Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 74 references

Time-optimal controls generate Fock and Schrödinger cat states at unit fidelity in Jaynes-Cummings and Rabi systems.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 12:45 UTC pith:CBSKKOVZ

load-bearing objection Applies brachistochrone to JC and Rabi models for Fock and cat states but the open-system robustness claims rest on closed-system controls tested in simulation. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.24781 v1 pith:CBSKKOVZ submitted 2026-05-23 quant-ph

Time optimal quantum state engineering

Sam Edmunds , Obinna Abah This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords time-optimal controlquantum brachistochroneFock statesSchrödinger cat statesJaynes-Cummings modelquantum Rabi modelnonclassical statesWigner distribution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper applies time-optimal control methods from the quantum brachistochrone formalism to the time-dependent Jaynes-Cummings and quantum Rabi models. This produces Fock states and highly entangled cat states deterministically at perfect fidelity. The controls reach these states at the quantum speed limit, which lowers the energy required and makes the states more resistant to dissipation, relaxation, and dephasing. Conventional slow methods leave more time for decoherence to act, so faster preparation directly improves reliability in noisy settings. The authors verify the nonclassical character of the generated states with joint Wigner phase-space distributions.

Core claim

The quantum brachistochrone formalism yields time-optimal controls for the time-dependent Jaynes-Cummings and quantum Rabi Hamiltonians that achieve deterministic generation of Fock states and highly entangled Schrödinger cat states at unit fidelity. These controls operate at the speed limit, which reduces energetic cost and confers robustness to dissipation, relaxation, and dephasing across broad environmental conditions. Nonclassical properties are characterized using joint Wigner phase-space distributions.

What carries the argument

Quantum brachistochrone formalism applied to time-dependent Jaynes-Cummings and quantum Rabi Hamiltonians to find shortest-time controls for state engineering.

Load-bearing premise

The quantum brachistochrone formalism directly yields implementable time-optimal controls for the time-dependent Jaynes-Cummings and quantum Rabi Hamiltonians even when the systems are subject to realistic dissipation and dephasing.

What would settle it

A simulation or experiment in which the derived controls fail to reach unit fidelity or lose the claimed robustness once dissipation and dephasing are included would falsify the central result.

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

If this is right

  • Fock states are generated deterministically at unit fidelity.
  • Highly entangled Schrödinger cat states are generated deterministically at unit fidelity.
  • State preparation occurs at the quantum speed limit.
  • Energetic cost of preparation is reduced relative to slower protocols.
  • Generated states remain robust against dissipation, relaxation, and dephasing over a wide range of conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same control method could be tested on other light-matter Hamiltonians not examined in the paper.
  • Faster preparation times might allow these states to be used as resources inside larger quantum circuits that have their own timing limits.
  • Lower energy cost could reduce the power budget needed in experimental hardware.
  • Increased robustness might permit operation in less isolated laboratory environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the quantum brachistochrone formalism to derive time-optimal 'wind controls' for the time-dependent Jaynes-Cummings and quantum Rabi models. It claims deterministic generation of Fock states and highly entangled Schrödinger cat states at unit fidelity, characterized via joint Wigner phase-space distributions, with operation at the quantum speed limit yielding reduced energetic cost and robustness to dissipation, relaxation, and dephasing across a broad range of environmental conditions.

Significance. If substantiated, the results would advance efficient nonclassical state preparation in hybrid light-matter systems by achieving minimal preparation times with lower energy expenditure and enhanced noise resilience, offering a practical alternative to adiabatic protocols for quantum technologies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and control derivation] The central claim that brachistochrone-derived controls achieve unit fidelity and remain optimal/robust under Lindblad dissipation is load-bearing but unsupported; the quantum brachistochrone is formulated for closed unitary dynamics on the projective Hilbert space, and simply inserting the resulting controls into the open-system master equation does not guarantee either property (see abstract and the derivation of the controls).
  2. [Results on robustness] No explicit re-derivation or numerical verification is indicated for how the speed-limit property and unit fidelity are preserved (or approximately preserved) when non-unitary terms are included; this must be shown to support the robustness claims across environmental conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The term 'wind control' appears without prior definition or reference in the abstract; introduce and motivate the terminology in the introduction or methods.
  2. [Characterization section] Clarify whether the joint Wigner distributions are computed for the full light-matter Hilbert space or a reduced subsystem, and specify the quadrature operators used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting important distinctions between closed- and open-system dynamics. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions that will be made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and control derivation] The central claim that brachistochrone-derived controls achieve unit fidelity and remain optimal/robust under Lindblad dissipation is load-bearing but unsupported; the quantum brachistochrone is formulated for closed unitary dynamics on the projective Hilbert space, and simply inserting the resulting controls into the open-system master equation does not guarantee either property (see abstract and the derivation of the controls).

    Authors: We agree that the quantum brachistochrone formalism yields time-optimal controls only for closed unitary evolution on projective Hilbert space. The wind controls are derived under this closed-system assumption to reach the quantum speed limit with unit fidelity for the target Fock and cat states. The manuscript then inserts these controls into the Lindblad master equation and reports numerical results indicating that high fidelity is retained together with lower energetic cost and resilience to dissipation. We acknowledge that the abstract and derivation sections do not sufficiently distinguish the closed-system optimality from the open-system numerical performance. We will revise the abstract and add a clarifying paragraph in the control-derivation section stating the scope of the brachistochrone result and the role of the subsequent open-system simulations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results on robustness] No explicit re-derivation or numerical verification is indicated for how the speed-limit property and unit fidelity are preserved (or approximately preserved) when non-unitary terms are included; this must be shown to support the robustness claims across environmental conditions.

    Authors: The manuscript contains numerical integrations of the open-system master equation under the closed-system-derived controls, with results shown for a range of dissipation, relaxation and dephasing rates. These simulations demonstrate that fidelity remains close to unity and energetic cost stays below that of adiabatic protocols. However, we accept that an explicit side-by-side comparison of closed- versus open-system fidelity and a clearer statement that the speed-limit property is strictly for the unitary case are not currently highlighted. We will add a dedicated subsection with additional panels that overlay closed- and open-system trajectories, quantify the deviation from the closed-system speed limit, and tabulate fidelity versus environmental parameters to make the verification explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard brachistochrone formalism applied without self-referential reduction or fitted predictions.

full rationale

The abstract and description invoke the established quantum brachistochrone formalism for time-optimal controls on Jaynes-Cummings and Rabi Hamiltonians, then report resulting state generation and robustness properties. No equations, parameter fits, or self-citations are exhibited that would reduce any claimed prediction or optimality condition to the input data or prior author work by construction. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of the target results and is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5673 in / 1097 out tokens · 38609 ms · 2026-06-30T12:45:44.195425+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The efficient generation of highly nonclassical quantum states is essential for emerging quantum technologies, yet it remains challenging due to decoherence and the long preparation times associated with conventional adiabatic protocols. Here, we employ time-optimal control methods based on the quantum brachistochrone formalism to engineer nonclassical states in light--matter systems described by the time-dependent Jaynes--Cummings and quantum Rabi models. We demonstrate the deterministic generation of Fock states and highly entangled Schr\"odinger cat states at unit fidelity, and characterize their nonclassical properties through joint Wigner phase-space distributions. We further show that the wind control generates these non-classical states at speed limit which leads to a reduced energetic cost and robustness against dissipation, relaxation, and dephasing across a broad range of environmental conditions. Our results establish time-optimal control as an efficient and experimentally feasible approach for fast and nonclassical state engineering in hybrid quantum platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24781 by Obinna Abah, Sam Edmunds.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the possible trajectories of the quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) The time-dependent coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The instantaneous fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) The time-dependent coupling protocol, Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The set of joint Wigner function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The energy resource [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The infidelity of the target state 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ˆHJC (t) =ω cˆa†ˆa+ωq(t) 2 ˆσz +λ(t)(ˆaˆσ+ + ˆa†ˆσ−) which is known to conserve the total number of excitations in the system, i.e., [ ˆN , ˆH] = 0 where ˆN= ˆa†ˆa+|e⟩ ⟨e|. Hence, the JC Hamiltonian can be block diagonalized in the excitation number subspaceH n ={|e, n⟩,|g, n+ 1⟩} 0 1 t/τ 0.0 0.1 0.2 λ(t) (a) 0 1 t/τ 0 1 2ωq(t) (b) linear quadratic cubic ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Re- peating this procedure allows us to build any entan- gled cat state of the form|ψ n+k,n−k⟩= (|g, n+k⟩+ |e, n−k⟩)/ √ 2 where 1≤k≤n

    After the population inversion, an entan- gled cat state of the form|ψ n+1,n−1⟩= (|g, n+ 1⟩+ |e, n−1⟩)/ √ 2 is obtained, which can then be trans- formed into|ψ n+2,n−2⟩= (|g, n+ 2⟩+|e, n−2⟩)/ √ 2 by applying anotherπpulse and population inversion. Re- peating this procedure allows us to build any entan- gled cat state of the form|ψ n+k,n−k⟩= (|g, n+k⟩+ |e...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Bassi, K

    A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ul- bricht, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 471 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Fil- ipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, EPJ Quan- tum Technology9, 19 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Larson and T

    J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos,The Jaynes–Cummings Model and Its Descendants, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2021). 9

    work page 2053

  6. [6]

    Jiang, L

    X. Jiang, L. Shen, and Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. A112, 063721 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Gilchrist, K

    A. Gilchrist, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, T. C. Ralph, S. Glancy, S. L. Braunstein, and G. J. Milburn, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics6, S828 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Li, C.-L

    L. Li, C.-L. Zou, V. V. Albert, S. Muralidharan, S. M. Girvin, and L. Jiang, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 030502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    Mirrahimi, Z

    M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, New Journal of Physics16, 045014 (2014)

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    J. Joo, W. J. Munro, and T. P. Spiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 083601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    M. Kira, S. Koch, R. Smith, A. Hunter, and S. Cundiff, Nature Physics7, 800 (2011)

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    J. C. Wright, Analytical chemistry92, 8638 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    D. S. Schlegel, F. Minganti, and V. Savona, Phys. Rev. A106, 022431 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Bertet, S

    P. Bertet, S. Osnaghi, P. Milman, A. Auffeves, P. Maioli, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 143601 (2002)

    work page 2002

  15. [15]

    Hofheinz, E

    M. Hofheinz, E. M. Weig, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, H. Wang, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Nature454, 310 (2008)

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    M. Uria, P. Solano, and C. Hermann-Avigliano, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 093603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Zhang and J

    C.-y. Zhang and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. A110, 042421 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Kumar, D

    S. Kumar, D. Bhatti, A. E. Jones, and S. Barz, New Journal of Physics25, 063027 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    S. Cao, B. Wu, F. Chen, M. Gong, Y. Wu, Y. Ye, C. Zha, H. Qian, C. Ying, S. Guo, Q. Zhu, H.-L. Huang, Y. Zhao, S. Li, S. Wang, J. Yu, D. Fan, D. Wu, H. Su, H. Deng, H. Rong, Y. Li, K. Zhang, T.-H. Chung, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, L. Sun, C. Guo, N. Li, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Z. Peng, C.- Y. Lu, X. Yuan, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Nature619, 738 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    M. H. Mu˜ noz Arias, I. H. Deutsch, and P. M. Poggi, PRX Quantum4, 020314 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    A. C. Santos, A. Cidrim, C. J. Villas-Boas, R. Kaiser, and R. Bachelard, Phys. Rev. A105, 053715 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Bartolucci, P

    S. Bartolucci, P. M. Birchall, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, M. Pant, T. Rudolph, J. Smith, C. Sparrow, and M. D. Vidrighin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13825 10.48550/arXiv.2106.13825 (2021), arXiv:2106.13825 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.13825 2021

  23. [23]

    Z.-Z. Li, W. Chen, M. Abbasi, K. W. Murch, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 100202 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Cosacchi, T

    M. Cosacchi, T. Seidelmann, J. Wiercinski, M. Cygorek, A. Vagov, D. E. Reiter, and V. M. Axt, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023088 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Takase, J.-i

    K. Takase, J.-i. Yoshikawa, W. Asavanant, M. Endo, and A. Furusawa, Phys. Rev. A103, 013710 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Kudra, M

    M. Kudra, M. Kervinen, I. Strandberg, S. Ahmed, M. Scigliuzzo, A. Osman, D. P. Lozano, M. O. Thol´ en, R. Borgani, D. B. Haviland, G. Ferrini, J. Bylander, A. F. Kockum, F. Quijandr´ ıa, P. Delsing, and S. Gasparinetti, PRX Quantum3, 030301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, H. Jing, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 093602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Grimm, N

    A. Grimm, N. E. Frattini, S. Puri, S. O. Mundhada, S. Touzard, M. Mirrahimi, S. M. Girvin, S. Shankar, and M. H. Devoret, Nature584, 205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Hoshi, T

    D. Hoshi, T. Nagase, S. Kwon, D. Iyama, T. Kamiya, S. Fujii, H. Mukai, S. Ahmed, A. F. Kockum, S. Watabe, F. Yoshihara, and J.-S. Tsai, Nature Communications 16, 1309 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Monroe, D

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, and D. J. Wineland, Science272, 1131 (1996)

    work page 1996

  31. [31]

    Poschinger, A

    U. Poschinger, A. Walther, K. Singer, and F. Schmidt- Kaler, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 263602 (2010)

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    K. G. Johnson, J. D. Wong-Campos, B. Neyenhuis, J. Mizrahi, and C. Monroe, Nature Communications8, 697 (2017)

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Leroux, L

    C. Leroux, L. C. G. Govia, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 093602 (2018)

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    W. S. Warren, H. Rabitz, and M. Dahleh, Science259, 1581 (1993)

    work page 1993

  35. [35]

    O. V. Morzhin and A. N. Pechen, Quantum Information Processing22, 241 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Jiang, S

    X. Jiang, S. Yin, H. Li, J. Quan, H. Goh, M. Cotrufo, J. Kullig, J. Wiersig, and A. Al` u, Nature Physics20, 109 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    A. Mena, S. K. Mann, A. Cowley-Semple, E. Bryan, S. Heutz, D. R. McCamey, M. Attwood, and S. L. Bayliss, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 120801 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Vaneecloo, S

    J. Vaneecloo, S. Garcia, and A. Ourjoumtsev, Phys. Rev. X12, 021034 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Medina-Guerra, P

    E. Medina-Guerra, P. Kumar, I. V. Gornyi, and Y. Gefen, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023159 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Volya and P

    D. Volya and P. Mishra, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering5, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Rivera-Dean, T

    J. Rivera-Dean, T. Lamprou, E. Pisanty, M. F. Ciappina, P. Tzallas, M. Lewenstein, and P. Stammer, Phys. Rev. A112, 013110 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    D. A. Puente, F. Motzoi, T. Calarco, G. Morigi, and M. Rizzi, Quantum8, 1299 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Lambert, M

    N. Lambert, M. Cirio, J.-D. Lin, P. Menczel, P. Liang, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043229 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Mi and et

    X. Mi and et. al., Science383, 1332 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [46]

    Innocenti, G

    L. Innocenti, G. De Chiara, M. Paternostro, and R. Puebla, New Journal of Physics22, 093050 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [47]

    Y.-H. Chen, W. Qin, X. Wang, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 023602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [48]

    Xu, Z.-Z

    S.-W. Xu, Z.-Z. Zhang, Y.-Y. Guo, Y.-H. Chen, and Y. Xia, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00464 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00464 (2024), arXiv:2408.00464 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.00464 2024

  48. [49]

    Yu, K.-X

    J.-W. Yu, K.-X. Yan, Y. Qiu, J. Song, Y.-H. Chen, and Y. Xia, Opt. Express33, 26356 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [50]

    Chen and H

    S.-Q. Chen and H. Lu, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 024015 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [51]

    S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, W. K¨ ockenberger, R. Kosloff, I. Kuprov, B. Luy, S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, The European Physical Journal D69, 279 (2015)

    work page 2015

  51. [52]

    Li, J.-F

    G. Li, J.-F. Chen, C. P. Sun, and H. Dong, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 230603 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [53]

    O. Abah, R. Puebla, A. Kiely, G. De Chiara, M. Pa- ternostro, and S. Campbell, New Journal of Physics21, 103048 (2019)

    work page 2019

  53. [54]

    Auff` eves, PRX Quantum3, 020101 (2022)

    A. Auff` eves, PRX Quantum3, 020101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  54. [55]

    Garcia, J

    L. Garcia, J. M. Bofill, I. d. P. R. Moreira, and G. Al- bareda, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 180402 (2022). 10

    work page 2022

  55. [56]

    J. Xu, Y. Zhang, W. Zheng, H. Cai, H. Zhou, X. Li, X. Liao, Y. Zhang, S. Li, D. Lan, X. Tan, and Y. Yu, Chinese Physics Letters41, 040202 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [57]

    Y. Dong, W. Jiang, X.-D. Gao, C. Yu, Y. Liu, S.-C. Zhang, X.-D. Chen, I. d. P. R. Moreira, J. M. Bofill, G. Sent´ ıs, R. Ramos, G. Albareda, G.-C. Guo, and F.- W. Sun, npj Quantum Information10, 108 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [58]

    Y. Dong, W. Jiang, Z.-W. Liu, Y. Liu, S.-C. Zhang, D. P. Pires, D. O. Soares-Pinto, X.-D. Chen, G.-C. Guo, and F.-W. Sun, npj Quantum Information11, 199 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [59]

    Carlini, A

    A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 060503 (2006)

    work page 2006

  59. [60]

    Carlini, A

    A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Phys. Rev. A75, 042308 (2007)

    work page 2007

  60. [61]

    Carlini, A

    A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical41, 045303 (2008)

    work page 2008

  61. [62]

    I. I. Rabi, Phys. Rev.51, 652 (1937)

    work page 1937

  62. [63]

    Larson and T

    J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos,The Jaynes–Cummings Model and its Descendants (Second Edition), 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2024)

    work page 2053

  63. [64]

    Jaynes and F

    E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Proceedings of the IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

    work page 1963

  64. [65]

    O. Abah, R. Puebla, and M. Paternostro, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 180401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [66]

    del Campo, Phys

    A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 100502 (2013)

    work page 2013

  66. [67]

    Leroux, L

    C. Leroux, L. C. G. Govia, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. A96, 043834 (2017)

    work page 2017

  67. [68]

    Li and M

    Z.-M. Li and M. T. Batchelor, Phys. Rev. A104, 033712 (2021)

    work page 2021

  68. [69]

    Wigner, Phys

    E. Wigner, Phys. Rev.40, 749 (1932)

    work page 1932

  69. [70]

    Vlastakis, A

    B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, N. Ofek, L. Sun, Z. Legh- tas, K. Sliwa, Y. Liu, M. Hatridge, J. Blumoff, L. Frun- zio, M. Mirrahimi, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature Communications6, 8970 (2015)

    work page 2015

  70. [71]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical50, 453001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  71. [73]

    Mandelstam and I

    L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, The uncertainty relation between energy and time in non-relativistic quantum me- chanics, inSelected Papers, edited by B. M. Bolotovskii, V. Y. Frenkel, and R. Peierls (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991) pp. 115–123

    work page 1991

  72. [74]

    Zheng, S

    Y. Zheng, S. Campbell, G. De Chiara, and D. Poletti, Phys. Rev. A94, 042132 (2016)

    work page 2016

  73. [75]

    Bloch, Physical Review105, 1206 (1957)

    F. Bloch, Physical Review105, 1206 (1957)

    work page 1957

  74. [76]

    Liu, Y.-H

    S. Liu, Y.-H. Chen, Y. Wang, Y.-H. Kang, Z.-C. Shi, J. Song, and Y. Xia, Phys. Rev. A106, 042430 (2022)

    work page 2022