Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Steady-state photon squeezing in the open Rabi-Stark model is enhanced by positive Stark coupling, vanishes at a first-order quantum phase transition, and scales toward near-perfect squeezing near a second-order critical point.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 06:28 UTC pith:FQYRSPZD

load-bearing objection Solid open-system study of QRSM squeezing: Stark sign effects, first-order vanishing, and finite-size scaling near SRPT are new and cleanly supported; soft spots are narrow parameter checks, not load-bearing flaws. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02868 v1 pith:FQYRSPZD submitted 2026-07-03 quant-ph

Photon Squeezing and Its Signatures of Quantum Phase Transitions in the Open Quantum Rabi-Stark Model

Tian Ye , Xinghan Chen , Chen Wang This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Ct42.50.Dv03.65.Yz
keywords quantum Rabi-Stark modeloptical quadrature squeezingdressed master equationfirst-order quantum phase transitionsuperradiant phase transitionfinite-size scalingStark couplingnonclassical light
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.

This paper studies how a nonlinear Stark coupling changes the steady-state light field of a lossy qubit-cavity system known as the open quantum Rabi-Stark model. Using a dressed master equation that stays valid at strong light-matter coupling, the authors show that a positive Stark term strengthens optical quadrature squeezing while a negative term weakens it. Squeezing disappears abruptly when the system crosses a first-order quantum phase transition, giving a clear experimental signature of that transition. Near a second-order superradiant transition that appears when the Stark strength approaches its physical limit, the squeezing factor follows a finite-size power law and can become arbitrarily strong at low temperature. A simple energy-gap criterion also tells when thermal noise will destroy the critical enhancement. The work therefore links a tunable nonlinear interaction to both a practical probe of quantum criticality and a scalable route to strong nonclassical light.

Core claim

In the open quantum Rabi-Stark model, positive Stark coupling enhances and negative Stark coupling suppresses steady-state quadrature squeezing; the squeezing factor vanishes sharply across the first-order quantum phase transition and obeys the finite-size scaling law ξ_B^{2}(g_c^±) ∝ L^{-γ} (with γ o 1/3) near the second-order superradiant critical points, provided thermal energy remains smaller than the critical energy gap.

What carries the argument

The two-photon-process decomposition of the squeezing factor, ξ_B^{2} = 1 + ∑ K_n^{n+2}, which isolates the constructive |0 angle o |2 angle contribution and the destructive |1 angle o |3 angle contribution and thereby explains both the Stark-induced enhancement and the parity-driven jump at the first-order transition.

Load-bearing premise

The low-temperature steady state of the dressed master equation stays close enough to the closed-system ground state that the two-photon process picture still controls the open-system squeezing.

What would settle it

Measure the steady-state quadrature variance with balanced homodyne detection while sweeping the linear coupling across the predicted first-order critical point at fixed positive U; the claim fails if the variance does not jump discontinuously from squeezed to unsqueezed values.

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies steady-state optical quadrature squeezing in the open quantum Rabi–Stark model (QRSM) using the quantum dressed master equation. Numerically and via a two-photon-process decomposition of the ground-state amplitudes (Eqs. 9–10 and Appendix A), it shows that positive (negative) Stark coupling U enhances (suppresses) the squeezing factor ξ_B^{2}. Across the first-order QPT at g_c^{1} = √((1−U^{2})Δ/2U) the squeezing vanishes sharply, while near the second-order superradiant critical points g_c^± (U → ±1) ξ_B^{2} obeys the finite-size scaling ξ_B^{2}(g_c^±) ∝ L^{−γ} with γ → 1/3 (L = 1/(1−|U|)). An exact solution at U = 1 (Appendix B) recovers the closed-system exponent β = 1, and a thermal-crossover criterion ε_c ≈ k_B T is proposed for the destruction of criticality. The work is performed at concrete weak-bath parameters (α_q = α_c = 10^{−4}, ω_c = 10, k_B T ≤ 0.003 ω_0).

Significance. If the reported signatures hold, the paper supplies a concrete, experimentally accessible optical probe of both first- and second-order QPTs in a light–matter model that is already realizable in cavity-QED and trapped-ion platforms. The analytic two-photon decomposition and the exact U = 1 critical solution give a transparent microscopic mechanism for the enhancement/suppression by the Stark term and for the scaling exponent, while the thermal criterion ε_c ≈ k_B T offers a practical bound for near-perfect squeezing. These results strengthen the case that critical light–matter systems can serve as sources of strong quadrature squeezing and as spectroscopic tools for quantum phase transitions.

major comments (2)
  1. The central analytic claim of Sec. III (that the open-system ξ_B^{2} is controlled by the closed-system two-photon amplitudes K_n^{n+2}) rests on the low-temperature steady state remaining close to the pure ground state. This is demonstrated only for the specific bath parameters α_q = α_c = 10^{−4}, ω_c = 10 and k_B T ≤ 0.003 ω_0 (Figs. 1–2). A short robustness check—e.g., a scan of α or T that shows when the decomposition (Eqs. 9–10) ceases to track the DME result—would make the scope of the claim explicit and would strengthen the experimental guidance offered in Sec. IV.
  2. In Sec. IV the scaling exponent is extracted by linear fits whose residual-norm cutoff (5 × 10^{−4}) and fitting windows are stated but not justified against alternative windows or against finite-size corrections beyond the leading L^{−γ} term. Because the claimed approach of γ to 1/3 is used to identify the open-system criticality with the closed-system exponent β = 1 (Appendix B), a brief sensitivity analysis of the fitted slopes would remove residual doubt about the numerical extraction.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 1(a) caption: the contour description contains a typographical slip (“normal photon field with ξ_B^{2} < 1”); it should read ξ_B^{2} > 1.
  2. Eq. (8) and the subsequent simplification to ξ_B^{2} = 1 + 2(⟨a†a⟩ − ⟨a^{2}⟩) assume ⟨a^{2}⟩ ≥ 0 and ⟨a⟩ = 0; a one-sentence reminder that these follow from parity and the sign structure of the ground-state amplitudes (Appendix A) would improve readability.
  3. The definition of the effective size L = 1/(1 − |U|) is introduced only in Sec. IV; placing it earlier (when the second-order critical points are first mentioned) would help the reader.
  4. A few references to recent experimental realizations of the Rabi–Stark model or of critical squeezing in related platforms would better situate the proposed probe.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: squeezing signatures and scaling are obtained from independent DME numerics and closed-system analytics, with self-citations only locating the known QPT points.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. II A (and reuse in Secs. III–IV)]
    "a first-order QPT can occur at the qubit–cavity coupling strength g^{1}_c = √((1 - U^{2})Δ / 2U) [40, 41]. Furthermore, in the effective thermodynamical limit of U o ± 1 … the ground state would present a second-order SRPT when the dipole coupling exceeds the critical one g^±_c = √(1 ∓ Δ / 2) [26, 40]."

    The locations of both QPTs and the effective-size definition L = 1/(1 - |U|) are imported from the authors’ prior closed-system papers. This is ordinary self-citation of background facts; the present work does not use those citations to compute or force the squeezing factor itself, which is obtained independently from DME numerics and the analytic expansions of Appendices A–B. The step is therefore only marginally circular and does not load-bear the central claims.

full rationale

The central claims (Stark-enhanced/suppressed squeezing, sharp vanishing across the first-order QPT, and finite-size scaling ξ_B^{2}(g_c^±) ∝ L^{-γ} with γ o 1/3 near the second-order SRPT) are derived from (i) numerical solution of the dressed master equation at concrete bath parameters, (ii) the two-photon-process decomposition of the ground-state quadrature variance (Eqs. 9–10 and Appendix A), and (iii) the exact critical solution of the closed QRSM at U = 1 (Appendix B). Self-citations to the authors’ earlier QRSM papers supply only the locations of the known critical points g_c^{1} and g_c^± and the definition L = 1/(1 - |U|); they are not used to force the numerical values of ξ_B^{2} or the scaling exponent. The low-temperature approximation that the DME steady state remains close to the pure ground state is checked numerically for the reported parameters and is not asserted by definition. Consequently the derivation chain is self-contained against its own inputs and exhibits no reduction of a claimed prediction to a fitted or self-defined quantity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard QRSM Hamiltonian, the Born-Markov dressed master equation with Ohmic baths, the definition of the principal quadrature squeezing factor, and the effective-size identification L=1/(1-|U|) taken from earlier closed-system work. No new particles or forces are postulated; free parameters are the usual microscopic couplings and bath strengths that are scanned rather than fitted to an external dataset.

free parameters (3)
  • system-bath couplings α_q, α_c = 10^{-4}
    Fixed by hand at 10^{-4}; the quantitative location of the thermal crossover depends on their magnitude.
  • bath cutoff ω_c = 10
    Set to 10 ω_0; enters the rates Γ_{m,n} and therefore the steady-state populations.
  • environment temperature k_B T = 0.003 / 0.001 / 0.0001
    Scanned over three values (0.003, 0.001, 0.0001) ω_0 to illustrate the thermal disruption of scaling; not fitted but chosen to straddle the critical gap.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation for the system-bath interaction remains valid even at ultra-strong and deep-strong qubit-photon couplings.
    Invoked to derive the dressed master equation (Eq. 5); standard in the ultrastrong-coupling literature but not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Ohmic spectral densities γ_q(ω)=α_q ω e^{-ω/ω_c}/Δ and γ_c(ω)=α_c ω e^{-ω/ω_c}/ω_0 correctly describe the baths.
    Stated after Eq. (3); no microscopic justification beyond common practice.
  • domain assumption Effective system size is L=1/(1-|U|), taken from the closed-system thermodynamic limit of the QRSM.
    Used throughout Sec. IV and Figs. 3–4; imported from Refs. 26, 41 without re-derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper At sufficiently low temperature the open-system steady state is dominated by the ground-state two-photon amplitudes of the closed QRSM.
    Enables the analytic decomposition ξ_B^{2}=1+∑ K_n^{n+2} (Eqs. 9–10, Appendix A) to be applied to the open system.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 20919 in / 3320 out tokens · 23434 ms · 2026-07-12T06:28:49.049407+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

As a hallmark of nonclassical light, squeezed light is of profound theoretical interest and holds broad practical promise for emerging quantum technologies. In this work, we investigate steady-state optical quadrature squeezing in the open quantum Rabi-Stark model by employing the quantum dressed master equation. Both numerically and analytically, we find that positive (negative) Stark coupling tends to enhance (suppress) the squeezing effect. The quadrature squeezing exhibits distinct signatures associated with both first- and second-order quantum phase transitions (QPTs). Notably, a sharp vanishing of squeezing is observed across the first-order QPT, suggesting its potential as a sensitive probe of such transitions. In the vicinity of the second-order QPT, we further demonstrate that the squeezing factor displays finite-size scaling behavior, indicating a promising route toward the realization of near-perfect squeezing. Moreover, we establish a quantitative criterion for the disruption of quantum criticality induced by thermal fluctuations, which may offer valuable guidance for future experiments. These findings contribute to a deep understanding of nonclassical light in light-matter interacting systems and provide useful insights for the design of strong optical squeezing states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02868 by Chen Wang, Tian Ye, Xinghan Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The quadrature squeezing factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) and (b) The comparison between the results based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Power-law-type scaling behaviors of the squeezing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Finite-size scaling of the squeezing factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.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

68 extracted references

  1. [1]

    (c) ground-state probability amplitudes |cn|, its ratios and two major two-photon-process components of ξ2 B involved in Eq

    and the numerical one. (c) ground-state probability amplitudes |cn|, its ratios and two major two-photon-process components of ξ2 B involved in Eq. ( 9); Besides, the data refer to the same-color axis in dual-y-axis plot. The other param- eters not mentioned here are the same as those in Fig. 1. squeezing by enhancing the destructive process |1⟩ ↔ | 3⟩, a...

  2. [2]

    The ranges FIG

    The solid blue line represents the linear fitting, with the fitted data are emphasized by same-color circle and the fitted slopes k, defined by ξ2 B (g± c ) ∝Lk, are labeled in the same color. The ranges FIG. 3. Power-law-type scaling behaviors of the squeezing factor ξ2 B ∝ L− γ and its crossover out of the quantum criti- cal regime driven by thermal fluctuat...

  3. [3]

    0001ω 0 with Tq = Tc = T for the first, sec- ond, and third row respectively

    001ω 0 and 0 . 0001ω 0 with Tq = Tc = T for the first, sec- ond, and third row respectively. The other parameters are the same as those in Fig. 1. of those linear fittings are chosen to satisfy the residual norms less than 5 × 10− 4. It is then clear that the scaling law (

  4. [4]

    holds with the scaling exponent −γ approximated as the fitted slope k for a wider range of the effective size as the environment temperature decreases. This indicates that the steady state of the open QRSM may present arbitrarily strong squeezing at sufficiently low environment temperature and sufficiently large effective size, providing a promising route to rea...

  5. [5]

    This implies that there always exists a sufficiently large system size L, such that ǫ± c =kBT at the cross point of two orange lines

    Evidently, ǫ± c vanishes following the similar power law of the energy gap ǫ± c ∝ L− 2/ 3 [ 26]. This implies that there always exists a sufficiently large system size L, such that ǫ± c =kBT at the cross point of two orange lines. Then, it is easy to find the tendency that ξ2 B (g± c ), denoted by the plus sign, begins to deviate from the solid blue fitted li...

  6. [6]

    It is clear that all plus-sign curves for these sizes collapse well onto a single one, confirming the validity of the assumed finite- size-scaling function (

  7. [7]

    Moreover, a red curve corresponding to the size for which ε± c ≈ kBT is shown in each subfigure to illustrate the deviation from the finite-size scaling function ( 12)

    of ξ2 B. Moreover, a red curve corresponding to the size for which ε± c ≈ kBT is shown in each subfigure to illustrate the deviation from the finite-size scaling function ( 12). In particular, as ε± c/k BT increases from top to bottom in Fig. 4, the red curves approach the plus-sign curve governed by the finite-size function 12 gradually. It con- firms the co...

  8. [8]

    In particular, the quadrature squeezing exhibits a char- acteristic signal associated with both first- and second- order QPTs

    The results reveal clear trends that a positive Stark coupling tends to enhance the squeezing, whereas a negative Stark coupling tends to suppress it over the main parameter region. In particular, the quadrature squeezing exhibits a char- acteristic signal associated with both first- and second- order QPTs. The optical squeezing becomes sharp van- ishing o...

  9. [9]

    should be performed. A general minimization provides the expres- sion [ 52] ξ2 B = 1 + 2 ( ⟨a†a⟩ − |⟨a⟩|2) − 2|⟨a2⟩ − ⟨a⟩2|, (A1) which is indeed difficult to process analytically for the modulus of expectations. We thus explore steady-state properties to simplify the photon squeezing expression. Due to the quite low temperature of the environment, the stea...

  10. [10]

    (B5) Thus, the eigenenergy is obtained as En = √ 1 + 2χ n(2n + 1) − 1 + ∆

  11. [11]

    (B7) with the coefficients en = (1 + 2χ n)1/ 4, dn = χ n/g , and the normalization factor Nn = √ c2 n + (2n + 1)d2 n)

    (B6) withn = 0, 1, 2,..., ∞ for different eigen-levels from low- est energy to highest energy, and the eigenfunction in the Fock basis {|n⟩} reads |φ n⟩ = 1 Nn ( enS†|n⟩ dnS† ( a† +a ) |n⟩ ) . (B7) with the coefficients en = (1 + 2χ n)1/ 4, dn = χ n/g , and the normalization factor Nn = √ c2 n + (2n + 1)d2 n). Equation ( B6), which provides the eigenenergy, ...

  12. [12]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997); P. Meystre, Quantum Optics (Springer, Cham, 2021)

    1997

  13. [13]

    Haroche and J

    S. Haroche and J. M. Raimond, Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities, and Photons (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006)

    2006

  14. [14]

    Forn-D ´ ıaz, L

    P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025005 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 19 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Yoshihara, T

    F. Yoshihara, T. Fuse, S. Ashhab, K. Kakuyanagi, S. Saito, and K. Semba, Nat. Phys. 13, 44 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    D. Lv, S. An, Z. Liu, J.-N. Zhang, J. S. Pedernales, L. Lamata, E. Solano, and K. Kim, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021027 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    M. L. Cai, Z. D. Liu, W. D. Zhao, Y. K. Wu, Q. X. Mei, Y. Jiang, L. He, X. Zhang, Z. C. Zhou, and L. M. Duan, Nat. Commun. 12, 1126 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    X. Zhao, Q. Bin, W. Hou, Yi Li, Y. Li, Y. Lin, X.-Y. L¨ u, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 193604 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Braum¨ uller, M

    J. Braum¨ uller, M. Marthaler, A. Schneider, A. Stehli, H. Rotzinger, M. Weides, and A. V. Ustinov, Nat. Commun. 8, 779 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    J. Koch, G. R. Hunanyan, T. Ockenfels, E. Rico, E. Solano, and M. Weitz, Nat. Commun. 14 954 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Braak, Phys

    D. Braak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 100401 (2011)

    2011

  24. [24]

    Q.-H. Chen, C. Wang, S. He, T. Liu, and K. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 86, 023822 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    Braak, Q.-H

    D. Braak, Q.-H. Chen, M. Batchelor, and E. Solano, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 300301 (2016)

    2016

  26. [26]

    Forn-D ´ ıaz, J

    P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, J. Lisenfeld, D. Marcos, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, E. Solano, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J.E. Mooij, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 237001(2010)

    2010

  27. [27]

    Cong, X.-M

    L. Cong, X.-M. Sun, M. Liu, Z.-J. Ying, and H.-G. Luo, Phys. Rev. A 95, 063803 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    Garziano, R

    L. Garziano, R. Stassi, V. Macr ´ ı, A. F. Kockum, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 92, 063830 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    Garziano, V

    L. Garziano, V. Macr ´ ı, R. Stassi, O. Di Stefano, F. Nori , and S. Savasta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 043601 (2016)

    2016

  30. [30]

    Ridolfo, M

    A. Ridolfo, M. Lieb, S. Savasta, and M. J. Hartmann Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 193602 (2012)

    2012

  31. [31]

    Q. Bin, Y. Wu, and X.-Y. L¨ u, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 073602 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Zhang, C

    Y.-X. Zhang, C. Wang and Q.-H. Chen, Adv. Quan. Technol. 9, e00744 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Zheng, W

    R.-H. Zheng, W. Ning, Y.-H. Chen et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 113601 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Jiang, Y

    B. Jiang, Y. Y. Li, J. J. Liu, C. Wang, and J. H. Jiang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 42, 120403 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    M. J. Hwang, R. Puebla, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 180404 (2015)

    2015

  36. [36]

    M. Liu, S. Chesi, Z.-J. Ying, X. Chen, H.-G. Luo, and H.-Q. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 220601 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    X. Y. Chen, L. W. Duan, D. Braak, and Q.-H. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 103, 043708 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Hu, W.-L

    G. Hu, W.-L. You, M. Liu, and H. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 108, 033710 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    Garbe, M

    L. Garbe, M. Bina, A. Keller, M. G. A. Paris, and S. Felicetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 120504 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    I. I. Rabi, Phys. Rev. 49, 324 (1936)

    1936

  41. [41]

    Hwang and M.-S

    M.-J. Hwang and M.-S. Choi, Phys. Rev. A 82, 025802 (2010)

    2010

  42. [42]

    J. Liu, M. Liu, Z.-J. Ying, and H.-G. Luo, Adv. Quan. Tech. 4, 2000139 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Kam and X

    C.-F. Kam and X. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 113, 033718(2026)

    2026

  44. [44]

    Beaudoin, J

    F. Beaudoin, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. A 84, 043832 (2011)

    2011

  45. [45]

    Le Boit´ e, Adv

    A. Le Boit´ e, Adv. Quan. Technol. 3, 1900140 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    A. L. Grimsmo and S. Parkins, Phys. Rev. A 87 033814 (2013)

    2013

  47. [47]

    A. L. Grimsmo and S. Parkins, Phys. Rev. A 89, 033802 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    L. Cong, J. Casanova, L. Lamata, and I. Arrazola, Phys. Rev. A 108, 023720 (2023)

    2023

  49. [49]

    R. E. Slusher, L. W. Hollberg, B. Yurke, J. C. Mertz, J. F. Valley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2409(1985)

    1985

  50. [50]

    L.-A. Wu, H. J. Kimble, J. L. Hall, H. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2520 (1986)

    1986

  51. [51]

    Y.-F. Xie, L. Duan, and Q.-H. Chen, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 245304 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    Xie, X.-Y

    Y.-F. Xie, X.-Y. Chen, X.-F. Dong, and Q.-H. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053803 (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    Chen, Y.-F

    X.-Y. Chen, Y.-F. Xie, and Q.-H. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 102, 063721 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Eckle and H

    H.-P. Eckle and H. Johannesson, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50, 294004 (2017)

    2017

  55. [55]

    Zueco, G

    D. Zueco, G. M. Reuther, S. Kohler, and P. H¨ anggi, Phys. Rev. A 80, 033846 (2009)

    2009

  56. [56]

    Weiss, Quantum dissipative dynamics (World Scien- tific, Singapore, 2012)

    U. Weiss, Quantum dissipative dynamics (World Scien- tific, Singapore, 2012)

    2012

  57. [57]

    Settineri, V

    A. Settineri, V. Macr ´ ı, A. Ridolfo, O. Di Stefano, A. F. Kockum, F. Nori, and S. Savasta, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053834 (2018)

    2018

  58. [58]

    Stoler, Phys

    D. Stoler, Phys. Rev. D, 1, 3217 (1970)

    1970

  59. [59]

    Stoler, Phys

    D. Stoler, Phys. Rev. D, 1, 1925 (1971)

    1925

  60. [60]

    H. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. A, 13, 2226 (1976)

    1976

  61. [61]

    C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D, 23 1693 (1981)

    1981

  62. [62]

    H. P. Yuen and V. W. S. Chan, Opt. Lett. 8, 177 (1983)

    1983

  63. [63]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep. 509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  64. [64]

    Ye, Y.-Z

    T. Ye, Y.-Z. Wang, X. Y. Chen, Q.-H. Chen, and H-Q Lin, Phys. Rev. A 111, 043716 (2025). 11

    2025

  65. [65]

    Hwang, P

    M.-J. Hwang, P. Rabl, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013825 (2018)

    2018

  66. [66]

    D. S. Shapiro, W. V. Pogosov, and Y. E. Lozovik, Phys. Rev. A 102, 023703 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    Hayashida, T Makihara, N

    K. Hayashida, T Makihara, N. M. Peraca, D. F. Padilla, H. Pu, J. Kono, and M. Bamba, Sci. Rep. 13 2526 (2023)

    2023

  68. [68]

    Y. F. Xie and Q.-H. Chen, Commun. Theor. Phys. 71, 623 (2019)

    2019