Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

A first-order pole calibration of the emitter's frequency and decay rate compensates spectral truncation, letting two-photon waveguide-QED simulations run at a quarter bandwidth with a 16x smaller Hilbert space while preserving scattering o

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 03:47 UTC pith:5ZDEVLXW

load-bearing objection Useful and honest calibration trick, but the two-photon evidence only exercises the linear single-photon kernel; the genuinely nonlinear two-photon sector is never benchmarked. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23036 v1 pith:5ZDEVLXW submitted 2026-07-25 quant-ph

Parameter Calibration for Reduced-Bandwidth Two-Photon Waveguide-QED Simulations

Romain Piron , Akihito Soeda This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords waveguide quantum electrodynamicstwo-photon scatteringbandwidth truncationparameter calibrationpole expansionHilbert space dimensionfrequency-domain simulationHong-Ou-Mandel coincidence
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 establishes that cutting the frequency window in a numerical simulation of two-photon scattering through a two-level emitter changes the effective emitter parameters, so the raw simulation converges to the wrong answer no matter how large (within practical ranges) the bandwidth is. The authors derive a calibration prescription — solve the atomic Green's-function pole equation truncated at first order — that recovers the analytic scattering prediction under a truncated spectrum. Applying it in their monochromatic two-photon benchmark reduces the required bandwidth by a factor of four, which shrinks the effective Hilbert space by a factor of sixteen while keeping the coincidence observable within a five-percent error. The paper also shows the same prescription helps for non-monochromatic Gaussian wave packets, though the genuine two-photon kernel is not fully renormalized. A reader would care because the bandwidth in any photon-scattering simulation is a main cost driver, and the calibration turns a hidden systematic error into an explicit, cheap fix.

Core claim

The central claim is that the finite bandwidth of a frequency-domain waveguide-QED simulation acts as a renormalization of the two-level emitter: with the spectral window truncated, the simulated scattering coincides not with the physical curve but with the same functional form evaluated at effective parameters (ω_eff, γ_eff). Building on the pole expansion of the discretized TLS kernel, the paper prescribes truncating that expansion at order K=1 and solving the resulting self-consistent equation (Algorithm 1) to set the simulator parameters (ω0, γ0). On a monochromatic two-photon benchmark, this restores agreement with the analytical coincidence probability: all tested central frequencies c

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pole expansion of the atomic Green's function in a finite frequency window (Eqs. 30-31): it links the numerical emitter parameters (ω0, γ0) to the physical ones (ωA, γA) via a self-consistent equation for the pole λ. Expanding in powers of λ and truncating at K=1 yields Algorithm 1's closed-form recalibration step — a frequency shift and decay-rate rescaling that depend only on the chosen window center and bandwidth. The K=1 truncation is the minimal order that works; higher orders overshoot because the expansion's validity requires the emitter frequency to be well separated from the cutoffs.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration's foundation is the pole expansion of the discretized emitter kernel, which is valid only when the emitter frequency is sufficiently far from the infrared and ultraviolet cutoffs; when that separation shrinks, the expansion becomes unreliable (as the paper itself shows for higher truncation orders).

What would settle it

Run the same coincidence benchmark with the emitter frequency placed close to the UV cutoff (so the pole expansion's convergence condition is violated), hold the K=1 calibration fixed, and check whether the simulated coincidence still falls within 5% of the analytical prediction; the paper's own Section V-B shows higher-order truncations already fail in this regime, so a systematic scan of the detuning-to-bandwidth ratio would locate where the K=1 prescription stops working.

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

If this is right

  • Simulations of two-photon scattering can run at a fraction of the bandwidth (in the demo, 4x smaller) with no loss of accuracy for the coincidence observable, translating directly into a smaller effective Hilbert space (16x in the demo).
  • The frequency window's center becomes an exploitable dial: centering the window on the relevant energies maximizes the bandwidth reduction, while badly centered windows still converge to the same physics but more expensively.
  • Existing time-domain simulators operate in the large-bandwidth limit where these parameter shifts vanish, explaining why they can avoid recalibration; the same reasoning predicts when time-domain results would benefit from explicit bandwidth control.
  • The calibration is partially transferable beyond monochromatic inputs: Gaussian wave packets with ten times larger frequency spread also become window-independent after recalibration, indicating the linear-response component of the two-photon dynamics is the dominant truncation artifact.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the pole expansion's domain of validity is as fragile as the K>1 deterioration suggests, then near resonance or with tight spectral windows the K=1 prescription may itself break down; a possible test is to scan the dimensionless separation (ω_A − Λ_UV)/γ_A and map where the 5% tolerance fails.
  • The same renormalization logic should apply to other few-photon observables and multi-emitter settings, since the truncation shifts the effective coupling of each emitter; in principle each emitter would need its own recalibration, with the complication that collective effects mix their kernels.
  • An immediate practical extension is to port the calibration to time-domain simulators: instead of shrinking the time step globally, one could choose a coarser step and correct the parameters, keeping the same accuracy at lower cost — the paper leaves this validation open.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a frequency-domain waveguide-QED simulation framework in which the spectral window is an explicit control parameter, and studies how hard truncation of this window affects two-photon scattering observables. Building on a pole-expansion calibration imported from the authors' companion preprint (Ref. [24]), the manuscript prescribes a K=1 truncation of a self-consistent equation for the effective TLS parameters and implements it as Algorithm 1. The central numerical claims are demonstrated with a monochromatic two-photon benchmark: without calibration the coincidence probability fails to converge as a function of bandwidth and depends strongly on the window center; after calibration all windows converge to a common plateau, and choosing a well-centered window yields a fourfold bandwidth reduction and a sixteenfold reduction in the two-excitation Hilbert-space dimension. Additional non-monochromatic tests with broader Gaussian wave packets show that calibrated results become largely independent of the numerical window, though no analytic two-photon reference is used there.

Significance. If the proposed calibration is valid beyond the linear-response benchmark, it gives a practical and clearly argued method for reducing the computational cost of frequency-domain waveguide-QED simulations, with a simple algorithm and a public code repository. The paper is honest about the scope of its validation and connects the finite-bandwidth viewpoint to time-domain discretizations. However, the quantitative evidence for the central two-photon claim is confined to the monochromatic limit, where the coincidence observable depends only on the single-photon reflection probability; the genuinely multiphoton kernel K^(2) identified in Appendix D is never benchmarked against an analytic nonlinear prediction. The import of Eqs. (30)-(31) from a self-cited preprint also means the theoretical core is not independently verifiable within the manuscript. These issues make the contribution useful but not yet fully established in its stated regime.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V-D1, Eq. (23), Figs. 5–7] The quantitative support for the central two-photon claim is confined to the monochromatic limit σω = 10^-2 γA, where Eq. (23) makes the coincidence C a function only of the single-photon reflection R. In this regime Figs. 5–7 validate the single-excitation kernel K^(1) of Appendix D, not the genuinely two-photon kernel K^(2) appearing in Eq. (42). The paper states this itself in §V-D1: the calibration “does not explicitly renormalize K^(2)”. The non-monochromatic checks (Figs. 8–9) only show window independence, not accuracy against an analytic two-photon reference. Since the abstract and conclusion claim reduced-bandwidth two-photon simulation, this is a sufficiency-of-evidence gap in the central claim. Please benchmark against an analytic two-photon prediction (e.g., Refs. [8] or [13]) or restrict the claim to the linear-response regime.
  2. [§V-A, Eqs. (30)–(31)] The pole expansion on which Algorithm 1 and all subsequent numerical results rest is imported from the authors' own Ref. [24] and is not re-derived or independently checked in this manuscript. Because the numerical benchmark cannot distinguish an error in this imported expansion from an error in the proposed calibration prescription, the paper needs at least a derivation sketch of Eqs. (30)–(31) for the discretized kernel used here, together with an explicit statement of the Markovianity condition and the range of Λ/ω0 where the expansion is controlled.
  3. [§V-B, Fig. 5] The choice K=1 is justified empirically by the observed deterioration at K>1 in a single configuration (ω_ref = 0π, Λ = 12π–15π), not by an a priori convergence criterion for the series in Eq. (30). Since the expansion is used precisely in regimes of moderate detuning between ω0 and the cutoffs, its convergence is fragile. Please provide a quantitative criterion for truncation order (e.g., smallness of the next term α_{K+1}λ^{K+1} relative to α_1λ) or a parameter study over ω_ref and Λ showing that K=1 remains the right order across the claimed operating range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II-B, Eq. (5)] The notation “ω ≈ ω_ref” is informal. Since the subsequent discretization uses a finite interval [Λ_IR, Λ_UV], the approximation should be stated in terms of the retained window and the validity of the linear dispersion within it.
  2. [Appendix B] The main text defines allowed frequencies as ω_n = 2π n/L (Eq. (11)), which suggests positive frequencies only, while Appendix B says negative frequencies are included. Please clarify how negative n are handled in the mode count N_modes and in the normalization of the initial state.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The expression for γ_A^(1) in line 3 is given without derivation. A short derivation from α0 and α1 in Eq. (31) would make the algorithm reproducible and easier to check.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption reads “Relative error on C(ωA,γA)” but does not state the reference is the analytic value from Eq. (23), nor that all points are at ω_q = 9π. Please make this explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the calibration is openly inherited from the authors' prior work, is not fitted to the benchmark, and the acknowledged linear-response limitation is an evidence gap, not a circular construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The calibration parameters are obtained by solving the pole equation (30)-(31), imported from the authors' prior Ref. [24], using only physical parameters and the chosen window cutoffs; they are not least-squares fitted to the coincidence data (the fit in §IV-C is explicitly illustrative). The validation target Cth is an independent analytical result [5], and the corrected simulator is shown to match it across windows (Figs. 6-7). Although the monochromatic benchmark reduces C to a function of the single-photon reflection R (Eq. 23), and although §V-D1 concedes that the calibration 'does not explicitly renormalize K^(2)', that is an acknowledged limitation on the scope of the evidence, not a construction in which the predicted quantity is defined by the fitted parameters. The self-citation to [24] is load-bearing but openly stated, and the paper's own numerical tests provide an external check of the formula in the regime tested. No step in the derivation is equivalent to its input by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calibration itself introduces no fitted parameters; the only hand-chosen element is the truncation order K=1, selected to match observed accuracy. The most consequential upstream inputs are the self-cited pole expansion and the external monochromatic benchmark.

free parameters (1)
  • Truncation order K = 1
    K=1 is prescribed because K=0 leaves large errors (Fig. 5) and K>1 deteriorates due to non-Markovian corrections; no a priori criterion is derived for the optimal K within the stated assumptions.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation: counter-rotating terms are dropped (Eq. 2)
    Invoked in §II.A; standard in waveguide QED but unproved here.
  • domain assumption Linear dispersion ω_k = |k| ≈ k in the simulation window
    §II.B, Eq. (4); requires the relevant modes to be close to ±k_ref; truncation windows in the benchmark are at large frequencies (8.5π-10π), so the approximation is plausible but not validated.
  • standard math Discretization with periodic boundary conditions yields allowed frequencies ω_n = 2πn/L
    §III.A, Eq. (11), standard Fourier discretization on a finite length L.
  • domain assumption The TLS kernel admits a local (Markovian) expansion and the pole equation (30)-(31) from Ref [24] is correct
    §V.A; load-bearing for Algorithm 1; the self-cited Ref [24] is not re-derived or independently verified.
  • domain assumption The monochromatic analytical coincidence formula (23)-(24) from Ref [5] is applicable to the simulated Gaussian wavepackets within the 5% tolerance
    §III.D and Appendix A; the benchmark assumes σ_ω ≪ γ_A, which is only approximately met (σ_ω = 0.05π vs γ_A = 5π).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15840 in / 16263 out tokens · 162300 ms · 2026-08-01T03:47:40.008658+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Waveguide-QED platforms represent one potential approach to scalable quantum technologies, but their simulation remains computationally demanding due to the large number of frequency modes required to describe traveling photons. In practice, increasing the simulated bandwidth rapidly raises the numerical cost, leading to a trade-off between accuracy and tractability. The existing approaches formulated in time-domain indirectly control this trade-off through the choice of time step, which obscures the connection between discretization parameters and the represented spectral window. In this work, we introduce an end-to-end framework to explicitly control the effective bandwidth in waveguide-QED simulations of two-photon scattering. We show that truncating the frequency domain requires consistent shifts of the model parameters, and derive a systematic calibration procedure that preserves the physical accuracy of the reduced model. This enables tuning the central frequency and the bandwidth of the numerical spectrum, leading to a several-fold reduction in the Hilbert space dimension while maintaining physical accuracy. We discuss the limitations of this calibration and relate the finite-bandwidth viewpoint to time-domain discretizations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23036 by Akihito Soeda, Romain Piron.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the waveguide-QED system considered in this work. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Linearization and truncation of the dispersion relation around the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Coincidence against the simulation bandwidth for different incoming photon frequencies. The frequency windows are centered at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Coincidence (orange points) against incoming photon frequency for windows centered at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative error on the coincidence at ωq = 9π for different parameter sets (ω0, γ0). Each curve corresponds to a different frequency window. B. Minimal truncation order for two-photon simulations We consider a representative photon frequency ωq = 9π, together with the worst-case configuration identified in the previous benchmark, ωref = 0π. To probe whether the previ￾ously considered bandwidths already allo… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Convergence of the coincidence restored after calibration, as a function of the simulation bandwidth for different incoming photon frequencies. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Consistency restored between simulated data (orange markers) and the theoretical coincidence as a function of the incoming photon frequency. Results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Convergence of the coincidence probability for non-monochromatic photons as a function of the simulation bandwidth. Dashed lines show uncalibrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relative shifts of ω (1) A and γ (1) A with respect to ωA and γA as functions of the bandwidth, for different central frequencies. The left panel shows frequency shifts, while the right panel shows decay-rate shifts. of freedom, and therefore the numerical cost. Furthermore, the minimal bandwidth required to suppress these corrections increases with the detuning between ωref and ωA, suggesting that the im… view at source ↗

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

29 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Strongly interacting photons in one-dimensional continuum,

    D. Roy, C. M. Wilson, and O. Firstenberg, “Strongly interacting photons in one-dimensional continuum,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 89, no. 2, p. 021001, May 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    Waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Collective radiance and photon-photon correlations,

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V . Iorsh, A. V . Poshakinskiy, and A. N. Poddubny, “Waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Collective radiance and photon-photon correlations,” Oct. 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Light–matter interactions in quantum nanophotonic devices,

    A. Gonz ´alez-Tudela, A. Reiserer, J. J. Garc ´ıa-Ripoll, and F. J. Garc ´ıa- Vidal, “Light–matter interactions in quantum nanophotonic devices,” Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 166–179, Mar. 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics,

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, “A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics,”Nature, vol. 409, no. 6816, pp. 46–52, Jan. 2001

    2001

  5. [5]

    Two photons on an atomic beam- splitter: Nonlinear scattering and induced correlations,

    A. Roulet, H. N. Le, and V . Scarani, “Two photons on an atomic beam- splitter: Nonlinear scattering and induced correlations,”Physical Review A, vol. 93, no. 3, p. 033838, Mar. 2016

    2016

  6. [6]

    Scalable Networking of Neutral-Atom Qubits: Nanofiber-Based Approach for Multiprocessor Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers,

    S. Sunami, S. Tamiya, R. Inoue, H. Yamasaki, and A. Goban, “Scalable Networking of Neutral-Atom Qubits: Nanofiber-Based Approach for Multiprocessor Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers,”PRX Quantum, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 010101, Feb. 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Coherent Single Photon Transport in a One- Dimensional Waveguide Coupled with Superconducting Quantum Bits,

    J.-T. Shen and S. Fan, “Coherent Single Photon Transport in a One- Dimensional Waveguide Coupled with Superconducting Quantum Bits,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 95, no. 21, p. 213001, Nov. 2005

    2005

  8. [8]

    Strongly Correlated Two-Photon Transport in One-Dimensional Waveguide Coupled to A Two-Level System,

    ——, “Strongly Correlated Two-Photon Transport in One-Dimensional Waveguide Coupled to A Two-Level System,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 98, no. 15, p. 153003, Apr. 2007

    2007

  9. [9]

    Strongly-correlated multi-particle transport in one-dimension through a quantum impurity: An outline of exact and complete solu- tions,

    ——, “Strongly-correlated multi-particle transport in one-dimension through a quantum impurity: An outline of exact and complete solu- tions,”Physical Review A, vol. 76, no. 6, p. 062709, Dec. 2007

    2007

  10. [10]

    Multi-photon Scattering Theory and Generalized Master Equations,

    T. Shi, D. E. Chang, and J. I. Cirac, “Multi-photon Scattering Theory and Generalized Master Equations,”Physical Review A, vol. 92, no. 5, p. 053834, Nov. 2015

    2015

  11. [11]

    Single- photon scattering on a qubit. Space-time structure of the scattered field,

    Y . S. Greenberg, A. G. Moiseev, and A. A. Shtygashev, “Single- photon scattering on a qubit. Space-time structure of the scattered field,” Physical Review A, vol. 107, no. 1, p. 013519, Jan. 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Scattering of massless particles in one- dimensional chiral channel,

    M. Pletyukhov and V . Gritsev, “Scattering of massless particles in one- dimensional chiral channel,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 095028, Sep. 2012

    2012

  13. [13]

    Green’s Function Formalism for Waveguide QED Applications,

    M. P. Schneider, T. Sproll, C. Stawiarski, P. Schmitteckert, and K. Busch, “Green’s Function Formalism for Waveguide QED Applications,”Phys- ical Review A, vol. 93, no. 1, p. 013828, Jan. 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    5 Year Update to the Next Steps in Quantum Computing,

    K. Brown, F. Chong, K. N. Smith, T. Conte, A. Adams, A. Dalvi, C. Kang, and J. Viszlai, “5 Year Update to the Next Steps in Quantum Computing,” Jan. 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    WaveguideQED.jl: An Efficient Framework for Simulating Non- Markovian Waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics,

    M. Bundgaard-Nielsen, D. Englund, M. Heuck, and S. Krastanov, “WaveguideQED.jl: An Efficient Framework for Simulating Non- Markovian Waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics,”Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1710, Apr. 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Arranz Regidor, G

    S. Arranz Regidor, G. Crowder, H. Carmichael, and S. Hughes, “Mod- eling quantum light-matter interactions in waveguide QED with retarda- tion, nonlinear interactions, and a time-delayed feedback: Matrix product states versus a space-discretized waveguide model,”Physical Review Research, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 023030, Apr. 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    QwaveMPS: An efficient open-source Python package for simulating non-Markovian waveguide- QED using matrix product states,

    S. A. Regidor, M. Kozma, and S. Hughes, “QwaveMPS: An efficient open-source Python package for simulating non-Markovian waveguide- QED using matrix product states,” Feb. 2026

    2026

  18. [18]

    Tensor Network Approach to Sensing Quantum Light-Matter Interactions,

    A. Khan, F. Albarelli, and A. Datta, “Tensor Network Approach to Sensing Quantum Light-Matter Interactions,”PRX Quantum, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 040343, Nov. 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Input-Output Formalism For Few-Photon Transport in One-Dimensional Nanophotonic Waveguides Coupled to a Qubit,

    S. Fan, S ¸. E. Kocabas ¸, and J.-T. Shen, “Input-Output Formalism For Few-Photon Transport in One-Dimensional Nanophotonic Waveguides Coupled to a Qubit,”Physical Review A, vol. 82, no. 6, p. 063821, Dec. 2010

    2010

  20. [20]

    Input-Output Theory with Quantum Pulses,

    A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, “Input-Output Theory with Quantum Pulses,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 123, no. 12, p. 123604, Sep. 2019

    2019

  21. [21]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997

    1997

  22. [22]

    Quantum simulations of optical systems,

    M. Havukainen, G. Drobny, S. Stenholm, and V . Buzek, “Quantum simulations of optical systems,”Journal of Modern Optics, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1343–1367, Jul. 1999

    1999

  23. [23]

    Fast simulation for multi-photon, atomic-ensemble quantum model of linear optical systems addressing the curse of dimensionality,

    J. Oba, S. Kajita, and A. Soeda, “Fast simulation for multi-photon, atomic-ensemble quantum model of linear optical systems addressing the curse of dimensionality,”Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 3208, Feb. 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    Renormalization Treatment of IR and UV Cutoffs in Waveguide QED and Implications to Numerical Model Simulation,

    R. Piron and A. Soeda, “Renormalization Treatment of IR and UV Cutoffs in Waveguide QED and Implications to Numerical Model Simulation,” Jan. 2026

    2026

  25. [25]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V . Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Reading, USA: Addison-Wesley, 1995

    1995

  26. [26]

    Electromagnetically induced transparency in many-emitter waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Linear versus nonlinear waveguide dispersions,

    T. Berndsen and I. M. Mirza, “Electromagnetically induced transparency in many-emitter waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Linear versus nonlinear waveguide dispersions,”Physical Review A, vol. 108, no. 6, p. 063702, Dec. 2023

    2023

  27. [27]

    Engineering photonic dispersion relation and atomic dynamics in waveguide QED setup via long-range hoppings,

    W. Cheng, D.-W. Wang, Y . Xue, Z. Wang, and L. Xiao, “Engineering photonic dispersion relation and atomic dynamics in waveguide QED setup via long-range hoppings,” Dec. 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Communication in the Presence of Noise,

    C. Shannon, “Communication in the Presence of Noise,”Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 10–21, Jan. 1949

    1949

  29. [29]

    Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference,

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y . Ou, and L. Mandel, “Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 59, no. 18, pp. 2044–2046, Nov. 1987. APPENDIXA ON THE NUMERICAL COST OF THE MONOCHROMATIC LIMIT The regimeσ ω ≪γ A provides an analytically controlled benchmark (linear response of the TLS) for assessing th...

    2044