Polaritonic Coupled-Cluster Theory

Angel Rubio; Callum Bungey; Frederick R. Manby; Heiko Appel; Peter J. Knowles; Uliana Mordovina

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Polaritonic Coupled-Cluster Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Coupled-cluster theory now covers electrons strongly coupled to cavity photons, reproducing exact spectra for a model molecule.

desk verdict Genuinely new CC extension to electrons plus cavity photons; ground-state evidence is strong, but the multi-photon spectral claim rests on a photon-basis cutoff checked at one frequency only. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02401 v2 pith:YJWCAB4R submitted 2019-09-05 physics.chem-ph quant-ph

Uliana Mordovina , Callum Bungey , Heiko Appel , Peter J. Knowles , Angel Rubio , Frederick R. Manby This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.chem-phquant-ph PACS 31.15.bw42.50.Pq

keywords polaritonicchemistrycoupled-clustertheorycavityquantumelectrodynamicsRabisplittingmulti-photonprocessesHubbardmodelelectron-photoncouplingequation-of-motioncoupledcluster

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper extends coupled-cluster theory, the standard high-accuracy method of quantum chemistry, to systems where electrons are strongly coupled to photons in an optical cavity. The authors construct a cluster operator that includes electronic, photonic, and coupled electron-photon excitations, and they show on a four-site Hubbard chain that the resulting approximations reproduce full configuration interaction ground-state energies, photon occupations, and absorption spectra, including Rabi splittings and multi-photon features. The method is size-extensive and scales polynomially, roughly like conventional CCSD, which makes it a candidate tool for ab initio polaritonic chemistry.

What carries the argument

The enabling device is the mapping of the photon Fock space to a lattice of $n_{\text{max}}+1$ number states, with excitation operators $\hat{\tau}_n = |n\rangle\langle 0|$. These operators are commutative and nilpotent, so the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff expansion of $\bar{H} = e^{-\hat{T}}\hat{H}e^{\hat{T}}$ terminates, giving polynomial scaling. Because the photon creation and annihilation operators become quadratic expressions in these $\hat{\tau}_n$, the light-matter interaction appears as a four-point term analogous to the electron-electron interaction, so the polaritonic CC-SD-S-DT equations are essentially a subset of the conventional CCSDT equations with different integrals.

What would settle it

Run CC-SD-S-DT and full configuration interaction for the same four-site Hubbard model at a cavity frequency not used in the cutoff test, such as near the second electronic resonance, with a larger photon number cutoff $n_{\text{max}}$, and check whether the spectra and photon occupations agree; a mismatch would show the cutoff is not transferable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a coupled-cluster wavefunction ansatz built from electronic excitations plus photonic excitations of the form $\hat{\tau}_n = |n\rangle\langle 0|$ captures the essential physics of strongly coupled electron-photon systems. In the benchmark of a half-filled four-site Hubbard chain coupled to one cavity mode, the CC-SD-S-DT approximation matches full configuration interaction for ground-state energy, photon mode occupation, and the absorption cross-section across weak, strong, and ultra-strong coupling regimes, reproducing avoided crossings, Rabi splittings, dark states, and up to three-photon processes.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a photon cutoff picked at one cavity frequency works everywhere else in the spectrum; if higher photon numbers matter at other frequencies, the results would miss them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Coupled-cluster methods can now be used to model strong and ultra-strong light-matter coupling in molecular systems, capturing features that perturbative treatments miss.
The method provides access to photonic observables such as mode occupation, which are zero in the mean-field-like CC-SD-S-0 approximation but accurately captured once coupled excitations are included.
The theory scales roughly as $O(N^6 n_{\text{max}})$, comparable to conventional CCSD, so it is a practical route to ab initio polaritonic chemistry.
The formalism extends to other bosonic degrees of freedom, including phonons, polarization modes, thermal reservoirs, and multiple cavity modes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The fixed photon cutoff $n_{\text{max}}$ is the main transferability question: the paper validates it at one cavity frequency, so applying the method at other frequencies or couplings should be preceded by a check of photon-number convergence.
If the analogy to a single additional fermion is exact, existing coupled-cluster machinery for open-shell or multi-reference systems might be ported directly, potentially accelerating implementation in quantum-chemistry codes.
The same $\hat{\tau}_n$ construction could be used to couple electrons to other bosonic baths, such as phonons, providing a unified ab initio description of polaritonic and vibronic effects.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuinely new piece of work and it deserves a serious referee. The authors extend coupled-cluster theory to electrons in cavities by representing the photon mode as a lattice of number states and using nilpotent photonic excitation operators. That is a clean idea, and it makes the formalism look like conventional electronic CC with an extra channel. The ground-state benchmarks on a four-site Hubbard chain are the strongest part: CC-SD-S-DT matches FCI to about 1e-5 in energy and photon occupation across weak, strong, and ultra-strong coupling. That is real evidence, not a fit.

The absorption spectra from EOM-CC are also impressive in a qualitative way. The systematic improvement as the cluster operator is extended is visible, and the method captures the Rabi splittings and the dispersive photon branches that appear in the FCI reference. The paper is honest that this is a proof of principle and that the polynomial-scaling implementation is not yet delivered; the O(N^6 nmax) claim is plausible from the operator structure but remains a promise.

The main soft spot is the photon-number truncation. Appendix A checks convergence of the FCI spectra at omega_c = 1.028 and then fixes nmax for all frequencies in Figs. 3, 4, and 6. The stress-test note is correct: multiphoton features appear when k omega_c crosses an electronic transition, so the required photon cutoff should vary with omega_c. At lower frequencies, higher photon sectors fall inside the plotted window; a fixed nmax could miss them, and the FCI reference itself could be missing those branches. Since both CC and FCI use the same truncated basis, the visual agreement in the figures does not fully back the claim that all multi-photon processes are captured. This is not a fatal flaw in the method, but it is a gap in the evidence. A convergence check at a second frequency, or a quantitative spectrum difference versus nmax, would close it.

The near-degeneracy correction uses two stated parameters, which is fine. The citation pattern looks right, with vibrational CC and QEDFT properly credited.

I would bring this to a reading group and would cite it if I worked in polaritonic chemistry or method development. The paper deserves peer review; the referee should ask for the truncation convergence across the frequency range, but that is a normal revision, not a rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a coupled-cluster (CC) framework for electron-photon systems, introducing photonic excitation operators tau_n = |n><0| that are nilpotent and commutative, plus mixed electron-photon excitations, and applies it to a four-site Hubbard chain coupled to a single cavity mode in the dipole approximation. Ground-state energies and photon mode occupations are compared with full configuration interaction (FCI) for weak, strong, and ultra-strong coupling (Table I), and absorption spectra are obtained via equation-of-motion CC (EOM-CC) and compared visually with FCI spectra as functions of cavity frequency (Figs. 3, 4, and 6). The authors report excellent agreement for ground-state properties and claim that the method captures all key spectral features, including Rabi splittings and multi-photon processes, with polynomial scaling.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a useful step toward ab initio polaritonic chemistry: the formalism is clear, the bosonic excitation operators are a neat construction that preserves the CC structure, and the ground-state benchmarks in Table I are quantitatively strong (energies and occupations agree with FCI to about 1e-5 at all three coupling strengths). The method is parameter-free in the sense that no parameter is fitted to the FCI reference; the only free numerical parameters are the photon cutoff, the near-degeneracy correction parameters, and the spectral broadening. However, the central excited-state claim currently rests on visual comparison with a truncated FCI reference, and the photon cutoff convergence is demonstrated only at one cavity frequency. These gaps weaken the evidence for the multi-photon part of the central claim.

major comments (3)

[Appendix A; Figs. 3 and 4] The photon-number cutoff nmax_ph is converged only at the single cavity frequency omega_c = 1.028 (Appendix A), and the statement 'These values of nmax_ph were used for all results presented in this paper' then fixes nmax_ph = 1, 4, 7 for all omega_c in Figs. 3, 4, and 6. This is load-bearing for the central claim about multi-photon processes, because the number of photon quanta that can participate in transitions up to a given energy window grows roughly as E/omega_c. At smaller omega_c, higher photon sectors may enter the plotted window, and both the FCI reference and the CC calculation are truncated in the same basis, so visual agreement in Figs. 3 and 4 could validate CC against a model that is itself missing multi-photon features. Please provide convergence data for the spectra as a function of nmax_ph across the full omega_c range of the figures (or argue rigorously why the resonant test at omega_c = 1.028 is the worst case), and report a quantitative convergence metric rather than visual inspection of Fig. 5 alone.
[Figs. 3 and 4; Eq. (13)] The excited-state part of the central claim (Rabi splittings and multi-photon processes) is supported only by visual comparison with FCI spectra. No quantitative error metric is reported for the spectra, in contrast with Table I for ground-state properties. Please add a numerical measure of the difference between CC-SD-S-DT and FCI spectra as a function of omega_c, such as an integrated absolute difference or a comparison of peak positions and oscillator strengths for the main polaritonic branches. Without this, it is difficult to judge the accuracy of the spectral claim, especially in the ultra-strong-coupling case where the spectrum is described as 'much more complicated'.
[Appendix C] The near-degeneracy correction uses parameters Sigma_max = 0.2 and a threshold Lambda < 0.05, with the text noting that 'these parameters can be adapted if needed.' Since this correction is applied to the eigenstates that produce the spectra in Figs. 3 and 4, the results may depend on these choices, and no sensitivity analysis is reported. Please show that the key spectral features (e.g., the induced transparencies and the high-energy multi-photon structure in Fig. 4) are insensitive to Sigma_max and the Lambda threshold, or at least indicate how the reported results change over a reasonable parameter range.

minor comments (5)

[Main text, p. 4] The body text states 'the case of strong light-matter coupling of gamma = 0.05', while Fig. 3 and Table I use gamma = 0.07. Please correct this inconsistency.
[Table I] The weak-coupling column header reads '⟨n_p⟩' while the other columns use '⟨a†a⟩'. Please make the notation uniform.
[Appendix C, Eq. (C6)] The phase rotation is written as '|Ψ2⟩ → e^{iθ}', which is incomplete; it should be a multiplication of the state by e^{iθ} (i.e., |Ψ2⟩ → e^{iθ}|Ψ2⟩).
[Appendix A, Fig. 5] The axis label in Fig. 5 appears to be truncated or mis-rendered ('log c = = 1.028'); please replace it with a clear label such as 'log_{10}(σ(ω))' and indicate the parameter values unambiguously.
[Abstract and p. 5] The abstract and the closing paragraph claim polynomial scaling (O(N^6·nmax)), but all calculations in the paper are performed within an exact-diagonalization framework rather than with a polynomial-scaling implementation. Please clarify that the scaling is a formal estimate based on the operator structure, and specify what would be required to realize it in practice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CC amplitudes are solved projectively and spectra come from EOM-CC response, with FCI serving as an independent exact benchmark in the same truncated basis.

full rationale

The polaritonic coupled-cluster energy and amplitudes are obtained by solving the projected similarity-transformed Schrödinger equations, Eq. (4), with no parameters adjusted to the FCI benchmark. The absorption spectra are computed from EOM-CC eigenstates of the similarity-transformed Hamiltonian, Eq. (13), not by fitting the FCI spectrum. The photonic excitation operators (tau_n = |n><0|) and the CC-SD-S-0/D/DT hierarchy define an approximation whose convergence is tested against FCI; the agreement in Table I and Figs. 3-4 is therefore an independent check of the CC approximation, not a restatement of its inputs. The choice of n_max is a basis-truncation convergence parameter; Appendix A fixes it at one cavity frequency, which is a numerical robustness concern when sweeping omega_c but not a circular step, since both FCI and CC are solved in the same well-defined truncated Fock space and the CC results are not fitted to FCI. Self-citations to QEDFT and related work are contextual; the load-bearing derivation of the CC equations does not rest on those citations. The near-degeneracy correction parameters are numerical stabilization choices. Hence no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation loading pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central machinery rests on standard coupled-cluster algebra and the Pauli-Fierz Hamiltonian. The only hand-chosen inputs are numerical truncation and stabilization parameters (nmax, broadening, correction settings). No physical constants are fitted, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Photonic Fock cutoff nmax_ph = 1 (weak), 4 (strong), 7 (ultra-strong)
Chosen from FCI convergence tests in Appendix A at a single resonant cavity frequency (omega_c = 1.028) and then used for all spectra and coupling regimes. Higher photon sectors are not tested across the full frequency range.
Near-degeneracy correction parameters (Sigma_max, threshold) = Sigma_max = 0.2; applied when Lambda < 0.05 or Lambda imaginary
Introduced in Appendix C to stabilize EOM-CC eigenvalues for close-lying states. The values are chosen by hand and modify excitation energies at avoided crossings.
Broadening parameter eta = 0.005
Line broadening in the absorption cross-section plots. It shapes the visual comparison to FCI but does not affect the computed eigenstates or energies.

assumptions (5)

standard math Coupled-cluster exponential ansatz and projective amplitude equations yield the ground state.
Standard CC theory from Refs. 46-48 is assumed as the foundation; the paper extends it to photonic degrees of freedom.
standard math The photonic operators tau_n = |n><0| on the truncated Fock space are commutative and nilpotent, so the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff expansion truncates.
This is a mathematical property of the chosen operators, stated near Eq. (5) and Figure 1, and it is essential for polynomial scaling.
domain assumption The dipole-gauge Pauli-Fierz Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), with fixed nuclei and dipole self-energy, describes molecules strongly coupled to a cavity.
The method inherits this Hamiltonian. If the dipole approximation or gauge choice is inadequate for a system, the CC results inherit that limitation. Refs. 52-54 are cited.
domain assumption The four-site Hubbard chain is a representative model for benchmarking electron-photon correlation.
The entire numerical demonstration uses this model (Eq. 8 and Figure 2). Transferability to realistic ab initio Hamiltonians is asserted, not demonstrated.
domain assumption The non-Hermitian near-degeneracy correction based on the method of Koehn and Tajti preserves the physical spectrum.
Appendix C applies the correction with chosen parameters. It is a heuristic stabilization step, and the paper does not prove that the corrected eigenvalues remain exact in the limit.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polaritonic Coupled-Cluster Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YJWCAB4R

@misc{pith2026190902401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polaritonic Coupled-Cluster Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YJWCAB4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02401}
}

read the original abstract

We develop coupled-cluster theory for systems of electrons strongly coupled to photons, providing a promising theoretical tool in polaritonic chemistry with a perspective of application to all types of fermion-boson coupled systems. We show benchmark results for model molecular Hamiltonians coupled to cavity photons. By comparing to full configuration interaction results for various ground-state properties and optical spectra, we demonstrate that our method captures all key features present in the exact reference, including Rabi splittings and multi-photon processes. Further, a path on how to incorporate our bosonic extension of coupled-cluster theory into existing quantum chemistry programs is given.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02401 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Two types of excitation operators for a bosonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Ground-state absorption cross section σ(ω) of the half-filled four-site Hubbard chain in a cavity as a function of cavity frequency ωc in the strong-coupling regime γ = 0.07 for different levels of CC theory compared with FCI results (right-hand side) and zero-coupling limit (FCI-0, left-hand side). Parameters: t0 = 0.5, U = 1.0, d = [−1.5, −0.5, 0.5, 1.5], nmax = 4, η = 0.005. by applying a linear excitation operat… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Ground-state absorption cross section σ(ω) of the half-filled four-site Hubbard chain in a cavity as a function of cavity frequency ωc in the ultra-strong-coupling regime γ = 0.2 for different levels of CC theory compared with FCI results (right-hand side) and zero-cou…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Convergence of the optical spectra with the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Ground-state absorption cross section σ(ω) of the half-filled four-site Hubbard chain in a cavity as a function of cavity frequency ωc in the weak-coupling regime γ = 0.01 for different levels of CC theory compared with FCI results (righthand side) and zero-coupling l…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

[1]

Kéna-Cohen and S

S. Kéna-Cohen and S. Forrest, Room-temperature polari- ton lasing in an organic single-crystal microcavity, Nat. Photonics 4, 371 (2010). 8

work page 2010
[2]

J. A. Hutchison, T. Schwartz, C. Genet, E. Devaux, and T. W. Ebbesen, Modifying chemical landscapes by cou- pling to vacuum ﬁelds, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.51, 1592 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

D. M. Coles, Y. Yang, Y. Wang, R. T. Grant, R. A. Taylor, S. K. Saikin, A. Aspuru-Guzik, D. G. Lidzey, J. K.-H. Tang, and J. M. Smith, Strong coupling between chlorosomes of photosynthetic bacteria and a conﬁned optical cavity mode, Nat. Commun.5, 5561 (2014)

work page 2014
[4]

Orgiu, J

E. Orgiu, J. George, J. Hutchison, E. Devaux, J. Dayen, B. Doudin, F. Stellacci, C. Genet, J. Schachenmayer, C. Genes,et al., Conductivity in organic semiconductors hybridized with the vacuum ﬁeld, Nat. Mater.14, 1123 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

Chikkaraddy, B

R. Chikkaraddy, B. De Nijs, F. Benz, S. J. Barrow, O. A. Scherman, E. Rosta, A. Demetriadou, P. Fox, O. Hess, and J. J. Baumberg, Single-molecule strong coupling at room temperature in plasmonic nanocavities, Nature 535, 127 (2016)

2016
[6]

T.W.Ebbesen,Hybridlight–matterstatesinamolecular and material science perspective, Acc. Chem. Res.49, 2403 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

Sukharev and A

M. Sukharev and A. Nitzan, Optics of exciton-plasmon nanomaterials, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 443003 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

Zhong, T

X. Zhong, T. Chervy, L. Zhang, A. Thomas, J. George, C. Genet, J. A. Hutchison, and T. W. Ebbesen, Energy transfer between spatially separated entangled molecules, Angew. Chemie Int. Ed56, 9034 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 66 references

[9]

Chevrier, J

K. Chevrier, J. M. Benoit, C. Symonds, S. K. Saikin, J. Yuen-Zhou, and J. Bellessa, Anisotropy and con- trollable band structure in suprawavelength polaritonic metasurfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 173902 (2019)

2019
[10]

Thomas, J

A. Thomas, J. George, A. Shalabney, M. Dryzhakov, S. J. Varma, J. Moran, T. Chervy, X. Zhong, E. Devaux, C. Genet,et al., Ground-state chemical reactivity under vibrational coupling to the vacuum electromagnetic ﬁeld, Angew. Chemie Int. Ed55, 11462 (2016)

2016
[11]

Lather, P

J. Lather, P. Bhatt, A. Thomas, T. W. Ebbesen, and J. George, Cavity catalysis by cooperative vibra- tional strong coupling of reactant and solvent molecules, Angew. Chemie Int. Ed (2019)

2019
[12]

V. N. Peters, M. O. Faruk, J. Asane, R. Alexander, A. P. D’angelo, S. Prayakarao, S. Rout, and M. Noginov, Eﬀect of strong coupling on photodegradation of the semicon- ducting polymer p3ht, Optica6, 318 (2019)

2019
[13]

Munkhbat, M

B. Munkhbat, M. Wersäll, D. G. Baranov, T. J. An- tosiewicz, and T. Shegai, Suppression of photo-oxidation of organic chromophores by strong coupling to plasmonic nanoantennas, Sci. Adv.4, eaas9552 (2018)

2018
[14]

Barachati, J

F. Barachati, J. Simon, Y. A. Getmanenko, S. Bar- low, S. R. Marder, and S. Kéna-Cohen, Tunable third- harmonic generation from polaritons in the ultrastrong coupling regime, ACS Photonics5, 119 (2018)

2018
[15]

Lerario, A

G. Lerario, A. Fieramosca, F. Barachati, D. Ballarini, K. S. Daskalakis, L. Dominici, M. De Giorgi, S. A. Maier, G. Gigli, S. Kéna-Cohen, and D. Sanvitto, Room- temperature superﬂuidity in a polariton condensate, Na- ture Physics13, 837 EP (2017)

2017
[16]

Stranius, M

K. Stranius, M. Hertzog, and K. Börjesson, Selective ma- nipulation of electronically excited states through strong light–matter interactions, Nat. Commun.9, 2273 (2018)

2018
[17]

Ruggenthaler, N

M. Ruggenthaler, N. Tancogne-Dejean, J. Flick, H. Ap- pel, and A. Rubio, From a quantum-electrodynamical light–matter description to novel spectroscopies, Nat. Rev. Chem.2, 0118 (2018)

2018
[18]

A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter, Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 19 (2019)

2019
[19]

Flick, N

J. Flick, N. Rivera, and P. Narang, Strong light-matter coupling in quantum chemistry and quantum photonics, Nanophotonics 7, 1479 (2018)

2018
[20]

R. F. Ribeiro, L. A. Martínez-Martínez, M. Du, J. Campos-Gonzalez-Angulo, and J. Yuen-Zhou, Polari- ton chemistry: controlling molecular dynamics with op- tical cavities, Chem. Sci.9, 6325 (2018)

2018
[21]

Feist and F

J. Feist and F. J. Garcia-Vidal, Extraordinary exciton conductanceinducedbystrongcoupling,Phys.Rev.Lett. 114, 196402 (2015)

2015
[22]

Schachenmayer, C

J. Schachenmayer, C. Genes, E. Tignone, and G. Pupillo, Cavity-enhanced transport of excitons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 196403 (2015)

2015
[23]

Herrera and F

F. Herrera and F. C. Spano, Cavity-controlled chemistry in molecular ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 238301 (2016); Dark vibronic polaritons and the spectroscopy of organic microcavities, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 223601 (2017)

2016
[24]

M. A. Zeb, P. G. Kirton, and J. Keeling, Exact states and spectra of vibrationally dressed polaritons, ACS Photon- ics 5, 249 (2017)

2017
[25]

Reitz, C

M. Reitz, C. Sommer, and C. Genes, Langevin approach to quantum optics with molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 203602 (2019)

2019
[26]

Strathearn, P

A. Strathearn, P. Kirton, D. Kilda, J. Keeling, and B. W. Lovett,Eﬃcientnon-markovianquantumdynamicsusing time-evolving matrix product operators, Nat. Commun. 9, 3322 (2018)

2018
[27]

R. F. Ribeiro, A. D. Dunkelberger, B. Xiang, W. Xiong, B. S. Simpkins, J. C. Owrutsky, and J. Yuen-Zhou, The- ory for nonlinear spectroscopy of vibrational polaritons, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.9, 3766 (2018)

2018
[28]

P.Forn-Díaz, L.Lamata, E.Rico, J.Kono,andE.Solano, Ultrastrong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025005 (2019)

2019
[29]

Flick, M

J. Flick, M. Ruggenthaler, H. Appel, and A. Rubio, Atoms and molecules in cavities, from weak to strong coupling in quantum-electrodynamics (qed) chemistry, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA114, 3026 (2017)

2017
[30]

Schäfer, M

C. Schäfer, M. Ruggenthaler, H. Appel, and A. Rubio, Modiﬁcation of excitation and charge transfer in cavity quantum-electrodynamical chemistry, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA116, 4883 (2019)

2019
[31]

Galego, F

J. Galego, F. J. Garcia-Vidal, and J. Feist, Cavity- induced modiﬁcations of molecular structure in the strong-coupling regime, Phys. Rev. X5, 041022 (2015)

2015
[32]

Kowalewski, K

M. Kowalewski, K. Bennett, and S. Mukamel, Non- adiabatic dynamics of molecules in optical cavities, J. Chem. Phys.144, 054309 (2016)

2016
[33]

P. M. M. de Melo and A. Marini, Uniﬁed theory of quan- tized electrons, phonons, and photons out of equilibrium: A simpliﬁed ab initio approach based on the generalized baym-kadanoﬀ ansatz, Phys. Rev. B93, 155102 (2016)

2016
[34]

J. F. Triana and J. L. Sanz-Vicario, Revealing the pres- ence of potential crossings in diatomics induced by quan- tum cavity radiation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 063603 (2019)

2019
[35]

Vendrell, Collective jahn-teller interactions through light-matter coupling in a cavity, Phys

O. Vendrell, Collective jahn-teller interactions through light-matter coupling in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 9 253001 (2018)

2018
[36]

Flick and P

J. Flick and P. Narang, Cavity-correlated electron- nuclear dynamics from ﬁrst principles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 113002 (2018)

2018
[37]

Rivera, J

N. Rivera, J. Flick, and P. Narang, Variational theory of nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 193603 (2019)

2019
[38]

Karlsson and R

D. Karlsson and R. v. Leeuwen, Non-equilibrium green’s functions for coupled fermion-boson systems, in Hand- book of Materials Modeling : Methods: Theory and Mod- eling, edited by W. Andreoni and S. Yip (Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 2018) pp. 1–29

2018
[39]

del Pino, F

J. del Pino, F. A. Y. N. Schröder, A. W. Chin, J. Feist, and F. J. Garcia-Vidal, Tensor network simulation of non-markovian dynamics in organic polaritons, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 227401 (2018)

2018
[40]

Ruggenthaler, J

M. Ruggenthaler, J. Flick, C. Pellegrini, H. Appel, I. V. Tokatly, and A. Rubio, Quantum-electrodynamical density-functional theory: Bridging quantum optics and electronic-structure theory, Phys. Rev. A 90, 012508 (2014)

2014
[41]

Pellegrini, J

C. Pellegrini, J. Flick, I.V. Tokatly, H. Appel, and A.Ru- bio, Optimized eﬀective potential for quantum electrody- namical time-dependent density functional theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 093001 (2015)

2015
[42]

Flick, M

J. Flick, M. Ruggenthaler, H. Appel, and A. Ru- bio, Kohn–sham approach to quantum electrodynamical density-functional theory: Exact time-dependent eﬀec- tive potentials in real space, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15285 (2015)

2015
[43]

Flick, D

J. Flick, D. M. Welakuh, M. Ruggenthaler, H. Ap- pel, and A. Rubio, Light-matter response functions in quantum-electrodynamical density-functional theory: modiﬁcations of spectra and of the maxwell equations, arXiv:1803.02519 (2018)

2018
[44]

A. J. Cohen, P. Mori-Sánchez, and W. Yang, Chal- lenges for density functional theory, Chem. Rev. 112, 289 (2011)

2011
[45]

Flick, C

J. Flick, C. Schäfer, M. Ruggenthaler, H. Appel, and A. Rubio, Ab initio optimized eﬀective potentials for real molecules in optical cavities: Photon contributions to the molecular ground state, ACS Photonics5, 992 (2018)

2018
[46]

Čižek and J

J. Čižek and J. Paldus, Correlation problems in atomic and molecular systems iii. rederivation of the coupled- pair many-electron theory using the traditional quan- tum chemical methodst, Int. J. Quantum Chem.5, 359 (1971)

1971
[47]

R. J. Bartlett and M. Musiał, Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 291 (2007)

2007
[48]

T.D.CrawfordandH.F.SchaeferIII,Anintroductionto coupled cluster theory for computational chemists, Rev. Comput. Chem.14, 33 (2000)

2000
[49]

Riplinger and F

C. Riplinger and F. Neese, An eﬃcient and near linear scaling pair natural orbital based local coupled cluster method, J. Chem. Phys.138, 034106 (2013)

2013
[50]

T. J. Lee and G. E. Scuseria, Achieving chemical accu- racy with coupled-cluster theory, inQuantum Mechani- cal Electronic Structure Calculations with Chemical Ac- curacy (Springer, 1995) pp. 47–108

1995
[51]

Christiansen, Vibrational coupled cluster theory, J

O. Christiansen, Vibrational coupled cluster theory, J. Chem. Phys.120, 2149 (2004)

2004
[52]

D. P. Craig and T. Thirunamachandran, Molecular quantum electrodynamics: an introduction to radiation- molecule interactions(Courier Corporation, 1998)

1998
[53]

Spohn,Dynamics of charged particles and their radi- ation ﬁeld(Cambridge university press, 2004)

H. Spohn,Dynamics of charged particles and their radi- ation ﬁeld(Cambridge university press, 2004)

2004
[54]

Rokaj, D

V. Rokaj, D. M. Welakuh, M. Ruggenthaler, and A. Ru- bio, Light–matter interaction in the long-wavelength limit: no ground-state without dipole self-energy, J. Phys. B51, 034005 (2018)

2018
[55]

Díaz-Camacho, A

G. Díaz-Camacho, A. Bermudez, and J. J. García-Ripoll, Dynamical polaron ansatz: A theoretical tool for the ultrastrong-coupling regime of circuit qed, Phys. Rev. A 93, 043843 (2016)

2016
[56]

Zueco and J

D. Zueco and J. García-Ripoll, Ultrastrongly dissipative quantum rabi model, Phys. Rev. A99, 013807 (2019)

2019
[57]

De Bernardis, P

D. De Bernardis, P. Pilar, T. Jaako, S. De Liberato, and P. Rabl, Breakdown of gauge invariance in ultrastrong- coupling cavity qed, Phys. Rev. A98, 053819 (2018)

2018
[58]

Di Stefano, A

O. Di Stefano, A. Settineri, V. Macrì, L. Garziano, R. Stassi, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Resolution of gauge ambiguities in ultrastrong-coupling cavity quantum elec- trodynamics, Nat. Phys. , 1 (2019)

2019
[59]

Dimitrov, J

T. Dimitrov, J. Flick, M. Ruggenthaler, and A. Rubio, Exact functionals for correlated electron-photon systems, New J. Phys.19, 113036 (2017)

2017
[60]

Schäfer, M

C. Schäfer, M. Ruggenthaler, and A. Rubio, Ab ini- tio nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics: Bridging quantum chemistry and quantum optics from weak to strong coupling, Phys. Rev. A98, 043801 (2018)

2018
[61]

T. N. Rescigno and V. McKoy, Rigorous method for com- puting photoabsorption cross sections from a basis-set expansion, Phys. Rev. A12, 522 (1975)

1975
[62]

Geertsen, M

J. Geertsen, M. Rittby, and R. J. Bartlett, The equation- of-motion coupled-cluster method: Excitation energies of be and co, Chem. Phys. Lett.164, 57 (1989)

1989
[63]

J. F. Stanton and R. J. Bartlett, The equation of motion coupled-cluster method. a systematic biorthogonal ap- proach to molecular excitation energies, transition prob- abilities, and excited state properties, J. Chem. Phys.98, 7029 (1993)

1993
[64]

H. Koch, R. Kobayashi, A. Sanchez de Merás, and P. Jo/rgensen, Calculation of size-intensive transition momentsfromthecoupledclustersinglesanddoubleslin- ear response function, J. Chem. Phys.100, 4393 (1994)

1994
[65]

A. I. Krylov, Equation-of-motion coupled-cluster meth- ods for open-shell and electronically excited species: The hitchhiker’s guide to fock space, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 59, 433 (2008)

2008
[66]

Köhn and A

A. Köhn and A. Tajti, Can coupled-cluster theory treat conical intersections?, J. Chem. Phys.127, 044105 (2007)

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Kéna-Cohen and S

S. Kéna-Cohen and S. Forrest, Room-temperature polari- ton lasing in an organic single-crystal microcavity, Nat. Photonics 4, 371 (2010). 8

work page 2010

[2] [2]

J. A. Hutchison, T. Schwartz, C. Genet, E. Devaux, and T. W. Ebbesen, Modifying chemical landscapes by cou- pling to vacuum ﬁelds, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.51, 1592 (2012)

work page 2012

[3] [3]

D. M. Coles, Y. Yang, Y. Wang, R. T. Grant, R. A. Taylor, S. K. Saikin, A. Aspuru-Guzik, D. G. Lidzey, J. K.-H. Tang, and J. M. Smith, Strong coupling between chlorosomes of photosynthetic bacteria and a conﬁned optical cavity mode, Nat. Commun.5, 5561 (2014)

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Orgiu, J

E. Orgiu, J. George, J. Hutchison, E. Devaux, J. Dayen, B. Doudin, F. Stellacci, C. Genet, J. Schachenmayer, C. Genes,et al., Conductivity in organic semiconductors hybridized with the vacuum ﬁeld, Nat. Mater.14, 1123 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Chikkaraddy, B

R. Chikkaraddy, B. De Nijs, F. Benz, S. J. Barrow, O. A. Scherman, E. Rosta, A. Demetriadou, P. Fox, O. Hess, and J. J. Baumberg, Single-molecule strong coupling at room temperature in plasmonic nanocavities, Nature 535, 127 (2016)

2016

[6] [6]

T.W.Ebbesen,Hybridlight–matterstatesinamolecular and material science perspective, Acc. Chem. Res.49, 2403 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Sukharev and A

M. Sukharev and A. Nitzan, Optics of exciton-plasmon nanomaterials, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 443003 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Zhong, T

X. Zhong, T. Chervy, L. Zhang, A. Thomas, J. George, C. Genet, J. A. Hutchison, and T. W. Ebbesen, Energy transfer between spatially separated entangled molecules, Angew. Chemie Int. Ed56, 9034 (2017)

work page 2017