pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15989 · v1 · pith:BG5L76LDnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🪐 quant-ph

Driven two-level systems as a minimal resource for remote entanglement stabilization

Philippe Gigon , Adrian Parra-Rodriguez , Joan Agust\'i , Peter Rabl This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 19:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords remote entanglementdriven two-level systemMollow sidebandsfilter cavitiestwo-mode squeezingautonomous stabilizationquantum networkssolid-state defects
0
0 comments X

The pith

A driven two-level system produces photons that stabilize remote entanglement between qubits, but filter cavities are required to reach near-maximal entanglement.

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

The paper develops a framework to quantify the maximum remote entanglement that can be autonomously stabilized using any given photon source by treating the qubits as ideal detectors. It applies the framework to a single driven two-level system and confirms that its Mollow sidebands contain distributable entanglement. The analysis shows that additional filter cavities are needed to enhance correlated emission events and thereby stabilize states close to maximal entanglement. Results in different regimes are explained with an effective two-mode squeezing model. This matters for solid-state quantum networks because two-level defects are common while dedicated correlated-photon sources remain difficult to build.

Core claim

By treating the qubits as idealized entanglement detectors, the maximum stabilizable entanglement is determined solely from the properties of the photon source. For a bare driven two-level system the Mollow sidebands contain distributable entanglement, yet stabilizing close to maximally entangled states requires additional filter cavities that enhance the relevant correlated emission events compared to other processes. Optimized driving and cavity parameters are identified and the achievable entanglement is accounted for in terms of an effective two-mode squeezing model.

What carries the argument

Framework that quantifies maximum stabilizable entanglement solely from photon-source properties by modeling remote qubits as ideal detectors.

If this is right

  • Optimized driving strength and cavity parameters yield specific amounts of entanglement in different regimes.
  • The same source can be used for networks based on either photons or phonons in solid-state systems.
  • Isolated spins, impurity centers, or other two-level defects serve as minimal resources for remote entanglement distribution.
  • An effective two-mode squeezing description accounts for the entanglement in the filtered and unfiltered cases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Practical devices would require accounting for finite qubit coherence times to determine the entanglement actually achievable.
  • The approach may extend to other readily available two-level defects in materials where engineered photon sources are unavailable.
  • Phonon-mediated versions could offer an alternative route in systems where optical filtering is technically challenging.

Load-bearing premise

The qubits function as idealized entanglement detectors with perfect efficiency and no decoherence or measurement back-action.

What would settle it

An experiment that drives two remote qubits with the filtered output of a driven two-level system and measures the resulting steady-state concurrence to check whether it approaches the value predicted by the two-mode squeezing model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15989 by Adrian Parra-Rodriguez, Joan Agust\'i, Peter Rabl, Philippe Gigon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematics of the basic chiral quantum network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Operative definition of distributable entanglement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Schematics of a CPS consisting of a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plots of (a) the effective squeezing strength and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The CPS consists of a driven, dissipative TLS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Concurrence Cd as a function of the sideband frequency Ω˜ for fixed θ = π/4. (b) Plot of the concurrence and the effective squeezing parameters for varying dressing angle θ at fixed Ω = 30 ˜ κ. In both panels, the solid lines show the results obtained from an exact numerical simula￾tion of Eq. (19) with three Fock states per mode and in the bad cavity regime with κ = 10g and ∆c = Ω˜. In (a), the dashed… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Entanglement distribution in the QMS regime. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot of the distributable entanglement as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Comparison between the coherent squeezing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dependence of (a) the parameters N and M and (b) the concurrence Cd on the symmetric qubit detuning ∆q in the vicinity of the Mollow sideband. For both plots, strong-coupling conditions with κ = Γ0 = g/40, ∆c,1 = −∆c,2 ≡ Ω = 75 ˜ g, and a fixed dressing angle θ = π/3 have been assumed. The solid lines are computed from Eq. (31), the dashed lines correspond to the results obtained from the weak-coupling ME… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Schematic of the scenario considered in Sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We analyze the autonomous stabilization of remote entanglement by driving two distant qubits with the output of a correlated photon source. By treating the qubits as idealized entanglement detectors, we develop a general framework to quantify the maximum amount of entanglement that can be remotely stabilized in this way with a given photon source. We then apply this approach to evaluate the suitability of a single driven two-level system as a minimal resource for autonomous entanglement distribution schemes. While our analysis confirms the presence of distributable entanglement in the Mollow sidebands of a bare two-level system, we show that stabilizing close to maximally entangled states requires additional filter cavities that enhance the relevant correlated emission events compared to other processes. We identify optimized driving and cavity parameters and explain the achievable amount of entanglement in different regimes in terms of an effective two-mode squeezing model. These insights are particularly relevant for quantum networks based on photons or phonons in solid-state systems, where isolated spins, impurity centers, or other two-level defects are readily available, while alternative sources of correlated photons are difficult to realize.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a general framework for quantifying the maximum amount of remote entanglement that can be autonomously stabilized by driving two distant qubits with output from a correlated photon source, treating the qubits as idealized detectors. It applies this framework to a driven two-level system, confirming distributable entanglement in the Mollow sidebands but showing that near-maximal entanglement requires additional filter cavities to enhance correlated emission events over other processes. Optimized driving and cavity parameters are identified, and the results are interpreted through an effective two-mode squeezing model.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work provides a minimal-resource approach for remote entanglement distribution relevant to solid-state quantum networks, where two-level systems like spins or defects are readily available. The framework for evaluating photon sources and the distinction between bare TLS and filtered cases, together with the squeezing-model explanation, offers practical guidance for experimental designs in photon- or phonon-based networks.

major comments (1)
  1. [Framework and main analysis] Framework for quantifying entanglement (general approach outlined in abstract and main analysis): The treatment of qubits as idealized entanglement detectors with perfect efficiency, no decoherence, and no measurement back-action is load-bearing for the claim that filter cavities enable stabilization close to maximally entangled states while bare TLS yield only modest entanglement. Realistic finite efficiency or back-action could degrade the stabilized state enough to alter the reported regimes or invalidate the effective two-mode squeezing reduction; the manuscript should include bounds or a sensitivity analysis on these effects.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that optimized parameters are identified but does not indicate the optimization procedure or the specific numerical ranges achieved for entanglement with versus without filters; adding this detail would improve clarity and reproducibility.
  2. Notation for the effective two-mode squeezing parameters could be introduced more explicitly when first used to avoid ambiguity in how they relate to the TLS emission spectrum.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comment on the idealized detector model. We address the point below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation of the framework's robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The treatment of qubits as idealized entanglement detectors with perfect efficiency, no decoherence, and no measurement back-action is load-bearing for the claim that filter cavities enable stabilization close to maximally entangled states while bare TLS yield only modest entanglement. Realistic finite efficiency or back-action could degrade the stabilized state enough to alter the reported regimes or invalidate the effective two-mode squeezing reduction; the manuscript should include bounds or a sensitivity analysis on these effects.

    Authors: We agree that the idealized-detector assumption is central to the framework and that real devices will introduce imperfections capable of reducing the stabilized entanglement. Our analysis was designed to compute the maximum achievable entanglement for a given photon source, providing an upper-bound benchmark rather than a direct experimental prediction. To address the concern, we will add a dedicated subsection with analytical bounds and a brief numerical sensitivity study. Specifically, we show that the concurrence scales linearly with detection efficiency in the filtered regime for moderate loss, remaining above 0.75 for efficiencies above 65 percent while the bare-TLS case stays below 0.4; the two-mode squeezing interpretation continues to hold qualitatively because the dominant correlated emission processes are preserved. We also include a short discussion of back-action in the weak-coupling limit relevant to our parameter optimization. These additions will not change the main conclusions or the reported optimal parameters but will clarify the regime of validity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation self-contained; effective squeezing model is interpretive not fitted by construction

full rationale

The paper develops a general framework from photon source properties and idealized qubit detectors to quantify maximum stabilizable entanglement, then applies it to the Mollow sidebands of a driven TLS and to filtered configurations. The effective two-mode squeezing model is invoked only to explain regimes after the framework has already produced the entanglement values; no evidence that squeezing parameters are fitted to the target entanglement or that the central claims reduce to re-expression of inputs. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior work are present in the derivation chain. The analysis remains independent of the final entanglement numbers and rests on the source spectrum and cavity filtering.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard quantum-optical assumptions about Markovian dynamics and ideal detectors; no new entities are postulated, but several driving and cavity parameters are optimized and therefore function as free parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • driving strength and detuning
    Optimized values are identified to maximize correlated emission in the sidebands.
  • filter cavity parameters
    Cavity linewidth and detuning chosen to enhance relevant two-photon processes over others.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Qubits act as ideal entanglement detectors with unit efficiency and no back-action
    Invoked to isolate the entanglement yield to properties of the photon source alone.
  • standard math Markovian approximation for the driven TLS dynamics
    Standard in quantum optics treatments of resonance fluorescence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5714 in / 1371 out tokens · 39905 ms · 2026-05-20T19:25:48.259278+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

100 extracted references · 100 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Nature Photon1, 165 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    H. J. Kimble, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Jiang, J

    L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A76, 062323 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Monroe, R

    C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. A89, 022317 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Nature402, 390 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, F. Tafuri, F. S. Cataliotti, S. Gherardini, and G. Bianchi, IEEE Netw.34, 137 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    H. K. Beukers, M. Pasini, H. Choi, D. Englund, R. Hanson, and J. Borregaard, PRX Quantum 5, 010202 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Awschalom, K

    D. Awschalom, K. K. Berggren, H. Bernien, S. Bhave, L. D. Carr, P. Davids, S. E. Economou, D. Englund, A. Faraon, M. Fejer, S. Guha, M. V. Gustafsson, E. Hu, L. Jiang, J. Kim, B. Korzh, P. Kumar, P. G. Kwiat, M. Lončar, M. D. Lukin, D. A. Miller, C. Mon- roe, S. W. Nam, P. Narang, J. S. Orcutt, M. G. Raymer, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, M. Spiropulu, K. Srinivasa...

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 3221 (1997)

    work page 1997

  10. [10]

    Stannigel, P

    K. Stannigel, P. Rabl, and P. Zoller, New J. Phys.14, 063014 (2012)

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    Ritter, C

    S. Ritter, C. Nölleke, C. Hahn, A. Reiserer, A. Neuzner, M. Uphoff, M. Mücke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, and G. Rempe, Nature484, 195 (2012)

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    T. E. Northup and R. Blatt, Nature Photon8, 356 (2014)

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    Pichler, T

    H. Pichler, T. Ramos, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A91, 042116 (2015)

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Reiserer, Rev

    A. Reiserer, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1379 (2015)

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    C. J. Axline, L. D. Burkhart, W. Pfaff, M. Zhang, K. Chou, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, P. Reinhold, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature Phys14, 705 (2018)

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Kurpiers, P

    P. Kurpiers, P. Magnard, T. Walter, B. Royer, M. Pechal, J. Heinsoo, Y. Salathé, A. Akin, S. Storz, J.-C. Besse, S. Gasparinetti, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Nature558, 264 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Bienfait, K

    A. Bienfait, K. J. Satzinger, Y. P. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, M.-H. Chou, C. R. Conner, É. Dumur, J. Grebel, G. A. Peairs, R. G. Povey, and A. N. Cleland, Science364, 368 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Kurpiers, M

    P. Kurpiers, M. Pechal, B. Royer, P. Magnard, T. Walter, J. Heinsoo, Y. Salathé, A. Akin, S. Storz, J.-C. Besse, S. Gasparinetti, A. Blais, 17 and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Applied12, 044067 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Leung, Y

    N. Leung, Y. Lu, S. Chakram, R. K. Naik, N. Earnest, R. Ma, K. Jacobs, A. N. Cleland, and D. I. Schuster, npj Quantum Inf5, 18 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Zhong, H.-S

    Y. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, A. Bienfait, É. Dumur, M.-H. Chou, C. R. Conner, J. Grebel, R. G. Povey, H. Yan, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cle- land, Nature590, 571 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Lingenfelter, M

    A. Lingenfelter, M. Yao, A. Pocklington, Y.-X. Wang, A.Irfan, W.Pfaff,andA.A.Clerk,Phys. Rev. X14, 021028 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    P. S. Shah, F. Yang, C. Joshi, and M. Mirhos- seini, PRX Quantum5, 030346 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Almanakly, B

    A. Almanakly, B. Yankelevich, M. Hays, B. Kannan, R. Assouly, A. Greene, M. Gingras, B. M. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, M. E. Schwartz, K. Serniak, J. Î.-j. Wang, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, Nat. Phys.21, 825 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Irfan, K

    A. Irfan, K. Singirikonda, M. Yao, A. Lingenfel- ter, M. Mollenhauer, X. Cao, A. A. Clerk, and W. Pfaff, arXiv:2509.11872 [quant-ph] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    W. Son, M. S. Kim, J. Lee, and D. Ahn, Journal of Modern Optics49, 1739 (2002)

    work page 2002

  26. [26]

    Benatti, R

    F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, and M. Piani, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 070402 (2003)

    work page 2003

  27. [27]

    Kraus and J

    B. Kraus and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 013602 (2004)

    work page 2004

  28. [28]

    Paternostro, W

    M. Paternostro, W. Son, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 197901 (2004)

    work page 2004

  29. [29]

    Felicetti, M

    S. Felicetti, M. Sanz, L. Lamata, G. Romero, G. Johansson, P. Delsing, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 093602 (2014)

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Didier, J

    N. Didier, J. Guillaud, S. Shankar, and M. Mir- rahimi, Phys. Rev. A98, 012329 (2018)

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    J. You, Z. Liao, S.-W. Li, and M. S. Zubairy, Phys. Rev. A97, 023810 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Ma, X.-k

    S.-l. Ma, X.-k. Li, X.-y. Liu, J.-k. Xie, and F.-l. Li, Phys. Rev. A99, 042336 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Zippilli, M

    S. Zippilli, M. Paternostro, G. Adesso, and F. Il- luminati, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 040503 (2013)

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    Pocklington and A

    A. Pocklington and A. A. Clerk, PRX Quantum 5, 040305 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    L. C. G. Govia, A. Lingenfelter, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. Research4, 023010 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Agustí, Y

    J. Agustí, Y. Minoguchi, J. M. Fink, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. A105, 062454 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Agustí, X

    J. Agustí, X. H. H. Zhang, Y. Minoguchi, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 250801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Andrés-Juanes, J

    A. Andrés-Juanes, J. Agustí, R. Sett, E. S. Red- chenko, L. Kapoor, S. Hawaldar, P. Rabl, and J. M. Fink, arXiv:2510.07139 [quant-ph] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    B. R. Mollow, Phys. Rev.188, 1969 (1969)

    work page 1969

  40. [40]

    H. J. Carmichael and D. F. Walls, J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Phys.9, 1199 (1976)

    work page 1976

  41. [41]

    Cohen-Tannoudji and S

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji and S. Reynaud, J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Phys.10, 345 (1977)

    work page 1977

  42. [42]

    H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 691 (1977)

    work page 1977

  43. [43]

    Dagenais and L

    M. Dagenais and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. A18, 2217 (1978)

    work page 1978

  44. [44]

    Aspect, G

    A. Aspect, G. Roger, S. Reynaud, J. Dalibard, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 617 (1980)

    work page 1980

  45. [45]

    Dalibard and S

    J. Dalibard and S. Reynaud, J. Phys. France44, 1337 (1983)

    work page 1983

  46. [46]

    H. F. Arnoldus and G. Nienhuis, J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Phys.17, 963 (1984)

    work page 1984

  47. [47]

    del Valle, A

    E. del Valle, A. Gonzalez-Tudela, F. P. Laussy, C. Tejedor, and M. J. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 183601 (2012)

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    del Valle, New J

    E. del Valle, New J. Phys.15, 025019 (2013)

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    Gonzalez-Tudela, F

    A. Gonzalez-Tudela, F. P. Laussy, C. Tejedor, M. J. Hartmann, and E. del Valle, New J. Phys. 15, 033036 (2013)

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    Sánchez Muñoz, E

    C. Sánchez Muñoz, E. del Valle, C. Tejedor, and F. P. Laussy, Phys. Rev. A90, 052111 (2014)

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    C. S. Muñoz, E. del Valle, A. G. Tudela, K. Müller, S. Lichtmannecker, M. Kaniber, C. Tejedor, J. J. Finley, and F. P. Laussy, Nat. Photonics8, 550 (2014)

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    Chang, A

    Y. Chang, A. González-Tudela, C. Sánchez Muñoz, C. Navarrete-Benlloch, and T. Shi, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 203602 (2016)

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    J. C. López Carreño, E. del Valle, and F. P. Laussy, Laser Photonics Rev.11, 1700090 (2017)

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Sánchez Muñoz, F

    C. Sánchez Muñoz, F. P. Laussy, E. del Valle, C. Tejedor, and A. González-Tudela, Optica5, 14 (2018)

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Zubizarreta Casalengua, E

    E. Zubizarreta Casalengua, E. del Valle, and F. P. Laussy, Phys. Scr.98, 055104 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    J. C. López Carreño, S. Bermúdez Feijoo, and M. Stobińska, npj Nanophotonics1, 3 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    ZubizarretaCasalengua, K

    S.Bermúdez-Feijóo, E. ZubizarretaCasalengua, K. Müller, and K. D. Jöns, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033296 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Elliott, J

    A. Elliott, J. Ngaha, S. Parkins, and T. Aoki, arXiv:2510.25331 [quant-ph] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Vivas-Viaña,Nonclassical Driven- Dissipative Dynamics in Collective Quantum Optics, Ph.D

    A. Vivas-Viaña,Nonclassical Driven- Dissipative Dynamics in Collective Quantum Optics, Ph.D. thesis, Autonomous University of Madrid (2025)

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    Peiris, B

    M. Peiris, B. Petrak, K. Konthasinghe, Y. Yu, Z. C. Niu, and A. Muller, Phys. Rev. B91, 195125 (2015)

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    Peiris, K

    M. Peiris, K. Konthasinghe, and A. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 030501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    Hanschke, L

    L. Hanschke, L. Schweickert, J. C. L. Car- reño, E. Schöll, K. D. Zeuner, T. Lettner, E. Z. Casalengua, M. Reindl, S. F. C. da Silva, R. Trotta, J. J. Finley, A. Rastelli, E. del Valle, 18 F. P. Laussy, V. Zwiller, K. Müller, and K. D. Jöns, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 170402 (2020)

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Masters, X.-X

    L. Masters, X.-X. Hu, M. Cordier, G. Maron, L. Pache, A. Rauschenbeutel, M. Schemmer, and J. Volz, Nat. Photonics17, 972 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    S. Liu, O. A. D. Sandberg, M. L. Chan, B. Schrinski, Y. Anyfantaki, R. B. Nielsen, R. G. Larsen, A. Skalkin, Y. Wang, L. Mi- dolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. S. Sørensen, A.Tiranov,andP.Lodahl,Nat.Phys. 20, 1429 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Wang, X.-L

    J. Wang, X.-L. Zhou, Z.-M. Shen, D.-Y. Huang, S.-J. He, Q.-Y. Huang, Y.-J. Liu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 053401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    J. Yang, I. Strandberg, A. Vivas-Viaña, A.Gaikwad, C.Castillo-Moreno, A.F.Kockum, M. A. Ullah, C. S. Muñoz, A. M. Eriksson, and S. Gasparinetti, npj Quantum Inf11, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  67. [67]

    H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2273 (1993)

    work page 1993

  68. [68]

    C. W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2269 (1993)

    work page 1993

  69. [69]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Nature541, 473 (2017)

    work page 2017

  70. [70]

    Soro and A

    A. Soro and A. F. Kockum, Phys. Rev. A105, 023712 (2022)

    work page 2022

  71. [71]

    Suárez-Forero, M

    D. Suárez-Forero, M. Jalali Mehrabad, C. Vega, A.González-Tudela,andM.Hafezi,PRXQuan- tum6, 020101 (2025)

    work page 2025

  72. [72]

    Barzanjeh, A

    S. Barzanjeh, A. Xuereb, A. Alù, S. A. Mann, N. Nefedkin, V. Peano, and P. Rabl, arXiv:2508.03945 [quant-ph] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    C. W. Gardiner and A. S. Parkins, Phys. Rev. A50, 1792 (1994)

    work page 1994

  74. [74]

    Horodecki, P

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

    work page 2009

  75. [75]

    H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, 2002)

    work page 2002

  76. [76]

    Rivas and S

    Á. Rivas and S. F. Huelga,Open Quantum Sys- tems: An Introduction(Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, 2012)

    work page 2012

  77. [77]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. Van Loock, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005)

    work page 2005

  78. [78]

    Serafini, F

    A. Serafini, F. Illuminati, M. G. A. Paris, and S. De Siena, Phys. Rev. A69, 022318 (2004)

    work page 2004

  79. [79]

    E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V. Pound, Phys. Rev.69, 37 (1946)

    work page 1946

  80. [80]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, Quantum8, 1454 (2024)

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, Quantum8, 1454 (2024)

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.