Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Tuning Density and Spin Ordering of Degenerate Fermi Gases in an Optical Cavity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper argues that the relative pump-cavity polarization angle controls both the superradiance threshold and the spatial separation of spin components in a degenerate Fermi gas.

desk verdict A plausible mean-field extension with an internal factor-of-16 error in its central threshold condition, shifting the phase boundaries as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25267 v1 pith:5FOKRRW7 submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Wei Qin , Yuan-Hong Chen , Renyuan Liao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph PACS 03.75.Ss42.50.Pq05.30.Fk
keywords superradiantphasetransitiondegenerateFermigasopticalcavityscalarandvectorialpolarizabilityseparationPauliblockingpolarization-anglecontrolFermi-surfacenesting
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

This paper argues that the relative polarization angle between the transverse pump laser and the cavity field acts as a practical control knob for a degenerate Fermi gas in an optical cavity: it tunes the competition between scalar and vectorial atom–light couplings and thereby shifts the threshold for superradiant self-organization, the point where atoms spontaneously order into a checkerboard and build up a cavity field. The threshold is set jointly by this coupling weight and by Pauli blocking—the Fermi sea's density-dependent susceptibility, whose nesting peaks near half filling dictate the minimum pump-lattice depth needed for superradiance. For a two-component Fermi gas with opposite spins and imbalanced populations, the same angle governs real-space phase separation: the two spin components separate into opposite checkerboard patterns at a fixed polarization angle set by the polarizability ratio, and the separation changes from continuous to abrupt as the population imbalance grows. A sympathetic reader would care because it identifies one simple tunable parameter that controls both whether the transition happens and how it happens, with explicit phase diagrams given for experimental realization.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a mean-field effective Hamiltonian in which the pump and cavity fields, with relative polarization φ, combine scalar and vectorial couplings into a weight λ_mF and phase ϕ_mF. The fermions respond via the static susceptibility χ_mF (Eq. 6), a Fermi-sea band sum encoding Pauli blocking, with nesting peaks near half filling. A Landau free-energy expansion (Eq. 5) places the superradiant boundary where the quadratic coefficient changes sign, λ²_mF = −Δ̃_c/(4χ_mF), giving the critical-angle formula (Eq. 7). For the two-component mixture, the Helmholtz free energy (Eq. 8) is minimized over the two density order parameters Θ_±3/2; equality of the two checkerboard free energies fix

What would settle it

Measure the superradiance threshold as a function of pump-cavity polarization angle in a degenerate 6Li Fermi gas (F=3/2 manifold) tuned near half filling: the model predicts a specific φ_crit from Eq. (7), with the maximum φ_crit reached when the susceptibility peaks at ν ≈ 0.5, and, for a balanced two-component mix, predicts the two spin components to checkerboard-separate exactly at φ = arctan(2α_s/α_v) with a photon-phase jump from ≈0 to ≈π/2. If the threshold fails to track this angle, or the separation occurs at a different φ, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the relative polarization angle φ between pump and cavity does two jobs in a spin-degenerate Fermi gas. First, it sets the scalar–vectorial coupling weight λ_mF entering the effective Hamiltonian, shifting the superradiance threshold via the condition λ²_mF = −Δ̃_c/(4χ_mF); the Fermi-sea susceptibility χ_mF encodes Pauli blocking, with nesting peaks near half filling dictating the critical pump depth. Second, in a two-component gas of opposite spins, the equal-free-energy condition fixes the real-space phase-separation boundary at φ = arctan(2α_s/α_v), independent of density, while the population ratio n_ν selects the order of the transition—continuous below n_ν ≈ 0

Load-bearing premise

The phase diagrams, including those for a lossy cavity, are obtained by minimizing an equilibrium free energy, an assumption the paper itself concedes is inadequate for the long-time steady state of this dissipative system, where cavity losses and Pauli blocking can yield nonthermal steady states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pump-polarization angle φ is a direct experimental knob: for α_v/α_s > 1, increasing the scalar–vectorial coupling weight enhances superradiance, while for α_v/α_s < 1 it suppresses it, so the threshold moves predictably with a single rotation.
  • Pauli blocking makes the threshold strongly density-dependent: susceptibility peaks near half filling from Fermi-surface nesting mean the required pump-lattice depth drops there, and a minimum pump depth is needed for superradiance to appear at all.
  • The relative polarization angle shifts the cavity-photon phase from ≈0 to ≈π/2 at the separation boundary, giving a measurable signature of spin-component spatial separation.
  • In the two-component gas, the population ratio n_ν sets the order of the phase transition: continuous below n_ν ≈ 0.73, first-order above n_ν ≈ 0.77, with a tricritical point in between.
  • Finite cavity loss κ shrinks the superradiance stability region according to Δ̃_c = −2χ ± sqrt(4χ²−κ²), while finite temperature flattens the nesting peaks (washed out above T ≈ 0.2E_R).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because the separation angle φ = arctan(2α_s/α_v) is independent of density and detuning, it could serve as a built-in calibrator: a measurement of the photon-phase jump locates the boundary without precise knowledge of filling fraction, simplifying experiment design.
  • Inference: The calculations quote integrals over d²k even though the pump and cavity wavevectors are defined in 3D, so quantitative thresholds (e.g., V_0 = 3E_R) may shift in a fully three-dimensional treatment; repeating the susceptibility calculation in 3D would show whether the nesting peaks and the φ boundary survive.
  • Inference: The paper's own caveat implies the κ≠0 boundaries from free-energy minimization may not match the true dissipative steady state; if a full dissipative-dynamics calculation replaces the equilibrium extremum, the n_ν ≈ 0.7 crossover between second- and first-order behavior could move or even disappear.
  • Inference: The same scalar–vectorial competition mechanism should appear in spin-orbit-coupled or shaken-lattice fermion-cavity setups, where the vectorial coupling can be engineered rather than fixed by atomic polarizabilities; the paper's φ-tunable framework offers a template for those extensions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a spin-degenerate Fermi gas coupled to a high-finesse cavity, with pump-cavity polarization angle φ controlling the competition between scalar and vectorial atom-light couplings. Using a mean-field/Landau free-energy approach, the authors derive a superradiance threshold condition (Eq. (7)) that depends on the scalar-vectorial coupling weight and on a Fermi-surface susceptibility χ; they compute χ and identify Pauli-blocking/nesting features. For a two-component gas with m_F=±3/2, they predict real-space phase separation at φ=arctan(2α_s/α_v), a second-to-first-order crossover as the population ratio n_ν increases, and phase diagrams versus filling, temperature, detuning, and cavity loss. The Conclusions concede that free-energy minimization is inadequate for the long-time dissipative steady state.

Significance. If correct, the paper gives experimentally testable predictions: polarization-angle-tuned superradiance in a fermionic cavity QED setup, a parameter-independent phase-separation angle, and population-imbalance-controlled first-order behavior. The use of Fermi-surface susceptibility and the connection to known fermionic superradiance are physically well motivated, and the model is built from standard cavity QED tools. However, the central analytic results are not fully verifiable from the printed text: key derivations are relegated to a missing Supplemental Material, and there is an internal inconsistency between Eq. (5) and Eq. (7) that affects every quantitative phase boundary. The significance is therefore conditional: the qualitative scenario may be correct, but the paper as written cannot be reproduced or fully evaluated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Phase transition conditions, Eq. (5) vs Eq. (7)] The Landau coefficient in Eq. (5) is -η_0^2 λ^2/Δ̃_c [1 + χλ^2/(4Δ̃_c)]. Setting it to zero for Δ̃_c<0 gives λ^2 = -4Δ̃_c/χ, not λ^2 = -Δ̃_c/(4χ) as stated two lines before Eq. (7) and used in Eq. (7). The printed threshold is off by a factor of 16 in λ^2, and the existence condition should be χ > -4Δ̃_c rather than χ > -Δ̃_c/4. Since the abstract's claim about the critical pump lattice depth and the phase boundaries in Figs. 2–4 rely on this threshold, this inconsistency is load-bearing. Please correct the derivation, state the normalization convention, and recheck the phase diagrams.
  2. [Supplemental Material (Ref. [36])] The manuscript repeatedly cites Ref. [36] 'Supplemental Material [url]' for the effective Hamiltonian, the free-energy expansion leading to Eq. (5), the susceptibility in Eq. (6), the phase-separation threshold φ=arctan(2α_s/α_v), and the dissipative analysis. None of this material is included or available at a real URL. These are the central derivations of the Letter, so the main claims cannot be checked by the reader. The SM should be provided, or the key steps should be summarized in the main text/appendix.
  3. [Phase diagrams with cavity loss; Conclusions] For κ≠0, the text presents phase boundaries (Fig. 3(c) and surrounding discussion, and Fig. 4) apparently from free-energy extrema, while the Conclusions state that free-energy minimization is 'fundamentally inadequate' for the long-time steady state because of cavity losses and Pauli blocking. If the κ≠0 curves are equilibrium free-energy extrema, they do not describe the dissipative steady state; if they are dynamical-stability boundaries, the derivation is in the missing SM. This needs to be clarified because the κ≠0 boundaries are part of the claimed experimental relevance.
  4. [Dimensionality of susceptibility, Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) integrates over d^2k, and Fig. 2 uses a two-dimensional density of states, but the pump and cavity wavevectors are introduced in 3D, k_p=k_0 ẑ and k_c=k_0 x̂, with no statement of 2D confinement. Fermi-surface nesting, the filling dependence of χ, and the quantitative threshold are dimension-dependent. If the calculation is performed in 2D, this must be stated explicitly; otherwise the quantitative comparison with experiments is not well defined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Model] 'High-fineness' should be 'high-finesse'.
  2. [Fig. 3] The caption lists panels (a)–(c), but the text refers twice to 'Figs. 3(d)'. Correct the panel numbering.
  3. [Notation] The rescaled quantities ᾱ^2=U_0 α^2/4, δ_c=4Δ_c/(U_0 N_l), and Δ̃_c are introduced without a unified notation. Both Δ̃_c and δ_c are called detunings; define all of them in one place and use them consistently.
  4. [Eq. (8)] The band index i in ε^(i)_{k,m_F} is not defined. Also, the expression mixes grand-potential and Helmholtz free-energy terms without explaining the Legendre transformation carefully; please clarify.
  5. [Ref. [36]] The placeholder '[url]' in Ref. [36] must be replaced with a working link to the Supplemental Material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase boundaries are computed from the bare Hamiltonian and Landau free energy, with no fitted target parameter and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the atom-cavity Hamiltonian with fixed physical inputs (polarizability ratio αv/αs = 0.928, pump/cavity geometry, and 6Li level structure). The Landau free energy in Eq. (5) is expanded in the order parameter Θ, and the susceptibility χ in Eq. (6) is computed from the noninteracting Fermi band structure and Fermi-Dirac occupation; it is not adjusted to produce the transition. The threshold λ² = -Δ̃c/(4χ) used in Eq. (7) is presented as the sign-change condition of the quadratic coefficient, so the phase boundary is an algebraic consequence rather than an input. The two-component phase-separation angle φcrit = arctan(2αs/αv) is stated to follow from the equality of free energies and is independently connected to Ref. [51], an external source. Self-citations [7] and [18] appear only as background literature examples; the supplemental self-reference [36] contains derivation details but is not used as an unverified premise replacing an actual calculation. The Conclusions explicitly concede that free-energy minimization is 'fundamentally inadequate' for the long-time dissipative steady state; this limits the validity of the κ≠0 diagrams but does not make the equilibrium derivation circular. The apparent factor-of-16 inconsistency between Eq. (5) and Eq. (7) (the threshold from Eq. (5) would be λ² = -4Δ̃c/χ rather than -Δ̃c/(4χ)) is an internal-consistency/correctness concern, not a circularity, and does not affect this circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The only fixed numeric input beyond standard constants is the atomic polarizability ratio α_v/α_s = 0.928; all other control parameters (φ, V0, ν, δc, T, κ) are axes of the phase diagrams rather than fitted quantities. The main unsupported inputs are modeling assumptions: mean-field treatment, equilibrium free-energy minimization for dissipative regimes, and the unstated 2D reduction.

free parameters (1)
  • α_v/α_s = 0.928
    Atomic polarizability ratio fixed for the 6Li D2 line, F=3/2 manifold; not derived or cited in the main text. All quantitative φcrit values, including the separation angle arctan(2α_s/α_v), depend on it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Excited atomic states can be adiabatically eliminated (far-detuned pump), yielding the effective Hamiltonian Eqs. (1)-(3).
    Standard cavity-QED reduction; assumes no significant spontaneous emission and neglects excited-state population.
  • domain assumption The photon field can be replaced by its mean-field expectation value α = ⟨â⟩, and the free energy expanded to quadratic order in the order parameter Θ.
    Mean-field/Landau treatment; the authors acknowledge quantum fluctuations can modify critical exponents and drive bistability.
  • domain assumption Phase boundaries are determined by free-energy minimization, including for finite cavity loss κ.
    The Conclusions explicitly state this is inadequate for long-time steady states with losses and Pauli blocking, yet it is used for Figs. 3(c)-(d) and 4.
  • domain assumption The Fermi gas is effectively 2D, with the susceptibility integrated over a 2D Brillouin zone.
    Eq. (6) and Fig. 2 use ∫ d²k without stating quasi-2D confinement, even though the geometry is introduced with k_p = k0 e_z and k_c = k0 e_x in 3D.
  • standard math Bloch band structure of H0 and Fermi-Dirac statistics determine the static susceptibility χ_mF via Eq. (6).
    Standard linear-response formula for noninteracting fermions, used throughout the phase-boundary derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tuning Density and Spin Ordering of Degenerate Fermi Gases in an Optical Cavity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FOKRRW7

@misc{pith2026260725267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tuning Density and Spin Ordering of Degenerate Fermi Gases in an Optical Cavity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FOKRRW7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25267}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate a spin-degenerate Fermi gas coupled to a high-finesse optical cavity, where the competition between scalar and vectorial couplings is controlled by the relative polarization angle of the pump and cavity fields. We find that the phase transition threshold is synergistically determined by the scalar-vectorial coupling weight and Pauli blocking, with the latter dictating the critical pump lattice depth required for the onset of superradiance. For a two-component Fermi gas with opposite spins, the population ratio drives two distinct types of phase transitions corresponding to real-space phase separation: continuous and discontinuous. Nevertheless, the boundary of the phase transition remains fundamentally governed by the scalar-vectorial coupling competition. We clarify the impact of the relative polarization angle on phase transitions of the system; these results also apply to bosonic systems. Our results provide valuable theoretical insights for future experimental realizations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the experimental setup. The degenerate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Critical relative polarization angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Equilibrium phase diagrams are presented for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references

  1. [46]

    Y. Chen, Z. Yu, and H. Zhai, Superradiance of degenerate fermi gases in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 143004 (2014)

    2014

  2. [36]

    [37, 38]

    See Supplemental Material [url] for the details of the effective Hamiltonian and the critical condition for the superradiance phase transition and the threshold of the phase separation boundary in two-component systems, and a brief analysis of the dissipatively driven system, which includes Refs. [37, 38]

  3. [1]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  4. [2]

    Ritsch, P

    H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical poten- tials, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 553 (2013)

    2013

  5. [3]

    Mivehvar, F

    F. Mivehvar, F. Piazza, T. Donner, and H. Ritsch, Cavity qed with quantum gases: new paradigms in many-body physics, Advances in Physics70, 1 (2021)

    2021

  6. [4]

    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

  7. [5]

    V. D. Vaidya, Y. Guo, R. M. Kroeze, K. E. Ballantine, A. J. Koll´ ar, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Tunable-range, photon-mediated atomic interactions in multimode cav- ity qed, Phys. Rev. X8, 011002 (2018)

    2018

  8. [6]

    Z. Yan, J. Ho, Y.-H. Lu, S. J. Masson, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Superradiant and subradiant cavity scattering by atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 253603 (2023)

    2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [7]

    Qin, D.-C

    W. Qin, D.-C. Zheng, Z.-D. Wu, Y.-H. Chen, and R. Liao, Theoretical exploration of phase transitions in a cavity- bec system with two crossed optical pumps, Phys. Rev. A109, 013310 (2024)

    2024

  2. [8]

    Y. Chen, H. Zhai, and Z. Yu, Superradiant phase transi- tion of fermi gases in a cavity across a feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. A91, 021602 (2015)

    2015

  3. [9]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Chen, Z. Wu, J. Wang, J. Fan, S. Deng, and H. Wu, Observation of a superradiant quantum phase transition in an intracavity degenerate fermi gas, Science 373, 1359 (2021)

    2021

  4. [10]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr ` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Long-range interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  5. [11]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nature Physics4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  6. [12]

    Chitra and O

    R. Chitra and O. Zilberberg, Dynamical many-body phases of the parametrically driven, dissipative dicke model, Phys. Rev. A92, 023815 (2015)

    2015

  7. [13]

    Soriente, T

    M. Soriente, T. Donner, R. Chitra, and O. Zilberberg, Dissipation-induced anomalous multicritical phenomena, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 183603 (2018)

    2018

  8. [14]

    Piazza and P

    F. Piazza and P. Strack, Umklapp superradiance with a collisionless quantum degenerate fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 143003 (2014)

    2014

  9. [15]

    Zwettler, G

    T. Zwettler, G. Del Pace, F. Marijanovic, S. Chattopad- hyay, T. B¨ uhler, C.-M. Halati, L. Skolc, L. Tolle, V. Hel- son, G. Bolognini, A. Fabre, S. Uchino, T. Giamarchi, E. Demler, and J. P. Brantut, Nonequilibrium dynam- ics of long-range interacting fermions, Phys. Rev. X15...

    2025

  10. [16]

    R. M. Kroeze, Y. Guo, V. D. Vaidya, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Spinor self-ordering of a quantum gas in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 163601 (2018)

    2018

  11. [17]

    L. Carl, R. Rosa-Medina, S. D. Huber, T. Esslinger, N. Dogra, and T. Dubcek, Phases, instabilities and ex- citations in a two-component lattice model with photon- mediated interactions, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L032003 (2023)

    2023

  12. [18]

    J.-Y. Lin, W. Qin, and R. Liao, Phase transition, phase separation, and mode softening of a two-component bose- einstein condensate in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. A 113, 013317 (2026)

    2026

  13. [19]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Lian, J.-Q. Liang, G. Chen, C. Zhang, and S. Jia, Finite-temperature dicke phase transition of a bose-einstein condensate in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. A87, 013616 (2013)

    2013

  14. [20]

    Nairn, L

    M. Nairn, L. Giannelli, G. Morigi, S. Slama, B. Olmos, and S. B. J¨ ager, Spin self-organization in an optical cav- ity facilitated by inhomogeneous broadening, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 083603 (2025)

    2025

  15. [21]

    L´ eonard, A

    J. L´ eonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Supersolid formation in a quantum gas break- ing a continuous translational symmetry, Nature543, 87 (2017)

    2017

  16. [22]

    Zupancic, D

    P. Zupancic, D. Dreon, X. Li, A. Baumg¨ artner, A. Morales, W. Zheng, N. R. Cooper, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner,p-band induced self-organization and dynam- ics with repulsively driven ultracold atoms in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 233601 (2019). 6

    2019

  17. [23]

    X. Li, D. Dreon, P. Zupancic, A. Baumg¨ artner, A. Morales, W. Zheng, N. R. Cooper, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, First order phase transition between two centro-symmetric superradiant crystals, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L012024 (2021)

    2021

  18. [24]

    Chen and Y

    S. Chen and Y. Chen, Detecting the fermi surface nesting effect for the fermionic dicke transition by trap-induced localization, Phys. Rev. A110, 013312 (2024)

    2024

  19. [25]

    Le Kien, P

    F. Le Kien, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Dy- namical polarizability of atoms in arbitrary light fields: general theory and application to cesium, The European Physical Journal D67, 92 (2013)

    2013

  20. [26]

    Zhang, C

    Z. Zhang, C. H. Lee, R. Kumar, K. J. Arnold, S. J. Mas- son, A. L. Grimsmo, A. S. Parkins, and M. D. Barrett, Dicke-model simulation via cavity-assisted raman transi- tions, Phys. Rev. A97, 043858 (2018)

    2018

  21. [27]

    Dogra, M

    N. Dogra, M. Landini, K. Kroeger, L. Hruby, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Dissipation-induced structural instabil- ity and chiral dynamics in a quantum gas, Science366, 1496 (2019)

    2019

  22. [28]

    Morales, D

    A. Morales, D. Dreon, X. Li, A. Baumg¨ artner, P. Zupan- cic, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Two-mode dicke model from nondegenerate polarization modes, Phys. Rev. A 100, 013816 (2019)

    2019

  23. [29]

    J. Fan, G. Chen, and S. Jia, Atomic self-organization emerging from tunable quadrature coupling, Phys. Rev. A101, 063627 (2020)

    2020

  24. [30]

    Pan, X.-J

    J.-S. Pan, X.-J. Liu, W. Zhang, W. Yi, and G.-C. Guo, Topological superradiant states in a degenerate fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 045303 (2015)

    2015

  25. [31]

    J. Fan, X. Zhou, W. Zheng, W. Yi, G. Chen, and S. Jia, Magnetic order in a fermi gas induced by cavity-field fluc- tuations, Phys. Rev. A98, 043613 (2018)

    2018

  26. [32]

    Y. Feng, J. Fan, X. Zhou, G. Chen, and S. Jia, Topolog- ical superradiance in a shaken dynamical optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A99, 043630 (2019)

    2019

  27. [33]

    Feng, Y.-H

    Y. Feng, Y.-H. Chen, Y. Cai, and G. Chen, Topologi- cal properties of the spin-1/2 hourglass creutz-like ladder model assisted by an optical cavity, Optics Express33, 33384 (2025)

    2025

  28. [34]

    M. J. Bhaseen, J. Mayoh, B. D. Simons, and J. Keeling, Dynamics of nonequilibrium dicke models, Phys. Rev. A 85, 013817 (2012)

    2012

  29. [35]

    Landini, N

    M. Landini, N. Dogra, K. Kroeger, L. Hruby, T. Don- ner, and T. Esslinger, Formation of a spin texture in a quantum gas coupled to a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 223602 (2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Keldysh field theory for driven open quantum systems, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 096001 (2016)

    2016

  31. [38]

    Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems, 2nd Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023)

    A. Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems, 2nd Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023)

    2023

  32. [39]

    Zwettler, F

    T. Zwettler, F. Marijanovic, T. B¨ uhler, S. Chattopad- hyay, G. Del Pace, L. Skolc, V. Helson, S. Uchino, E. Demler, and J.-P. Brantut, Cavity-mediated charge and pair-density waves in a unitary fermi gas, Nature Communications17, 496 (2025)

    2025

  33. [40]

    Manzano, A short introduction to the lindblad master equation, AIP Advances10, 025106 (2020)

    D. Manzano, A short introduction to the lindblad master equation, AIP Advances10, 025106 (2020)

    2020

  34. [41]

    Baumann, R

    K. Baumann, R. Mottl, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Exploring symmetry breaking at the dicke quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 140402 (2011)

    2011

  35. [42]

    H. T. C. Stoof, K. B. Gubbels, and D. B. M. Dickercheid, Ultracold Quantum Fields (Springer, Bristol, UK, 2009)

    2009

  36. [43]

    Altland and B

    A. Altland and B. Simons, Condensed Matter Field The- ory, 3rd Edition. (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2023)

    2023

  37. [44]

    D. Nagy, G. Szirmai, and P. Domokos, Self-organization of a bose-einstein condensate in an optical cavity, The European Physical Journal D48, 127 (2008)

    2008

  38. [45]

    D. Nagy, G. K´ onya, G. Szirmai, and P. Domokos, Dicke- model phase transition in the quantum motion of a bose- einstein condensate in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 130401 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Keeling, M

    J. Keeling, M. J. Bhaseen, and B. D. Simons, Collective dynamics of bose-einstein condensates in optical cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 043001 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Nie and W

    X. Nie and W. Zheng, Nonequilibrium phases of a fermi gas inside a cavity with imbalanced pumping, Phys. Rev. A108, 043312 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Piazza and H

    F. Piazza and H. Ritsch, Self-ordered limit cycles, chaos, and phase slippage with a superfluid inside an optical resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 163601 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    E. I. R. Chiacchio and A. Nunnenkamp, Dissipation- induced instabilities of a spinor bose-einstein condensate inside an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 193605 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    A. Ali, F. Saif, and H. Saito, Phase separation and mul- tistability of a two-component bose-einstein condensate in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. A105, 063318 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    L. E. Reichl,A Modern Course in Statistical Physics, 4th ed. (WILEY-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Keeling, M

    J. Keeling, M. J. Bhaseen, and B. D. Simons, Fermionic superradiance in a transversely pumped optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 143002 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Weimer, A

    H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum, and R. Or´ us, Simulation methods for open quantum many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015008 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Piazza and P

    F. Piazza and P. Strack, Quantum kinetics of ultracold fermions coupled to an optical resonator, Phys. Rev. A 90, 043823 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, J. Marino, and S. Diehl, Universality in driven open quantum matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 025004 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Tomadin, A. Micheli, R. Fazio, and P. Zoller, Dynamical phase transitions and instabilities in open atomic many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 015702 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    Tolle, A

    L. Tolle, A. Sheikhan, T. Giamarchi, C. Kollath, and C.- M. Halati, Fluctuation-induced bistability of fermionic atoms coupled to a dissipative cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 133602 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    G. J. Conduit and B. D. Simons, Repulsive atomic gas in a harmonic trap on the border of itinerant ferromag- netism, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 200403 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    Sanner, E

    C. Sanner, E. J. Su, W. Huang, A. Keshet, J. Gillen, and W. Ketterle, Correlations and pair formation in a repulsively interacting fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 7 240404 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    Landig, L

    R. Landig, L. Hruby, N. Dogra, M. Landini, R. Mottl, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Quantum phases from com- peting short- and long-range interactions in an optical lattice, Nature532, 476 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    Helson, T

    V. Helson, T. Zwettler, F. Mivehvar, E. Colella, K. Roux, H. Konishi, H. Ritsch, and J.-P. Brantut, Density-wave ordering in a unitary fermi gas with photon-mediated interactions, Nature618, 716 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    D. J. Young, A. Chu, E. Y. Song, D. Barberena, D. Well- nitz, Z. Niu, V. M. Sch¨ afer, R. J. Lewis-Swan, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Observing dynamical phases of bcs superconductors in a cavity qed simulator, Nature625, 679 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    D. Baur, S. Hertlein, A. Baumg¨ artner, J. Stefaniak, T. Esslinger, G. Natale, and T. Donner, Band structure of a coupled bose-einstein-condensate–cavity system: Ef- fects of dissipation and geometry, Phys. Rev. A113, 043307 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

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