pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14660 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 🪐 quant-ph

Photonic state engineering via energy-level crossing by giant atoms in topological waveguide QED setup

Mingzhu Weng , Gang Wang , Zhihai Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 11:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords giant atomstopological waveguidephotonic bound statesenergy-level crossingSu-Schrieffer-Heegeradiabatic sweepwaveguide QEDstate engineering
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Adiabatically sweeping atomic detuning across a protected crossing in a topological waveguide allows giant atoms to exchange distinct photonic bound states.

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

The paper demonstrates that giant atoms coupled to a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger waveguide create a controllable energy-level crossing protected by the topological gap. Sweeping the atomic detuning through this crossing produces a controlled exchange between different photonic bound states. With two giant atoms the process converts a spatially splitting state into a combining state at high fidelity. With three giant atoms it enables robust shape-preserving photon transfer through sequential crossings. The approach uses the interplay of nonlocal giant-atom coupling and topological band structure to program the spatial form of bound photonic states.

Core claim

Giant atoms coupled to a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger waveguide enable a controllable energy-level crossing protected by the topological gap. Adiabatically sweeping the atomic detuning across the crossing leads to a controlled exchange between distinct photonic bound states. In a two-giant-atom configuration this mechanism achieves high-fidelity conversion of a spatially splitting state into a combining state. Extending the scheme to three giant atoms realizes robust shape-preserving photon transfer mediated by sequential in-gap crossings.

What carries the argument

The energy-level crossing protected by the topological gap that arises from nonlocal giant-atom coupling to the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger waveguide band structure.

If this is right

  • High-fidelity conversion of a spatially splitting photonic state into a combining state with two giant atoms.
  • Robust shape-preserving photon transfer with three giant atoms via sequential in-gap crossings.
  • Programmable control over the spatial structure of bound photonic states in waveguide QED.
  • Use of topology-protected crossings to engineer photonic states beyond local light-matter interactions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same crossing mechanism could be arranged in larger arrays to perform multi-step photonic state transformations.
  • The approach might be tested by varying the number of giant atoms or the waveguide dimerization strength to map the range of achievable state conversions.
  • Sequential crossings suggest a route to adiabatic protocols that move photons between multiple spatial modes while preserving their envelope.

Load-bearing premise

The energy-level crossing remains protected by the topological gap throughout the adiabatic sweep and leakage out of the gap or decoherence can be neglected during the finite-time detuning sweep.

What would settle it

Measure the fidelity of conversion from splitting to combining photonic state after a slow detuning sweep and check whether fidelity drops sharply when the topological gap is closed or when the sweep time is shortened.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14660 by Gang Wang, Mingzhu Weng, Zhihai Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic configuration of two giant atoms coupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) The energy spectrum of the system varies with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Time evolution of the fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) The photon probability distribution at the sites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Photonic state engineering in waveguide QED is typically based on local light-matter interactions. This limits its control over the spatial structure of bound photonic states. Here, we demonstrate a distinct mechanism arising from the interplay between nonlocal giant-atom coupling and topological band structure. Specifically, we consider giant atoms coupled to a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger waveguide and show that this configuration enables a controllable energy-level crossing protected by the topological gap. Adiabatically sweeping the atomic detuning across the crossing leads to a controlled exchange between distinct photonic bound states. In a two-giant-atom configuration, this mechanism achieves high-fidelity conversion of a spatially splitting state into a combining state. Extending this scheme to three-giant atoms, we further realize robust, shape-preserving photon transfer mediated by sequential in-gap crossings. Our results demonstrate how topology and nonlocal light-matter coupling can be combined to achieve programmable control of bound photonic states in waveguide QED platforms.

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 mechanism for engineering photonic bound states in waveguide QED by coupling giant atoms to a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) topological waveguide. It identifies controllable energy-level crossings protected by the topological gap and shows that adiabatically sweeping the atomic detuning across these crossings enables exchange between distinct bound states. Numerical demonstrations claim high-fidelity conversion of a spatially splitting state into a combining state for two giant atoms, and robust shape-preserving photon transfer via sequential crossings for three giant atoms.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a new route to programmable control of the spatial structure of photonic bound states by combining nonlocal giant-atom couplings with topological protection. This could enable robust quantum state transfer protocols in waveguide platforms that are less sensitive to local disorder, provided the adiabatic condition is rigorously satisfied.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical results / adiabatic sweep protocol] The central claim rests on adiabatic evolution across the in-gap crossing, yet the manuscript reports numerical fidelities without an explicit check that the chosen sweep rates satisfy ħ|dΔ/dt| ≪ Δ_gap² throughout the protocol (for both two- and three-atom cases). This verification is load-bearing because the nonlocal giant-atom couplings and time-dependent detuning can open non-adiabatic channels whose leakage rate scales with sweep velocity and inverse gap size.
  2. [Model and Hamiltonian] The effective Hamiltonian for the giant-atom–waveguide system and the procedure used to identify the photonic bound states (including how the topological gap is computed under time-dependent detuning) are not presented with sufficient detail to allow independent reproduction or assessment of gap protection.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Introduction / Methods] Notation for the detuning sweep function Δ(t) and the definition of the bound-state wavefunctions should be clarified with explicit equations to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and have made revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim rests on adiabatic evolution across the in-gap crossing, yet the manuscript reports numerical fidelities without an explicit check that the chosen sweep rates satisfy ħ|dΔ/dt| ≪ Δ_gap² throughout the protocol (for both two- and three-atom cases). This verification is load-bearing because the nonlocal giant-atom couplings and time-dependent detuning can open non-adiabatic channels whose leakage rate scales with sweep velocity and inverse gap size.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this crucial aspect of adiabaticity. While the high fidelities observed in our numerical simulations (exceeding 0.99) strongly suggest that the chosen sweep rates are adiabatic, we acknowledge that an explicit verification was missing. In the revised manuscript, we have added a detailed analysis of the adiabatic condition. Specifically, we compute the instantaneous topological gap Δ_gap(t) during the detuning sweep and confirm that ħ|dΔ/dt| remains at least an order of magnitude smaller than Δ_gap² for the parameters used in both the two-atom and three-atom protocols. This verification is now included as a new panel in Figure 3 (for the two-atom case) and Figure 5 (for the three-atom case), along with a discussion in Section III. We believe this addition rigorously supports the adiabatic nature of the state transfer. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The effective Hamiltonian for the giant-atom–waveguide system and the procedure used to identify the photonic bound states (including how the topological gap is computed under time-dependent detuning) are not presented with sufficient detail to allow independent reproduction or assessment of gap protection.

    Authors: We agree that more explicit details on the model and numerical methods are necessary for reproducibility. In the revised version, we have expanded the description of the effective Hamiltonian in Section II, providing the full expression including the nonlocal coupling terms for giant atoms at arbitrary positions in the SSH chain. Additionally, we have included a new Appendix A that outlines the procedure for identifying photonic bound states: at each fixed detuning, we diagonalize the single-excitation Hamiltonian matrix and select states with energies inside the topological gap and wavefunctions localized around the atoms. The gap size is determined as the energy separation to the nearest continuum band edge. For the time-dependent sweeps, this gap is evaluated at multiple points along the protocol to confirm protection. These enhancements allow readers to reproduce our findings independently. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on standard adiabatic dynamics in a proposed setup

full rationale

The manuscript proposes a physical mechanism in which giant atoms coupled to an SSH waveguide produce a topologically protected energy-level crossing; an adiabatic detuning sweep then maps one photonic bound state onto another. This chain invokes the standard adiabatic theorem applied to numerically or analytically obtained bound-state spectra and does not reduce any claimed conversion fidelity to a fitted parameter, a self-definition, or a load-bearing self-citation. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks of waveguide QED and topological band theory; no step equates an output to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract invokes standard assumptions of waveguide QED and topological photonics without introducing new free parameters or postulated entities beyond the described giant-atom and SSH-waveguide configuration.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Su-Schrieffer-Heeger waveguide possesses a topological gap that protects the atomic detuning-induced energy-level crossing from leakage.
    Stated as the basis for the controllable crossing and adiabatic exchange.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5460 in / 1225 out tokens · 25384 ms · 2026-05-10T11:43:35.887334+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

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. Roy, C. M. Wilson, and O. Firstenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 021001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Noh and D

    C. Noh and D. G. Angelakis, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 016401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zil- berberg, and I. Carusotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015006 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Z. Lan, M. L. N. Chen, F. Gao, S. Zhang, and W. E. I. Sha, Rev. Phys. 9, 100076 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    L. Lu, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljačić, Nat. Pho- tonics 8, 821 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    A. B. Khanikaev and G. Shvets, Nat. Photonics 11, 763 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Simon, O

    J. Simon, O. Zilberberg, and I. Carusotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015006 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Z. Wang, Y. Chong, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljačić, Nature 461, 772 (2009)

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    St-Jean, V

    P. St-Jean, V. Goblot, E. Galopin, A. Lemaître, T. Ozawa, L. L. Gratiet, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch, and A. Amo, Nat. Photonics 11, 651 (2017)

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Parto, S

    M. Parto, S. Wittek, H. Hodaei, G. Harari, M. A. Bandres, J. Ren, M. C. Rechtsman, M. Segev, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 113901 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Y. Ota, K. Takata, T. Ozawa, A. Amo, Z. Jia, B. Kante, M. Notomi, Y. Arakawa, and S. Iwamoto, Nanophotonics 9, 547 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Hafezi, E

    M. Hafezi, E. A. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and J. M. Taylor, Nat. Phys. 7, 907 (2011)

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    Chen, S.-J

    W.-J. Chen, S.-J. Jiang, X.-D. Chen, B. Zhu, L. Zhou, J.-W. Dong, and C. T. Chan, Nat. Commun. 5, 5782 (2014)

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    M. S. Rider, S. J. Palmer, S. R. Pocock, X. Xiao, P. Arroyo Huidobro, and V. Giannini, Journal of Applied Physics 125, 120901 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Y. Wu, C. Li, X. Hu, Y. Ao, Y. Zhao, and Q. Gong, Adv. Opt. Mater. 5, 1700357 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Barik, A

    S. Barik, A. Karasahin, C. Flower, T. Cai, H. Miyake, W. DeGottardi, M. Hafezi, and E. Waks, Science 359, 666 (2018)

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1698 (1979)

    work page 1979

  19. [19]

    Bello, G

    M. Bello, G. Platero, J. I. Cirac, and A. Gonzalez-Tudela, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw0297 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    E. Kim, X. Zhang, V. S. Ferreira, J. Banker, J. K. Iver- son, A. Sipahigil, M. Bello, A. Gonz¨¢lez-Tudela, M. Mirhosseini, and O. Painter, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011015 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Blanco-Redondo, I

    A. Blanco-Redondo, I. Andonegui, M. J. Collins, G. Harari, Y. Lumer, M. C. Rechtsman, B. J. Eggleton, and M. Segev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 163901 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    W. Cai, J. Han, F. Mei, Y. Xu, Y. Ma, X. Li, H. Wang, Y. P. Song, Z.-Y. Xue, Z.-Q. Yin, S. Jia, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 080501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    L. Lu, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljačić, Nat. Phys. 12, 626 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Z.-K. Lin, Q. Wang, Y. Liu, H. Xue, B. Zhang, Y. Chong, and J.-H. Jiang, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 483 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    T. Tian, Y. Zhang, L. Zhang, L. Wu, S. Lin, J. Zhou, C.- K. Duan, J.-H. Jiang, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 215901 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    N. E. Palaiodimopoulos, I. Brouzos, F. K. Diakonos, and G. Theocharis, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052409 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    C. Wang, L. Li, J. Gong, and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 106, 052411 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    W. Liu, C. Wu, Y. Jia, S. Jia, G. Chen, and F. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 105, L061502 (2022). 7

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Huang, Z

    L. Huang, Z. Tan, H. Zhong, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022419 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    F. Mei, G. Chen, L. Tian, S.-L. Zhu, and S. Jia, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012331 (2018)

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Chang, J

    Y. Chang, J. Xue, Y. Han, X. Wang, and H. Li, Phys. Rev. A 108, 062409 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y.-X. Liu, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep. 718, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Roushan, C

    P. Roushan, C. Neill, Y. Chen, et al ., Nature (London) 515, 241 (2014)

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    Flurin, V

    E. Flurin, V. V. Ramasesh, S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. S. Martin, N. Y. Yao, and I. Siddiqi, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031023 (2017)

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    M. D. Schroer, M. H. Kolodrubetz, W. F. Kindel, M. Sandberg, J. Gao, M. R. Vissers, D. P. Pappas, Anatoli Polkovnikov, and K. W. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 050402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Z. Y. Tao, T. X. Yan, W. Y. Liu, J. J. Niu, Y. X. Zhou, L. B. Zhang, H. Jia, W. Q. Chen, S. Liu, Y. Z. Chen, and D. P. Yu, Phys. Rev. B 101, 035109 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    X. S. Tan, D. W. Zhang, Q. Liu, G. M. Xue, H. F. Yu, Y. Q. Zhu, H. Yan, S. L. Zhu, and Y. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 130503 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    X. S. Tan, Y. X. Zhao, Q. Liu, G. M. Xue, H. F. Yu, Z. D. Wang, and Y. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 010501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Dong, C.-P

    X.-L. Dong, C.-P. Shen, S.-Y. Gao, H.-R. Li, H. Gao, F.-L. Li, and P.-B. Li, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023077 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Nie and Y.-X

    W. Nie and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 012076(R) (2020)

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    W. Nie, Z. H. Peng, F. Nori, and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 023603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Zhang, W

    Y. Zhang, W. Nie, and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 024038 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    L. Qi, Y. Yan, Y. Xing, X. D. Zhao, S. Liu, W. X. Cui, X. Han, S. Zhang, and H. F. Wang, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023037 (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    X. You, L. Xiao, B. Huang, Y. Ke, and C. Lee, Phys. Rev. A 111, 033306 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Zheng, X

    L. Zheng, X. Yi, and H.-F. Wang, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 054037 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Leonforte, A

    L. Leonforte, A. Carollo, and F. Ciccarello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 063601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Cheng, Y

    Q. Cheng, Y. Pan, Q. Wang, T. Li, and S. Zhu, Laser Photon. Rev. 9, 392 (2015)

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    J. S. Douglas, H. Habibian, C.-L. Hung, A. V. Gorshkov, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Nat. Photonics 9, 326 (2015)

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    M. V. Gustafsson, T. Aref, A. F. Kockum, M. K. Ek- ström, G. Johansson, and P. Delsing, Science 346, 207 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    Manenti, A

    R. Manenti, A. F. Kockum, A. Patterson, et al. , Nat. Commun. 8, 975 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    A. M. Vadiraj, A. Ask, T. G. McConkey, I. Nsanzineza, C. W. Sandbo Chang, A. F. Kockum, and C. M. Wilson, Phys. Rev. A 103, 023710 (2021)

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Kannan, M

    B. Kannan, M. Ruckriegel, D. Campbell, et al. , Nature (London) 583, 775 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    Yin and J.-Q

    X.-L. Yin and J.-Q. Liao, Phys. Rev. A 108, 023728 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    A. C. Santos, and R. Bachelard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 053601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    M. Weng, H. Yu, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 111, 053711 (2025)

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    D. Wang, C. Zhao, Y. Yan, J. Yang, Z. Wang, and L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 109, 053720 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Y. T. Chen, L. Du, L. Guo, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, Y. Li, and J. H. Wu, Commun. Phys. 5, 215 (2022)

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Yin, Y.-H

    X.-L. Yin, Y.-H. Liu, J.-F. Huang, and J.-Q. Liao, Phys. Rev. A 106, 013715 (2022)

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    M. Weng, X. Wang, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 110, 023721 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    A. F. Kockum, G. Johansson, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 140404 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    Carollo, D

    A. Carollo, D. Cilluffo, and F. Ciccarello, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043184 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Wang and H.-R

    X. Wang and H.-R. Li, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 035007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    Andersson, B

    G. Andersson, B. Suri, L. Guo, T. Aref, and P. Delsing, Nat. Phys. 15, 1123 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    S. Guo, Y. Wang, T. Purdy, and J. Taylor, Phys. Rev. A 102, 033706 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    X. Yin, W. Luo, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. A 106, 063703 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    L. Du, L. Guo, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. A 107, 023705 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Zhang, C

    X. Zhang, C. Liu, Z. Gong, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 108, 013704 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Zhao and Z

    W. Zhao and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053855 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    W. Zhao, T. Tian, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 109, 063708 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Joshi, F

    C. Joshi, F. Yang, and M. Mirhosseini, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021039 (2023)

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    Cheng, Z

    W. Cheng, Z. Wang, and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 106, 033522 (2022)

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    Y. E. Kraus, Y. Lahini, Z. Ringel, M. Verbin, and O. Zilberberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 106402 (2012)

    work page 2012

  73. [73]

    Barends et

    R. Barends et. al. , Nature (London) 508, 500 (2014)

    work page 2014

  74. [74]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019)

    work page 2019

  75. [75]

    Jin, Z.-Q

    R.-B. Jin, Z.-Q. Zeng, C. You, and C. Yuan, Prog. Quan- tum Electron. 96, 100519 (2024)

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    Orieux and E

    A. Orieux and E. Diamanti, J. Opt. 18, 083002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  77. [77]

    Roushan, C

    P. Roushan, C. Neill, J. Tangpanitanon, et. al. , Science 358, 1175 (2017)

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    Zhang, E

    X. Zhang, E. Kim, D. K. Mark, S. Choi, and O. Painter, Science 379, 278 (2023)

    work page 2023

  79. [79]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumuller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 369 (2020)

    work page 2020