pith. sign in

arxiv: 2311.13503 · v3 · submitted 2023-11-22 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.quant-gas· physics.atom-ph

Non-Gaussian correlations in the steady-state of driven-dissipative clouds of two-level atoms

Giovanni Ferioli , Sara Pancaldi , Antoine Glicenstein , David Clement , Antoine Browaeys , Igor Ferrier-Barbut This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 05:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords non-Gaussian correlationsdriven-dissipative systemstwo-level atomssecond-order coherenceSiegert relationatomic ensemblesquantum opticssteady-state correlations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Light from a laser-driven cloud of two-level atoms shows non-Gaussian statistics because high-order correlations persist in the steady state without first-order coherence.

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

The experiment records the second-order coherence function of fluorescence from a dense ensemble of rubidium atoms under continuous laser drive. The measured function departs from the Siegert relation that holds for Gaussian chaotic light. Independent measurements of intensity and first-order coherence rule out an undetected coherent field as the cause. The departure therefore signals that the atoms themselves maintain non-Gaussian correlations. These correlations survive in the driven-dissipative steady state even though the usual first-order coherence is absent.

Core claim

The steady-state of this driven-dissipative many-body system sustains high-order correlations in the absence of first-order coherence. Measurements of the second-order coherence function g^{(2)}(τ) exhibit a clear violation of the Siegert relation. Separate checks of intensity and first-order coherence establish that the violation is not produced by any coherent field component. The emitted light therefore obeys non-Gaussian statistics that originate in the atomic medium.

What carries the argument

The second-order coherence function g^{(2)}(τ) and its deviation from the Siegert relation, which is expected only for Gaussian fields.

If this is right

  • The atomic medium develops and maintains high-order correlations under continuous driving and dissipation.
  • These correlations are directly responsible for the non-Gaussian character of the emitted light.
  • The driven-dissipative steady state can host complex many-body correlations even when conventional coherence measures vanish.
  • New theoretical descriptions are required to predict the origin and structure of these high-order correlations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar non-Gaussian steady states may appear in other open many-body platforms such as Rydberg gases or circuit QED arrays.
  • Measuring higher-order correlation functions could map the hierarchy of these atomic correlations.
  • The platform offers a route to generate non-Gaussian light states from large atomic ensembles without requiring external nonlinear elements.

Load-bearing premise

The observed violation of the Siegert relation is produced by intrinsic non-Gaussian atomic correlations rather than by any undetected coherent field component.

What would settle it

A measurement that detects a non-zero first-order coherence whose magnitude accounts for the entire observed deviation in g^{(2)}(τ) via the Siegert relation would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2311.13503 by Antoine Browaeys, Antoine Glicenstein, David Clement, Giovanni Ferioli, Igor Ferrier-Barbut, Sara Pancaldi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report experimental measurements of the second-order coherence function $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ of the light emitted by a laser-driven dense ensemble of $^{87}$Rb atoms. We observe a clear departure from the Siegert relation valid for Gaussian chaotic light. Measuring intensity and first-order coherence, we conclude that the violation is not due to the emergence of a coherent field. This indicates that the light obeys non-Gaussian statistics, stemming from non-Gaussian correlations in the atomic medium. More specifically, the steady-state of this driven-dissipative many-body system sustains high-order correlations in the absence of first-order coherence. These findings call for new theoretical and experimental explorations to uncover their origin and they open new perspectives for the realization of non-Gaussian states of light.

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 reports experimental measurements of the second-order coherence function g^{(2)}(τ) of light emitted by a laser-driven dense ensemble of ^{87}Rb atoms. It observes a departure from the Siegert relation expected for Gaussian chaotic light and, based on separate measurements of intensity and first-order coherence, concludes that the violation is not produced by an emergent coherent field component. This is interpreted as evidence that the steady-state sustains high-order non-Gaussian correlations in the absence of first-order coherence.

Significance. If the exclusion of an undetected coherent component is shown to be robust with quantitative bounds, the result would be significant: it would demonstrate non-Gaussian statistics of light emerging from a driven-dissipative many-body atomic system without first-order coherence, motivating new theory and opening perspectives for non-Gaussian light states. The current absence of such bounds and quantitative error analysis on the g^{(1)} data limits the strength of this assessment.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion of coherent-field exclusion (near measurements of intensity and g^{(1)})] The central claim that the observed g^{(2)} violation is not due to a coherent field rests on intensity and g^{(1)} measurements, but the manuscript provides no noise floor, integration time, or upper bound on a possible coherent amplitude |α| consistent with the g^{(1)} data. For a field with small coherent fraction plus chaotic component, the Siegert relation is modified and g^{(2)}(0) can deviate from 1 + |g^{(1)}(0)|^2 even when |g^{(1)}| is below detection threshold; without this quantification the exclusion is not load-bearing.
  2. [Abstract and results presentation] The abstract states the central observation and control measurements but supplies no quantitative g^{(2)} values, error bars, statistical significance, or details on how the coherent-field hypothesis was excluded, preventing assessment of whether the reported violation magnitude is compatible with possible systematic effects from an undetected coherent contribution.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Notation throughout] Notation for coherence functions should be checked for consistency (e.g., g^{(2)}(τ) vs. g^{(2)}(0)) across text, figures, and equations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We agree that quantitative bounds and values will strengthen the manuscript and address the points below with planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Discussion of coherent-field exclusion (near measurements of intensity and g^{(1)})] The central claim that the observed g^{(2)} violation is not due to a coherent field rests on intensity and g^{(1)} measurements, but the manuscript provides no noise floor, integration time, or upper bound on a possible coherent amplitude |α| consistent with the g^{(1)} data. For a field with small coherent fraction plus chaotic component, the Siegert relation is modified and g^{(2)}(0) can deviate from 1 + |g^{(1)}(0)|^2 even when |g^{(1)}| is below detection threshold; without this quantification the exclusion is not load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit upper bound on |α| is needed to make the exclusion robust. In the revised manuscript we will report the noise floor and integration time of the g^{(1)} data and derive a quantitative upper limit on any coherent amplitude consistent with those measurements. Using the modified Siegert relation for a small coherent fraction, we will show that the maximum deviation in g^{(2)}(0) attributable to such a component lies well below the observed violation, thereby confirming that the non-Gaussian statistics cannot be explained by an undetected coherent field. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and results presentation] The abstract states the central observation and control measurements but supplies no quantitative g^{(2)} values, error bars, statistical significance, or details on how the coherent-field hypothesis was excluded, preventing assessment of whether the reported violation magnitude is compatible with possible systematic effects from an undetected coherent contribution.

    Authors: We will revise the abstract to include the measured g^{(2)}(0) value with error bars and the magnitude of its departure from the Siegert relation. The quantitative bounds on the coherent component will be added to the main text (as described above) and referenced from the abstract. This provides the requested quantitative context while respecting abstract length constraints. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Experimental observation; no derivation chain present

full rationale

The manuscript reports direct measurements of g^(2)(τ), g^(1), and intensity on a driven atomic ensemble, then draws a conclusion from the data that the Siegert violation is not due to a coherent component. No equations, ansatzes, fitted parameters, or self-citations are used to derive a 'prediction' or 'first-principles result' that reduces to the inputs by construction. The central claim is an empirical finding, not a closed mathematical loop. This matches the default expectation of no significant circularity for an experimental paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the domain assumption that the Siegert relation applies to Gaussian chaotic light and on the experimental conclusion that intensity and g1 measurements suffice to exclude a coherent component.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Siegert relation holds for Gaussian chaotic light
    Standard result in quantum optics invoked to interpret the g2 measurement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5683 in / 1058 out tokens · 19921 ms · 2026-05-24T05:48:02.236923+00:00 · methodology

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

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    work page 1954

  2. [2]

    Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective sponta- neous emission, Physics Reports 93, 301 (1982)

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    Somech and E

    O. Somech and E. Shahmoon, Quantum entangled states of a classically radiating macroscopic spin (2022), arXiv:2204.05455 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Tziperman, G

    O. Tziperman, G. Baranes, A. Gorlach, R. Ruimy, M. Faran, N. Gutman, A. Pizzi, and I. Kaminer, Spontaneous emission from correlated emitters (2023), arXiv:2306.11348 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    T. E. Lee, S. Gopalakrishnan, and M. D. Lukin, Unconven- tional magnetism via optical pumping of interacting spin sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 257204 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Olmos, D

    B. Olmos, D. Yu, and I. Lesanovsky, Steady-state properties of a driven atomic ensemble with nonlocal dissipation, Phys. Rev. A 89, 023616 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    C. D. Parmee and N. R. Cooper, Phases of driven two-level systems with nonlocal dissipation, Phys. Rev. A 97, 053616 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    C. D. Parmee and J. Ruostekoski, Signatures of optical phase transitions in superradiant and subradiant atomic arrays, Com- munications Physics 3, 205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, F. Robicheaux, R. T. Sutherland, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, Laser-driven superradiant ensembles of two-level atoms near dicke regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 243602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, Photon antibunch- ing in resonance fluorescence, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 691 (1977)

    work page 1977

  11. [11]

    Diedrich and H

    F. Diedrich and H. Walther, Nonclassical radiation of a single stored ion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 203 (1987)

    work page 1987

  12. [12]

    Mahmoodian, M

    S. Mahmoodian, M. ˇCepulkovskis, S. Das, P. Lodahl, K. Ham- merer, and A. S. Sørensen, Strongly correlated photon transport in waveguide quantum electrodynamics with weakly coupled emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 143601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    A. S. Prasad, J. Hinney, S. Mahmoodian, K. Hammerer, S. Rind, P. Schneeweiss, A. S. Sørensen, J. V olz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Correlating photons using the collective nonlinear response of atoms weakly coupled to an optical mode, Nature Photonics 14, 719 (2020)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Siegert, On the fluctuations in signals returned by many independently moving scatterers (Radiation Laboratory, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, 1943)

    A. Siegert, On the fluctuations in signals returned by many independently moving scatterers (Radiation Laboratory, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, 1943)

    work page 1943

  15. [15]

    Loudon, The quantum theory of light (OUP Oxford, 2000)

    R. Loudon, The quantum theory of light (OUP Oxford, 2000)

    work page 2000

  16. [16]

    Ferreira, R

    D. Ferreira, R. Bachelard, W. Guerin, R. Kaiser, and M. Fouch´e, Connecting field and intensity correlations: The siegert relation and how to test it, American Journal of Physics 88, 831 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Hennrich, A

    M. Hennrich, A. Kuhn, and G. Rempe, Transition from anti- bunching to bunching in cavity qed, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 053604 (2005)

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Kovalenko, D

    A. Kovalenko, D. Babjak, A. Le ˇsund´ak, L. Podhora, L. Lach- man, P. Obˇsil, T. Pham, O. ˇC´ıp, R. Filip, and L. Slodiˇcka, Emer- gence of super-poissonian light from indistinguishable single- photon emitters, Optica 10, 456 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    S. Bali, D. Hoffmann, J. Sim ´an, and T. Walker, Measurements of intensity correlations of scattered light from laser-cooled atoms, Phys. Rev. A 53, 3469 (1996)

    work page 1996

  20. [20]

    J. A. Grover, P. Solano, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, Photon-correlation measurements of atomic-cloud temperature using an optical nanofiber, Phys. Rev. A92, 013850 (2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Lass`egues, M

    P. Lass`egues, M. A. F. Biscassi, M. Morisse, A. Cidrim, P. G. S. Dias, H. Eneriz, R. C. Teixeira, R. Kaiser, R. Bachelard, and M. Hugbart, Transition from classical to quantum loss of light coherence, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042214 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Lemieux and D

    P.-A. Lemieux and D. J. Durian, Investigating non-gaussian scattering processes by using nth-order intensity correlation functions, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 1651 (1999)

    work page 1999

  23. [23]

    H. J. Carmichael, P. Drummond, P. Meystre, and D. F. Walls, In- tensity correlations in resonance fluorescence with atomic num- ber fluctuations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral 11, L121 (1978)

    work page 1978

  24. [24]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, A non-equilibrium superradiant phase transition in free space, Nature Physics 19, 1345 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Robicheaux and D

    F. Robicheaux and D. A. Suresh, Beyond lowest order mean- field theory for light interacting with atom arrays, Phys. Rev. A 104, 023702 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Rubies-Bigorda, S

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, S. Ostermann, and S. F. Yelin, Character- izing superradiant dynamics in atomic arrays via a cumulant expansion approach, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013091 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    C. D. Mink and M. Fleischhauer, Collective radiative interac- tions in the discrete truncated Wigner approximation, SciPost Phys. 15, 233 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    K. C. Stitely, F. Finger, R. Rosa-Medina, F. Ferri, T. Donner, T. Esslinger, S. Parkins, and B. Krauskopf, Quantum fluctuation dynamics of dispersive superradiant pulses in a hybrid light- matter system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 143604 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 17, 1100 (1962)

    R. Kubo, Generalized cumulant expansion method, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 17, 1100 (1962)

    work page 1962

  30. [30]

    Glicenstein, G

    A. Glicenstein, G. Ferioli, L. Brossard, Y . R. P. Sortais, D. Barredo, F. Nogrette, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, Preparation of one-dimensional chains and dense cold atomic clouds with a high numerical aperture four-lens system, Phys. Rev. A 103, 043301 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Glicenstein, G

    A. Glicenstein, G. Ferioli, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, From superradiance to subradiance: exploring the many-body dicke ladder, Opt. Lett. 47, 1541 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Supplementary information

    work page

  33. [33]

    MANDEL and E

    L. MANDEL and E. WOLF, Coherence properties of optical fields, Rev. Mod. Phys.37, 231 (1965)

    work page 1965

  34. [34]

    Jakeman, C

    E. Jakeman, C. J. Oliver, and E. R. Pike, The effects of spa- tial coherence on intensity fluctuation distributions of gaussian light, Journal of Physics A: General Physics 3, L45 (1970)

    work page 1970

  35. [35]

    H.-G. Hong, W. Seo, M. Lee, W. Choi, J.-H. Lee, and K. An, Spectral line-shape measurement of an extremely weak amplitude-fluctuating light source by photon-counting-based second-order correlation spectroscopy, Opt. Lett. 31, 3182 (2006)

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    Ortiz-Guti ´errez, R

    L. Ortiz-Guti ´errez, R. C. Teixeira, A. Eloy, D. F. da Silva, R. Kaiser, R. Bachelard, and M. Fouch´e, Mollow triplet in cold atoms, New Journal of Physics 21, 093019 (2019)

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    See a discussion in Refs

    This assumes that for τ ̸= 0 the correlators can be separated for operators taken at different times. See a discussion in Refs. [25, 51]

    work page

  38. [38]

    D. A. Steck, Quantum and atom optics, (2007)

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    D. C. Gold, P. Huft, C. Young, A. Safari, T. G. Walker, M. Saffman, and D. D. Yavuz, Spatial coherence of light in col- 6 lective spontaneous emission, PRX Quantum3, 010338 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Schweigler, V

    T. Schweigler, V . Kasper, S. Erne, I. Mazets, B. Rauer, F. Catal- dini, T. Langen, T. Gasenzer, J. Berges, and J. Schmiedmayer, Experimental characterization of a quantum many-body system via higher-order correlations, Nature 545, 323 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Rispoli, A

    M. Rispoli, A. Lukin, R. Schittko, S. Kim, M. E. Tai, J. L´eonard, and M. Greiner, Quantum critical behaviour at the many-body localization transition, Nature 573, 385 (2019)

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Stiesdal, J

    N. Stiesdal, J. Kumlin, K. Kleinbeck, P. Lunt, C. Braun, A. Paris-Mandoki, C. Tresp, H. P. B¨uchler, and S. Hofferberth, Observation of three-body correlations for photons coupled to a rydberg superatom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 103601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    P. M. Preiss, J. H. Becher, R. Klemt, V . Klinkhamer, A. Bergschneider, N. Defenu, and S. Jochim, High-contrast in- terference of ultracold fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 143602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    A. I. Lvovsky, P. Grangier, A. Ourjoumtsev, V . Parigi, M. Sasaki, and R. Tualle-Brouri, Production and applications of non-gaussian quantum states of light (2020), arXiv:2006.16985 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Walschaers, Non-gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX Quantum 2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, Non-gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX Quantum 2, 030204 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Lachman and R

    L. Lachman and R. Filip, Quantum non-gaussianity of light and atoms, Progress in Quantum Electronics 83, 100395 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Olmos, G

    B. Olmos, G. Buonaiuto, P. Schneeweiss, and I. Lesanovsky, Interaction signatures and non-gaussian photon states from a strongly driven atomic ensemble coupled to a nanophotonic waveguide, Phys. Rev. A102, 043711 (2020)

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Cardenas-Lopez, S

    S. Cardenas-Lopez, S. J. Masson, Z. Zager, and A. Asenjo- Garcia, Many-body superradiance and dynamical mirror sym- metry breaking in waveguide qed, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 033605 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    S. J. Masson, I. Ferrier-Barbut, L. A. Orozco, A. Browaeys, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Many-body signatures of collective decay in atomic chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 263601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Bhatti, J

    D. Bhatti, J. von Zanthier, and G. S. Agarwal, Superbunching and nonclassicality as new hallmarks of superradiance, Scien- tific Reports 5, 17335 (2015)

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    Verstraelen, D

    W. Verstraelen, D. Huybrechts, T. Roscilde, and M. Wouters, Quantum and classical correlations in open quantum spin lat- tices via truncated-cumulant trajectories, PRX Quantum 4, 030304 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    G. S. Agarwal, L. M. Narducci, D. H. Feng, and R. Gilmore, Intensity correlations of a cooperative system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1260 (1979)

    work page 1979

  53. [53]

    Pucci, A

    L. Pucci, A. Roy, T. S. do Espirito Santo, R. Kaiser, M. Kastner, and R. Bachelard, Quantum effects in the cooperative scattering of light by atomic clouds, Phys. Rev. A 95, 053625 (2017)

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Jones, R

    R. Jones, R. Saint, and B. Olmos, Far-field resonance fluores- cence from a dipole-interacting laser-driven cold atomic gas, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 50, 014004 (2016)

    work page 2016

  55. [55]

    Allen and J

    L. Allen and J. H. Eberly, Optical resonance and two-level atoms (Dover, 1987)

    work page 1987

  56. [56]

    R. T. Sutherland and F. Robicheaux, Superradiance in inverted multilevel atomic clouds, Phys. Rev. A95, 033839 (2017)

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    If one assumes that correlations are along the driving laser di- rection ˆuc ∥ klas, one obtains that µ( ˆuc) < 10−4, and thus cor- relations in this direction are too weak to induce collective ef- fects, the double sum always cancels when averaging over the collection solid angle. 7 Supplemental Material Data analysis and reconstruction of the correlatio...

    work page