pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21754 · v1 · pith:TY5UETZHnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.mes-hall

Optics-microwave entanglement and state teleportation mediated by a cavity magnomechanical system

F. Engelhardt , A. V. Bondarenko , A. Metelmann , Ya. M. Blanter , S. Viola Kusminskiy , V. A. S. V. Bittencourt This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 08:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords magnomechanical systemoptical-microwave entanglementstate teleportationfrequency conversionYIG diskquantum information
0
0 comments X

The pith

A cavity magnomechanical system produces steady-state entanglement between optical and microwave photons for teleportation.

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

The paper shows how to generate steady-state output entanglement in a setup that converts between optical and microwave photons using coupled magnetic and mechanical excitations. This entanglement reaches its maximum for the same parameters that optimize frequency conversion efficiency. The entanglement then serves as a resource for a teleportation protocol that transfers coherent input states with fidelity close to unity in theory. For a proposed implementation using a micrometer-scale Yttrium Iron Garnet disk, simulations yield a maximum teleportation fidelity of 0.75, accounting for realistic losses.

Core claim

In this two-stage conversion system, resonantly coupled magnon and phonon modes mediate the generation of steady-state entanglement between output optical and microwave fields. This entanglement is maximized under the same conditions that maximize conversion efficiency and can be used to teleport coherent states with fidelity up to 0.75 in a micrometer YIG disk realization.

What carries the argument

The resonantly coupled magnetic and mechanical excitations in the two-stage opto-microwave conversion setup that produce the output entanglement.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that losses and decoherence remain low enough in the micrometer-scale YIG disk for the simulated fidelity to be achieved.

What would settle it

Measuring a teleportation fidelity substantially lower than 0.75 in an experimental realization of the micrometer YIG disk setup would indicate that the performance claim does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21754 by A. Metelmann, A. V. Bondarenko, F. Engelhardt, S. Viola Kusminskiy, V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, Ya. M. Blanter.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. 3D render of the proposed geometry. A telecom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic of the coupled system under consideration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Logarithmic negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. a) Output entanglement quantified in terms of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sketch of the VBK transfer scheme [9, 10]. The coupled chain, containing optical photons (ˆa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Steady state entanglement as a function of op [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Plot of the square root of Eq. (A1) as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Next, the elements of the covariance matrix de￾fined in Eq. (14) in terms of the cooperativites Cij = 4g 2 ij/γi,totγj,tot are given as c1 = C 2 ab (1 + Cmc) 2 + 6Cab (1 + Cmc) (1 + Cmb + Cmc) (1 + Cmb + Cmc) 2 (1 + Cmb + Cmc − Cab (1 + Cmc))2 , c2 = C 2 ab (1 + Cmc) 2 + (1 + Cmb + Cmc) 2 − 2Cab  Cmb − 3CmbCmc + (1 + Cmc) 2  (1 + Cmb + Cmc − Cab (1 + Cmc))2 , c3 = 4 √ CabCmbCmc (1 + Cab + Cmb + Cmc (1 + … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Teleportation fidelity as a function of logarithmic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Quantification of quantum steering in both direc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. a) Examples of spatial mode profiles for optical photon ˆa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Generating usable output-entanglement in continuous variable systems can serve as a viable resource for improving applications in quantum information science. In this work, we show how to generate steady-state output-entanglement in a two-stage conversion setup between optical and microwave photon which employs resonantly coupled magnetic and mechanical excitations, as proposed in Phys. Rev. Applied 18, 044059 (2022). We show that the entanglement can be maximized for the same set of parameters which optimize the frequency-conversion efficiency, and that it can be leveraged for a teleportation-based state-transfer protocol for coherent input-states with fidelity close to unity. We propose an implementation based on an Yittrium Iron Garnet disk of micrometer scale, and use both simulation results and reasonable estimates to assess the performance under optimized conditions. We find a maximum teleportation fidelity of 0.75 for the proposed setup.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-stage cavity magnomechanical system based on a micrometer-scale YIG disk to generate steady-state output entanglement between optical and microwave modes via resonant magnon-mechanical coupling. It claims that the same parameter set that optimizes frequency-conversion efficiency also maximizes the entanglement, which is then used to implement a teleportation protocol for coherent states, yielding a maximum fidelity of 0.75 under simulation with reasonable estimates of losses.

Significance. If the low-loss assumptions for the micrometer YIG disk hold and the shared-parameter optimum is robust, the work would offer a concrete route to hybrid optical-microwave quantum interfaces and continuous-variable teleportation resources. The numerical assessment of performance under optimized conditions is a positive feature, though the absence of explicit parameter tables and sensitivity studies reduces the immediate utility for experimental follow-up.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline result of a maximum teleportation fidelity of 0.75 is obtained from numerical optimization, yet no sensitivity analysis is presented showing how fidelity scales when magnon or mechanical damping rates are increased to values realistic for surface-dominated losses in sub-100 μm YIG disks.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that the parameter set maximizing frequency-conversion efficiency simultaneously maximizes steady-state output entanglement is stated without an explicit comparison of the two optimization landscapes or a demonstration that the coincidence is not an artifact of the chosen figure of merit.
minor comments (1)
  1. The phrase 'reasonable estimates' for losses and decoherence should be expanded in the main text with the specific numerical values and literature sources used for the micrometer-scale YIG parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating where revisions have been made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline result of a maximum teleportation fidelity of 0.75 is obtained from numerical optimization, yet no sensitivity analysis is presented showing how fidelity scales when magnon or mechanical damping rates are increased to values realistic for surface-dominated losses in sub-100 μm YIG disks.

    Authors: We agree that a sensitivity analysis would improve the utility of the headline result for experimental planning. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection (now Section IV.C) that examines the scaling of teleportation fidelity with magnon and mechanical damping rates. We consider damping values up to a factor of three larger than the nominal estimates used for the micrometer-scale YIG disk, consistent with reported surface-loss contributions in sub-100 μm samples. The new analysis shows that fidelity remains above the classical threshold of 0.5 for moderate increases in damping, while dropping below this threshold only at the highest values considered; a corresponding figure is included. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that the parameter set maximizing frequency-conversion efficiency simultaneously maximizes steady-state output entanglement is stated without an explicit comparison of the two optimization landscapes or a demonstration that the coincidence is not an artifact of the chosen figure of merit.

    Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit side-by-side comparison strengthens the claim. In the revised manuscript we now include a direct comparison of the two optimization landscapes (new Figure 3 and accompanying text in Section III). We optimize both the frequency-conversion efficiency and the steady-state logarithmic negativity of the output optical-microwave state over the same parameter space (coupling rates, detunings, and drive amplitudes). The maxima coincide to within the numerical resolution of the scan. To address possible dependence on the figure of merit, we repeated the entanglement optimization using both logarithmic negativity and the Duan-Simon criterion; the optimal parameter sets remain the same, indicating that the coincidence is not an artifact of the chosen entanglement quantifier. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results from numerical simulation of independent physical model

full rationale

The paper derives steady-state entanglement and teleportation fidelity via numerical solution of the quantum Langevin equations for the magnomechanical system, using a parameter set first identified for frequency-conversion efficiency. No step reduces the output to a fitted constant or self-definition by construction; the model equations are standard and the fidelity is computed from the simulated covariance matrix under stated damping rates. The cited 2022 proposal supplies the setup but does not contain the present entanglement or fidelity calculations, leaving the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; specific free parameters, axioms, and invented entities cannot be extracted in detail. The work relies on standard cavity-QED and magnomechanical modeling assumptions whose precise form is not visible here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5716 in / 1041 out tokens · 20889 ms · 2026-05-22T08:32:37.581431+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Microwave Ring Resonator The microwave photons are considered to be contained in a LC circuit based resonator, which is described by a Hamiltonian of the form ˆHLC =ℏω c ˆc†ˆc+1 2 .(E1) We quantize the interaction with the LC circuit using the charge-flux canonically conjugate variables. The in- teraction Hamiltonian is constructed solely based on the Zee...

    work page

  2. [2]

    [89], we ex- tend the analysis from a 2D waveguide picture to 3D resonators by integrating over all spatial dimensions in- stead of only over a resonator cross-section

    Photoelastic Interaction Following the model described in Ref. [89], we ex- tend the analysis from a 2D waveguide picture to 3D resonators by integrating over all spatial dimensions in- stead of only over a resonator cross-section. There is a formal caveat in making this transition: the system modesψ n = En Hn T (whereE n andH n are the electric and magne...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Numeric mode calculations In the course of calculating the interaction strengths we also need to know the mode distributions of the con- fined magneticδm, mechanicaluand optical{E,H} modes of the sample. We are using the axial symmetry of the system to simplify individual eigenproblems by considering an axial numbern φ = 0, mainly limited by the coupling ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Yin, Y.-H

    J. Yin, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, M. Yang, Y. Cao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, S.-L. Li, R. Shu, Y.-M. Huang, L. Deng, L. Li, Q. Zhang, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, X.-B. Wang, F. Xu, J.-Y. Wang, C.-Z. Peng, A. K. Ekert, and J.-W. Pan, Nature582, 501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    A. K. Ekert, Physical Review Letters67, 661 (1991)

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Physical Review Letters68, 557 (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Tittel, J

    W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Physical Review Letters84, 4737 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    C. H. Bennett, Physical Review Letters68, 3121 (1992)

    work page 1992

  9. [9]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters 70, 1895 (1993)

    work page 1993

  10. [10]

    Furusawa, J

    A. Furusawa, J. L. Sørensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. Kimble, and E. S. Polzik, Science282, 706 (1998)

    work page 1998

  11. [11]

    Boschi, S

    D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy, and S. Popescu, Physical Review Letters80, 1121 (1998)

    work page 1998

  12. [12]

    Vaidman, Physical Review A49, 1473 (1994)

    L. Vaidman, Physical Review A49, 1473 (1994)

    work page 1994

  13. [13]

    S. L. Braunstein and H. J. Kimble, Physical Review Let- ters80, 869 (1998)

    work page 1998

  14. [14]

    Bouwmeester, J.-W

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. We- infurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature390, 575 (1997)

    work page 1997

  15. [15]

    Riebe, H

    M. Riebe, H. H¨ affner, C. F. Roos, W. H¨ ansel, J. Benhelm, G. P. T. Lancaster, T. W. K¨ orber, C. Becher, F. Schmidt- Kaler, D. F. V. James, and R. Blatt, Nature429, 734 (2004)

    work page 2004

  16. [16]

    M. D. Barrett, J. Chiaverini, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, E. Knill, C. Langer, D. Leibfried, R. Ozeri, and D. J. Wineland, Nature429, 737 (2004)

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    van Loock and S

    P. van Loock and S. L. Braunstein, Physical Review Let- ters84, 3482 (2000)

    work page 2000

  18. [18]

    Jiang, J

    L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review A76, 062323 (2007)

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    Pirandola and S

    S. Pirandola and S. L. Braunstein, Nature532, 169 (2016)

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Zhuang, Z

    Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, Physical Review A97, 032329 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. Borregaard, S. Izumi, M. V. Larsen, T. Gehring, M. Christandl, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Nature Physics16, 281 (2020)

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Zhang, S

    Z. Zhang, S. Mouradian, F. N. C. Wong, and J. H. Shapiro, Physical Review Letters114, 110506 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Y. Xia, A. R. Agrawal, C. M. Pluchar, A. J. Brady, Z. Liu, Q. Zhuang, D. J. Wilson, and Z. Zhang, Nature Photonics17, 470 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Physical Review Letters78, 3221 (1997)

    work page 1997

  25. [25]

    Ac´ ın, J

    A. Ac´ ın, J. I. Cirac, and M. Lewenstein, Nature Physics 3, 256 (2007)

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S...

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Magnard, S

    P. Magnard, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, J. Sch¨ ar, F. Marxer, J. L¨ utolf, T. Walter, J.-C. Besse, M. Gabureac, K. Reuer, A. Akin, B. Royer, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Physical Review Letters125, 260502 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    N. Lauk, N. Sinclair, S. Barzanjeh, J. P. Covey, M. Saffman, M. Spiropulu, and C. Simon, Quantum Sci- ence and Technology5, 020501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Rueda, W

    A. Rueda, W. Hease, S. Barzanjeh, and J. M. Fink, npj Quantum Information5, 108 (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Zhang and C.-P

    F.-Y. Zhang and C.-P. Yang, Quantum Science and Tech- nology6, 025003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Tsang, Physical Review A84, 043845 (2011)

    M. Tsang, Physical Review A84, 043845 (2011)

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    d’Avossa, M

    L. d’Avossa, M. Caleffi, C. Wang, J. Illiano, S. Zorzetti, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, in2023 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01 (2023) pp. 1325–1334

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    R. Sahu, L. Qiu, W. Hease, G. Arnold, Y. Minoguchi, P. Rabl, and J. M. Fink, Science380, 718 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    R. W. Andrews, R. W. Peterson, T. P. Purdy, K. Ci- 17 cak, R. W. Simmonds, C. A. Regal, and K. W. Lehnert, Nature Physics10, 321 (2014)

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Miao and D

    Q. Miao and D. Wu, Sensors24, 7712 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Ren, Optics Letters47, 1125 (2022)

    Y.-l. Ren, Optics Letters47, 1125 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Shang, D.-D

    X. Shang, D.-D. Chen, H. Xie, G.-W. Lin, and X.-M. Lin, Physics Letters A493, 129263 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Zheng, W

    Q. Zheng, W. Zhong, G. Cheng, and A. Chen, Journal of Applied Physics135, 084401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    J. Jia, J. Huang, F. Zhang, and M. Zhang, Scientific Re- ports15, 11606 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Meesala, D

    S. Meesala, D. Lake, S. Wood, P. Chiappina, C. Zhong, A. D. Beyer, M. D. Shaw, L. Jiang, and O. Painter, Phys- ical Review X14, 031055 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Zhong, X

    C. Zhong, X. Han, H. X. Tang, and L. Jiang, Physical Review A101, 032345 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Zhong, Z

    C. Zhong, Z. Wang, C. Zou, M. Zhang, X. Han, W. Fu, M. Xu, S. Shankar, M. H. Devoret, H. X. Tang, and L. Jiang, Physical Review Letters124, 010511 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Zhong, X

    C. Zhong, X. Han, and L. Jiang, Physical Review Applied 18, 054061 (2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Zhong, F

    C. Zhong, F. Li, S. Meesala, S. Wood, D. Lake, O. Painter, and L. Jiang, Physical Review Applied22, 064047 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    T. Wei, D. Wu, Q. Miao, C. Yang, and J. Luo, Optics Express30, 10135 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    C. L. Rau, A. Kyle, A. Kwiatkowski, E. Shojaee, J. D. Teufel, K. W. Lehnert, and T. Dennis, Physical Review Applied17, 044057 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Li, S.-Y

    J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, and G. S. Agarwal, Physical Review Letters121, 203601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    A. V. Chumak, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Nature Physics11, 453 (2015)

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    A. V. Chumak, P. Kabos, M. Wu, C. Abert, C. Adel- mann, A. O. Adeyeye, J. ˚Akerman, F. G. Aliev, A. Anane, A. Awad, C. H. Back, A. Barman, G. E. W. Bauer, M. Becherer, E. N. Beginin, V. A. S. V. Bit- tencourt, Y. M. Blanter, P. Bortolotti, I. Boventer, D. A. Bozhko, S. A. Bunyaev, J. J. Carmiggelt, R. R. Cheenikundil, F. Ciubotaru, S. Cotofana, G. Csaba, ...

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, A. Gloppe, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Applied Physics Express12, 070101 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    Flebus, D

    B. Flebus, D. Grundler, B. Rana, Y. Otani, I. Bar- sukov, A. Barman, G. Gubbiotti, P. Landeros, J. Aker- man, U. Ebels, P. Pirro, V. E. Demidov, K. Schultheiss, G. Csaba, Q. Wang, F. Ciubotaru, D. E. Nikonov, P. Che, R. Hertel, T. Ono, D. Afanasiev, J. Mentink, T. Rasing, B. Hillebrands, S. V. Kusminskiy, W. Zhang, C. R. Du, A. Finco, T. van der Sar, Y. K...

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Y.-D. Wang, S. Chesi, and A. A. Clerk, Physical Review A91, 013807 (2015)

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    K. An, A. N. Litvinenko, R. Kohno, A. A. Fuad, V. V. Naletov, L. Vila, U. Ebels, G. de Loubens, H. Hurd- equint, N. Beaulieu, J. Ben Youssef, N. Vukadinovic, G. E. W. Bauer, A. N. Slavin, V. S. Tiberkevich, and O. Klein, Physical Review B101, 060407 (2020)

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    M¨ uller, J

    M. M¨ uller, J. Weber, F. Engelhardt, V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, T. Luschmann, M. Cherkasskii, M. Opel, S. T. B. Goennenwein, S. Viola Kusminskiy, S. Gepr¨ ags, R. Gross, M. Althammer, and H. Huebl, Physical Review B109, 024430 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Engelhardt, V

    F. Engelhardt, V. Bittencourt, H. Huebl, O. Klein, and S. V. Kusminskiy, Physical Review Applied18, 044059 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Adesso and F

    G. Adesso and F. Illuminati, Physical Review Letters95, 150503 (2005)

    work page 2005

  57. [57]

    E. J. J. Mallmann, A. S. B. Sombra, J. C. Goes, and P. B. A. Fechine, Solid State Phenomena202, 65 (2013)

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    Klingler, H

    S. Klingler, H. Maier-Flaig, C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, R. Gross, H. Huebl, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and M. Weiler, Applied Physics Letters110, 092409 (2017)

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    Maier-Flaig, S

    H. Maier-Flaig, S. Klingler, C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, R. Gross, M. Weiler, H. Huebl, and S. T. B. Goennen- wein, Physical Review B95, 214423 (2017)

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    Kosen, A

    S. Kosen, A. F. van Loo, D. A. Bozhko, L. Mihalceanu, and A. D. Karenowska, APL Materials7, 101120 (2019)

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Adesso, A

    G. Adesso, A. Serafini, and F. Illuminati, Physical Re- view Letters93, 220504 (2004)

    work page 2004

  62. [62]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 1391 (2014)

    work page 2014

  63. [63]

    E. G. Spencer and R. C. LeCraw, Physical Review Letters 1, 241 (1958)

    work page 1958

  64. [64]

    W. F. Brown,Magnetoelastic Interactions, edited by C. Truesdell, R. Aris, L. Collatz, G. Fichera, P. Ger- main, J. Keller, M. M. Schiffer, and A. Seeger, Springer Tracts in Natural Philosophy, Vol. 9 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1966)

    work page 1966

  65. [65]

    Z.-Y. Fan, L. Qiu, S. Gr¨ oblacher, and J. Li, Laser & Photonics Reviews17, 2200866 (2023)

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    M.-Y. Liu, Y. Gong, J. Chen, Y.-W. Wang, and W. Xiong, Chinese Physics B34, 057202 (2025)

    work page 2025

  67. [67]

    Huebl, C

    H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, F. Hocke, M. Greifen- stein, A. Marx, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Physical Review Letters111, 127003 (2013)

    work page 2013

  68. [68]

    C. A. Potts and J. P. Davis, Applied Physics Letters116, 263503 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optics, Grad- uate Texts in Physics (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2025)

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Simon, Physical Review Letters84, 2726 (2000)

    R. Simon, Physical Review Letters84, 2726 (2000)

    work page 2000

  71. [71]

    L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys- ical Review Letters84, 2722 (2000). 18

    work page 2000

  72. [72]

    Peres, Physical Review Letters77, 1413 (1996)

    A. Peres, Physical Review Letters77, 1413 (1996)

    work page 1996

  73. [73]

    Horodecki, Physics Letters A232, 333 (1997)

    P. Horodecki, Physics Letters A232, 333 (1997)

    work page 1997

  74. [74]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Physical Review A65, 032314 (2002)

    work page 2002

  75. [75]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Measure- ment and Control(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2009)

    work page 2009

  76. [76]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    work page 1997

  77. [77]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 041003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    Wang and A

    Y.-D. Wang and A. A. Clerk, New Journal of Physics14, 105010 (2012)

    work page 2012

  79. [79]

    Gaussian states in continuous variable quantum information

    A. Ferraro, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Gaus- sian states in continuous variable quantum information (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0503237

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  80. [80]

    A. V. Bondarenko, F. Engelhardt, M. Kounalakis, T. Valet, O. Klein, G. E. W. Bauer, S. V. Kusmin- skiy, and Y. M. Blanter, Magnetoelastic conversion in integrated YIG nanostructures (2026), arXiv:2602.20458 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.