Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Electrically tunable quantum correlations of dipolar polaritons with micrometer-scale blockade radii

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An electrically gated semiconductor waveguide hosting dipolar polaritons shows a partial photon blockade with a blockade radius up to 4.4 μm, tunable by voltage, and a predicted path to full blockade.

desk verdict First photon-correlation evidence of partial blockade in dipolar waveguide polaritons, with a real caveat on how the blockade radius is extracted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12059 v1 pith:5ZYHA6BW submitted 2024-11-18 quant-ph physics.optics

Yoad Ordan , Dror Liran , Kirk W. Baldwin , Loren Pfeiffer , Hui Deng , Ronen Rapaport This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords photonblockadedipolarpolaritonswaveguidequantumcorrelationselectricaltunabilitysecond-ordercorrelationfunctionsemiconductorwellsintegratedphotonics
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 reports an electrically tunable partial photon blockade in dipolar waveguide polaritons on a semiconductor chip. The authors measure the zero-delay second-order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ and find anti-bunching ($0.94 \pm 0.02$) at negative detuning, bunching ($1.030 \pm 0.015$) at positive detuning, and a flat correlation at zero voltage, attributing the effect to strong dipole-dipole interactions between field-induced dipoles. From these data they extract a polariton interaction strength $g_{dd} \sim 4$ meV$\,\mu$m$^2$, about two orders of magnitude larger than that of unpolarized polaritons, and a blockade radius of 3.4–4.4 $\mu$m, exceeding the optical wavelength in the waveguide and approaching values found with Rydberg atoms. If correct, the result would establish a scalable, voltage-reconfigurable solid-state route to two-photon nonlinearities, with a full blockade predicted when the waveguide is narrowed to a mode width of 0.28 $\mu$m.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the electrically induced dipole moment of the polaritons, which turns a weak contact interaction into a long-range dipole-dipole interaction $U_{dd} = 2g_{dd}(|\chi_X|^2, V)/A$. The argument combines a single-mode anharmonic blockade model—a Lindblad master equation for a Kerr-like polariton ladder—with pulse-integrated $g^{(2)}$ evaluation, relating the depth of the $g^{(2)}(0)$ dip to $U_{dd}/\gamma$ through a fitted numerical factor $\kappa$. The blockade radius follows from the condition $U_{dd}(R_b) = \gamma$, and the electrically tuned exciton fraction $|\chi_X|^2$ and dipole length $d$ set the strength and range.

What would settle it

A time-resolved Hanbury Brown-Twiss measurement with sub-picosecond resolution, or a measurement in which the excitation spot size and pulse duration are varied independently, would test the pulse-integration assumption: if the extracted $g_{dd}$ changes with spot size or pulse width, the single-mode model is incomplete. Independently, a direct measurement of the density-dependent polariton blueshift at the same gate voltage should give the same $g_{dd}$; disagreement would falsify the blockade-radius extraction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that electrically polarizing exciton-polaritons in a planar waveguide produces a photon blockade that is partial in the present device but already visible in photon-correlation statistics, and whose strength and spatial range are controlled by a gate voltage. The signature is the detuning-dependent $g^{(2)}(0)$: anti-bunching below the one-polariton resonance and bunching above it, appearing only when the voltage is applied, with the effect scaling with the excitonic fraction. The paper converts the measured $g^{(2)}_0$ minimum into an interaction strength $U_{dd}$ through the calibrated relation $\kappa U_{dd}/\gamma \simeq 1 - g^{(2)}_{0,\mathrm{min}}$, and then into a blockade radius $R_b = \sqrt{2g_{dd}/(\pi\gamma)}$ of several micrometers. It further argues that the same parameters imply a full blockade in a half-micrometer-wide waveguide, with a 0.28 $\mu$m mode and an 8 nm dipole length, for exciton fractions above 0.56.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes that a single-mode, Kerr-like blockade model with pulse-averaged correlations correctly converts the small measured $g^{(2)}(0)$ deviations into the interaction strength, so if the waveguide actually carries additional spatial or momentum modes, or if the finite laser spot and velocity spread are not captured by the pulse integration, the reported $g_{dd}$ and blockade radius could be overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A voltage-tunable partial blockade with radius around 4 $\mu$m means on-chip photon-photon interactions can be reconfigured electrically rather than fixed at fabrication.
  • The two-order-of-magnitude enhancement over unpolarized polaritons means the $g^{(2)}$ dip appears at average two-polariton densities about two orders of magnitude lower than in earlier polariton blockade experiments.
  • Narrowing the waveguide to a mode width of 0.28 $\mu$m, with an 8 nm dipole length and exciton fraction above 0.56, is predicted to satisfy the full-blockade condition $n > n_b$.
  • The devices can be integrated with waveguide couplers and switched electrically with GHz bandwidth at below 3 fJ per gate operation, providing a scalable platform for electrically tuned quantum photonic circuits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the blockade radius is genuinely set by the dipole length and can be pushed into the full-blockade regime, the same device family could enable deterministic two-photon gates without ultrahigh-Q cavities, because the interaction range would exceed the wavelength inside the waveguide.
  • A direct testable extension is to measure $g^{(3)}(0)$: the anharmonic ladder model predicts a specific hierarchy of multiphoton suppression that would distinguish blockade from other nonlinear mechanisms.
  • The voltage dependence suggests a programmable architecture in which local gate voltages configure two-photon nonlinearities on demand, an extrapolation the paper does not itself demonstrate.
  • Mapping $g^{(2)}(0)$ as a function of excitation position along the waveguide could directly image the blockade radius and reveal whether it is uniform or modified by the finite grating and ITO geometry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a photon-correlation study of propagating lower-polariton pulses in an electrically gated 5 μm-wide, 200 μm-long GaAs/AlGaAs strip waveguide. At V=2.5 V and an exciton fraction of 68%, the authors observe g^(2)(0)=0.94±0.02 at Δ=−0.36 meV and g^(2)(0)=1.030±0.015 at Δ=+0.23 meV, which they interpret as partial blockade and anti-blockade. The effect weakens when the exciton fraction is reduced to 31% and is absent at V=0. Using κU/γ≈1−g^(2)_0,min (Eq. 2), the mode area A=wτ_p v_g (Eq. 3), and κ=0.61 from a single-mode Lindblad model, they extract g_dd≈4.0±1.4 and 3.6±2.2 meV μm², a blockade radius R_b=3.4–4.4 μm (Eq. S15), and a condition (Eq. 5) predicting full blockade in a narrower waveguide.

Significance. If valid, the result is significant: it would place chip-integrated, voltage-reconfigurable polariton nonlinearities in a regime previously limited to Rydberg-atom systems, with a two-order-of-magnitude enhancement over unpolarized polaritons. Strengths include the controlled comparison across voltages and exciton fractions, the flat V=0 baseline, explicit treatment of HBT cross-talk, and independent order-of-magnitude support from earlier energy-shift and transmission experiments on the same sample. The main caveat is that all quantitative figures—the enhancement factor, g_dd, and R_b—depend on reducing a finite-range dipole interaction to a single-mode contact shift without a demonstrated validity condition. This concern is directly raised by the stress-test note, and I find it justified. A properly supported quantitative claim would strengthen the paper substantially.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. 3; supplementary Eqs. S14-S15] The conversion of the measured g^(2)_0 dip into g_dd and R_b assumes that two polaritons in the mode area experience a single, spatially uniform energy shift U_dd=2g_dd/A. This is equivalent to a contact interaction and is not the same as the mode average of a physical dipole-dipole potential V(|r1-r2|) over the two-particle wavefunction; the two quantities agree only if V is constant across the mode. The claimed R_b of 3.4–4.4 μm is comparable to the 4.9 μm transverse mode FWHM (Fig. S4A), so the interaction can vary appreciably over the mode, yet the manuscript does not give V(r), the mode functions, or a validity condition for Eq. 3. Because Eq. 4 and Eq. S15 inherit this replacement, the extracted g_dd, the two-orders-of-magnitude enhancement, and the comparison with Rydberg polaritons all carry an unquantified systematic error. The qualitative partial-blockade observation is not affected by this issue.
  2. [Supplementary Text, 'Blockade model', Eqs. S11-S12] The calibration of κ and the pulse-integrated g^(2)_0 use a single-mode anharmonic Hamiltonian with a Fourier-limited pulse. The supplementary itself notes that the effective pulse is broadened by the finite laser spot, giving τ̃_p = sqrt(τ_p² + (δ/v_g)²), and the 200 μm propagation channel can introduce additional velocity dispersion or multimode effects. The paper does not quantify how κ and the extracted g_dd change with the actual pulse shape, spot size, or residual mode structure. Since κ enters linearly in Eq. 2, this is a load-bearing uncertainty for the quantitative claims, even though the authors show that the worst-case spot-size effect would lower the inferred density in a conservative direction.
  3. [Eq. 5 and supplementary Eq. S18] The prediction of full blockade in a narrower waveguide rests on the scaling g_dd ∝ d|χ_X|⁴ and v_g ∝ (1−|χ_X|²) taken from Ref. 18, combined with a simulated mode width for a 0.5 μm etched waveguide. This is a plausible extrapolation, but it is not experimentally tested in the narrower geometry, and it inherits the same contact-area mapping used in Eq. 3. The abstract and summary should present this as a target for future tests rather than as a demonstrated consequence, or the authors should include a propagation-of-errors estimate for Eq. 5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Caption, Fig. 2C; Materials and Methods] The measured output pulse length is quoted as ∼5.4 ps, while the model uses τ_p=ℏ/γ (3.1 or 5.7 ps); the relation between these numbers and the choice of τ_p should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Main text, around Eq. 2] The quantities γ, v_g, and d are introduced without error bars; the error bars quoted for g_dd should state which inputs were propagated and which were treated as exact.
  3. [Supplementary Text, 'Blockade model'] There are typos ('meachnsim', 'poalriton') in the supplementary text, and the sentence 'The fit is robust and independent of γ' should be accompanied by the fitting range and the value of b used in Eq. S12.
  4. [Fig. 4] The bunching value 1.030±0.015 is only about 2σ above unity; the text calls this a 'clear' anti-blockade. I suggest either showing the full detuning scan with error bars in the same figure or softening the language to 'consistent with anti-blockade'.
  5. [Methods, HBT cross-talk] The discarded white peaks and their origin are well explained, but the reader cannot distinguish the number of scans or total integration time; stating the acquisition time per detuning point would help assess the statistical precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the g_dd extraction is model-calibrated but independently benchmarked, and the full-blockade condition is a consistency extrapolation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: measured g^(2)_0 dip -> U_dd via Eq. 2 using a numerical factor κ computed from the anharmonic blockade model (Eqs. S8-S12); U_dd -> g_dd via Eq. 3 using independently measured A = w τ_p v_g; g_dd and γ -> R_b via Eq. S15; and finally the full-blockade condition Eq. 5 using the scaling g_dd ∝ d|χ|^4 from Ref. 18. No step reduces to its own input by construction: κ is calibrated from simulations over interaction strengths, not fitted to the experimentally measured g^(2)_0 values, so the measured anti-bunching is an independent input. The extracted g_dd is explicitly benchmarked against previous independent energy-shift and transmission measurements on the same sample (Refs. 17,18), giving external support. R_b is a derived length scale from the same extracted parameters, so it is not an independent confirmation, but that is a consistency relation rather than circularity. Eq. 5 is an extrapolation to narrower waveguides based on measured parameters and a published scaling law; it is not presented as a first-principles derivation. The self-citations are numerous but not load-bearing for the central correlation measurement. Thus no significant circularity; score 2 reflects minor presence of self-citation without load-bearing reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central extraction rests on a theoretical blockade model, measured inputs (γ, v_g, A), and scaling relations from the authors' prior work. No new physical entities are introduced; the dipolar polariton is a known hybrid excitation, and the dipole moment is a standard electrostatic property.

free parameters (6)
  • numerical factor κ = 0.61 ± 0.01
    Obtained from a fit of the blockade model to its own simulated 1-g^(2) vs U/γ curves (Eq S12). Used to convert measured g^(2) minima into interaction strength U.
  • linewidth γ = 215 μeV (Fig 4B), 115 μeV (Fig 4C)
    Taken from previous linewidth measurements (Refs 18, 30). Input to Eqs 2 and S15.
  • group velocity v_g = 25.6 μm/ps (Fig 4B), 52.1 μm/ps (Fig 4C)
    Measured via streak camera and compared with dispersion calculations (Fig S6). Used to compute mode area A and density.
  • mode area A = 385 μm^2 (Fig 4B), 1465 μm^2 (Fig 4C)
    Derived as A = w τ_p v_g with w = 5 μm and τ_p from linewidth. Used to compute density and U.
  • dipole length d = 8 nm
    Calculated from the model in Fig 2E and used in the full-blockade prediction Eq 5.
  • C_ex (blockade condition constant) = ≈ 50
    Computed from experimental g_dd, d, v_g, and exciton fraction. Used to predict the full blockade condition for a narrower waveguide.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The polariton blockade model (anharmonic oscillator Hamiltonian, Eq S8, and Lindblad master equation, Eq S9) accurately describes the waveguide dipolariton system.
    The model from Refs 14 and 26 is used to relate g^(2) to U/γ. It assumes a single-mode coupled polariton and neglects higher branches and multimode effects.
  • domain assumption The interaction strength scales as g_dd ∝ d |χ_X|^4, as derived in Ref 18.
    Used to extrapolate from experimental parameters to the full-blockade condition (Eq S17).
  • domain assumption The polariton linewidth γ is related to the Fourier-limited pulse duration, and the mode area A = w τ_p v_g correctly quantifies the two-polariton density.
    Used to compute density n = 2/A and to determine the blockade radius. The finite laser spot size is acknowledged but not fully accounted for in the main extraction.
  • standard math Standard quantum optics and the rotating-wave approximation are valid for deriving the master equation and correlation functions.
    Background for the theoretical model and for the relation between g^(2) and the interaction strength.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electrically tunable quantum correlations of dipolar polaritons with micrometer-scale blockade radii." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ZYHA6BW

@misc{pith2026241112059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electrically tunable quantum correlations of dipolar polaritons with micrometer-scale blockade radii},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ZYHA6BW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12059}
}
abstract

An extreme yet reconfigurable nonlinear response to a single photon by a photonic system is crucial for realizing a universal two-photon gate, an elementary building block for photonic quantum computing. Yet such a response, characterized by the photon blockade effect, has only been achieved in atomic systems or solid states ones that are difficult to scale up. Here we demonstrate electrically tunable partial photon blockade in dipolar waveguide polaritons on a semiconductor chip, measured via photon-correlations. Remarkably, these "dipolar photons" display a two-orders-of-magnitude stronger nonlinearity compared to unpolarized polaritons, with an extracted dipolar blockade radius up to more than 4 $\mu$m, significantly larger than the optical wavelength, and comparable to that of atomic Rydberg polaritons. Furthermore, we show that the dipolar interaction can be electrically switched and locally configured by simply tuning the gate voltage. Finally we show that with a simple modification of the design, a full photon blockade is expected, setting a new route towards scalable, reconfigurable, chip-integrated quantum photonic circuits with strong two-photon nonlinearities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Ultrafast electrical control of dipolariton-based optical circuits with a few femto-joul per bit power consumption

    physics.optics 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An electrically gated waveguide exciton-dipolariton device switches light with sub-nanosecond response and an estimated ~3 fJ/bit total energy, advancing low-power reconfigurable photonic circuits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Rudolph, Why I am optimistic about the silicon-photonic route to quantum computing.APL photonics 2 (3) (2017)

    T. Rudolph, Why I am optimistic about the silicon-photonic route to quantum computing.APL photonics 2 (3) (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    K. M. Birnbaum, et al., Photon blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom. Nature 436 (7047), 87–90 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Reinhard, et al., Strongly correlated photons on a chip

    A. Reinhard, et al., Strongly correlated photons on a chip. Nature Photonics 6 (2), 93–96 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Sipahigil, et al., An integrated diamond nanophotonics platform for quantum-optical net- works

    A. Sipahigil, et al., An integrated diamond nanophotonics platform for quantum-optical net- works. Science 354 (6314), 847–850 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Faraon, et al., Coherent generation of non-classical light on a chip via photon-induced tunnelling and blockade

    A. Faraon, et al., Coherent generation of non-classical light on a chip via photon-induced tunnelling and blockade. Nature Physics 4 (11), 859–863 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Lang, et al., Observation of Resonant Photon Blockade at Microwave Frequencies¡? format?¿ Using Correlation Function Measurements

    C. Lang, et al., Observation of Resonant Photon Blockade at Microwave Frequencies¡? format?¿ Using Correlation Function Measurements. Physical review letters 106 (24), 243601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    A. J. Hoffman, et al., Dispersive photon blockade in a superconducting circuit.Physical review letters 107 (5), 053602 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Dudin, A

    Y. Dudin, A. Kuzmich, Strongly interacting Rydberg excitations of a cold atomic gas. Science 336 (6083), 887–889 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Peyronel, et al., Quantum nonlinear optics with single photons enabled by strongly interacting atoms

    T. Peyronel, et al., Quantum nonlinear optics with single photons enabled by strongly interacting atoms. Nature 488 (7409), 57–60 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, K. Mølmer, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms. Reviews of modern physics 82 (3), 2313–2363 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    H. Deng, H. Haug, Y. Yamamoto, Exciton-polariton bose-einstein condensation. Reviews of modern physics 82 (2), 1489–1537 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Amo, et al., Superfluidity of polaritons in semiconductor microcavities

    A. Amo, et al., Superfluidity of polaritons in semiconductor microcavities. Nature Physics 5 (11), 805–810 (2009). 12

    2009

  5. [13]

    Ferrier, et al

    L. Ferrier, et al. , Interactions in confined polariton condensates. Physical Review Letters 106 (12), 126401 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Delteil, et al., Towards polariton blockade of confined exciton–polaritons.Nature materials 18 (3), 219–222 (2019)

    A. Delteil, et al., Towards polariton blockade of confined exciton–polaritons.Nature materials 18 (3), 219–222 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Munoz-Matutano, et al., Emergence of quantum correlations from interacting fibre-cavity polaritons

    G. Munoz-Matutano, et al., Emergence of quantum correlations from interacting fibre-cavity polaritons. Nature materials 18 (3), 213–218 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Rosenberg, Y

    I. Rosenberg, Y. Mazuz-Harpaz, R. Rapaport, K. West, L. Pfeiffer, Electrically controlled mutual interactions of flying waveguide dipolaritons. Physical Review B 93 (19), 195151 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Rosenberg, et al., Strongly interacting dipolar-polaritons.Science Advances 4 (10), eaat8880 (2018)

    I. Rosenberg, et al., Strongly interacting dipolar-polaritons.Science Advances 4 (10), eaat8880 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Liran, et al., Electrically controlled photonic circuits of field-induced dipolaritons with huge nonlinearities

    D. Liran, et al., Electrically controlled photonic circuits of field-induced dipolaritons with huge nonlinearities. Physical Review X 14 (3), 031022 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Liran, K

    D. Liran, K. Baldwin, L. Pfeiffer, R. Rapaport, Ultrafast electrical control of polaritonic circuits with a femto-joul per bit power consumption. In preparation (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Cristofolini, et al., Coupling quantum tunneling with cavity photons

    P. Cristofolini, et al., Coupling quantum tunneling with cavity photons. Science 336 (6082), 704–707 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Su ´arez-Forero, et al., Enhancement of parametric effects in polariton waveguides induced by dipolar interactions

    D. Su ´arez-Forero, et al., Enhancement of parametric effects in polariton waveguides induced by dipolar interactions. Physical review letters 126 (13), 137401 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Togan, H.-T

    E. Togan, H.-T. Lim, S. Faelt, W. Wegscheider, A. Imamoglu, Enhanced interactions between dipolar polaritons. Physical review letters 121 (22), 227402 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Tsintzos, et al., Electrical tuning of nonlinearities in exciton-polariton condensates.Physical Review Letters 121 (3), 037401 (2018)

    S. Tsintzos, et al., Electrical tuning of nonlinearities in exciton-polariton condensates.Physical Review Letters 121 (3), 037401 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Nigro, V

    D. Nigro, V. D’ Ambrosio, D. Sanvitto, D. Gerace, Integrated quantum polariton interferometry. Communications Physics 5 (1), 34 (2022). 13

    2022

  17. [25]

    Scala, D

    F. Scala, D. Nigro, D. Gerace, Deterministic entangling gates with nonlinear quantum photonic interferometers. Communications Physics 7 (1), 118 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Verger, C

    A. Verger, C. Ciuti, I. Carusotto, Polariton quantum blockade in a photonic dot. Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 73 (19), 193306 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    See supplementary materials

  20. [28]

    Walker, et al., Exciton polaritons in semiconductor waveguides

    P. Walker, et al., Exciton polaritons in semiconductor waveguides. Applied Physics Letters 102 (1) (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    A. Wood, X. Vidal, G. Mu ˜noz-Matutano, T. Volz, Non-invasive zero-delay time calibration of Hanbury-Brown and Twiss interferometers.Measurement 137, 562–565 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Liran, I

    D. Liran, I. Rosenberg, K. West, L. Pfeiffer, R. Rapaport, Fully guided electrically controlled exciton polaritons. ACS Photonics 5 (11), 4249–4252 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Schwarz, N

    I. Schwarz, N. Livneh, R. Rapaport, General closed-form condition for enhanced transmission in subwavelength metallic gratings in both TE and TM polarizations.Opt. Express20 (1), 426– 439 (2012), doi:10.1364/OE.20.000426, https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstract.cfm? URI=oe-20-1-426

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    Zubizarreta Casalengua, J

    E. Zubizarreta Casalengua, J. C. L ´opez Carre ˜no, F. P. Laussy, E. d. Valle, Conventional and unconventional photon statistics. Laser & Photonics Reviews 14 (6), 1900279 (2020). Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Yaron Bromberg for a critical reading of the manuscript...

    2020

  25. [33]

    The uncertainty of the central peak correspond to the fluctuation directly,𝜎𝑆, where for the average value of the side peak,𝑆, it has a factor of 𝜎𝑆/ √ 𝑁

    The uncertainty in each of the values can be estimated through the fluctuation (standard deviation) of the side peaks, 𝜎𝑆. The uncertainty of the central peak correspond to the fluctuation directly,𝜎𝑆, where for the average value of the side peak,𝑆, it has a factor of 𝜎𝑆/ √ 𝑁....

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.