Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 141 references

This paper derives an exact phase-space PDE for dissipative many-body emitter arrays, shows its Wigner truncation is the only valid stochastic approximation, and extends it to multi-time correlations.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:40 UTC pith:RYDZF6NL

load-bearing objection Genuinely useful extension of dissipative TWA to multi-time correlations, but the central exact PDE is asserted without derivation and the truncation step is internally muddled. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00341 v1 pith:RYDZF6NL submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph

Phase-Space Methods for Many-Body Quantum Optics

Edgar Guardiola-Navarrete , Silvia Cardenas-Lopez , Ana Asenjo-Garcia This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81S3081V8082C31
keywords Truncated Wigner approximationMany-body quantum opticsPhase-space methodsCollective dissipationMulti-time correlation functionsPositive P representationStratonovich-Weyl correspondenceOpen quantum systems
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 aims to establish a single exact phase-space equation for an array of two-level emitters sharing a common photonic environment, in any quasiprobability representation. That equation contains exactly the same information as the many-body master equation and is no faster to solve, but it provides the starting point for a semiclassical approximation: dropping third-order derivatives in the Wigner representation yields the dissipative truncated Wigner approximation, a Fokker-Planck equation with cost linear in the number of emitters. The paper argues this Wigner truncation is the only minimal approximation of its kind that produces a valid stochastic equation, and extends the method to multi-time correlation functions needed for spectra and field correlations. If right, it gives a practical route to simulate superradiance, superradiant lasing, and collective emission in systems far beyond exact master-equation size.

Core claim

The central result is Eq. (74): an exact linear PDE for the quasiprobability distribution of N spin-1/2 emitters coupled through a common Markovian electromagnetic reservoir, valid for the P, Wigner, and Q representations. The paper proves this PDE is exactly equivalent to the spin master equation, but also exactly as hard — a direct solution costs 4^N. The constructive content is the reduction: in the Wigner representation, dropping third-order derivatives and enforcing positivity of the diffusion matrix yields exactly the dissipative truncated Wigner approximation, a Fokker-Planck equation that can be simulated with O(N M) effort. The paper further shows that neither the P nor Q representa

What carries the argument

The central object is Eq. (74), the exact phase-space PDE for the spin master equation. It is derived from the Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence — a general rule mapping operators to functions on the phase-space sphere — together with the spin Moyal product, a noncommutative product of functions that encodes operator ordering. The paper shows that the PDE's third-order derivative terms vanish only in the Wigner representation, and that after truncation the diffusion matrix becomes positive semidefinite, allowing an unraveling into stochastic differential equations for each atom. The error analysis is carried by a projection operator onto the subspace U spanned by the lowest spherical harmonic

Load-bearing premise

Every stochastic mapping in the paper assumes the quasiprobability distribution vanishes at the phase-space boundaries; the paper acknowledges this has no physical guarantee for spins and visibly fails for decaying atoms in the Positive P representation.

What would settle it

Evolve a single excited atom with the spin Positive P equations: the simulation should deviate from the exact master equation as trajectories reach the boundary, as the paper shows for a single decaying atom. Alternatively, search the P or Q representation over a larger truncation space for any first-derivative Moyal approximation that yields a positive semidefinite diffusion matrix; the paper's uniqueness claim predicts none exists beyond the truncations tested.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • One-time expectation values of large emitter arrays can be computed at a cost that grows linearly with atom number and trajectory count, making Dicke superradiance and superradiant-lasing steady states numerically accessible.
  • The multi-time correlation algorithm computes spectra and second-order field correlations with polynomial cost, so spectral linewidths and g(2) of collective light sources can be studied without exact exponential-size Hilbert-space simulation.
  • The Wigner representation is singled out as the only phase-space picture in which a minimal Fokker-Planck truncation exists; P and Q representations are generally unsuitable for many-body quantum optics.
  • In regimes dominated by high-cooperativity (large-J) states the dissipative TWA agrees with exact master-equation results; in low-excitation regimes it can produce artifacts such as population growth without pumping.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the exact PDE, Eq. (74), could be used as a systematic expansion point rather than a truncation target — keeping second-derivative corrections or adding them perturbatively might give controlled improvements over the Fokker-Planck limit for low-excitation states.
  • Editorial inference: the multi-time method's core trick — representing the product of a trajectory kernel and an operator as a weighted sum of four discrete kernel initial conditions — should extend to multilevel emitters, where more than four phase-space points are needed, with cost multiplying accordingly.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's boundary-term caveat suggests a practical diagnostic for any future phase-space simulation: monitor the quasiprobability density near θ = 0 and θ = π; when it grows, results should be treated as untrustworthy regardless of trajectory count.
  • Editorial inference: if the boundary assumption can be controlled — for example by a gauge choice that keeps trajectories off the poles — the Positive P formalism could become exact for spin problems, since the paper's failure of the method is specifically traced to boundary terms, not to the Fokker-Planck mapping itself.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a Stratonovich-Weyl phase-space formalism for N two-level atoms coupled through a common Markovian reservoir. Its main claims are: (i) an exact PDE, Eq. (74), equivalent to the spin master equation (57) in any s-representation; (ii) a truncation that recovers the dissipative TWA of Mink and Fleischhauer, Eq. (78); (iii) a method for K-time correlation functions, Eq. (99), with polynomial cost; and (iv) a quasi-uniqueness statement for the Wigner FPE and the inadequacy of P/Q and positive-P representations. The paper includes numerical demonstrations for Dicke superradiance, a driven 1D array, and a superradiant-laser spectrum, and it is candid about the absence of a small system-size parameter, boundary-term assumptions, and the non-rigorous nature of the uniqueness search.

Significance. If correct, the exact phase-space equation and the multi-time correlation method would be useful additions to the semiclassical toolbox for open spin ensembles. The authors are unusually explicit about the limitations of the approximation: they state that the truncation is 'a priori arbitrary', that boundary contributions may be nonzero, and that Positive-P trajectories can diverge. They also provide concrete numerical comparisons with exact master-equation results. However, the central exact equation is asserted rather than derived, and the stated truncation conditions are internally inconsistent. The paper's value currently rests on claims that are not independently checkable from the text.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.B, Eq. (74)] The central exact PDE is asserted without derivation ('lengthy but straightforward, so it will not be reproduced here'). This equation is the foundation for the dissipative TWA FPE (78) and the multi-time correlation formula (99); an error in L1, L2, L3 or in the coefficients ν_s^{(i)} would invalidate all subsequent claims. Please include the derivation in an appendix or supplemental material, or provide an independent check against the master equation for small N in each representation.
  2. [IV.C, Eqs. (75)–(78)] To obtain Eq. (78) the text says one sets ν_{s=0}^{(3)}=0 and imposes ν_{s=0}^{(2)}=0. From the definitions after Eq. (75), ν_0^{(3)}=-√3/3 and ν_0^{(2)}=4√3/3, so neither condition is literally satisfied. If the intended statement is that the corresponding terms are dropped rather than that the coefficients vanish, this must be said explicitly and justified; otherwise Eq. (78) cannot be verified as the truncation of Eq. (74) claimed.
  3. [IV.F.2 and Appendix B] The conclusion that Eq. (78) is 'the only available approximation' is stronger than the evidence. The search for α,β is restricted to a low-order spherical-harmonic truncation, the positivity check is numerical, and the paper itself concedes this is not a formal proof. Please soften the corresponding statements in the abstract, Sec. IV.F.3, and the summary, or replace them with a rigorous statement of the class of approximations for which uniqueness is claimed.
  4. [III.B.2/Eq. (41) and Eqs. (80)–(81)] The SDEs used for the dissipative TWA and the multi-time method have singular drifts/diffusion at θ=0,π, and the paper concedes there is no rigorous argument that the quasidistribution vanishes at these boundaries. Because the positive-P examples show that boundary leakage produces qualitatively wrong results, the claimed general validity of the TWA SDEs needs either a boundary-condition analysis or an explicit restriction to regimes where trajectories avoid the poles.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV.D, Eq. (99)] The notation m^{(K)}=(m_0,...,m_{N-1}) appears to contain a typo; it should read m_{K-1}. Also, the cost expression O(N M0...MK) should be reconciled with the M_{K-1} appearing in Eq. (99).
  2. [IV.D and Appendix A] 'Wooters' should be spelled 'Wootters' throughout.
  3. [Table I] Since the numerical values for η_i differ from Ref. [105], a reader cannot tell which set of coefficients is used in Eq. (74). Please add a short derivation or a note identifying the convention used in all subsequent equations.
  4. [IV.E.2, Fig. 5(b)] The unphysical growth of the excited-state population would be easier to assess on a logarithmic scale. Optional, but it would strengthen the presentation of the failure mode.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the exact phase-space PDE and the dissipative-TWA recovery rest on external Moyal-product results and are benchmarked against exact master-equation solutions; flagged internal concerns are unverified derivations, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The central exact PDE, Eq. (74), is claimed to follow from the Moyal product expressions in Eq. (36), which are taken from external references (Brif–Mann [72,73]; Zueco–Calvo [105]); the derivation is omitted ('the derivation of Eq. (74) is lengthy but straightforward, so it will not be reproduced here'), which is a verification risk, not a circular reduction. The dissipative TWA FPE (78) is obtained by an explicitly arbitrary truncation of Eq. (74) — 'The truncation of the fundamental equation remains a priori arbitrary and cannot be systematically implemented' — and its recovery of the Mink–Fleischhauer equation ('This is precisely the equation originally derived by Mink and Fleischhauer [1]') is an independent check against prior work by different authors, not a fitted input called a prediction. The multi-time correlation formula (99) follows from the quantum regression theorem (88) and the linearity of the PDE, with weights a^{(k)} fixed by expanding operators in the discrete kernel basis (93)–(94); no observable is fitted to reproduce the benchmarks. Numerical comparisons (Dicke superradiance, driven 1D array, superradiant-laser spectrum) are made against exact master-equation solutions or permutational-symmetry algebraic methods [55] with no free parameters. The paper itself flags the assumptions that could undermine the TWA/positive-P equivalence — boundary vanishing ('we have implicitly assumed that the quasidistribution vanishes at the boundaries... may not be true in general', Eq. 17; 'there is no physical or rigorous argument ensuring that Fρ(Ω,t;s) vanishes at θ=0 and θ=π', after Eq. 41) — and the uniqueness claim is explicitly qualified ('this analysis does not constitute a formal proof that no alternative FPE exists beyond Eq. (78)'). One internal tension is noted but it is an approximation-justification gap, not circularity: Section IV.C says the FPE is obtained 'by imposing ν(2)_{s=0}=0', yet from Eq. (75) ν_0^{(2)}=4√3/3≠0, so the dropped second-derivative terms are not literally forced by the stated condition and require an independent justification. Self-citations (Asenjo-Garcia group papers, e.g., [30,34,50,123]) are contextual and not load-bearing for the phase-space derivation. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard phase-space mathematics plus domain assumptions about the Born-Markov master equation and boundary-term neglect. The truncation to a FPE is explicitly ad hoc, and the uniqueness claim is limited by the chosen ansatz and low-order truncation; these choices, not data, are the main input the reader pays for beyond standard phase-space theory.

free parameters (3)
  • Ansatz coefficients α_s, β_s in generalized Moyal product = α=β=0 for Wigner case; α_s, β_s from Eq (B1) for P/Q
    Introduced as free functions in Eqs (102) and (104) to search for alternative FPEs. Solving the projection condition Eq (83) gives α=β=0 in Wigner and nonzero solutions for P/Q that fail positivity of diffusion. The uniqueness conclusion depends on this ansatz and its truncation.
  • Truncation order ℓmax for the spherical-harmonic search space = Low truncation, exact value not stated
    The 'only viable FPE' and non-positivity results in Sections IVF2-IVF3 and Appendix B are obtained numerically at low truncation. The authors explicitly state this does not constitute a formal proof, so the conclusion is parameterized by this choice.
  • Positive P sampling parameter x0 = Arbitrary real; larger values improve finite-sample fidelity
    Eq (116) defines the positive P sampling of |e⟩ and |g⟩ using x0>0 and x0<0. The theoretical state is independent of x0, but simulations use a large x0. It affects the onset of boundary spikes in collective-decay simulations.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence exists and satisfies linearity, reality, standardization, covariance, and tracing for spin-1/2 with kernels Eq (31)
    Background from Refs [72,73], used throughout to define Wigner, P, and Q representations.
  • standard math The spin Moyal product is given by Eq (36) with the coefficients in Table I
    Basis for deriving the exact PDE Eq (74). The authors note Table I differs from Ref [105] due to a suspected typo, but no full derivation is shown.
  • domain assumption Born-Markov master equation Eq (57) with Green's-tensor coefficients Eqs (60)-(61) is valid for the atom-field system
    Standard quantum-optics modeling assumption; underlies the spin model, the dissipators, and the input-output relations.
  • domain assumption Quasiprobability distributions vanish at phase-space boundaries so integration by parts in Eqs (17) and (40) is valid
    Explicitly flagged by the authors: 'no physical or rigorous argument ensuring F vanishes at θ=0,π' (Section IIIB). Positive P failures in Section V demonstrate that this assumption is invalid for important dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper TWA truncation: set third-order derivatives ν(3)=0 and impose positive semidefinite diffusion via ν(2)=0; no system-size parameter justifies this
    The authors call the truncation 'a priori arbitrary' (Section IVC). This is the step that converts exact PDE Eq (74) into FPE Eq (78).
  • domain assumption Separable kernel ansatz Eq (46) holds for coherent spin TWA to achieve O(N) scaling
    Used in Section IIID to derive the classical equations Eq (48); requires neglecting cross derivatives and boundary terms.
  • domain assumption In the Positive P representation, the FPE remains equivalent to the master equation only if the distribution decays sufficiently fast at the boundary
    Stated in Section V; violated by decaying atoms and collective decay, leading to diverging trajectories and spikes.
invented entities (1)
  • Gauge phase-space variable Ω in the spin G-representation no independent evidence
    purpose: Added to the kernel in Eq (C1) to construct an effective potential and prevent trajectory divergence in Positive P simulations
    Mathematical auxiliary variable with no direct physical interpretation or observable prediction. The authors note the construction is case-dependent and finding a general solution remains open.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 42520 in / 12816 out tokens · 127324 ms · 2026-08-04T00:40:15.671802+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-Space Methods for Many-Body Quantum Optics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYDZF6NL

@misc{pith2026260800341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-Space Methods for Many-Body Quantum Optics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYDZF6NL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00341}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Many-body quantum-optical systems, where a collection of emitters interacts through a common electromagnetic reservoir, exhibit rich out-of-equilibrium behavior and hold promise for applications in quantum technologies. However, exact numerical simulations of their dynamics quickly become unfeasible due to the exponential growth of the Hilbert space with system size. Semiclassical, phase-space approaches -- such as the Truncated Wigner approximation (TWA) -- provide computationally efficient alternatives by capturing leading-order quantum fluctuations. In this paper, we present a comprehensive overview of how to tackle problems in many-body quantum optics using phase-space methods. We derive the exact partial differential equation governing many-body dissipative evolution in any phase-space representation and discuss the approximations that yield the dissipative TWA proposed by Mink and Fleischhauer [SciPost Phys. 15, 233 (2023)]. We find that $P$ and $Q$ distributions are generally suboptimal for many-body quantum optics. Additionally, we extend the formalism to calculate multi-time correlation functions, thereby broadening the scope of phase-space simulations of open spin systems to include coherence and spectral properties, as well as directional correlations of collectively radiating emitters. These developments provide valuable tools for investigating exotic light sources driven by collective dissipation, driven-dissipative phase transitions, and a wealth of many-body phenomena arising in state-of-the-art experimental platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00341 by Ana Asenjo-Garcia, Edgar Guardiola-Navarrete, Silvia Cardenas-Lopez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) shows the evolution of the excited-state population for different pumping strengths. The approx￾imation performs well when the coherent pumping is strong, as a significant part of the evolution is captured exactly. However, it fails to accurately describe the system when the population remains low. This situation is further explored in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_12.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

141 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    RunningM 0 evolutions of the initial distribution

  2. [2]

    Constructing four different “flavors” of initial conditions from each final condition obtained in step 1. This is achieved by substituting the final phase-space coordinate of then-th atom, i.e.,Ωm0;n(t1), by each of the points that define the Wooters kernelΩi, and by computing the weightsa(1) i in Eq. (93)

  3. [3]

    RunningM 1 trajectories sampling from the initial conditions generated in step 2

  4. [4]

    Computing the two-time correlator through a statistical average. By indexing the trajectories from steps 1 and 3 asm0 andm 1, respectively, and assigning them1-th trajectory from step 2 to flavoribased on the modulusi=m 1 mod4 + 1, the two-time correlator is given by ⟨ ˆO1(t1) ˆO2(t2)⟩=Tr { eL(t2−t1) { ˆρ(t1) ˆO1(0) } ˆO2(0) } = 4 M0M1 M0∑ m0=1 M1∑ m1=1 a...

  5. [5]

    Given the trajectoryΩm(k)(τk−1), apply the operator ˆOk(0)and calculate the Weyl symbol in the form of Eq. (94) to obtain the coefficientsa(k) i fori= 1,...,4, which we denote bya (k) m(k+1) as they depend on the choices of trajectories for all previous evolutionsm0,...,m k−1 and they have four possible values labeled asi=m k mod4 + 1

  6. [6]

    Compute the evolution of theM k trajectoriesΩ m(k+1)(τk+1)with initial conditionsΩ m(k+1)(0) = (Ωm(k);1(τk),...,Ω mk mod4+1 ,...,Ω m(k);N(τk))withm k = 1,...,M k

  7. [7]

    ˆOK(tK)⟩= 4K−1 M0...M K−1 ∑ m(K) WOK(0) (Ωm(K)(τK−1)) K−1∏ k=1 a(k) mk+1,(99) wherem (K) = (m0,...,m N−1)andm k = 1,...,M k

    Once we have completed all evolutions withk=K−1, we can evaluate the multi-time correlation function as ⟨ ˆO1(t1)... ˆOK(tK)⟩= 4K−1 M0...M K−1 ∑ m(K) WOK(0) (Ωm(K)(τK−1)) K−1∏ k=1 a(k) mk+1,(99) wherem (K) = (m0,...,m N−1)andm k = 1,...,M k. An schematic pipeline of this procedure is shown in Fig. 3, displaying the main steps for the calculations describe...

  8. [8]

    Dicke superradiance in a cavity (a) N 50 100 150 (b) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 ctime, 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 30 20 ctime, emission rate, R/N 10 0 FIG. 4.Dicke superradiance in a cavity: (a) Normalized total excited population∑ n⟨ˆσn ee⟩/Nand (b) decay rate forNatoms decaying collectively with a single bright jump operator obtained exactl...

  9. [9]

    5.Dissipative TWA evolution for a coherently driven 1D atomic array in free space

    Coherent driving of a 1D atomic array in free space (a) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 (b) 1.000.750.500.250.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 N 8 16 32 64 128 FIG. 5.Dissipative TWA evolution for a coherently driven 1D atomic array in free space. (a)Excited state population ∑ n⟨ˆσn ee⟩/Nfor a 1D array ofN= 5atoms in free space ...

  10. [10]

    The atoms are subjected to parasitic decay and incoherent pumping at ratesΓ′ andw, respectively, as shown in Fig

    Superradiant lasing in a cavity To highlight our method for calculating multi-time correlators, we examine the spectral properties of the light emitted by a collection ofNatoms inside a bad cavity [15, 125] that are driven incoherently. The atoms are subjected to parasitic decay and incoherent pumping at ratesΓ′ andw, respectively, as shown in Fig. (2)(b)...

  11. [11]

    Geometric origin of the error We now provide a geometric interpretation of the error, by means of the projector onto theU[defined in Eq. (84)]. From the spin model in Eq. (57), we observe that once mapped to phase space, all terms involve the application of two differential operatorsSi n. Additionally, to compute any observable, we only need the portion o...

  12. [12]

    (82) exists – one that enables efficient numerical simulations in the form of a system of SDEs

    Uniqueness of the approximation Equipped with this geometric understanding, we now ask whether an improved approximation of Eq. (82) exists – one that enables efficient numerical simulations in the form of a system of SDEs. Such an approximation must: •Yield a FPE when applied to the spin model in Eq. (57). •Satisfy the condition in Eq. (83), i.e.,(P|U◦ ˜...

  13. [13]

    (74)] to a FPE

    Generalization toPandQrepresentations Finally, a third potential avenue for improvement is to explore whether there is an alternative approximation for the Moyal product that transform the fundamental PDE governing the evolution of thePandQrepresenta- tions [Eq. (74)] to a FPE. To identify such an approximation, we follow the same approach as with the Wig...

  14. [14]

    C. D. Mink and M. Fleischhauer, Collective radiative interactions in the discrete truncated Wigner approximation, SciPost Phys.15, 233 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Baumann, C

    K. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Dicke quantum phase transition with a superfluid gas in an optical cavity, Nature464, 1301 (2010)

    2010

  16. [16]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, A non-equilibrium superradiant phase transition in free space, Nature Physics19, 1345 (2023). 47

    2023

  17. [17]

    Goncalves, L

    D. Goncalves, L. Bombieri, G. Ferioli, S. Pancaldi, I. Ferrier-Barbut, A. Browaeys, E. Shahmoon, and D. Chang, Driven-dissipative phase separation in free-space atomic ensembles, PRX Quantum6, 020303 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Agarwal, E

    S. Agarwal, E. Chaparro, D. Barberena, A. Piñeiro Orioli, G. Ferioli, S. Pancaldi, I. Ferrier-Barbut, A. Browaeys, and A. M. Rey, Directional superradiance in a driven ultracold atomic gas in free space, PRX Quantum5, 040335 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  20. [20]

    W. S. Bakr, A. Peng, M. E. Tai, R. Ma, J. Simon, J. I. Gillen, S. Fölling, L. Pollet, and M. Greiner, Probing the superfluid-to-Mott insulator transition at the single-atom level, Science329, 547 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Vuletić, and M

    H.Bernien, S.Schwartz, A.Keesling, H.Levine, A.Omran, H.Pichler, S.Choi, A.S.Zibrov, M.Endres, M.Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Semeghini, H

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kalinowski, R. Samajdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Probing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simulator, Science374, 1242 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    B. J. Bloom, T. L. Nicholson, J. R. Williams, S. L. Campbell, M. Bishof, X. Zhang, W. Zhang, S. L. Bromley, and J. Ye, An optical lattice clock with accuracy and stability at the10−18level, Nature506, 71 (2014)

    2014

  25. [25]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    M. A. Norcia, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, E. Oelker, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Seconds-scale coherence on an optical clock transition in a tweezer array, Science366, 93 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    Bothwell, C

    T. Bothwell, C. J. Kennedy, A. Aeppli, D. Kedar, J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, A. Staron, and J. Ye, Resolving the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample, Nature602, 420 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Meiser, J

    D. Meiser, J. Ye, D. R. Carlson, and M. J. Holland, Prospects for a millihertz-linewidth laser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 163601 (2009)

    2009

  29. [30]

    Perarnau-Llobet, A

    M. Perarnau-Llobet, A. González-Tudela, and J. I. Cirac, Multimode Fock states with large photon number: effective descriptions and applications in quantum metrology, Quantum Science and Technology5, 025003 (2020)

    2020

  30. [31]

    I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith, and V. Vuletić, Implementation of cavity squeezing of a collective atomic spin, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 073602 (2010)

    2010

  31. [32]

    Bornet, G

    G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, B. Ye, M. Block, M. Bintz, J. A. Boyd, D. Barredo, T. Comparin, F. Mez- zacapo, T. Roscilde, T. Lahaye, N. Y. Yao, and A. Browaeys, Scalable spin squeezing in a dipolar Rydberg atom array, Nature621, 728 (2023)

    2023

  32. [33]

    W. J. Eckner, N. Darkwah Oppong, A. Cao, A. W. Young, W. R. Milner, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Realizing spin squeezing with Rydberg interactions in an optical clock, Nature621, 734 (2023)

    2023

  33. [34]

    D. E. Chang, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling dipole-dipole frequency shifts in a lattice-based optical atomic clock, Phys. Rev. A69, 023810 (2004)

    2004

  34. [35]

    S. L. Bromley, B. Zhu, M. Bishof, X. Zhang, T. Bothwell, J. Schachenmayer, T. L. Nicholson, R. Kaiser, S. F. Yelin, M. D. Lukin, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Collective atomic scattering and motional effects in a dense coherent medium, Nature Communications7, 11039 (2016)

    2016

  35. [36]

    Glicenstein, G

    A. Glicenstein, G. Ferioli, N. Šibalić, L. Brossard, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, Collective shift in resonant light scattering by a one-dimensional atomic chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 253602 (2020)

    2020

  36. [37]

    R. B. Hutson, W. R. Milner, L. Yan, J. Ye, and C. Sanner, Observation of millihertz-level cooperative Lamb shifts in an optical atomic clock, Science383, 384 (2024)

    2024

  37. [38]

    Domokos and H

    P. Domokos and H. Ritsch, Collective cooling and self-organization of atoms in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 253003 (2002)

    2002

  38. [39]

    A. T. Black, H. W. Chan, and V. Vuletić, Observation of collective friction forces due to spatial self-organization of atoms: From Rayleigh to Bragg scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 203001 (2003). 48

    2003

  39. [40]

    Ho, Y.-H

    J. Ho, Y.-H. Lu, T. Xiang, C. C. Rusconi, S. J. Masson, A. Asenjo-Garcia, Z. Yan, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Optomechanical self-organization in a mesoscopic atom array (2024), arXiv:2410.12754 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [41]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  41. [42]

    Robicheaux, Theoretical study of early-time superradiance for atom clouds and arrays, Phys

    F. Robicheaux, Theoretical study of early-time superradiance for atom clouds and arrays, Phys. Rev. A104, 063706 (2021)

    2021

  42. [43]

    S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Universality of Dicke superradiance in arrays of quantum emitters, Nature Communications13, 2285 (2022)

    2022

  43. [44]

    Sierra, S

    E. Sierra, S. J. Masson, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Dicke superradiance in ordered lattices: Dimensionality matters, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023207 (2022)

    2022

  44. [45]

    Rubies-Bigorda and S

    O. Rubies-Bigorda and S. F. Yelin, Superradiance and subradiance in inverted atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. A106, 053717 (2022)

    2022

  45. [47]

    Cardenas-Lopez, S

    S. Cardenas-Lopez, S. J. Masson, Z. Zager, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Many-body superradiance and dynamical mirror symmetry breaking in waveguide QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 033605 (2023)

    2023

  46. [48]

    W.-K. Mok, A. Asenjo-Garcia, T. C. Sum, and L.-C. Kwek, Dicke superradiance requires interactions beyond nearest neighbors, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 213605 (2023)

    2023

  47. [49]

    S. J. Masson, J. P. Covey, S. Will, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Dicke superradiance in ordered arrays of multilevel atoms, PRX Quantum5, 010344 (2024)

    2024

  48. [50]

    Guerin, M

    W. Guerin, M. O. Araújo, and R. Kaiser, Subradiance in a large cloud of cold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 083601 (2016)

    2016

  49. [51]

    Albrecht, L

    A. Albrecht, L. Henriet, A. Asenjo-Garcia, P. B. Dieterle, O. Painter, and D. E. Chang, Subradiant states of quantum bits coupled to a one-dimensional waveguide, New Journal of Physics21, 025003 (2019)

    2019

  50. [52]

    J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Hollerith, J. Zeiher, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, A subradiant optical mirror formed by a single structured atomic layer, Nature583, 369 (2020)

    2020

  51. [53]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, L. Henriet, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, Storage and release of subradiant excitations in a dense atomic cloud, Phys. Rev. X11, 021031 (2021)

    2021

  52. [54]

    Holzinger, R

    R. Holzinger, R. Gutiérrez-Jáuregui, T. Hönigl-Decrinis, G. Kirchmair, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and H. Ritsch, Control of localized single- and many-body dark states in waveguide QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 253601 (2022)

    2022

  53. [55]

    Zanner, T

    M. Zanner, T. Orell, C. M. F. Schneider, R. Albert, S. Oleschko, M. L. Juan, M. Silveri, and G. Kirchmair, Coherent control of a multi-qubit dark state in waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Nature Physics18, 538 (2022)

    2022

  54. [56]

    Rubies-Bigorda, S

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, S. Ostermann, and S. F. Yelin, Dynamic population of multiexcitation subradiant states in incoherently excited atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. A107, L051701 (2023)

    2023

  55. [57]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletić, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays, Science354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  56. [58]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de Léséleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays, Science354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  57. [59]

    H. Kim, W. Lee, H.-g. Lee, H. Jo, Y. Song, and J. Ahn, In situ single-atom array synthesis using dynamic holographic optical tweezers, Nature Communications7, 13317 (2016)

    2016

  58. [60]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules, Nature Physics17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

  59. [61]

    Kumar, T.-Y

    A. Kumar, T.-Y. Wu, F. Giraldo, and D. S. Weiss, Sorting ultracold atoms in a three-dimensional optical lattice in a realization of Maxwell’s demon, Nature561, 83 (2018)

    2018

  60. [62]

    Solano, P

    P. Solano, P. Barberis-Blostein, F. K. Fatemi, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, Super-radiance reveals infinite-range dipole interactions through a nanofiber, Nat. Commun.8, 1857 (2017)

    2017

  61. [63]

    Mirhosseini, E

    M. Mirhosseini, E. Kim, X. Zhang, A. Sipahigil, P. B. Dieterle, A. J. Keller, A. Asenjo-Garcia, D. E. Chang, and O. Painter, Cavity quantum electrodynamics with atom-like mirrors, Nature569, 692 (2019)

    2019

  62. [64]

    González-Tudela, A

    A. González-Tudela, A. Reiserer, J. J. García-Ripoll, and F. J. García-Vidal, Light–matter interactions in quantum nanophotonic devices, Nature Reviews Physics6, 166 (2024)

    2024

  63. [65]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Measurement and Control(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  64. [66]

    A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems, Advances in Physics63, 77–149 (2014)

    2014

  65. [67]

    Sarkar and J

    S. Sarkar and J. S. Satchell, Solution of master equations for small bistable systems, Journal of Physics A: Math- 49 ematical and General20, 2147 (1987)

    1987

  66. [68]

    M. Xu, D. A. Tieri, and M. J. Holland, Simulating open quantum systems by applying SU(4) to quantum master equations, Phys. Rev. A87, 062101 (2013)

    2013

  67. [69]

    Bolaños and P

    M. Bolaños and P. Barberis-Blostein, Algebraic solution of the Lindblad equation for a collection of multilevel systems coupled to independent environments, J. Phys. A48, 445301 (2015)

    2015

  68. [70]

    Robicheaux and D

    F. Robicheaux and D. A. Suresh, Beyond lowest order mean-field theory for light interacting with atom arrays, Phys. Rev. A104, 023702 (2021)

    2021

  69. [71]

    Plankensteiner, C

    D. Plankensteiner, C. Hotter, and H. Ritsch, QuantumCumulants.jl: A Julia framework for generalized mean-field equations in open quantum systems, Quantum6, 617 (2022)

    2022

  70. [72]

    Rubies-Bigorda, S

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, S. Ostermann, and S. F. Yelin, Characterizing superradiant dynamics in atomic arrays via a cumulant expansion approach, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013091 (2023)

    2023

  71. [73]

    V. M. F. Verstraete and J. Cirac, Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormal- ization group methods for quantum spin systems, Advances in Physics57, 143 (2008)

    2008

  72. [74]

    Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  73. [75]

    H. J. Carmichael,Statistical methods in quantum optics 1, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2013)

    2013

  74. [76]

    Haken,Laser theory, 1st ed

    H. Haken,Laser theory, 1st ed. (Springer-Verlag, 1984)

    1984

  75. [77]

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

    1998

  76. [78]

    Sinatra, C

    A. Sinatra, C. Lobo, and Y. Castin, The truncated Wigner method for Bose-condensed gases: limits of validity and applications, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics35, 3599 (2002)

    2002

  77. [79]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Many-body quantum spin dynamics with Monte Carlo trajectories on a discrete phase space, Phys. Rev. X5, 011022 (2015)

    2015

  78. [80]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Dynamics of correlations in two-dimensional quantum spin models with long-range interactions: a phase-space Monte-Carlo study, New Journal of Physics17, 065009 (2015)

    2015

  79. [81]

    R. Ng, E. S. Sørensen, and P. Deuar, Simulation of the dynamics of many-body quantum spin systems using phase-space techniques, Phys. Rev. B88, 144304 (2013)

    2013

  80. [82]

    Huber, A

    J. Huber, A. M. Rey, and P. Rabl, Realistic simulations of spin squeezing and cooperative coupling effects in large ensembles of interacting two-level systems, Phys. Rev. A105, 013716 (2022)

    2022

Showing first 80 references.