

    G. Guarnieri, G. T. Landi, S. R. Clark, and J. Goold, Thermodynamics of precision in quantum nonequilib- rium steady states, Phys. Rev. Research1, 033021 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Carollo, R

    F. Carollo, R. L. Jack, and J. P. Garrahan, Unraveling the Large Deviation Statistics of Markovian Open Quan- tum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 130605 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Hasegawa, Quantum Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation for Continuous Measurement, Phys

    Y. Hasegawa, Quantum Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation for Continuous Measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 050601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Hasegawa, Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation for General Open Quantum Systems, Phys

    Y. Hasegawa, Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation for General Open Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 010602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Hasegawa, Irreversibility, Loschmidt Echo, and Ther- modynamic Uncertainty Relation, Phys

    Y. Hasegawa, Irreversibility, Loschmidt Echo, and Ther- modynamic Uncertainty Relation, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 240602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    H. J. D. Miller, M. H. Mohammady, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and G. Guarnieri, Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation in Slowly Driven Quantum Heat Engines, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 210603 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Hasegawa, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for quantum first-passage processes, Phys

    Y. Hasegawa, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for quantum first-passage processes, Phys. Rev. E105, 044127 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Van Vu and K

    T. Van Vu and K. Saito, Thermodynamics of Precision in Markovian Open Quantum Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140602 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Prech, P

    K. Prech, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Role of Quantum Coherence in Kinetic Uncertainty Relations, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 020401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Yunoki and Y

    H. Yunoki and Y. Hasegawa, Quantum Speed Limit and Quantum Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation under Feedback Control (2025), arXiv:2502.09081 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Ishida and Y

    N. Ishida and Y. Hasegawa, Quantum-computer-based verification of quantum thermodynamic uncertainty re- lation, Phys. Rev. E112, 034124 (2025)

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Honma and T

    R. Honma and T. Van Vu, Information-thermodynamic bounds on precision in interacting quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A113, 032207 (2026)

    work page 2026

  19. [19]

    P. W. Anderson, More Is Different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science., Science177, 393 (1972)

    work page 1972

  20. [20]

    Shpielberg and A

    O. Shpielberg and A. Pal, Thermodynamic uncertainty relations for many-body systems with fast jump rates and large occupancies, Phys. Rev. E104, 064141 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Koyuk and U

    T. Koyuk and U. Seifert, Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relation in Interacting Many-Body Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 210603 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Singh, E

    V. Singh, E. Kwon, and G. J. Milburn, Quantum ther- modynamics on a limit cycle, Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 025026 (2026)

    work page 2026

  23. [23]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, A non-equilibrium superradiant phase tran- sition in free space, Nat. Phys.19, 1345 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Iemini, A

    F. Iemini, A. Russomanno, J. Keeling, M. Schir` o, M. Dal- monte, and R. Fazio, Boundary Time Crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 035301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Wilczek, Quantum Time Crystals, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Quantum Time Crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 160401 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Sacha, Modeling spontaneous breaking of time- translation symmetry, Phys

    K. Sacha, Modeling spontaneous breaking of time- translation symmetry, Phys. Rev. A91, 033617 (2015)

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    D. V. Else, B. Bauer, and C. Nayak, Floquet Time Crys- tals, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 090402 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Khemani, A

    V. Khemani, A. Lazarides, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Phase Structure of Driven Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 250401 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Russomanno, F

    A. Russomanno, F. Iemini, M. Dalmonte, and R. Fazio, Floquet time crystal in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. B95, 214307 (2017)

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Z. Gong, R. Hamazaki, and M. Ueda, Discrete Time- Crystalline Order in Cavity and Circuit QED Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 040404 (2018)

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    F. M. Surace, A. Russomanno, M. Dalmonte, A. Silva, R. Fazio, and F. Iemini, Floquet time crystals in clock models, Phys. Rev. B99, 104303 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    R. J. L. Tuquero, J. Skulte, L. Mathey, and J. G. Cosme, Dissipative time crystal in an atom-cavity system: Influ- ence of trap and competing interactions, Phys. Rev. A 105, 043311 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    S. Choi, J. Choi, R. Landig, G. Kucsko, H. Zhou, J. Isoya, F. Jelezko, S. Onoda, H. Sumiya, V. Khemani, C. Von Keyserlingk, N. Y. Yao, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Observation of discrete time-crystalline order in a disordered dipolar many-body system, Nature543, 221 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Zhang, P

    J. Zhang, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, A. Lee, J. Smith, G. Pagano, I.-D. Potirniche, A. C. Potter, A. Vishwanath, N. Y. Yao, and C. Monroe, Observation of a discrete time crystal, Nature543, 217 (2017)

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Rovny, R

    J. Rovny, R. L. Blum, and S. E. Barrett, Observation of Discrete-Time-Crystal Signatures in an Ordered Dipo- lar Many-Body System, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 180603 (2018)

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Smits, L

    J. Smits, L. Liao, H. T. C. Stoof, and P. Van Der Straten, Observation of a Space-Time Crystal in a Superfluid Quantum Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 185301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Kyprianidis, F

    A. Kyprianidis, F. Machado, W. Morong, P. Becker, K. S. Collins, D. V. Else, L. Feng, P. W. Hess, C. Nayak, G. Pagano, N. Y. Yao, and C. Monroe, Observation of a prethermal discrete time crystal, Science372, 1192 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Keßler, P

    H. Keßler, P. Kongkhambut, C. Georges, L. Mathey, J. G. Cosme, and A. Hemmerich, Observation of a Dis- sipative Time Crystal, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 043602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Frey and S

    P. Frey and S. Rachel, Realization of a discrete time crys- tal on 57 qubits of a quantum computer, Sci. Adv.8, eabm7652 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    X. Mi, M. Ippoliti, C. Quintana, A. Greene, Z. Chen, J. Gross, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, J. C. Bardin, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, A. Bourassa, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buck- ley, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, D. Debroy, S. Demura, A. R. Derk, A. Dunsworth, D. Eppens, C. Erickson, ...

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Tucker, B

    K. Tucker, B. Zhu, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. Marino, F. Jimenez, J. G. Restrepo, and A. M. Rey, Shattered time: Can a dissipative time crystal survive many-body correlations?, New J. Phys.20, 123003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Buˇ ca, J

    B. Buˇ ca, J. Tindall, and D. Jaksch, Non-stationary coher- ent quantum many-body dynamics through dissipation, Nat Commun10, 1730 (2019)

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Lled´ o and M

    C. Lled´ o and M. H. Szyma´ nska, A dissipative time crystal with or without Z2 symmetry breaking, New J. Phys.22, 075002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    Seibold, R

    K. Seibold, R. Rota, and V. Savona, Dissipative time crystal in an asymmetric nonlinear photonic dimer, Phys. Rev. A101, 033839 (2020)

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Booker, B

    C. Booker, B. Buˇ ca, and D. Jaksch, Non-stationarity and dissipative time crystals: Spectral properties and finite- size effects, New J. Phys.22, 085007 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    L. F. D. Prazeres, L. D. S. Souza, and F. Iemini, Bound- ary time crystals in collective d -level systems, Phys. Rev. B103, 184308 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Piccitto, M

    G. Piccitto, M. Wauters, F. Nori, and N. Shammah, Sym- metries and conserved quantities of boundary time crys- tals in generalized spin models, Phys. Rev. B104, 014307 (2021)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Carollo and I

    F. Carollo and I. Lesanovsky, Exact solution of a bound- ary time-crystal phase transition: Time-translation sym- metry breaking and non-Markovian dynamics of correla- tions, Phys. Rev. A105, L040202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Hajduˇ sek, P

    M. Hajduˇ sek, P. Solanki, R. Fazio, and S. Vinjanampa- thy, Seeding Crystallization in Time, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 080603 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Kongkhambut, J

    P. Kongkhambut, J. Skulte, L. Mathey, J. G. Cosme, A. Hemmerich, and H. Keßler, Observation of a continu- ous time crystal, Science377, 670 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Krishna, P

    M. Krishna, P. Solanki, M. Hajduˇ sek, and S. Vinjanam- pathy, Measurement-Induced Continuous Time Crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 150401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Z. Wang, R. Gao, X. Wu, B. Buˇ ca, K. Mølmer, L. You, and F. Yang, Boundary Time Crystals Induced by Lo- cal Dissipation and Long-Range Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 230401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Russo and T

    F. Russo and T. Pohl, Quantum Dissipative Continuous Time Crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 110404 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Montenegro, M

    V. Montenegro, M. G. Genoni, A. Bayat, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum metrology with boundary time crystals, Commun Phys6, 304 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    Cabot, F

    A. Cabot, F. Carollo, and I. Lesanovsky, Continuous Sensing and Parameter Estimation with the Boundary Time Crystal, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 050801 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Viotti, M

    L. Viotti, M. Huber, R. Fazio, and G. Manzano, Quan- tum Time Crystal Clock and Its Performance, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 110401 (2026)

    work page 2026

  57. [57]

    G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, Current Fluctuations in Open Quantum Systems: Bridging the Gap Between Quantum Continuous Mea- surements and Full Counting Statistics, PRX Quantum 5, 020201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Cabot, L

    A. Cabot, L. S. Muhle, F. Carollo, and I. Lesanovsky, Quantum trajectories of dissipative time crystals, Phys. Rev. A108, L041303 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Benatti, F

    F. Benatti, F. Carollo, R. Floreanini, and H. Narnhofer, Quantum spin chain dissipative mean-field dynamics, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.51, 325001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    Carollo and I

    F. Carollo and I. Lesanovsky, Exactness of Mean-Field Equations for Open Dicke Models with an Application to Pattern Retrieval Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 230601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups ofN-level systems, J. Math. Phys.17, 821 (1976)

    work page 1976

  62. [62]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun.Math

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun.Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    work page 1976

  63. [63]

    G. S. Agarwal, A. C. Brown, L. M. Narducci, and G. Vetri, Collective atomic effects in resonance fluores- cence, Phys. Rev. A15, 1613 (1977)

    work page 1977

  64. [64]

    L. M. Narducci, D. H. Feng, R. Gilmore, and G. S. Agarwal, Transient and steady-state behavior of collec- tive atomic systems driven by a classical field, Phys. Rev. A18, 1571 (1978)

    work page 1978

  65. [65]

    Drummond and H

    P. Drummond and H. Carmichael, Volterra cycles and the cooperative fluorescence critical point, Optics Com- munications27, 160 (1978)

    work page 1978

  66. [66]

    H. J. Carmichael, Analytical and numerical results for the steady state in cooperative resonance fluorescence, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys.13, 3551 (1980)

    work page 1980

  67. [67]

    D. F. Walls, P. D. Drummond, S. S. Hassan, and H. J. Carmichael, Non-equilibrium phase transitions in cooper- ative atomic systems, Prog. Theo. Phys.64, 307 (1978)

    work page 1978

  68. [68]

    Puri and S

    R. Puri and S. Lawande, Exact steady-state density op- erator for a collective atomic system in an external field, Phys. Lett. A72, 200 (1979)

    work page 1979

  69. [69]

    D. F. Walls, Cooperative fluorescence from N coherently driven two-level atoms, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys.13, 2001 (1980)

    work page 2001

  70. [70]

    Schneider and G

    S. Schneider and G. J. Milburn, Entanglement in the steady state of a collective-angular-momentum (Dicke) model, Phys. Rev. A65, 042107 (2002)

    work page 2002

  71. [71]

    Hannukainen and J

    J. Hannukainen and J. Larson, Dissipation driven quan- tum phase transitions and symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. A98, 042113 (2018)

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    Shankar, J

    A. Shankar, J. Cooper, J. G. Bohnet, J. J. Bollinger, and M. Holland, Steady-state spin synchronization through the collective motion of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A95, 033423 (2017)

    work page 2017

  73. [73]

    M. A. Norcia, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. R. K. Cline, B. Zhu, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Cavity-mediated col- lective spin-exchange interactions in a strontium super- radiant laser, Science361, 259 (2018)

    work page 2018

  74. [74]

    O. E. Lanford and D. Ruelle, Observables at infinity and states with short range correlations in statistical mechan- ics, Commun.Math. Phys.13, 194 (1969)

    work page 1969

  75. [75]

    Bratteli and D

    O. Bratteli and D. W. Robinson,Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics(Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1997)

    work page 1997

  76. [76]

    Strocchi,Symmetry Breaking, Theoretical and Mathe- matical Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 2021)

    F. Strocchi,Symmetry Breaking, Theoretical and Mathe- matical Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 2021)

    work page 2021

  77. [77]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Continuous Matrix Product States for Quantum Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 190405 10 (2010)

    work page 2010

  78. [78]

    T. J. Osborne, J. Eisert, and F. Verstraete, Holographic Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 260401 (2010)

    work page 2010

  79. [79]

    Hasegawa, Unifying speed limit, thermodynamic un- certainty relation and Heisenberg principle via bulk- boundary correspondence, Nat Commun14, 2828 (2023)

    Y. Hasegawa, Unifying speed limit, thermodynamic un- certainty relation and Heisenberg principle via bulk- boundary correspondence, Nat Commun14, 2828 (2023)

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    Van Vu, Fundamental Bounds on Precision and Re- sponse for Quantum Trajectory Observables, PRX Quan- tum6, 010343 (2025)

    T. Van Vu, Fundamental Bounds on Precision and Re- sponse for Quantum Trajectory Observables, PRX Quan- tum6, 010343 (2025)

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.