pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22953 · v1 · pith:TCKE32P3new · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.quant-gas· cond-mat.stat-mech· nlin.CD

Chaos to Synchronization and Dissipative Quantum Scarring in Open Coupled top-Dicke model in a Lossy Cavity

Debabrata Mondal , Sohan Pati , S. Sinha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 05:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechnlin.CD
keywords quantum scarsDicke modelopen quantum systemsdissipationsynchronizationsuperradianceBose-Josephson junctionmacroscopic quantum tunneling
0
0 comments X

The pith

In the open coupled-top Dicke model realized in a lossy cavity, photon loss produces spontaneous synchronization and two distinct dissipative quantum scars, one protected with persistent revivals and one in the superradiant phase that shows

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

The paper examines how an open variant of the Dicke model behaves when realized by coupling a two-species Bose-Josephson junction to a lossy cavity. Photon loss projects the dynamics onto a dissipation-free subspace, triggering spontaneous synchronization together with a period of transient chaos that later yields restored coherence. Two scarring phenomena appear under dissipation: one scar type remains protected and produces ongoing revivals, while the scar tied to the superradiant phase undergoes a slow decay of survival probability. For sufficiently small spin magnitude this decaying scar connects directly to chaos-assisted macroscopic quantum tunneling. The findings are presented as testable in existing cavity QED setups.

Core claim

Photon loss induces spontaneous synchronization via projection onto a dissipation-free subspace, along with transient chaos followed by restoration of synchronization and coherence. Two distinct scarring phenomena appear in the presence of dissipation: one remains protected and exhibits persistent revivals, while the scar associated with the superradiant phase displays a dissipation-induced slow decay of the survival probability. For sufficiently small spin magnitude, the chaos-assisted macroscopic quantum tunneling is linked to the latter type of scarring.

What carries the argument

Projection onto a dissipation-free subspace induced by photon loss, which generates spontaneous synchronization and separates two classes of dissipative quantum scars in the open coupled-top Dicke model.

If this is right

  • Photon loss projects the system onto a dissipation-free subspace that produces spontaneous synchronization.
  • Transient chaos appears before synchronization and coherence are restored.
  • One scar remains protected and yields persistent revivals under dissipation.
  • The superradiant scar exhibits a dissipation-induced slow decay of survival probability.
  • For small spin magnitude the decaying scar connects to chaos-assisted macroscopic quantum tunneling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same projection mechanism may produce analogous protected and decaying scars in other open many-body platforms such as circuit QED arrays.
  • Varying spin magnitude offers an experimental knob to switch between dominant scar types.
  • The protected scar could serve as a resource for maintaining coherence in engineered dissipative environments.
  • The reported link between chaos-assisted tunneling and a specific scar type suggests a route to control tunneling rates through dissipation strength.

Load-bearing premise

Coupling a two-species Bose-Josephson junction to a lossy cavity produces an effective open coupled-top Dicke model in which photon loss projects the system onto a dissipation-free subspace that drives synchronization.

What would settle it

A cavity QED experiment on the coupled-top system that finds neither persistent revivals in one scar type nor slow decay of survival probability in the superradiant scar, or that shows no link between the decaying scar and macroscopic quantum tunneling at small spin values, would falsify the central claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22953 by Debabrata Mondal, Sohan Pati, S. Sinha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of a two-component Bose-Josephson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a variant of the Dicke model, termed as the open coupled-top Dicke model, which enables the exploration of rich non-equilibrium phenomena, particularly the fate of quantum scars in an open environment. This model can effectively be realized by coupling a two-species Bose-Josephson junction to a lossy cavity. Photon loss induces spontaneous synchronization via projection onto a dissipation-free subspace, along with transient chaos followed by restoration of synchronization and coherence. We identify two distinct scarring phenomena in the presence of dissipation. One remains protected, exhibiting persistent revivals, while the scar associated with the superradiant phase displays a dissipation-induced slow decay of the survival probability. Remarkably, for sufficiently small spin magnitude, the chaos-assisted macroscopic quantum tunneling is linked to the latter type of scarring. The results can be readily tested in ongoing cavity QED experiments and have broader applicability in other platforms.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the open coupled-top Dicke model, a variant of the Dicke model realized by coupling a two-species Bose-Josephson junction to a lossy cavity. Photon loss is claimed to induce spontaneous synchronization via projection onto a dissipation-free subspace, accompanied by transient chaos followed by restoration of synchronization and coherence. The central results identify two distinct scarring phenomena under dissipation: one protected scar with persistent revivals, and a superradiant-phase scar exhibiting dissipation-induced slow decay of the survival probability. For sufficiently small spin magnitude, the latter is linked to chaos-assisted macroscopic quantum tunneling. The findings are presented as testable in cavity QED experiments.

Significance. If the derivations, numerics, and effective-model mapping hold, the work would contribute to the study of dissipative quantum scarring and the interplay between chaos, synchronization, and open-system dynamics. The distinction between protected and decaying scars, along with the link to chaos-assisted tunneling at small spin, offers a concrete extension of closed-system scar physics to lossy environments with potential relevance for cavity QED platforms.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of 'two distinct scarring phenomena' is stated without reference to the specific sections, equations, or figures that present the supporting survival-probability data or the projection onto the dissipation-free subspace.
  2. The effective realization via two-species Bose-Josephson junction plus lossy cavity is asserted but would benefit from an explicit mapping of the cavity-loss term to the projection operator in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary, significance assessment, and recommendation of minor revision. No major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The abstract and provided description outline a model variant realized via Bose-Josephson junction plus lossy cavity, with claims about synchronization via projection onto a dissipation-free subspace and two distinct scarring phenomena identified through analysis of survival probability and revivals. No equations or steps are shown that reduce predictions to fitted inputs by construction, self-define quantities in terms of each other, or rely on load-bearing self-citations whose prior results are unverified. The scarring distinction and chaos-assisted tunneling link appear derived from independent dynamical analysis rather than tautological renaming or ansatz smuggling. This is the expected honest outcome for a paper whose central results rest on explicit model evolution rather than internal redefinition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5703 in / 1049 out tokens · 59828 ms · 2026-05-25T05:39:56.860508+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 124 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We set ℏ= 1 and measure energy (time) in units ofJ(1/J)

    then yields the Hamiltonian in Eq.(1) [92]. We set ℏ= 1 and measure energy (time) in units ofJ(1/J). Notably, forV= 0, the model reduces to an experimen- tally realizable generalized Dicke model [25] of a binary atomic mixture; collective spin models are also relevant to trapped ions [93–98] and molecular magnets [99–101] with cavity or microwave control....

    work page

  2. [2]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Borgonovi, F

    F. Borgonovi, F. M. Izrailev, L. F. Santos, and V. G. Zelevinsky, Physics Reports626, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature452, 854 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    J. M. Deutsch, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 082001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Bohigas, M.-J

    O. Bohigas, M.-J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Physical Review Letters52, 1 (1984)

    work page 1984

  7. [7]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Nat. Phys.17, 675 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moess- ner, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.14, 443 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Rep. Prog. Phys.85, 086501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Grobe, F

    R. Grobe, F. Haake, and H.-J. Sommers, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1899 (1988)

    work page 1988

  11. [11]

    G. G. Carlo, G. Benenti, and D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 164101 (2005)

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Vivek, D

    G. Vivek, D. Mondal, S. Chakraborty, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 113404 (2025)

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Ferrari, L

    F. Ferrari, L. Gravina, D. Eeltink, P. Scarlino, V. Savona, and F. Minganti, Phys. Rev. Research7, 013276 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Mondal, A

    D. Mondal, A. Kolovsky, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. E 111, L052204 (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    L. S´ a, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. X10, 021019 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Prasad, H

    M. Prasad, H. K. Yadalam, C. Aron, and M. Kulkarni, Phys. Rev. A105, L050201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Villase˜ nor, L

    D. Villase˜ nor, L. F. Santos, and P. Barberis-Blostein, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 240404 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Villase˜ nor, H

    D. Villase˜ nor, H. Yan, M. Orel, and M. Robnik, Phys. Rev. E112, L042204 (2025)

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Mondal, L

    D. Mondal, L. F. Santos, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 040401 (2026)

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    Mondal, L

    D. Mondal, L. F. Santos, and S. Sinha, arXiv:2602.16817 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    P. D. Drummond and D. F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A23, 2563 (1981)

    work page 1981

  22. [22]

    Rempe, R

    G. Rempe, R. J. Thompson, R. J. Brecha, W. D. Lee, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 1727 (1991)

    work page 1991

  23. [23]

    Landa, M

    H. Landa, M. Schir´ o, and G. Misguich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 043601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    L. Zhou, H. Pu, H. Y. Ling, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 160403 (2009)

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    A. Ali, F. Saif, and H. Saito, Phys. Rev. A105, 063318 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Mivehvar, Phys

    F. Mivehvar, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 073602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Keßler, P

    H. Keßler, P. Kongkhambut, C. Georges, L. Mathey, J. G. Cosme, and A. Hemmerich, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 043602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Kongkhambut, J

    P. Kongkhambut, J. Skulte, L. Mathey, J. G. Cosme, A. Hemmerich, and H. Keßler, Science377, 670 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    X. Wu, Z. Wang, F. Yang, R. Gao, C. Liang, M. K. Tey, X. Li, T. Pohl, and L. You, Nature Physics20, 1389 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    da Silva Souza, L

    L. da Silva Souza, L. F. dos Prazeres, and F. Iemini, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 180401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Dutta, S

    S. Dutta, S. Zhang, and M. Haque, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 050407 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Solanki, A

    P. Solanki, A. Cabot, M. Brunelli, F. Carollo, C. Bruder, and I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. A112, L030601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    A. W. Laskar, P. Adhikary, S. Mondal, P. Katiyar, S. Vinjanampathy, and S. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 013601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Y. Li, Z. Xie, X. Yang, Y. Li, X. Zhao, X. Cheng, X. Peng, J. Li, E. Lutz, Y. Lin, and J. Du, Sci. Adv. 11, eady5649 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    A. Mari, A. Farace, N. Didier, V. Giovannetti, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 103605 (2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    Roulet and C

    A. Roulet and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 063601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Zanardi and M

    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3306 (1997)

    work page 1997

  38. [38]

    D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2594 (1998)

    work page 1998

  39. [39]

    Bacon, J

    D. Bacon, J. Kempe, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1758 (2000)

    work page 2000

  40. [40]

    Kempe, D

    J. Kempe, D. Bacon, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A63, 042307 (2001)

    work page 2001

  41. [41]

    P. G. Kwiat, A. J. Berglund, J. B. Altepeter, and A. G. White, Science290, 498 (2000)

    work page 2000

  42. [42]

    J. B. Altepeter, P. G. Hadley, S. M. Wendelken, A. J. Berglund, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 147901 (2004)

    work page 2004

  43. [43]

    Mohseni, J

    M. Mohseni, J. S. Lundeen, K. J. Resch, and A. M. Steinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 187903 (2003)

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    Z. D. Walton, A. F. Abouraddy, A. V. Sergienko, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 6 087901 (2003)

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    L.-X. Cen, Z. D. Wang, and S. J. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 74, 032321 (2006)

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    Mivehvar, F

    F. Mivehvar, F. Piazza, T. Donner, and H. Ritsch, Ad- vances in Physics70, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Carusotto and C

    I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 299 (2013)

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Tomadin, A. Micheli, R. Fazio, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 015702 (2010)

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Ritsch, P

    H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 553 (2013)

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    A. A. Houck, H. E. T¨ ureci, and J. Koch, Nature Phys. 8, 292 (2012)

    work page 2012

  52. [52]

    Baumann, C

    K. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Nature464, 1301 (2010)

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    Klinder, H

    J. Klinder, H. Keßler, M. Wolke, L. Mathey, and A. Hemmerich, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America112, 3290 (2015)

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    L´ eonard, A

    J. L´ eonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Nature543, 87 (2017)

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature551, 579 (2017)

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    Moudgalya, O

    S. Moudgalya, O. I. Motrunich, D. A. Huse,et al., Na- ture Physics18, 1231 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Ser- byn, and Z. Papi´ c, Nat. Phys.14, 745 (2018)

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Ser- byn, and Z. Papi´ c, Phys. Rev. B98, 155134 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    Lin and O

    C.-J. Lin and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 173401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    W. W. Ho, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 040603 (2019)

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    A. A. Michailidis, C. J. Turner, Z. Papi´ c, D. A. Abanin, and M. Serbyn, Phys. Rev. X10, 011055 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Pizzi, L.-H

    A. Pizzi, L.-H. Kwan, B. Evrard, C. B. Dag, and J. Knolle, Nat. Commun.16, 6722 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Hummel, K

    Q. Hummel, K. Richter, and P. Schlagheck, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 250402 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Evrard, A

    B. Evrard, A. Pizzi, S. I. Mistakidis, and C. B. Dag, Phys. Rev. B110, 144302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Gotta, S

    L. Gotta, S. Moudgalya, and L. Mazza, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 190401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    Sinha and S

    S. Sinha and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 134101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Mondal, S

    D. Mondal, S. Sinha, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. E102, 020101(R) (2020)

    work page 2020

  68. [68]

    Mondal, S

    D. Mondal, S. Sinha, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. E105, 014130 (2022)

    work page 2022

  69. [70]

    Mondal, S

    D. Mondal, S. Sinha, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. E104, 024217 (2021)

    work page 2021

  70. [71]

    E. J. Heller, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 1515 (1984)

    work page 1984

  71. [72]

    A. M. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Z. Lu, L. S´ a, and J. J. M. Ver- baarschot, Phys. Rev. E113, 024116 (2026)

    work page 2026

  72. [73]

    J.-L. Ma, Z. Guo, Y. Gao, Z. Papi´ c, and L. Ying, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 180401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  73. [74]

    Teretenkov and O

    A. Teretenkov and O. Lychkovskiy, Phys. Rev. B110, L241105 (2024)

    work page 2024

  74. [75]

    H.-R. Wang, D. Yuan, S.-Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, D.-L. Deng, and L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 150401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  75. [76]

    Buˇ ca, J

    B. Buˇ ca, J. Tindall, and D. Jaksch, Nature Communi- cations10, 1730 (2019)

    work page 2019

  76. [77]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    work page 1954

  77. [78]

    Zhiqiang, C

    Z. Zhiqiang, C. H. Lee, R. Kumar, K. J. Arnold, S. J. Masson, A. S. Parkins, and M. D. Barrett, Optica4, 424 (2017)

    work page 2017

  78. [79]

    M. P. Baden, K. J. Arnold, A. L. Grimsmo, S. Parkins, and M. D. Barrett, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 020408 (2014)

    work page 2014

  79. [80]

    Ferri, R

    F. Ferri, R. Rosa-Medina, F. Finger, N. Dogra, M. Sori- ente, O. Zilberberg, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. X11, 041046 (2021)

    work page 2021

  80. [81]

    Emary and T

    C. Emary and T. Brandes, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 044101 (2003)

    work page 2003

Showing first 80 references.