Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 98 references

A magnomechanical cavity generates steady-state optical-microwave entanglement at the same parameters that maximize photon conversion efficiency, enabling teleportation of coherent states with fidelity up to 0.75.

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-4.3

2026-06-30 16:46 UTC pith:TY5UETZH

load-bearing objection The paper shows that the same parameters optimizing frequency conversion in this magnomechanical setup also maximize optical-microwave entanglement, yielding a teleportation fidelity of 0.75 for a YIG disk. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.21754 v2 pith:TY5UETZH 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
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords magnomechanicsoptical-microwave entanglementfrequency conversionquantum teleportationYIG resonatorsteady-state entanglementcavity optomechanics
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.

The paper demonstrates how to produce usable steady-state entanglement between optical and microwave photons in a two-stage conversion process that uses resonantly coupled magnetic and mechanical modes in an Yttrium Iron Garnet disk. It shows that the parameter values maximizing frequency-conversion efficiency also maximize the generated entanglement. This shared optimum is then applied to a teleportation protocol that transfers coherent input states from one frequency domain to the other. The work proposes a micrometer-scale YIG implementation and reports a maximum teleportation fidelity of 0.75 under optimized conditions.

Core claim

In the proposed cavity magnomechanical setup, steady-state output entanglement between optical and microwave photons reaches its maximum precisely when the frequency-conversion efficiency is optimized; the same parameter set then supports a teleportation-based state-transfer protocol for coherent states whose fidelity approaches 0.75 in a realistic YIG-disk realization.

What carries the argument

Two-stage frequency-conversion chain mediated by resonantly coupled magnon and phonon modes inside a YIG disk, with the magnomechanical interaction providing the tunable coupling between optical and microwave cavities.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes magnomechanical couplings, cavity decay rates, and YIG material parameters can be tuned simultaneously so that optimal conversion and entanglement occur before unmodeled loss or decoherence channels dominate the steady-state output.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures teleportation fidelity below 0.75 or finds that entanglement and conversion efficiency peak at different parameter values would falsify the central claim.

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

If this is right

  • The same device can serve as both an efficient microwave-to-optical transducer and an entanglement source without retuning.
  • Coherent-state teleportation fidelity reaches 0.75 when the entanglement is generated at the conversion optimum.
  • Output entanglement is available in the steady state, providing a continuous resource rather than a pulsed one.
  • The YIG-disk geometry allows the required couplings to be realized at micrometer scales with existing fabrication methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the fidelity remains near 0.75 under realistic loss, the protocol could be chained to build longer-distance hybrid quantum networks.
  • The shared optimum suggests that conversion-efficiency measurements alone could serve as a proxy for entanglement optimization in similar systems.
  • Extending the same magnomechanical interaction to other mechanical resonators might allow entanglement generation at additional frequency bands.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-stage cavity magnomechanical system using a micrometer-scale YIG disk to mediate steady-state entanglement between optical and microwave modes. It claims that the same parameter set (magnomechanical couplings, detunings, and cavity decays) simultaneously optimizes frequency-conversion efficiency and output entanglement, which is then used to implement a teleportation protocol for coherent states achieving a maximum fidelity of 0.75 under realistic estimates.

Significance. If the numerical results hold with a complete noise model, the work would provide a concrete magnomechanical platform for hybrid quantum networks, linking optical and microwave domains with a single tunable device. The explicit use of simulation results combined with material-parameter estimates for a YIG disk is a strength that grounds the proposal in feasible experimental parameters.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that entanglement is maximized for the same parameters optimizing conversion efficiency, enabling fidelity 0.75, rests on the master-equation model including all relevant decoherence; the absence of explicit master-equation details or verification that additional channels (e.g., magnon-phonon scattering or optical absorption) are negligible makes the simultaneous-optimization result load-bearing and in need of explicit confirmation.
  2. [teleportation protocol section] The teleportation-fidelity calculation: without reported error bars on the 0.75 value or a breakdown showing how the covariance-matrix elements (which determine both conversion gain and logarithmic negativity) respond to variations in the free parameters (coupling rates, YIG size), it is unclear whether the fidelity remains close to the reported value when unmodeled losses are added.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the YIG disk radius and the specific values of the magnomechanical coupling rates used in the optimized case.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that entanglement is maximized for the same parameters optimizing conversion efficiency, enabling fidelity 0.75, rests on the master-equation model including all relevant decoherence; the absence of explicit master-equation details or verification that additional channels (e.g., magnon-phonon scattering or optical absorption) are negligible makes the simultaneous-optimization result load-bearing and in need of explicit confirmation.

    Authors: We agree that explicit presentation of the master equation strengthens the manuscript. The underlying model follows the framework of the cited Phys. Rev. Applied 18, 044059 (2022) paper, but the revised manuscript now includes a dedicated appendix with the complete master equation and all decoherence terms. We also add estimates, based on published YIG material parameters for a micrometer-scale disk, showing that magnon-phonon scattering and optical absorption rates remain at least an order of magnitude below the relevant cavity decay rates at the operating point; this supports that the simultaneous optimization of conversion efficiency and entanglement is robust within the model. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [teleportation protocol section] The teleportation-fidelity calculation: without reported error bars on the 0.75 value or a breakdown showing how the covariance-matrix elements (which determine both conversion gain and logarithmic negativity) respond to variations in the free parameters (coupling rates, YIG size), it is unclear whether the fidelity remains close to the reported value when unmodeled losses are added.

    Authors: We accept that a sensitivity analysis improves clarity. The revised manuscript adds a new subsection and accompanying figure that display the dependence of the covariance-matrix elements and the resulting teleportation fidelity on ±10 % variations in the magnomechanical coupling rates and YIG disk radius. The analysis shows the fidelity stays above 0.70 across this range, indicating that the reported maximum of 0.75 is not overly sensitive to small parameter deviations. We have also clarified in the text that 0.75 is the value obtained from the ideal covariance matrix of the model; unmodeled losses would require a separate experimental characterization. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained from master-equation model

full rationale

The paper solves the steady-state covariance matrix from the cavity magnomechanical master equation (referencing the 2022 proposal only for the setup architecture) and reports that the parameters maximizing conversion efficiency also maximize logarithmic negativity as a computed outcome. Teleportation fidelity is then obtained directly from the resulting covariance elements for coherent states. No quoted step reduces a prediction to a fitted input, self-defines a quantity, or imports uniqueness via overlapping-author citation. The model is assessed via simulation and external YIG parameter estimates, remaining falsifiable against omitted loss channels.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum-optics modeling assumptions for the magnomechanical system and on parameter choices for the YIG disk that are described only as reasonable estimates.

free parameters (2)
  • coupling rates and detunings
    Chosen to simultaneously maximize conversion efficiency and entanglement in the two-stage setup.
  • YIG disk size and material parameters
    Micrometer-scale dimensions and properties selected via reasonable estimates for the proposed implementation.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The magnomechanical system is accurately described by standard cavity quantum electrodynamics master equations with linear couplings.
    Invoked to obtain the steady-state entanglement and teleportation fidelity via simulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5717 in / 1343 out tokens · 46419 ms · 2026-06-30T16:46:41.366822+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
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.

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 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Logarithmic negativity a) and teleportation fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.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 ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

98 extracted references · 4 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...

  2. [2]

    [90], 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. [90], 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...

    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 ...

  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)

    2020

  5. [5]

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

    1991

  6. [6]

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

    1992

  7. [7]

    Tittel, J

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

    2000

  8. [8]

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

    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)

    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)

    1998

  11. [11]

    Boschi, S

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

    1998

  12. [12]

    Vaidman, Physical Review A49, 1473 (1994)

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

    1994

  13. [13]

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

    1998

  14. [14]

    Bouwmeester, J.-W

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

    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)

    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)

    2004

  17. [17]

    van Loock and S

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

    2000

  18. [18]

    Jiang, J

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

    2007

  19. [19]

    Pirandola and S

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

    2016

  20. [20]

    Zhuang, Z

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

    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)

    2020

  22. [22]

    Zhang, S

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

    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)

    2023

  24. [24]

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

    1997

  25. [25]

    Ac´ ın, J

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

    2007

  26. [26]

    Caleffi, L

    M. Caleffi, L. d’Avossa, X. Han, and A. Sara Caccia- puoti, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials28, 4195 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    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...

    2019

  28. [28]

    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)

    2020

  29. [29]

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

    2020

  30. [30]

    Rueda, W

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

    2019

  31. [31]

    Zhang and C.-P

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

    2021

  32. [32]

    Tsang, Physical Review A84, 043845 (2011)

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

    2011

  33. [33]

    d’Avossa, M

    L. d’Avossa, M. Caleffi, C. Wang, J. Illiano, S. Zorzetti, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, in2023 IEEE International Con- 17 ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01 (2023) pp. 1325–1334

    2023

  34. [34]

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

    2023

  35. [35]

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

    2014

  36. [36]

    Miao and D

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

    2024

  37. [37]

    Ren, Optics Letters47, 1125 (2022)

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

    2022

  38. [38]

    Shang, D.-D

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

    2024

  39. [39]

    Zheng, W

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

    2024

  40. [40]

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

    2025

  41. [41]

    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)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Zhong, X

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

    2020

  43. [43]

    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)

    2020

  44. [44]

    Zhong, X

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

    2022

  45. [45]

    Zhong, F

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

    2024

  46. [46]

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

    2022

  47. [47]

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

    2022

  48. [48]

    Li, S.-Y

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

    2018

  49. [49]

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

    2015

  50. [50]

    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, ...

    2022

  51. [51]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

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

    2019

  52. [52]

    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...

    2024

  53. [53]

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

    2015

  54. [54]

    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)

    2020

  55. [55]

    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)

    2024

  56. [56]

    Engelhardt, V

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

    2022

  57. [57]

    Adesso and F

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

    2005

  58. [58]

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

    2013

  59. [59]

    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)

    2017

  60. [60]

    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)

    2017

  61. [61]

    Kosen, A

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

    2019

  62. [62]

    Adesso, A

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

    2004

  63. [63]

    Aspelmeyer, T

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

    2014

  64. [64]

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

    1958

  65. [65]

    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)

    1966

  66. [66]

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

    2023

  67. [67]

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

    2025

  68. [68]

    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)

    2013

  69. [69]

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

    2020

  70. [70]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optics, Grad- 18 uate Texts in Physics (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    Simon, Physical Review Letters84, 2726 (2000)

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

    2000

  72. [72]

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

    2000

  73. [73]

    Peres, Physical Review Letters77, 1413 (1996)

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

    1996

  74. [74]

    Horodecki, Physics Letters A232, 333 (1997)

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

    1997

  75. [75]

    Vidal and R

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

    2002

  76. [76]

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

    2009

  77. [77]

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

    1997

  78. [78]

    Streltsov, G

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

    2017

  79. [79]

    Wang and A

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

    2012

  80. [80]

    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

Showing first 80 references.