pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24560 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🪐 quant-ph

Optimization of two-photon excitation by indistinguishable photons in a three-level atom

Masood Valipour , Gniewomir Sarbicki , Karolina S{\l}owik , Anita D\k{a}browska This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 04:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords two-photon excitationindistinguishable photonsthree-level ladder atomoptimal waveformcascade decaytime reversalGaussian pulsesquantum interference
0
0 comments X

The pith

The two-photon state that maximizes excitation of a three-level atom is the time-reversed version of its spontaneous cascade emission.

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

This paper determines the two-photon input state that produces the highest possible population in the upper level of a ladder-type atom at a chosen time. The derivation begins with a closed-form expression for the absorption probability under a unidirectional field. In the limit of very long pulses the optimization reaches complete excitation, and the required state is the time-reversed copy of the pair emitted by spontaneous cascade decay. The authors also evaluate how close simpler Gaussian-based states come to this ideal performance and how the results vary with the atom's decay rates and frequency spacing.

Core claim

Starting from an analytical expression for the two-photon absorption probability, we determine the two-photon state that maximizes the population of the upper atomic state at a chosen time and show that, in the limit of an infinitely long pulse, perfect excitation is possible. The optimal state is identified as the time-reversed counterpart of the two-photon state emitted in spontaneous cascade decay.

What carries the argument

Optimization of the two-photon absorption probability for a unidirectional field on a ladder-type three-level atom, yielding the time-reversed spontaneous cascade state.

If this is right

  • Unit excitation probability is achievable for sufficiently long pulses.
  • The optimal excitation conditions depend on the ratio of the two decay rates and on the separation of the transition frequencies.
  • For Gaussian pulses, quantum interference shifts the maxima of the marginal spectral distribution away from the atomic resonances.
  • Symmetrized Gaussian product states and temporally correlated Gaussian states are compared against the ideal case for practical performance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The time-reversal relation may serve as a general design rule for efficient absorption of multi-photon states in other quantum-optical systems.
  • Optimized inputs of this form could improve light-matter coupling efficiency in quantum memories or single-photon interfaces built on three-level atoms.
  • Analogous optimizations might be carried out for higher photon numbers or for atoms with additional levels or bidirectional fields.

Load-bearing premise

The atom is modeled as interacting with a unidirectional field, with fixed decay rates and transition frequencies that enter the given absorption formula.

What would settle it

Prepare the proposed optimal two-photon state with progressively longer pulse durations and measure whether the upper-state population approaches one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24560 by Anita D\k{a}browska, Gniewomir Sarbicki, Karolina S{\l}owik, Masood Valipour.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The time-domain distributions are referenced to view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Joint spectral and temporal distributions together with the marginal distributions for the optimal view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Maximum excitation probability of state view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Maximum excitation probability of state view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Joint spectral and temporal distributions together with the marginal distributions for the two-photon state view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Maximum excitation probability view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Maximum excitation probability of state view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Joint spectral and temporal distributions together with the marginal distributions for the two-photon state view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Marginal distribution view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Maximum excitation probability of the state view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (a) Excitation probability view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Values of the corresponding parameters providing maximum excitation probability for the state of light view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Values of the corresponding parameters providing maximum excitation probability for the state of light view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Values of the corresponding parameters providing maximum excitation probability for the state of light view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Values of the corresponding parameters providing maximum excitation probability for the state of light view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Values of the parameters view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the excitation of a three-level ladder-type atom by a unidirectional field with a pair of indistinguishable photons. Starting from an analytical expression for the two-photon absorption probability, we determine the two-photon state that maximizes the population of the upper atomic state at a chosen time and show that, in the limit of an infinitely long pulse, perfect excitation is possible. The optimal state is identified as the time-reversed counterpart of the two-photon state emitted in spontaneous cascade decay. We then compare this ideal excitation strategy with experimentally accessible families of states, including symmetrized Gaussian product states, temporally correlated Gaussian states, and coherent pulses. We analyze how the optimal excitation conditions depend on the ratio of atomic decay rates and on the separation of the atomic transition frequencies. For indistinguishable photons described by Gaussian pulses, quantum interference may shift the maxima of the marginal spectral distribution away from the atomic resonances and qualitatively modify the optimal excitation strategy. Our results clarify the role of indistinguishability and correlations in two-photon absorption and provide guidance for designing realistic excitation schemes in quantum-optical light-matter interfaces .

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates two-photon excitation of a three-level ladder-type atom by a unidirectional field containing a pair of indistinguishable photons. Starting from an analytical expression for the two-photon absorption probability derived from the system Hamiltonian, the authors determine the two-photon state that maximizes the population of the upper atomic state at a chosen time. They show that perfect excitation becomes possible in the limit of an infinitely long pulse and identify the optimal state as the time-reversed counterpart of the two-photon state emitted during spontaneous cascade decay. The work then compares this ideal strategy against experimentally accessible families of states (symmetrized Gaussian product states, temporally correlated Gaussian states, and coherent pulses), analyzing the dependence on the ratio of atomic decay rates and the separation of transition frequencies. Quantum interference effects for indistinguishable photons are shown to shift the maxima of the marginal spectral distribution away from the atomic resonances.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper provides a rigorous, analytically grounded framework for optimizing two-photon absorption processes in quantum optics. The exact identification of a time-reversed spontaneous-emission state that achieves unit excitation probability in the infinite-pulse limit, together with the closed-form absorption probability expression, constitutes a clear theoretical advance. The subsequent comparisons to realistic pulse shapes and the analysis of interference-induced shifts in optimal conditions supply concrete guidance for experimental light-matter interfaces. These elements strengthen the manuscript's potential impact in quantum information and atomic physics.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'starting from an analytical expression' would benefit from a parenthetical reference to the specific section or equation where this expression is derived from the unidirectional-field Hamiltonian.
  2. [Comparisons section] The notation for the two-photon wave function in the comparisons to Gaussian states could be made more explicit (e.g., by defining the symmetrization operator or the joint spectral amplitude in a dedicated equation) to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the conventions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the manuscript and for recommending acceptance. No major comments were raised, so we have no points requiring a point-by-point response or revisions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives an exact analytical expression for the two-photon absorption probability directly from the unidirectional-field Hamiltonian acting on the three-level ladder atom. It then performs a variational maximization of the upper-state population over all possible two-photon states, yielding the time-reversed cascade-emission wavefunction as the optimizer. This identification follows mathematically from the derived probability formula and the time-reversal symmetry of the underlying Schrödinger equation; it does not reduce to a fitted parameter, a self-citation loop, or an ansatz smuggled in from prior work. Subsequent comparisons with Gaussian, correlated, and coherent states are direct evaluations of the same closed-form expression. No load-bearing step collapses to its own input by construction, and the central result (perfect excitation in the infinite-pulse limit) is an independent consequence of the optimization rather than a renaming or redefinition of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an analytical two-photon absorption probability whose derivation is not shown in the abstract, plus standard assumptions of quantum optics (unidirectional field, Markovian decay, fixed atomic parameters). No free parameters are explicitly fitted in the abstract, but the decay-rate ratio and frequency separation are treated as variable inputs.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Unidirectional field interacting with a three-level ladder atom
    Stated in the opening sentence of the abstract as the physical setup.
  • domain assumption Existence of an analytical expression for the two-photon absorption probability
    The optimization begins from this expression; its validity is presupposed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5502 in / 1444 out tokens · 29169 ms · 2026-05-08T04:13:43.806771+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

41 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Göppert-Mayer, Annalen der Physik401, 273 (1931)

    M. Göppert-Mayer, Annalen der Physik401, 273 (1931)

    1931

  2. [2]

    Kaiser and C

    W. Kaiser and C. G. B. Garrett, Physical Review Letters 7, 229 (1961)

    1961

  3. [3]

    Gea-Banacloche, Physical Review Letters62, 1603 (1989)

    J. Gea-Banacloche, Physical Review Letters62, 1603 (1989)

    1989

  4. [4]

    Javanainen and P

    J. Javanainen and P. L. Gould, Physical Review A41, 5088 (1990)

    1990

  5. [5]

    Rumi and J

    M. Rumi and J. W. Perry, Advances in Optics and Pho- tonics2, 451 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    W. Denk, J. H. Strickler, and W. W. Webb, Science248, 73 (1990)

    1990

  7. [7]

    Oheim, E

    M. Oheim, E. Beaurepaire, E. Chaigneau, J. Mertz, and S. Charpak, Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews58, 788 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Dudovich, B

    N. Dudovich, B. Dayan, S. M. G. Faeder, and Y. Silber- berg, Physical Review Letters92, 103003 (2004)

    2004

  9. [9]

    Sergienko, and Y

    P.G.Kwiat, K.Mattle, H.Weinfurter, A.Zeilinger, A.V. Sergienko, and Y. Shih, Physical Review Letters75, 4337 (1995)

    1995

  10. [10]

    C. K. Law, I. A. Walmsley, and J. H. Eberly, Physical Review Letters84, 5304 (2000)

    2000

  11. [11]

    W. P. Grice, A. B. U’Ren, and I. A. Walmsley, Physical Review A64, 063815 (2001)

    2001

  12. [12]

    Kolenderski, W

    P. Kolenderski, W. Wasilewski, and K. Banaszek, Physi- cal Review A80, 013811 (2009)

    2009

  13. [13]

    Eckstein, B

    A. Eckstein, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn, Physical Re- view Letters106, 013603 (2011)

    2011

  14. [14]

    Gajewski and P

    A. Gajewski and P. Kolenderski, Physical Review A94, 013838 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    M. G. Raymer, T. Landes, and A. H. Marcus, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics155, 081501 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    E. G. Carnio, A. Buchleitner, and F. Schlawin, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics154, 214114 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    B.LiandH.F.Hofmann,PhysicalReviewA108,013706 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Schlawin, The Journal of Chemical Physics160, 144117 (2024)

    F. Schlawin, The Journal of Chemical Physics160, 144117 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Pollmann, F

    R. Pollmann, F. Roeder, V. Quiring, R. Ricken, C. Eigner, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn, Optics Express 32, 23945 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Serino, W

    L. Serino, W. Ridder, A. Bhattacharjee, J. Gil-Lopez, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn, Optica Quantum2, 339 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Panahiyan, C

    S. Panahiyan, C. S. Muñoz, M. V. Chekhova, and F.Schlawin,PhysicalReviewLetters130,203604(2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Dąbrowska and G

    A. Dąbrowska and G. Sarbicki, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical58, 245306 (2025). 15

    2025

  23. [23]

    Valipour, G

    M. Valipour, G. Sarbicki, K. Słowik, and A. Dąbrowska, Physical Review A111, 033709 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    E. G. Carnio, A. Buchleitner, and F. Schlawin, SciPost Physics Core4, 028 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

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

    1997

  26. [26]

    Loudon,The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd ed

    R. Loudon,The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd ed. (Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 2000)

    2000

  27. [27]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collet, Physical Review A31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  28. [28]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise (Springer- Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  29. [29]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Measurement and Control (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    2010

  30. [30]

    M. K. Gheri, K. Ellinger, T. Pellizzari, and P. Zoller, Fortschritte der Physik46, 401 (1998)

    1998

  31. [31]

    J. E. Gough, M. R. James, H. I. Nurdin, and J. Combes, Physical Review A86, 043819 (2012)

    2012

  32. [32]

    B. Q. Baragiola, R. L. Cook, A. M. Brańczyk, and J. Combes, Physical Review A86, 013811 (2012)

    2012

  33. [33]

    B. Q. Baragiola and J. Combes, Physical Review A96, 023819 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    Dąbrowska, G

    A. Dąbrowska, G. Sarbicki, and D. Chruściński, Physical Review A96, 053819 (2017)

    2017

  35. [35]

    Dąbrowska, G

    A. Dąbrowska, G. Sarbicki, and D. Chruściński, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 105303 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    io/masood-valipour/ETPA.html#peak-positions andhttps://masood-valipour.github.io/ masood-valipour/ETPA.html#optimum-peak(), ac- cessed online

    Interactive plots of peaks for optimal state and op- timized states,https://masood-valipour.github. io/masood-valipour/ETPA.html#peak-positions andhttps://masood-valipour.github.io/ masood-valipour/ETPA.html#optimum-peak(), ac- cessed online

  37. [37]

    Interactive plots of the time- and frequency- domain distributions for optimal state and opti- mized states,https://masood-valipour.github.io/ masood-valipour/ETPA.html#joint-probability(), accessed online

  38. [38]

    Y. Wang, J. Minář, L. Sheridan, and V. Scarani, Physical Review A83, 063842 (2011)

    2011

  39. [39]

    H. S. Rag and J. Gea-Banacloche, Physical Review A96, 033817 (2017)

    2017

  40. [40]

    Wasilewski, P

    W. Wasilewski, P. Wasylczyk, P. Kolenderski, K. Ba- naszek, and C. Radzewicz, Optics letters31, 1130 (2006)

    2006

  41. [41]

    Optimization of two-photon excitation by indistinguishable photons in a three-level atom

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer, Berlin, 1994). Appendix A: Properties ofP f (t) The formula for the two-photon state that maximizes the probabilityP f at a chosen timetin the general case, i.e., for an arbitrary timet0, was given in Ref. [23]. Here, we present the proof only for the case in whicht0 tends to infinity. Let us notice...

    1994