Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Equilibrium thermometry in the multilevel quantum Rabi model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The temperature sensitivity of a multilevel quantum Rabi model is captured by an analytic formula that decomposes into bright and dark contributions, and saturating either manifold yields a distinct thermometric advantage.

desk verdict Genuinely useful closed-form QFI decomposition for multilevel Rabi thermometry, but the claim that dark fine structure can be ignored at large D is under-supported and needs a targeted check. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.12787 v2 pith:E6TIQROH submitted 2026-02-13 quant-ph

Tabitha Doicin , Luis A. Correa , Jonas Glatthard , Andrew D. Armour , Gerardo Adesso This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumthermometryFisherinformationmultilevelRabimodeladiabaticapproximationbrightstatesdarkcavityelectrodynamicsrandomcouplingmatrices
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 claims that the temperature sensitivity of a multilevel quantum Rabi model—two nearly degenerate atomic manifolds of many levels coupled to a single cavity mode—can be described by an analytic formula in the adiabatic regime, where the atomic frequency is much smaller than the cavity frequency. The formula splits the thermal quantum Fisher information (QFI) into three pieces: intra-doublet bright excitations, inter-doublet bright–bright transitions, and bright–dark population transfer. When the dark manifold is large, the bright–dark piece produces a peak sensitivity that approaches the ultimate limit of an ideal thermometer as the dark degeneracy grows. When instead the bright manifold is large, the response is broadband and becomes self-averaging under random couplings. This matters because it offers a route to designing sensitive or broad-range equilibrium thermometers in cavity quantum electrodynamics without full numerical diagonalization of large systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the multilevel adiabatic approximation in a superradiant basis: a singular-value decomposition of the coupling matrix separates atomic transitions into bright doublets (collective superpositions that couple strongly to the cavity) and dark states (superpositions that do not couple at all). Assuming a small atomic frequency, each bright doublet becomes a displaced-oscillator ladder with overlap factors set by Laguerre polynomials, while the dark manifold is an equally spaced, highly degenerate ladder; intraband detunings enter as first-order shifts. Combining these spectra in the partition function gives the closed-form QFI, whose log-sum-exp structure separat

What would settle it

Take a D_g=10, D_e=1010 multilevel quantum Rabi model with random intraband detunings in the dark manifold, compute the exact thermal QFI by numerical diagonalization at high photon cutoff and intermediate coupling, and compare with Eq. (30). If the bright–dark peak is suppressed, shifted, or broadened relative to the analytic formula, the dark-sector decoupling assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the multilevel adiabatic approximation, the thermal QFI of the multilevel quantum Rabi model reduces to a closed-form expression, Eq. (30), built from a partition function separated into bright ladders and a dark manifold. In the dark-manifold-saturated regime, the bright–dark contribution dominates and its peak approaches the ideal-thermometer benchmark as the dark degeneracy grows at fixed bright structure; the approach is robust to disorder in couplings and detunings, and can be improved at intermediate light–matter coupling. In the bright-saturated regime, the bright–bright contribution yields a broadband response whose sample-to-sample fluctuations shrink as the manifold size gro

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the small energy splittings inside the dark manifold are thermometrically irrelevant; the paper checks this numerically only for a small system and assumes it for the large-dark-manifold saturation results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A probe with a small bright sector and a large dark manifold can reach peak sensitivities close to the fundamental ideal-thermometer bound for the same effective degeneracy and gap.
  • The peak-QFI ratio relative to the ideal thermometer rises monotonically with dark-manifold degeneracy in both weak and intermediate coupling.
  • Intermediate light–matter coupling can improve the relative peak QFI for some small bright sectors because spectral reshuffling isolates a single dominant bright–dark gap.
  • A fully bright manifold with 25 to 250 levels produces a broadband thermometric window that becomes smoother and less sample-dependent as the number of levels grows.
  • The closed-form QFI and energy-ordered truncation allow ensemble studies over thousands of disordered realisations, which would be prohibitive with brute-force diagonalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental test could tune the degeneracy of an excitonic band in a cavity quantum electrodynamics device and search for the predicted bright–dark peak; the paper does not propose a specific platform.
  • The same bright/dark decomposition may apply to other bosonic multilevel coupling models with an SVD structure, such as multi-mode or collective-coupling settings, although the paper does not claim this.
  • Engineering the singular-value spectrum deliberately, rather than drawing couplings randomly, could allow the intermediate-coupling enhancement to be optimized or suppressed; the paper notes that the enhancement is not universal.
  • A stress test of the main assumption would be to increase intraband disorder inside the dark manifold for large manifolds and check whether the bright–dark peak remains stable; the paper only performs this check for a small system.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies equilibrium thermometry in a multilevel quantum Rabi model (MQRM) with two near-degenerate atomic manifolds coupled to a single cavity mode. Working in the adiabatic regime (ω_a/ω_f ≪ 1), the authors perform an SVD of the coupling matrix and derive an approximate spectrum: bright doublets with energies given by Eq. (21) and a dark sector treated as exactly degenerate and decoupled, Eqs. (15)–(16). From this spectrum they obtain a closed-form thermal QFI, Eqs. (30)–(31), decomposed into intra-doublet, bright–bright (Eq. (39)), and bright–dark (Eq. (37)) contributions, together with an energy-ordered truncation scheme for numerical evaluation. The approximation is validated against exact diagonalization for a D_g=2, D_e=4 system in Figs. 2–3. The paper then analyzes two large-manifold limits: dark-manifold saturation (D_e ≫ D_g), where the bright–dark QFI peak is claimed to approach the ideal thermometer benchmark as D grows (Fig. 5), and bright-manifold saturation (D_g = D_e = M), where the response is claimed to be broadband and self-averaging (Fig. 7). The central assertion is that these regimes survive for large manifolds and finite intraband detunings, making the MQRM a versatile and sensitive equilibrium thermometer.

Significance. The paper's analytical QFI formula and its decomposition into physically distinct transition classes are valuable and may provide design principles for cavity-QED thermometry. Concrete strengths include the closed-form expression, the validation against exact diagonalization in Figs. 2–3, the Laguerre–Wishart modal-spectrum validation in Fig. 9, and the public data/code availability. The ideal-thermometer comparison is meaningful because matching the peak temperature does not fix the peak height, so the approach-to-ideal claim is not forced. However, the headline large-manifold claims (D=1000, M=250) rest on two uncontrolled approximations—the neglect of dark-sector fine structure and the energy-ordered truncation—neither of which is directly validated at those system sizes. The bright-manifold saturation claim also relies on the SVD-detuning approximation at non-negligible intraband spreads. These gaps need to be addressed before the large-D conclusions can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II B, Eq. (15), Figs. 5–6] The statement that dark-sector fine structure is thermometrically irrelevant is load-bearing for the dark-manifold saturation claim, but it is validated only for D_g=2, D_e=4 (Fig. 3). The D=1000 cases are not checked against exact diagonalization: Fig. 5 uses ε=0, and Fig. 6(right), although it includes ε=0.25ω_a, evaluates the AA formula that ignores the dark fine structure. This matters because the bright–dark peak temperature scales as T* ~ E_BD/ln D (Eq. B2). For weak coupling with ω_a=0.2ω_f and ε=0.25ω_a=0.05ω_f, D=1000 gives T*≈0.03ω_f, so ε exceeds T*. Then only a fraction ~T*/ε of the dark band is thermally active, reducing the effective degeneracy below D and potentially suppressing the peak QFI relative to the ε=0 benchmark. Please provide exact-diagonalization checks for intermediate D (e.g., D=10–50) with nonzero ε, or an explicit bound showing that the fine-structure corre
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A1)] The energy-ordered truncation cutoff Θ is introduced to make large-manifold computations feasible, and the text states that convergence was tested 'across all parameter sets tested.' However, the only documented convergence check is the small D_g=2, D_e=4 system in Fig. 3. For the D=1000 and M=250 results in Figs. 5–7 no Θ-dependence is reported. This is not a technicality: the bright-manifold saturation claim relies on many high-lying bright ladders contributing at intermediate/high temperatures, and an insufficient cutoff could artificially broaden or flatten the QFI profile. Please report the values of Θ used for each figure and demonstrate convergence with respect to Θ for representative large-manifold parameters.
  3. [Sec. IV.B, Fig. 7] The bright-manifold saturation self-averaging result for M=250 is obtained entirely from the AA formula. The SVD-detuning approximation in Sec. II B retains only diagonal intraband terms in the bright sector (Eq. (14)) and neglects off-diagonal couplings between different bright doublets. At ε=0.25ω_a these neglected terms are not obviously small for the dense spectrum at M=250, and the small-system validation does not cover this regime. Please provide an intermediate-size exact-diagonalization check (e.g., M=6–10) with nonzero ε, or estimate the magnitude of the neglected inter-doublet terms and their effect on the QFI.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says the AA Formula retains terms up to the 5-th dark manifold; please state the corresponding truncation parameter Θ explicitly, and do the same for the large-manifold figures.
  2. [Eq. (31), Eq. (37)] The notation S_2 and S_3 is overloaded: Eq. (31b) defines S_2(n) with both bright and dark contributions, while Eq. (37) uses S_2^B, S_3^B, etc. without defining these block-resolved moments. Please define the block-resolved quantities before Eq. (37).
  3. [Sec. IV.A.1] The effective ideal gap E_ideal_eff is fixed by requiring the ideal probe to peak at the same temperature as the MQRM. The text describes this procedure, but it should state more explicitly that E_ideal_eff is a calibration output, not an independently measured or free parameter of the model.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C7)] The parameter matching for the Laguerre zeros should be checked carefully: for complex Wishart matrices (β=2) the joint density exponent is n−m, and the relation α'=n−m−2/β should be reconciled with the standard Laguerre parameter. This does not affect the numerical validation in Fig. 9, but a short clarification would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AA QFI is derived from the model Hamiltonian; the ideal-thermometer comparison matches peak temperature and degeneracy but does not fit peak height.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Eq. (1) defines the MQRM; the SVD in Eqs. (3)-(5) and the displaced-oscillator ansatz are standard mathematical transformations that are explicitly rederived in the paper, not imported as unexplained inputs. The AA spectrum, Eqs. (16a) and (21), and the partition function, Eq. (27), lead to the QFI formula, Eq. (30), via the exact identity F_T = Var(H)/T^4; no target QFI value or ideal-thermometer peak is inserted into that derivation. The bright-dark decomposition, Eq. (37), and the bright-bright contribution, Eq. (39), are algebraic separations of Eq. (30), not fits. The ideal benchmark in Appendix B is taken from Ref. [10] and calibrated by matching the degeneracy D and the peak temperature T*; its effective gap is fixed by the stationarity condition, Eq. (B2), while the MQRM peak height is computed independently, so the ratio F*_BD/F*_ideal is not forced to unity by construction. The self-citations to Refs. [10] and [23] provide the ideal-probe benchmark and the MQRM superradiant basis, but the load-bearing spectrum and QFI are independently rederived here; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in solely by citation. The dark-sector fine-structure assumption in Sec. II B is validated only for a small system, which is a potential correctness gap for the D=1000 claims, but it is not circular: it does not use the predicted QFI as an input. Overall, the central claims have independent content and no specific reduction of a prediction to its inputs is apparent.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are numerical and benchmark-matching choices; the physical scale parameters (ω_f, ω_a, ε, g, D_g, D_e) are Hamiltonian inputs, not fitted quantities. The main hidden assumptions are the adiabatic/self-energy truncation and the discarding of dark-sector intraband structure, both of which are load-bearing for the large-manifold claims.

free parameters (2)
  • Energy-ordered truncation cutoff Θ = retain levels up to the Θ-th dark manifold (first few in practice)
    Introduced in Appendix A to make Eq. (30) finite; high-temperature QFI is sensitive to this cutoff (Fig. 3 underestimates at high T), so it is a numerical convergence parameter rather than a physical fit.
  • Effective ideal gap E_ideal_eff = x* T*, with x* solving Eq. (38)
    Chosen so the ideal thermometer's QFI peak coincides in temperature with the MQRM bright-dark peak (Sec. IV A 1); this is a benchmark-matching parameter and does not enter the MQRM Hamiltonian.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Adiabatic regime: ω_a/ω_f ≪ 1 and the self-energy approximation keeps only photon-number-diagonal couplings after moving to the displaced-oscillator basis.
    Used to derive the effective bright-sector Hamiltonian Eq. (19) and hence the spectrum Eq. (21); validated only for small systems.
  • domain assumption SVD detuning approximation: off-diagonal intraband detuning terms in the bright sector are neglected and only SVD-averaged diagonal shifts Δ_k^e, Δ_k^g are kept.
    Introduced around Eq. (14) with error O(ε); adopted globally even at avoided crossings.
  • ad hoc to paper Dark-sector fine structure is thermometrically irrelevant; the dark block is treated as diagonal and degenerate.
    Stated after Eq. (15); enables the closed-form QFI but is checked only at D_g=2, D_e=4.
  • standard math The probe reaches a canonical Gibbs state and the QFI equals energy variance / T^4.
    Eqs. (24)-(26); standard result for thermal states.
  • domain assumption Generic random light-matter couplings are modelled by the complex Ginibre ensemble, and typical spectra by Laguerre-Wishart modal eigenvalues.
    Used to define 'typical' disorder-free realisations and ensemble stability in Sec. IV and Appendix C.
  • domain assumption First-order perturbation theory in intraband spread ε is sufficient.
    The narrow-bandwidth and SVD-averaging steps rely on ε/ω_a ≪ 1; higher-order couplings between superradiant states are dropped.
  • standard math Laguerre-polynomial displacement overlaps (Eq. (20)) and Wishart eigenvalue mode results (Appendix C) are valid.
    Standard results from displaced oscillator and random matrix theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Equilibrium thermometry in the multilevel quantum Rabi model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E6TIQROH

@misc{pith2026260212787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Equilibrium thermometry in the multilevel quantum Rabi model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E6TIQROH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.12787}
}
read the original abstract

The temperature sensitivity of a probe in equilibrium can be gauged by its thermal quantum Fisher information (QFI). It is known that probes exhibiting degeneracy in their energy-level structure can achieve larger sensitivities, while probes with a more uniform spectrum may remain sensitive over a broader temperature range. Here, we study the thermometric performance of a multilevel quantum Rabi model in which two well-separated atomic manifolds of near-degenerate levels couple to a single cavity mode. We generalise the standard quantum Rabi treatment in the adiabatic regime to find an approximate closed-form expression for the thermal QFI. We then characterise two complementary limits. On the one hand, a large dark-state manifold (dark-manifold saturation) produces a robust peak in thermal sensitivity due to bright--dark population transfer. Such increase in sensitivity is further maximised at an intermediate light--matter coupling strength. Maximising instead the number of bright states (bright-manifold saturation) generates a broadband thermal response that becomes increasingly stable under random light--matter couplings as the number of levels is increased. The rich spectral structure of our cavity-QED model thus makes it a versatile and sensitive equilibrium thermometer over a broad range of temperatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Effective energy gap of a comparative ideal thermometer An expression for the bulk of the QFI at the peak mediated by the bright–dark manifold interaction, valid when𝐷≫ 𝐷𝑔, follows directly from the general QFI formula Eq. (30). Specifically, retaining only the bright–dark interblock terms the relevant QFI would reduce to F𝑇≈F 𝐵𝐷 𝑇 = 𝛽4 𝑍2 𝑆𝐵 2𝑍𝐷+𝑆 𝐷 2 𝑍𝐵...

  2. [2]

    Peak scaling and ensemble stability We now look at the peak thermometric performance of the MQRM, relative to the benchmark ideal probe. Fig. 5 shows how increasing the size of the dark manifold pushes the MQRM towards the ideal limit for an atom with and without multiple bright doublets due to the dominant bright–dark process. For all couplings and all𝐷 ...

    2023

  3. [3]

    Campbell, I

    S. Campbell, I. d’ Amico, M. A. Ciampini, J. Anders, N. Ares, S. Artini, A. Auff `eves, L. B. Oftelie, L. P. Bettmann, M. V. Bonanc ¸a,et al., Roadmap on quantum thermodynamics, Quan- tum Science and Technology (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Mehboudi, A

    M. Mehboudi, A. Sanpera, and L. A. Correa, Thermometry in the quantum regime: recent theoretical progress, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 303001 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    De Pasquale and T

    A. De Pasquale and T. M. Stace, Quantum thermometry, inTher- modynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions, edited by F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018) pp. 503–527

    2018

  6. [6]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  7. [7]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, Jour- nal of Statistical Physics1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  8. [8]

    Helstrom, Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics, Physics Letters A25, 101 (1967)

    C. Helstrom, Minimum mean-squared error of estimates in quantum statistics, Physics Letters A25, 101 (1967)

    1967

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Jahnke, S

    T. Jahnke, S. Lan ´ery, and G. Mahler, Operational approach to fluctuations of thermodynamic variables in finite quantum sys- tems, Phys. Rev. E83, 011109 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher infor- mation matrix and multiparameter estimation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, International Journal of Quantum Information07, 125 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    P lodzie ´n, R

    M. P lodzie ´n, R. Demkowicz-Dobrza ´nski, and T. Sowi ´nski, Few-fermion thermometry, Phys. Rev. A97, 063619 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    L. A. Correa, M. Mehboudi, G. Adesso, and A. Sanpera, In- dividual quantum probes for optimal thermometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 220405 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Campbell, M

    S. Campbell, M. G. Genoni, and S. Deffner, Precision ther- mometry and the quantum speed limit, Quantum Science and Technology3, 025002 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    A. K. Srivastava, U. Bhattacharya, M. Lewenstein, and M. P lodzie ´n, Topological quantum thermometry, Phys. Rev. A111, 052216 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    W.-K. Mok, K. Bharti, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Bayat, Opti- mal probes for global quantum thermometry, Communications physics4, 62 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Abiuso, P

    P. Abiuso, P. Andrea Erdman, M. Ronen, F. No´e, G. Haack, and M. Perarnau-Llobet, Optimal thermometers with spin networks, Quantum Science and Technology9, 035008 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Reeb and M

    D. Reeb and M. M. Wolf, Tight bound on relative entropy by entropy difference, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 61, 1458 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Mukherjee, A

    V. Mukherjee, A. Zwick, A. Ghosh, X. Chen, and G. Kurizki, Enhanced precision bound of low-temperature quantum ther- mometry via dynamical control, Communications Physics2, 162 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Glatthard and L

    J. Glatthard and L. A. Correa, Bending the rules of low- temperature thermometry with periodic driving, Quantum6, 705 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Braak, Q.-H

    D. Braak, Q.-H. Chen, M. T. Batchelor, and E. Solano, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 300301 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, Comparison of quantum and semi-classical radiation theories with application to beam maser, Proc. IEEE51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  15. [23]

    where the traditional two-level atom [19, 21] is replaced by two bands of nearly degenerate states, with Hamiltonian given by (ℏ=1) ˆ𝐻=𝜔 𝑓 ˆ𝑎† ˆ𝑎+𝜔𝑎 𝐷𝑒∑︁ 𝑗=1 |𝑒𝑗⟩⟨𝑒𝑗| +𝜀 𝐷𝑒∑︁ 𝑗=1 𝛿𝑒 𝑗|𝑒𝑗⟩⟨𝑒𝑗|+𝜀 𝐷𝑔∑︁ 𝑖=1 𝛿𝑔 𝑖|𝑔𝑖⟩⟨𝑔𝑖| + 𝐷𝑔∑︁ 𝑖=1 𝐷𝑒∑︁ 𝑗=1 Λ𝑖𝑗 ˆ𝑠𝑖𝑗+Λ∗ 𝑖𝑗 ˆ𝑠† 𝑖𝑗 ˆ𝑎+ˆ𝑎† . (1) The mo...

  16. [24]

    Q. Xie, H. Zhong, M. T. Batchelor, and C. Lee, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50, 113001 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Tufarelli, D

    T. Tufarelli, D. Friedrich, H. Groß, J. Hamm, O. Hess, and B. Hecht, Single quantum emitter dicke enhancement, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033103 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Doicin, A

    T. Doicin, A. D. Armour, and T. Tufarelli, Multilevel quantum rabi models, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 58, 315203 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Forn-D ´ıaz, L

    P. Forn-D ´ıaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Ultrastrong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025005 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Keller, G

    J. Keller, G. Scalari, F. Appugliese, S. Rajabali, M. Beck, J. Haase, C. A. Lehner, W. Wegscheider, M. Failla, M. Myronov, D. R. Leadley, J. Lloyd-Hughes, P. Nataf, and J. Faist, Landau polaritons in highly nonparabolic two-dimensional gases in the ultrastrong coupling regime,...

    2020

  21. [29]

    V. M. Muravev, I. V. Andreev, I. V. Kukushkin, S. Schmult, and W. Dietsche, Observation of hybrid plasmon-photon modes in microwave transmission of coplanar microresonators, Phys. Rev. B83, 075309 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Maissen, G

    C. Maissen, G. Scalari, F. Valmorra, M. Beck, J. Faist, S. Cibella, R. Leoni, C. Reichl, C. Charpentier, and W. Wegscheider, Ul- trastrong coupling in the near field of complementary split-ring resonators, Phys. Rev. B90, 205309 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    L. V. Abdurakhimov, R. Yamashiro, A. O. Badrutdinov, and D. Konstantinov, Strong coupling of the cyclotron motion of surface electrons on liquid helium to a microwave cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 056803 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    F. W. Wise, Lead salt quantum dots: the limit of strong quantum confinement, Accounts of Chemical Research33, 773 (2000), pMID: 11087314

    2000

  25. [33]

    H. Groß, J. M. Hamm, T. Tufarelli, O. Hess, and B. Hecht, Near-field strong coupling of single quan- tum dots, Science Advances4, eaar4906 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aar4906

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Liu and P

    H. Liu and P. Guyot-Sionnest, Photoluminescence lifetime of lead selenide colloidal quantum dots, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C114, 14860 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Hens and I

    Z. Hens and I. Moreels, Light absorption by colloidal semicon- ductor quantum dots, J. Mater. Chem.22, 10406 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    D. Z. Rossatto, C. J. Villas-B ˆoas, M. Sanz, and E. Solano, Spectral classification of coupling regimes in the quantum rabi model, Phys. Rev. A96, 013849 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    E. K. Twyeffort Irish, J. Gea-Banacloche, I. Martin, and K. C. Schwab, Dynamics of a two-level system strongly coupled to a high-frequency quantum oscillator, Physical Review B72, 10.1103/physrevb.72.195410 (2005)

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    Schweber, On the application of bargmann hilbert spaces to dynamical problems, Annals of Physics41, 205 (1967)

    S. Schweber, On the application of bargmann hilbert spaces to dynamical problems, Annals of Physics41, 205 (1967)

    1967

  31. [39]

    M. D. Crisp, Application of the displaced oscillator basis in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. A46, 4138 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    F. A. M. de Oliveira, M. S. Kim, P. L. Knight, and V. Buˇ zek, Properties of displaced number states, Phys. Rev. A41, 2645 (1990)

    1990

  33. [41]

    M. Chiani, Distribution of the largest eigenvalue for real wishart and gaussian random matrices and a simple approximation for the tracy–widom distribution, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 129, 69 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Kolodynski, Precision bounds in noisy quantum metrology, arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0535 (2014)

    J. Kolodynski, Precision bounds in noisy quantum metrology, arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0535 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Blanchard, D

    P. Blanchard, D. J. Higham, and N. J. Higham, Accurate com- putation of the log-sum-exp and softmax functions (2019), arXiv:1909.03469 [math.NA]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    E. S. R. Gopal,Specific Heats at Low Temperatures(Plenum 15 Press / Springer, 1966)

    1966

  37. [45]

    Dumitriu and A

    I. Dumitriu and A. Edelman, Matrix models for beta ensembles, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 5830–5847 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    Dette, Strong approximation of eigenvalues of large dimen- sional wishart matrices by roots of generalized laguerre polyno- mials, Journal of Approximation Theory118, 290 (2002)

    H. Dette, Strong approximation of eigenvalues of large dimen- sional wishart matrices by roots of generalized laguerre polyno- mials, Journal of Approximation Theory118, 290 (2002)

    2002

  39. [47]

    Marcellan, A

    F. Marcellan, A. Martinez-Finkelshtein, and P. Martinez- Gonzalez, Electrostatic models for zeros of polynomials: old, new, and some open problems (2005), arXiv:math/0512293 [math.CA]

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.