Self-adjoint extensions of $k$-photon light-matter Hamiltonians

Daniel Burgarth; Davide Lonigro; Felix Fischer; Felix Knapp

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 40 references

Self-adjoint extensions of $k$-photon light-matter Hamiltonians

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that for k-photon light-matter Hamiltonians with a normal nonzero coupling, self-adjointness holds exactly for k≤2, while k≥3 forces a family of self-adjoint extensions, all with discrete spectra in finite dimension.

desk verdict Solid extension theory for k-photon models under a spectral-gap condition on Sigma; the abstract, though, promises more than the proof delivers for infinite-dimensional normal Sigma. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22378 v1 pith:2XEEZSEU submitted 2026-07-24 math-ph math.FAmath.MPquant-ph

Felix Fischer , Felix Knapp , Daniel Burgarth , Davide Lonigro This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.FAmath.MPquant-ph MSC 47B3647B2581Q1081Q1246N50

keywords self-adjointextensionsdeficiencyindicesblockJacobioperatorsmultiphotoninteractionsquantumRabimodelDickenormallight-matterHamiltonians

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Multiphoton light-matter interactions, where a bosonic mode exchanges k excitations at a time with a quantum system, are becoming experimentally realistic. This paper asks whether the natural Hamiltonian defines a unique quantum dynamics, and answers with a clean threshold: for k≤2 it is self-adjoint, for k≥3 it is not, whenever the coupling operator is normal and nonzero (with a bounded inverse on the complement of its kernel). The missing self-adjointness is measured explicitly: the deficiency spaces are k copies of the coupling range, so in finite dimension one must choose a kd'×kd' unitary to specify boundary conditions. Every such choice still has purely discrete spectrum, so the ambiguity is real but tame. A non-normal counterpart, the k-photon Jaynes-Cummings model, stays self-adjoint for all k, showing the condition is sharp.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a decomposition of H into finitely many block Jacobi operators—infinite tridiagonal operator matrices acting on sequences of matter states, with diagonal blocks ω(m+rk)1 + H_mat and off-diagonal blocks β_{m+rk}Σ*. For k ≤ 2 these blocks grow slowly enough that a classical summability criterion proves self-adjointness. For k ≥ 3, the paper conjugates each block by powers of the unitary part of the polar decomposition Σ = UΠ; normality makes U and Π commute, turning the off-diagonal coefficients into positive operators βΠ with bounded inverses. The transformed operators satisfy a known theorem on block Jacobi operators that yields maximal indeterminacy, i.e., defi

What would settle it

Take the k-photon Rabi model at k = 3 and solve the generalized eigenvalue equation directly: the paper predicts that the space of square-integrable solutions at a nonreal spectral parameter has dimension 6. A different count would refute Theorem 1. A second check: choose Σ as a diagonal normal operator on ℓ² with eigenvalues 1/n and verify whether the deficiency indices for k = 3 still equal k times the dimension of (KerΣ)^⊥.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 1, is a dichotomy for H = H_mat ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ ωa*a + Σ ⊗ (a*)^k + Σ* ⊗ a^k. If Σ is a bounded normal operator with nonzero values on the subspace orthogonal to its kernel, then H is essentially self-adjoint for k ≤ 2. For k ≥ 3, H is not self-adjoint: its two deficiency spaces are both isomorphic to the direct sum of k copies of (KerΣ)^⊥, and every self-adjoint extension is parameterized by a unitary between those deficiency spaces. When the matter system is finite-dimensional, the deficiency index is kd' with d' = dim(KerΣ)^⊥, the extensions are kd'×kd' unitaries, and the spectrum of every extension is purely discrete. The proof obtains this by decomposing H

Load-bearing premise

The proof's load-bearing premise is that the normal coupling Σ has a bounded inverse on (KerΣ)^⊥, so its nonzero spectrum stays away from zero; if Σ's spectrum accumulates at 0, the block Jacobi coefficients lose the invertibility that the indeterminacy argument requires.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For k ≤ 2, every model in this class is self-adjoint on the minimal domain; no boundary data are needed.
For k ≥ 3 with finite-dimensional matter, all self-adjoint extensions have purely discrete spectrum, so any chosen boundary condition yields bound-state-only dynamics.
States in the kernel of Σ contribute no deficiency; the number of missing boundary conditions is controlled entirely by dim(KerΣ)^⊥ and k.
If Σ is normal and invertible, each deficiency space is a copy of the full matter Hilbert space, so the extension parameter is a unitary acting on k copies of that space.
The k-photon Jaynes-Cummings model remains self-adjoint for all k because a conserved excitation number decomposes H into finite-dimensional blocks—showing the normality assumption is essential.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This decomposition suggests the same block-Jacobi route can treat more general polynomial bosonic interactions; a natural test is whether subordinacy-type arguments predict absolutely continuous spectrum for particular self-adjoint extensions.
Because boundary conditions are unitaries, one could numerically compare two extensions of the k-photon Rabi model (k = 3) and look for experimentally distinguishable spectral phases, e.g., different low-lying eigenvalues.
The paper gives only a lower bound on deficiency indices for non-normal couplings sharing eigenvectors; checking whether this lower bound is sharp for diagonalizable but non-normal Σ would map how far beyond normality the counting extends.
The conserved-number mechanism in the Jaynes-Cummings model hints at a broader criterion: any multiphoton interaction admitting a block decomposition into finite-dimensional invariant subspaces will be self-adjoint, independent of k.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a well-built paper on the right problem. It proves that for H = H_mat⊗1 + 1⊗ωa*a + Σ⊗(a*)^k + Σ*⊗a^k, with Σ normal and having bounded inverse on (KerΣ)^⊥, k≤2 gives self-adjointness and k≥3 gives deficiency indices k·dim((KerΣ)^⊥), parametrizes the extensions, and shows discrete spectrum in finite dimension. The block Jacobi decomposition from [20] plus the unitary transform based on the polar decomposition is the real work, and the verification of Świderski's conditions is clean. I checked the asymptotics in Lemma 3.7 and the form of the transformed coefficients in Lemma 3.6; both hold. The treatment of the k-photon Rabi and Dicke models is accurate, and the Jaynes–Cummings counterexample makes the normality assumption genuinely necessary.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note lands. The abstract says "Σ normal and nonzero"; Theorem 1 in the introduction includes the bounded-inverse condition on (KerΣ)^⊥, and the detailed Proposition 3.11 relies on it. That condition is not automatic for a bounded normal Σ: take Σ = diag(1/n) on ℓ². It is normal, nonzero, and injective, but its restriction to (KerΣ)^⊥ has no bounded inverse. In that case the block Jacobi coefficients A_n = β_n Σ* are not boundedly invertible and Definition 2.1/Świderski's theorem do not apply to the full problem. So the paper proves the classification only under an unadvertised spectral-gap assumption. The authors are aware; Remark 3.12 sketches a direct-integral route but does not carry it out. The result may well be true in that generality, but this manuscript does not establish it.

How much does this matter? For finite-dimensional matter systems—which covers the physical examples in Section 4—the condition is automatic and the paper is fully rigorous. For infinite-dimensional matter with 0 in the essential spectrum of Σ, it is a genuine gap between the advertised theorem and the proof. That should be fixed in revision, either by stating the assumption in the abstract and main theorem or by proving the general case.

The paper is honest, clearly written, and the mathematics under the stated assumptions is sound. The citations, including the self-citations, are used correctly. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review and tell the authors to align the abstract with the theorem. For a reading group it is a useful example of block Jacobi techniques, though not an urgent one.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a class of light–matter Hamiltonians of the form H = H_mat⊗1 + 1⊗ωa*a + Σ⊗(a*)^k + Σ*⊗a^k on ℋ⊗L^2(ℝ), where the matter operator Σ is bounded. The main result (Theorem 1, supported by Propositions 3.5, 3.9, 3.11 and Corollary 3.10) states that, for normal Σ with bounded inverse on (KerΣ)^⊥, the operator is self-adjoint for k≤2; for k≥3 it is not self-adjoint and its deficiency spaces are isomorphic to ⊕_{m=0}^{k−1}(KerΣ)^⊥. In finite-dimensional matter systems all self-adjoint extensions are parametrized by kd'×kd' unitaries and have purely discrete spectrum. The proof expands in Fock states to obtain a direct sum of block Jacobi operators, uses the Carleman criterion for k≤2, and for k≥3 applies a unitary transformation built from the polar decomposition of Σ so that Świderski's theorem applies. The paper closes with applications to the k-photon Rabi and Dicke models and a non-normal Jaynes–Cummings counterexample.

Significance. If fully established for the advertised generality, this would be a valuable contribution: it gives a unified block-Jacobi treatment of multiphoton light–matter Hamiltonians, an explicit verification of the hypotheses of Świderski's theorem, and concrete, falsifiable predictions for the deficiency indices and spectral nature of extensions. The method is elegant and does not rely on fitted parameters or model-specific Bargmann computations. However, the proof as written requires a spectral-gap condition on Σ that is not mentioned in the abstract; the gap between the advertised and the proved statement is the main issue.

major comments (2)

[Abstract; §3.2, Proposition 3.11; Remark 3.12] The abstract states 'When Σ is normal and nonzero, we prove ...' and the opening of Section 1 repeats this scope. The proof, however, only covers Σ for which Σ₁ = Σ|(KerΣ)^⊥ has a bounded inverse, as assumed in Proposition 3.11. This condition is not automatic for bounded normal operators: on ℓ², Σ = diag(1/n) is normal, nonzero, and injective, but Σ₁^{-1} is unbounded because 0 is in the essential spectrum. In that case the block Jacobi coefficients A_n^{(m)} = β_{m+nk}Σ* in Proposition 3.3 lack bounded inverses, so Definition 2.1 and Świderski's Theorem 2.6 cannot be applied to the nonzero part. Remark 3.12 explicitly says that a direct-integral argument 'would be needed' to handle general Σ, but no such argument is supplied. The formal Theorem 1 in the introduction already includes the bounded-inverse condition, so the abstract overstates what is established. This is load-bearing: the
[§3.2, final paragraph before Remark 3.12] The sentence 'Therefore, Proposition 3.11 applies to all operators from Definition 3.1: if Σ is normal and nonzero, H is self-adjoint if and only if k≤2' is correct only in finite dimension, where the restriction of Σ to (KerΣ)^⊥ is automatically invertible. In infinite dimension it repeats the overclaim discussed above. Since the sentence follows a finite-dimensional remark it may be intended to be read in that context, but as written it is misleading and should be qualified explicitly.

minor comments (3)

[§2, Definition 2.2 and Theorem 3.9] In Eq. (3.64) the deficiency-space formula uses P_n^{(m)}(∓i). Since Lemma 2.3 states the formula with z*, the sign convention is plausible but slightly confusing. A one-line verification that P_n^{(m)}(∓i) matches the z* convention would improve readability.
[Remark 3.2] The claim that replacing the domain by 𝒮(ℝ) or by 𝒟((a*a)^{m/2}) gives the same closure is stated without proof. It is likely true by relative boundedness, but a short justification or reference would be helpful.
[§4, Example 4.3] The Jaynes–Cummings example convincingly shows that normality cannot simply be dropped from the hypotheses. It would be useful to state explicitly that this example does not address the additional bounded-inverse condition, so the 'optimality' claim is only about the normality assumption within the class treated in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is driven by external block-Jacobi theory (Świderski) plus the Carleman criterion, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The proof chain is self-contained against external mathematics: the operator is decomposed into block Jacobi operators (Prop. 3.3), self-adjointness for k≤2 follows from the classical Carleman criterion (Prop. 2.4, [6]), and for k≥3 the unitarily transformed block Jacobi operators are shown to satisfy Świderski's Theorem 2.6 ([35]) via total-variation estimates (Lemmas 3.6–3.7) and a positivity check (Prop. 3.8). No quantity is defined in terms of the result being proved, and no parameter is fitted to a target datum. The self-citations [20,21] are used only for an analogous computation (Prop. 3.3), for the scalar higher-order-squeezing deficiency result in the optional remark (Remark 3.12), and as background; they are not load-bearing for Theorem 3.9 or Proposition 3.11, which rest on [35] and standard extension theory [31]. The abstract's phrase 'Σ normal and nonzero' is broader than the hypothesis of Theorem 1 and Proposition 3.11, which require a bounded inverse on (KerΣ)^⊥; Remark 3.12 explicitly concedes that the general bounded-normal case would need a direct-integral argument. That is a scope/correctness limitation, not circularity, since it does not reduce the conclusion to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters and no invented entities. The central claim depends on the model assumptions (bounded H_mat, normal Σ with a spectral gap at zero) and on two external block-Jacobi theorems. The only assumption that is easy to miss is the bounded-inverse condition on (KerΣ)^⊥, which is omitted from the abstract.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption H_mat is bounded and self-adjoint on ℋ
Definition 3.1; excludes unbounded matter systems such as a second bosonic mode in the role of the matter system.
domain assumption Σ is normal, nonzero, and its restriction to (KerΣ)^⊥ has bounded inverse
Proposition 3.11. Required for the polar decomposition with positive invertible Π and for the block Jacobi coefficients A_n to have bounded inverses. The abstract omits the bounded-inverse condition.
standard math Świderski's block Jacobi criterion (Theorem 2.6) is valid
External theorem [35] used in Proposition 3.8 to establish maximal indeterminacy of the transformed Jacobi components.
standard math Carleman criterion for self-adjointness of block Jacobi operators (Proposition 2.4)
External result [6] used for the k≤2 self-adjointness case.
standard math Standard von Neumann extension theory and finite-deficiency discreteness criterion
Used to parametrize self-adjoint extensions and to transfer discrete spectrum; references [31, 11, 38].
standard math For a scalar higher-order squeezing operator with nonzero coefficient, deficiency indices are (k,k)
Used in Remark 3.12; this is the authors' earlier result [21], treated here as an external benchmark for finite-dimensional normal Σ.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-adjoint extensions of $k$-photon light-matter Hamiltonians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2XEEZSEU

@misc{pith2026260722378,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-adjoint extensions of $k$-photon light-matter Hamiltonians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2XEEZSEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22378}
}

abstract

Multiphoton light-matter interactions, in which a bosonic mode exchanges $k$ excitations at a time with a quantum system, are a source of genuine nonlinearity in quantum optics and are increasingly accessible experimentally. Here we study the class of operators $H = H_{\rm mat}\otimes I + I\otimes\omega a^\ast a + \Sigma\otimes(a^\ast)^k + \Sigma^\ast\otimes a^k$ on $\mathcal{H}\otimes L^2(\mathbb{R})$, coupling a single bosonic mode to an arbitrary matter system through a bounded operator $\Sigma$. When $\Sigma$ is normal and nonzero, we prove that $H$ is self-adjoint if and only if $k\leq2$; for $k\geq3$ we compute the deficiency indices, parametrise all self-adjoint extensions, and show that every extension has purely discrete spectrum whenever the matter system is finite-dimensional. Our analysis rests on a block Jacobi decomposition paired with a suitable unitary transformation depending on the polar decomposition of $\Sigma$. The normality of $\Sigma$ is optimal: a $k$-photon Jaynes-Cummings model, with non-normal coupling, remains self-adjoint for every $k$. We illustrate our results on the $k$-photon Rabi and Dicke models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[20]

EssentiallySingularLimitsofJacobiOperatorsand ApplicationstoHigher-OrderSqueezing

F.Fischer,D.Burgarth,andD.Lonigro.“EssentiallySingularLimitsofJacobiOperatorsand ApplicationstoHigher-OrderSqueezing”.2026.arXiv:2605.21355 [math-ph]

arXiv 2026
[1]

N.I.Akhiezer.TheClassicalMomentProblemandSomeRelatedQuestionsinAnalysis.Philadel- phia,PA:SocietyforIndustrialandAppliedMathematics,2020

2020
[2]

Fractionalsqueezing:spectraanddynamicsfromgeneralizedsqueezingHamil- tonianwithfractionalorders

S.Ashhab.“Fractionalsqueezing:spectraanddynamicsfromgeneralizedsqueezingHamil- tonianwithfractionalorders”.JournalofPhysicsA:MathematicalandTheoretical59(2026), 255301

2026
[3]

Finite-DimensionalApproxima- tionsofGeneralizedSqueezing

S.Ashhab,F.Fischer,D.Lonigro,D.Braak,andD.Burgarth.“Finite-DimensionalApproxima- tionsofGeneralizedSqueezing”.PhysicalReviewA113(2026),013703

2026
[4]

Squeezing,TrisqueezingandQuadsqueezinginaHybridOscillator–Spin System

O.Băzăvanetal.“Squeezing,TrisqueezingandQuadsqueezinginaHybridOscillator–Spin System”.NaturePhysics22(2026),757–762

2026
[5]

Demonstrating Quantum Properties of Triple Photons Generated by 𝜒3-processes

K. Bencheikh et al. “Demonstrating Quantum Properties of Triple Photons Generated by 𝜒3-processes”.TheEuropeanPhysicalJournalD76(2022),186

2022
[6]

J.M.Berezanskii.ExpansioninEigenfunctionsofSelf-adjointOperators.Vol.17.Translations ofMathematicalMonographs.AmericanMathematicalSociety,1968

1968
[7]

Effect of Higher-Order Nonlinearities on Amplification and Squeezing in Josephson Parametric Amplifiers

S. Boutin, D. M. Toyli, A. V. Venkatramani, A. W. Eddins, I. Siddiqi, and A. Blais. “Effect of Higher-Order Nonlinearities on Amplification and Squeezing in Josephson Parametric Amplifiers”.PhysicalReviewApplied8(2017),054030

2017

Show all 40 references

[8]

IntegrabilityoftheRabiModel

D.Braak.“IntegrabilityoftheRabiModel”.PhysicalReviewLetters107(2011),100401

2011
[9]

The 𝑘-PhotonQuantumRabiModel

D.Braak.“The 𝑘-PhotonQuantumRabiModel”.MathematicalFoundationsforPost-Quantum Cryptography:Crypto-MathCREST.Ed.byT.Takagi,M.Wakayama,N.Kunihiro,K.Tanaka, K.Kimoto,andM.Kudo.Singapore:SpringerNatureSingapore,2026,75–87

2026
[10]

DeficiencyIndicesoftheOperatorsGeneratedbyInfinite JacobiMatriceswithOperatorEntries

I.N.BraeutigamandK.A.Mirzoev.“DeficiencyIndicesoftheOperatorsGeneratedbyInfinite JacobiMatriceswithOperatorEntries”.St.PetersburgMathematicalJournal30(2019),621– 638

2019
[11]

Self-AdjointnessandDiscretenessoftheSpectrumofBlock JacobiMatrices

V.S.BudykaandM.M.Malamud.“Self-AdjointnessandDiscretenessoftheSpectrumofBlock JacobiMatrices”.MathematicalNotes108(2020),445–450

2020
[12]

DeficiencyIndicesofBlockJacobiMatrices: Survey

V.S.Budyka,M.M.Malamud,andK.A.Mirzoev.“DeficiencyIndicesofBlockJacobiMatrices: Survey”.JournalofMathematicalSciences278(2024),39–54

2024
[13]

Deficiency Indices and Discreteness Property of Block JacobiMatricesandDiracOperatorswithPointInteractions

V. S. Budyka and M. M. Malamud. “Deficiency Indices and Discreteness Property of Block JacobiMatricesandDiracOperatorswithPointInteractions”.JournalofMathematicalAnalysis andApplications506(2022),125582

2022
[14]

TamingtheRotatingWaveApproximation

D.Burgarth,P.Facchi,R.Hillier,andM.Ligabò.“TamingtheRotatingWaveApproximation”. Quantum8(2024),1262

2024
[15]

ObservationofThree-PhotonSpontaneousParametricDown-Conversion inaSuperconductingParametricCavity

C.W.S.Chang,C.Sabín,P.Forn-Díaz,F.Quijandría,A.M.Vadiraj,I.Nsanzineza,G.Johansson, andC.M.Wilson.“ObservationofThree-PhotonSpontaneousParametricDown-Conversion inaSuperconductingParametricCavity”.PhysicalReviewX10(2020),011011

2020
[16]

Third-OrderSpontaneousParametricdown- ConversioninThinOpticalFibersasaPhoton-TripletSource

M.Corona,K.Garay-Palmett,andA.B.U’Ren.“Third-OrderSpontaneousParametricdown- ConversioninThinOpticalFibersasaPhoton-TripletSource”.PhysicalReviewA84(2011), 033823

2011
[17]

Generating and characterizing generalizedsqueezedstatesinasuperconductingmicrowavecavity

X. Deng, Y. Cai, Z. Ni, L. Zhang, S. Liu, Y. Xu, and D. Yu. “Generating and characterizing generalizedsqueezedstatesinasuperconductingmicrowavecavity”.Optica13(2026),1334– 1339

2026
[18]

OntheEvolutionofSuperpositionofSqueezedDisplaced NumberStateswiththeMultiphotonJaynes–CummingsModel

F.A.A.El-OranyandA. -S.Obada.“OntheEvolutionofSuperpositionofSqueezedDisplaced NumberStateswiththeMultiphotonJaynes–CummingsModel”.JournalofOpticsB:Quantum andSemiclassicalOptics5(2003),60

2003
[19]

UniversalControlofaBosonicModeviaDrive-ActivatedNativeCubic Interactions

A.M.Erikssonetal.“UniversalControlofaBosonicModeviaDrive-ActivatedNativeCubic Interactions”.NatureCommunications15(2024),2512. REFERENCES 17

2024
[21]

Self-AdjointRealizationsofHigher-OrderSqueezing Operators

F.Fischer,D.Burgarth,andD.Lonigro.“Self-AdjointRealizationsofHigher-OrderSqueezing Operators”.JournalofPhysicsA:MathematicalandTheoretical59(2026),255203

2026
[22]

Four-andSix-PhotonStimulatedRamanTransitionsforCoherentQubitandQudit Operations

G. J. Gregory, E. R. Ritchie, A. Quinn, S. Brudney, D. J. Wineland, D. T. C. Allcock, and J. O’Reilly.“Four-andSix-PhotonStimulatedRamanTransitionsforCoherentQubitandQudit Operations”.2026.arXiv:2602.18567 [quant-ph]

2026
[23]

PhotonNumberDivergenceintheQuantumTheoryofn-PhotondownConver- sion

M.Hillery.“PhotonNumberDivergenceintheQuantumTheoryofn-PhotondownConver- sion”.PhysicalReviewA42(1990),498–502

1990
[24]

Larson and T

J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos.The Jaynes–CummingsModel and Its Descendants (Second Edition).IOPPublishing,2024

2024
[25]

EmissionofPhotonMultipletsbyadc-BiasedSuperconductingCircuit

G.C.Ménardetal.“EmissionofPhotonMultipletsbyadc-BiasedSuperconductingCircuit”. PhysicalReviewX12(2022),021006

2022
[26]

Amplitude-Squared Squeezing in the Multiphoton Jaynes-Cummings Model: EffectsoftheAtomicCoherentStatesandDetuning

M. A. Mir. “Amplitude-Squared Squeezing in the Multiphoton Jaynes-Cummings Model: EffectsoftheAtomicCoherentStatesandDetuning”.PhysicalReviewA47(1993),4384–4391

1993
[27]

BarrierNonsubordinacyandAbsolutelyContinuousSpec- trumofBlockJacobiMatrices

M.MoszyńskiandG.Świderski.“BarrierNonsubordinacyandAbsolutelyContinuousSpec- trumofBlockJacobiMatrices”.ConstructiveApproximation63(2025),475–504

2025
[28]

F.W.J.Olver.AsymptoticsandSpecialFunctions.Reprinted.AKPClassics.BocaRaton,Fla.: CRCPress,2010

2010
[29]

QuantifyingtheRotating-WaveApproximationofthe DickeModel

L.Richter,D.Burgarth,andD.Lonigro.“QuantifyingtheRotating-WaveApproximationofthe DickeModel”.JournalofPhysicsA:MathematicalandTheoretical59(2026),075203

2026
[30]

Boston,Mass.:McGraw-Hill,2007

W.Rudin.FunctionalAnalysis.2.ed.InternationalSeriesinPureandAppliedMathematics. Boston,Mass.:McGraw-Hill,2007

2007
[31]

K.Schmüdgen.UnboundedSelf-adjointOperatorsonHilbertSpace.Vol.265.GraduateTextsin Mathematics.Dordrecht:SpringerNetherlands,2012

2012
[32]

K.Schmüdgen.TheMomentProblem.Vol.277.GraduateTextsinMathematics.Cham:Springer InternationalPublishing,2017

2017
[33]

RotationNumbersforJacobiMatriceswithMatrixEntries

H.Schulz-Baldes.“RotationNumbersforJacobiMatriceswithMatrixEntries”.Mathematical PhysicsElectronicJournal13(2007),5

2007
[34]

Multi-PhononGeneralisationoftheJaynes-CummingsModel

C.V.SukumarandB.Buck.“Multi-PhononGeneralisationoftheJaynes-CummingsModel”. PhysicsLettersA83(1981),211–213

1981
[35]

SpectralPropertiesofBlockJacobiMatrices

G.Świderski.“SpectralPropertiesofBlockJacobiMatrices”.ConstructiveApproximation48 (2018),301–335

2018
[36]

AsymptoticZeros’DistributionofOrthogonalPolynomialswith UnboundedRecurrenceCoefficients

G.ŚwiderskiandB.Trojan.“AsymptoticZeros’DistributionofOrthogonalPolynomialswith UnboundedRecurrenceCoefficients”.JournalofFunctionalAnalysis289(2025),111162

2025
[37]

G.Teschl.JacobiOperatorsandCompletelyIntegrableNonlinearLattices.Vol.72.Mathematical SurveysandMonographs.Providence,RhodeIsland:AmericanMathematicalSociety,1999

1999
[38]

G.Teschl.MathematicalMethodsinQuantumMechanics.Vol.99.GraduateStudiesinMathe- matics.Providence,RhodeIsland:AmericanMathematicalSociety,2009

2009
[39]

The Quantum Rabi Model: Solution and Dynamics

Q. Xie, H. Zhong, M. T. Batchelor, and C. Lee. “The Quantum Rabi Model: Solution and Dynamics”.JournalofPhysicsA:MathematicalandTheoretical50(2017),113001

2017
[40]

Onthe2-Modeandk-PhotonQuantumRabiModels

Y.-Z.Zhang.“Onthe2-Modeandk-PhotonQuantumRabiModels”.ReviewsinMathematical Physics29(2017),1750013

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [20]

EssentiallySingularLimitsofJacobiOperatorsand ApplicationstoHigher-OrderSqueezing

F.Fischer,D.Burgarth,andD.Lonigro.“EssentiallySingularLimitsofJacobiOperatorsand ApplicationstoHigher-OrderSqueezing”.2026.arXiv:2605.21355 [math-ph]

arXiv 2026

[2] [1]

N.I.Akhiezer.TheClassicalMomentProblemandSomeRelatedQuestionsinAnalysis.Philadel- phia,PA:SocietyforIndustrialandAppliedMathematics,2020

2020

[3] [2]

Fractionalsqueezing:spectraanddynamicsfromgeneralizedsqueezingHamil- tonianwithfractionalorders

S.Ashhab.“Fractionalsqueezing:spectraanddynamicsfromgeneralizedsqueezingHamil- tonianwithfractionalorders”.JournalofPhysicsA:MathematicalandTheoretical59(2026), 255301

2026

[4] [3]

Finite-DimensionalApproxima- tionsofGeneralizedSqueezing

S.Ashhab,F.Fischer,D.Lonigro,D.Braak,andD.Burgarth.“Finite-DimensionalApproxima- tionsofGeneralizedSqueezing”.PhysicalReviewA113(2026),013703

2026

[5] [4]

Squeezing,TrisqueezingandQuadsqueezinginaHybridOscillator–Spin System

O.Băzăvanetal.“Squeezing,TrisqueezingandQuadsqueezinginaHybridOscillator–Spin System”.NaturePhysics22(2026),757–762

2026

[6] [5]

Demonstrating Quantum Properties of Triple Photons Generated by 𝜒3-processes

K. Bencheikh et al. “Demonstrating Quantum Properties of Triple Photons Generated by 𝜒3-processes”.TheEuropeanPhysicalJournalD76(2022),186

2022

[7] [6]

J.M.Berezanskii.ExpansioninEigenfunctionsofSelf-adjointOperators.Vol.17.Translations ofMathematicalMonographs.AmericanMathematicalSociety,1968

1968

[8] [7]

Effect of Higher-Order Nonlinearities on Amplification and Squeezing in Josephson Parametric Amplifiers

S. Boutin, D. M. Toyli, A. V. Venkatramani, A. W. Eddins, I. Siddiqi, and A. Blais. “Effect of Higher-Order Nonlinearities on Amplification and Squeezing in Josephson Parametric Amplifiers”.PhysicalReviewApplied8(2017),054030

2017