pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21208 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🪐 quant-ph

Monitoring photon entanglement in coupled cavities

Moises Acero , Jeremiah Harrington , Oleg L. Berman , K. Ziegler This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 22:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords photon entanglementcoupled cavitiesprojective measurementsN00N stateentanglement entropyJaynes-Cummings modelmonitoring protocol
0
0 comments X

The pith

Repeated projective measurements allow control of photon entanglement in coupled cavities by making it sensitive to the monitoring protocol.

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

The authors examine N photons starting in one cavity and coupled to a second cavity via an optical fiber. They apply repeated projective measurements at fixed time steps to monitor the system and study the formation of photonic N00N states. Probabilities for photon transitions between cavities are calculated along with entanglement measures including fidelity, phase sensitivity, and entropy. Similar monitoring is applied to photons interacting with a qubit in the Jaynes-Cummings model. The central result is that the details of the monitoring protocol strongly influence the entanglement, providing a way to control it for applications.

Core claim

In the dynamics of photons in coupled cavities under repeated projective measurements, the entanglement between photon states in the two cavities, or for N00N states quantified by fidelity and phase sensitivity, depends on the time step and specifics of the measurements. This sensitivity enables using the monitoring protocol to control the entanglement in both the two-cavity system and the single-cavity qubit-coupled case.

What carries the argument

Repeated projective measurements at fixed time intervals on the photon number in the cavities, which steer the evolution and entanglement dynamics.

If this is right

  • The probability of all N photons transferring to the other cavity can be modulated by choosing different measurement intervals.
  • Entanglement entropy between the two cavities can be increased or decreased depending on the monitoring protocol.
  • For N00N states, the phase sensitivity and fidelity can be optimized through appropriate measurement timing.
  • In the Jaynes-Cummings setup, photon-qubit entanglement entropy responds similarly to changes in measurement details.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This monitoring approach could be extended to design adaptive protocols for generating specific entangled states on demand.
  • Applications in quantum sensing might benefit from enhanced phase sensitivity achieved via controlled monitoring.
  • Experimental implementations in circuit QED could test the control over entanglement without assuming perfect cavities.

Load-bearing premise

Ideal projective measurements can be repeated at fixed time steps on perfect cavities without any loss, decoherence, or unintended back-action.

What would settle it

An experiment showing that varying the time step between measurements does not alter the entanglement entropy or the fidelity of the N00N state in a measurable way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21208 by Jeremiah Harrington, K. Ziegler, Moises Acero, Oleg L. Berman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Two optical cavities coupled by an optical fiber are subject to repeated projective measurements in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Unitary evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Monitored evolution: Probabilities of the return to the initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Probabilities of the monitored transition to a N00N state for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Time-periodic entanglement entropy for a unitary evolution in two coupled cavities with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Entanglement entropy for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Entanglement entropy under a unitary evolution of photons, coupled to a single qubit with coupling 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Entanglement entropy under a monitored evolution of photons, coupled to a single qubit with coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the dynamics of $N$ photons in a Fock state, initially located inside one cavity, and coupled by an optical fiber to a second cavity. The entanglement of the photons is monitored by projective measurements, repeated with a fixed time step. This approach is applied to the formation of a photonic N00N state. We calculate the probability of the transition of $N$ photons from the left to the right cavity and the probability of the return of $N$ photons to the left cavity under repeated projective measurements. The entanglement is analyzed for the N00N state by its fidelity and its phase sensitivity, while for the entanglement between the states in the two cavities the entanglement entropy is calculated. In addition, we study the monitored evolution of photons in a single cavity, which are coupled to a single qubit, using the Jaynes-Cummings model. Photon entanglement is analyzed in terms of the entanglement entropy. In all these cases we find that entanglement is sensitive to the details of monitoring protocol, which can be used to control photon entanglement for specific applications.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies N photons in a Fock state initially in one of two fiber-coupled cavities, with entanglement monitored via repeated projective measurements at fixed time steps. It computes transition probabilities for photon transfer and return, analyzes N00N-state formation via fidelity and phase sensitivity, and computes entanglement entropy for both the two-cavity system and the Jaynes-Cummings qubit-photon case. The central claim is that entanglement measures depend sensitively on monitoring-protocol details (time step), enabling control for applications.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the work shows that discrete monitoring can tune photonic entanglement in an idealized setting, offering a parameter-free route to control without additional Hamiltonians. This aligns with measurement-based quantum control ideas and could guide experiments in cavity QED, though the idealization limits transfer to applications. No ad-hoc parameters or fitted quantities are introduced; calculations rely on standard unitary evolution interrupted by projections.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and model setup] Abstract and model setup: the claim that monitoring 'can be used to control photon entanglement for specific applications' rests on the unexamined assumption of perfect, lossless cavities and instantaneous projective measurements with no decoherence or back-action. The manuscript provides no robustness check (e.g., inclusion of cavity decay rate κ or finite measurement duration) showing that sensitivity of fidelity, phase sensitivity, or entropy to the time step survives when non-unitary channels compete with the discrete projections; this is load-bearing for the controllability conclusion.
  2. [N00N-state formation] N00N-state section: the reported fidelity and phase sensitivity under repeated measurements are presented without any comparison to the continuous-evolution (no-measurement) baseline or to small perturbations in coupling strength, so it is unclear whether the observed variation with time step is large enough to constitute practical control or is an artifact of the ideal unitary segments.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction should explicitly state the range of photon number N and time-step values explored, as well as the precise definition of the projective measurement operator used.
  2. [Entanglement entropy calculations] Notation for the entanglement entropy (e.g., whether it is the von Neumann entropy of the reduced cavity density matrix) should be defined once in the main text rather than assumed from context.
  3. [Figures] Figure captions for probability and entropy plots would benefit from indicating the specific time-step values or coupling ratios used in each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, clarifying our approach and outlining planned revisions to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and model setup] Abstract and model setup: the claim that monitoring 'can be used to control photon entanglement for specific applications' rests on the unexamined assumption of perfect, lossless cavities and instantaneous projective measurements with no decoherence or back-action. The manuscript provides no robustness check (e.g., inclusion of cavity decay rate κ or finite measurement duration) showing that sensitivity of fidelity, phase sensitivity, or entropy to the time step survives when non-unitary channels compete with the discrete projections; this is load-bearing for the controllability conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the model assumes ideal conditions (lossless cavities and instantaneous projections) to isolate the effect of discrete monitoring on entanglement. This is a deliberate choice to demonstrate the principle that the monitoring time step can serve as a control parameter in the unitary-plus-projection dynamics. The controllability conclusion is framed within this idealized setting, consistent with many theoretical studies in cavity QED. We will revise the abstract, introduction, and conclusions to explicitly acknowledge these assumptions and note that the sensitivity may persist for small decay rates over short timescales. A full non-unitary simulation with finite κ and measurement duration is beyond the present scope but represents a natural extension; we will add a brief discussion of this limitation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [N00N-state formation] N00N-state section: the reported fidelity and phase sensitivity under repeated measurements are presented without any comparison to the continuous-evolution (no-measurement) baseline or to small perturbations in coupling strength, so it is unclear whether the observed variation with time step is large enough to constitute practical control or is an artifact of the ideal unitary segments.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. While the manuscript contrasts monitored and unmonitored photon transfer probabilities, we will add explicit comparisons of N00N fidelity and phase sensitivity between the repeated-measurement protocol and the pure continuous unitary evolution (no projections). We will also include results for varied coupling strengths J to demonstrate that the time-step dependence is robust and not an artifact. These additions will quantify the scale of the control effect and strengthen the case for its practical relevance within the model. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations use standard quantum mechanics

full rationale

The paper computes transition probabilities, N00N fidelity, phase sensitivity, and entanglement entropy for photons in coupled cavities and the Jaynes-Cummings model via unitary evolution interrupted by fixed-time projective measurements. These quantities are obtained directly from the Schrödinger equation and standard von Neumann entropy definitions without fitting parameters to subsets of results, without self-referential definitions of the monitored entanglement, and without load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The sensitivity of entanglement to monitoring details emerges as a computed outcome rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; the work rests on standard quantum postulates with no new free parameters, axioms, or entities explicitly introduced beyond the described models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5481 in / 1096 out tokens · 119779 ms · 2026-05-09T22:44:28.644205+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

55 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Haroche,Nobel Lecture: Controlling photons in a box and exploring the quantum to classical boundary, Rev

    S. Haroche,Nobel Lecture: Controlling photons in a box and exploring the quantum to classical boundary, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1083 (2013). 12

    2013

  2. [2]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000)

    2000

  3. [3]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki,Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Zou,Quantum entanglement and its application in quantum communication, J

    N. Zou,Quantum entanglement and its application in quantum communication, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.1827 012120 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    H. Lee, P. Kok, N.J. Cerf, and J.P. Dowling.Linear optics and projective measurements alone suffice to create large-photon-number path entanglement, Phys. Rev. A65, 030101 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    Neef et al.,Three-dimensional non-Abelian quantum holonomy, Nature Phys.19, 30 (2023)

    V. Neef et al.,Three-dimensional non-Abelian quantum holonomy, Nature Phys.19, 30 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Brune et al.,Process tomography of field damping and measurement of Fock state lifetimes by quantum non-demolition photon counting in a cavity, Phys

    M. Brune et al.,Process tomography of field damping and measurement of Fock state lifetimes by quantum non-demolition photon counting in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 240402 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Wang et al.,Measurement of the decay of Fock states in a superconducting quantum circuit, Phys

    H. Wang et al.,Measurement of the decay of Fock states in a superconducting quantum circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 240401 (2008)

    2008

  9. [9]

    Carmichael,Signs of anharmonicity, Nature Phys.4, 346 (2008)

    H. Carmichael,Signs of anharmonicity, Nature Phys.4, 346 (2008)

    2008

  10. [10]

    Schuster et al.,Nonlinear spectroscopy of photons bound to one atom, Nature Phys.4, 382 (2008)

    I. Schuster et al.,Nonlinear spectroscopy of photons bound to one atom, Nature Phys.4, 382 (2008)

    2008

  11. [12]

    H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling,A quantum Rosetta stone for interferometry, Journal of Modern Optics 49, 2325 (2002)

    2002

  12. [13]

    Walther, J

    P. Walther, J. W. Pan, M. Aspelmeyer, R. Ursin, S. Gasparoni, and A. Zeilinger,De Broglie wavelength of a non-local four-photon state, Nature429, 158 (2004)

    2004

  13. [14]

    Mitchell, J

    M.W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg,Super-resolving phase measurements with a multiphoton entangled state, Nature429, 161 (2004)

    2004

  14. [15]

    I. Afek, O. Ambar, and Y. Silberberg,High-N00Nstates by mixing quantum and classical light, Science328, 879 (2010)

    2010

  15. [16]

    A. N. Boto , P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling,Quantum Inter- ferometric Optical Lithography: Exploiting Entanglement to Beat the Diffraction Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2733 (2000)

    2000

  16. [17]

    P. Kok, H. Lee and J.P. Dowling.Creation of large-photon-number path entanglement conditioned on pho- todetection, Phys. Rev. A65, 052104 (2002)

    2002

  17. [18]

    Cable and J

    H. Cable and J. P. Dowling,Efficient Generation of Large Number-Path Entanglement Using Only Linear Optics and Feed-Forward, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 163604 (2007)

    2007

  18. [19]

    Yao et al.,Observation of eight-photon entanglement, Nature Photonics6, 225 (2012)

    X.-C. Yao et al.,Observation of eight-photon entanglement, Nature Photonics6, 225 (2012)

    2012

  19. [20]

    Wang et al.,Experimental ten-photon entanglement, Phys

    X.-L. Wang et al.,Experimental ten-photon entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 210502 (2016)

    2016

  20. [21]

    Malik et al.,Multi-photon entanglement in high dimensions, Nature Photonics10, 248 (2016)

    M. Malik et al.,Multi-photon entanglement in high dimensions, Nature Photonics10, 248 (2016)

    2016

  21. [22]

    Israel, I

    Y. Israel, I. Afek, S. Rosen, O. Ambar, and Y. Silberberg,Experimental tomography ofN00Nstates with large photon numbers, Phys. Rev. A85, 022115 (2012)

    2012

  22. [23]

    Israel, S

    Y. Israel, S. Rosen, and Y. Silberberg,Supersensitive Polarization Microscopy UsingN00NStates of Light, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 103604 (2014)

    2014

  23. [24]

    Bergmann and P

    M. Bergmann and P. van Loock,Quantum error correction against photon loss usingN00Nstates, Phys. Rev. A94, 012311 (2016)

    2016

  24. [25]

    Ziegler,Dynamical entanglement in coupled systems, Journal of Physics: Conference Series497, 012032 (2014)

    K. Ziegler,Dynamical entanglement in coupled systems, Journal of Physics: Conference Series497, 012032 (2014)

    2014

  25. [26]

    Ziegler,Dynamical creation of entangled bosonic states in a double well, J

    K. Ziegler,Dynamical creation of entangled bosonic states in a double well, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 44, 145302 (2011)

    2011

  26. [27]

    Haroche and J.-M

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

    2006

  27. [28]

    Ziegler,Controlling dynamical entanglement in a Josephson tunneling junction, Int

    K. Ziegler,Controlling dynamical entanglement in a Josephson tunneling junction, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B,31, 1750255 (2017)

    2017

  28. [29]

    E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings,Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with appli- cation to the beam maser, Proc. IEEE51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  29. [30]

    B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight,The Jaynes-Cummings model, J. Mod. Opt.40, 1195 (1993)

    1993

  30. [31]

    Bombelli, R

    L. Bombelli, R. K. Koul, J. Lee, and R. D. Sorkin,Quantum source of entropy for black holes, Phys. Rev. D 34, 373 (1986)

    1986

  31. [32]

    Srednicki,Entropy and area, Phys

    M. Srednicki,Entropy and area, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 666 (1993)

    1993

  32. [33]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio,Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  33. [34]

    Miao and T

    Q. Miao and T. Barthel,Eigenstate entanglement: Crossover from the ground state to volume laws, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 040603 (2021)

    2021

  34. [35]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher,Measurement-driven entanglement transition in hybrid quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B100, 134306 (2019)

    2019

  35. [36]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum,Measurement-induced phase transitions in the dynamics of entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. X9, 031009 (2019). 13

    2019

  36. [37]

    O. Lunt, M. Szyniszewski, and A. Pal,Measurement-induced criticality and entanglement clusters: a study of 1D and 2D Clifford circuits, Phys. Rev. B104, 155111 (2021)

    2021

  37. [38]

    S. J. van Enk and C. W. J. Beenakker,Measuring Trρon single copies ofρusing random measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 110503 (2012)

    2012

  38. [39]

    Elben, B

    A. Elben, B. Vermersch, M. Dalmonte, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller,R´ enyi entropies from random quenches in atomic Hubbard and spin models, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 050406 (2018)

    2018

  39. [40]

    K. J. Satzinger et al.,Realizing topologically ordered states on a quantum processor, Science374, 1237 (2021)

    2021

  40. [41]

    Ziegler,Photonic spectral density of coupled optical cavities, Laser Physics22, 331 (2012)

    K. Ziegler,Photonic spectral density of coupled optical cavities, Laser Physics22, 331 (2012)

    2012

  41. [42]

    Cramer, C.M

    M. Cramer, C.M. Dawson, J. Eisert, and T.J. Osborne,Exact relaxation in a class of nonequilibrium quantum lattice systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 030602 (2008)

    2008

  42. [43]

    Misra and E

    B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan,The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory, J. Math. Phys.18, 756 (1977)

    1977

  43. [44]

    Sanders,Quantum dynamics of the nonlinear rotator and the effects of continua & spin measurement, Phys

    B.C. Sanders,Quantum dynamics of the nonlinear rotator and the effects of continua & spin measurement, Phys. Rev. A40, 2417 (1989)

    1989

  44. [45]

    Liu and K

    Q. Liu and K. Ziegler.Entanglement transition through Hilbert-space localization, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012413 (2023)

    2023

  45. [46]

    Aharonov, L

    Y. Aharonov, L. Davidovich, and N. Zagury.Quantum random walks, Phys. Rev. A, 48:1687–1690 (1993)

    1993

  46. [47]

    A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker.Solution of a minimal model for many-body quantum chaos, Phys. Rev. X, 8:041019, Nov 2018

    2018

  47. [48]

    F. A. Gr¨ unbaum, L. Vel´ azquez, A. H. Werner, and R. F. Werner,Recurrence for discrete time unitary evolutions, Commun. Math. Phys.320, 543–569 (2013)

    2013

  48. [49]

    S. Dhar, S. Dasgupta, A. Dhar, and D. A. Huse,Quantum walks: The first detected passage time problem, Phys. Rev. E95, 032141 (2017)

    2017

  49. [50]

    D. A. Kessler, E. Barkai, and K. Ziegler,The first detection time of a quantum state under random probing, Phys. Rev. A103, 022222 (2021)

    2021

  50. [51]

    Ziegler, E

    K. Ziegler, E. Barkai, and D. A. Kessler,Randomly repeated measurements on quantum systems: Correlations and topological invariants of the quantum evolution, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.54, 395302 (2021)

    2021

  51. [52]

    J. C. Xavier, F. C. Alcaraz and G. Sierra,Equipartition of the entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. B 98, 041106(R) (2018)

    2018

  52. [53]

    Gambetta et al.,Qubit-photon interactions in a cavity: Measurement-induced dephasing and number split- ting, Phys

    J. Gambetta et al.,Qubit-photon interactions in a cavity: Measurement-induced dephasing and number split- ting, Phys. Rev. A74, 042318 (2006)

    2006

  53. [54]

    S. G. Carter et al.,Quantum control of a spin qubit coupled to a photonic crystal cavity, Nature Photonics 7, 329 (2013)

    2013

  54. [55]

    J. J. Viennot, M. C. Dartiailh, A. Cottet, and T. Kontos,Coherent coupling of a single spin to microwave cavity photons, Science349, 408 (2015)

    2015

  55. [56]

    Tornow and K

    S. Tornow and K. Ziegler,Measurement induced quantum walks on an IBM Quantum Computer, Phys. Rev. Research 5, 033089 (2023)

    2023