Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Strongly Confined Atomic Excitation Localization in a Weakly-Driven Atom-Waveguide Interface

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 This paper claims that in a weakly driven atomic array coupled to a waveguide, removing the drive on a single atom pins exactly two-thirds of the steady-state excitation onto that atom as the interatomic spacing approaches an integer…

desk verdict Defect-driving scheme gives a real single-site localization and a closed-form solution, but the headline 2/3 saturation limit is a lossless artifact; the finite-γ_ng limit is N-dependent and larger. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14098 v1 pith:HFLCWQEL submitted 2024-11-21 quant-ph

Shao-Hung Chung , Wei Chen , H. H. Jen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords atom-waveguideinterfacechiralcouplingdriven-dissipativesystemsteady-statelocalizationdefect-drivingschemeinverseparticipationratiodipole-dipoleinteractionsquantummemory
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

The paper considers a one-dimensional array of two-level atoms coupled to a photonic-crystal waveguide and driven weakly by lasers from both sides at different incident angles. It claims that the competition between the photon-mediated dipole-dipole interaction and the phase differences of the drives can concentrate the steady-state excitation onto the atoms at the interface between the two driving zones, sometimes into a soliton-like two-site peak. In the defect-driving variant, where one atom is left undriven, the paper derives an exact analytical steady state showing that, in the limit of vanishing interatomic spacing, the undriven atom carries exactly $2/3$ of the population regardless of the array size. A second empirical formula predicts, as a function of system size and angle difference, which angular configurations favor interfaced localization. The paper argues these effects give a practical way to write, move, and multiply local excitations, with implications for quantum simulation and quantum memory.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the steady-state solution of the linear weak-excitation equations (6)-(8), in which the inverse coupling matrix $M^{-1}$ encodes both the chiral decay rates $\gamma_L,\gamma_R$ and the infinite-range photon-mediated dipole-dipole phases $e^{ik|x_j-x_\ell|}$. For the defect-driving scheme at reciprocal coupling $D=0$ and normal incidence, the paper obtains the exact amplitude vector of Eq. (16), whose special entries at the undriven site and its neighbours produce the saturation formula (17); the limit $\xi\to 0$ is controlled by the divergent csc and cot terms, leaving the $2/3$ ratio. For the asymmetric-driving scheme, the empirical rule (14) is read off the RIEL (ratio of interface-edge localization), and the measures IPR and IIPR (inverse participation ratio and its interface-restricted version) are used to distinguish interfaced localization from one-edge excitation.

What would settle it

Directly measure or simulate the steady-state population of the undriven atom in a defect-driven reciprocal array at small spacing (e.g., $N=100$, $\xi=0.05\pi$) with a full near-field dipole-dipole tensor; if $\tilde P_m$ deviates from $2/3$, the idealized phase-only coupling is the failing assumption. A less expensive version: compute the first near-field correction to Eq. (17) analytically and check whether the limiting ratio persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that a single undriven atom in a weakly driven, waveguide-coupled atomic array with reciprocal coupling acts as a defect that pins the steady state. For normal-incidence driving with symmetric phases, the steady-state amplitudes have the closed form of Eq. (16), and the population of the undriven atom obeys Eq. (17), with $\lim_{\xi\to 0(2\pi)} \tilde P_m = 2/3$ for any $N\ge 5$; the neighboring atoms each take $1/6$ in the same limit. The same saturation is robust to the incident angle, so for any $\theta\in(0,\pi)$ the population collapses onto the interface as the spacing approaches an integer multiple of the wavelength. In the asymmetric-driving scheme without a defect, the paper identifies strong interfaced localization at small directionality $D$ and small $\xi$, and derives the condition $\cos\theta_1-\cos\theta_2 = 2n\pi/(m\xi)$ that traces the local minima of the interface-edge ratio and thereby predicts the parameter regimes of interfaced localization. The paper closes by showing that removing drives on several non-adjacent atoms yields multiple, spatially separated single-site localizations, which it proposes as a route to quantum memory.

Load-bearing premise

The model treats the waveguide-mediated dipole-dipole coupling through the simple phase factors $e^{ik|x_j-x_\ell|}$ and neglects near-field corrections; the paper itself notes this is valid only for spacings $\xi\gtrsim 0.1\pi$, yet the central $2/3$ saturation is derived at $\xi\to 0$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With one undriven atom and spacing near an integer multiple of the wavelength, the steady-state population of that atom saturates at exactly $2/3$ (and its neighbors at $1/6$ each), independent of the number of atoms in the array.
  • Under asymmetric driving, interfaced two-site localization appears predominantly for reciprocal or weak directionality and small spacing; the condition $\cos\theta_1 - \cos\theta_2 = 2n\pi/(m\xi)$ predicts the angular combinations that sustain it and shows that localization becomes harder as the array grows.
  • Removing the drive from several non-adjacent atoms produces multiple separated single-site localizations, providing a deterministic way to place excitations at chosen positions along the array.
  • The single-site localization survives non-guided decay up to $\gamma_{ng}\approx 0.5\gamma$, so the effect is not an artifact of perfect coupling into the waveguide.
  • Shifting the interface position (or choosing different undriven atoms) moves the localized peak, offering a control knob for routing excitations without changing the interatomic spacing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $2/3$ saturation is independent of $N$ and of the incident angle, which suggests a universal ratio that may also appear in other one-dimensional driven-dissipative lattices with reciprocal infinite-range interactions; a test would be to look for the same fixed point in a chain with power-law instead of phase-only interactions.
  • Because the paper's model excludes spacings $\xi < 0.1\pi$ while the saturation is reached at $\xi\to 0$, the exact $2/3$ could be modified by near-field corrections; computing the first-order correction in the near-field coupling would show whether the ratio shifts or stays.
  • The multiple-site localization by removing drives on non-adjacent atoms is, in effect, a classical bit pattern written into the drive; one could test whether the pattern fidelity degrades with $N$ or with moderate nonreciprocity $D\neq 0$.
  • Eq. (14) is presented as an empirical formula; a first-principles derivation from the phase-matching condition of the two subchains would likely turn it into a proof and may reveal an underlying Talbot-like interference structure.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a one-dimensional array of two-level atoms coupled to a chiral waveguide, driven weakly by lasers from both sides. It introduces two driving schemes: an asymmetric scheme in which the array is split into two angular zones, and a defect scheme in which one or more atoms are left undriven. The paper characterizes steady-state single-excitation populations through numerical solution of the weak-excitation master equation, and reports strongly confined interfaced or single-site localization, an empirical formula for localization-favoring parameters, and an analytic closed-form solution for the defect scheme under reciprocal coupling that yields a purported universal saturation P_m → 2/3 as the interatomic distance tends to 0 or 2π. It closes with proposals for precise multiple-site localization.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers an analytically tractable route to strong single-site excitation localization in waveguide QED, with the 2/3 saturation as a clean parameter-independent signature and a set of control protocols for multi-site localization. The strengths are the explicit closed-form amplitude solution in Eq. (16), which I verified by substitution for the γ_ng=0, θ1=θ2=π/2, D=0 case, the systematic use of IPR/IIPR/RIEL diagnostics, and the clearly stated multi-site localization proposals. However, the robustness of the 2/3 limit to non-guided decay, the overlap of the optimal parameter with the model's own validity cutoff, and the unsupported generalization to arbitrary angles need to be addressed before the central claim is established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.B, Eqs. (16)–(17); §II, Eq. (7)] The analytic solution in Eq. (16) is obtained only for γ_ng=0, but the text does not state this condition. Retaining the full diagonal of Eq. (7), which is -(γ+γ_ng)/2 at D=0, and taking ξ→2π (equivalently ξ→0) gives |p_m|/|p_j| = γ(N-1)/(γ+γ_ng) for a driven atom j≠m, hence P_m → (N-1)/[(1+γ_ng/γ)^2 + N-1]. For N=100 and γ_ng=0.5γ, this is ≈0.978, not 2/3. The limits ξ→2π and γ_ng→0 do not commute; indeed, for γ_ng=0 and ξ=2π the matrix M=-(γ/2)J is singular and no steady state exists in the single-excitation subspace. Therefore the claimed universal 2/3 saturation and its stated robustness to non-guided decay up to 0.5γ cannot both hold as stated. The paper should either explicitly present Eqs. (16)–(17) as the γ_ng=0 result and re-examine the robustness claim at finite ξ, or provide the corresponding closed-form solution with γ_ng>0.
  2. [§III.B and §IV.B, Eq. (18)] The optimal interatomic distance ξ_max = 2 arctan(1/√(4N-13)) at which P_m is maximal lies below 0.1π for N≳30, while §III.B states that the model is valid only for ξ≥0.1π. For N=100, ξ_max≈0.032π; for N=500, ξ_max≈0.014π. Thus the parameter region where the 2/3 saturation is approached is precisely the region where near-field corrections are neglected. The paper should either extend the model to include near-field terms, or show numerically that a substantial fraction of the 2/3 saturation survives for all ξ≥0.1π.
  3. [§IV.B, after Eq. (17)] The statement that 'these results hold true for any θ∈(0,π)' is not substantiated. Equation (16) is derived only for the normal-incidence configuration θ1=θ2=π/2, and Figs. 7(a)–(b) show a maximum at θ≈0.86π for ξ=0.1π but do not establish the ξ→0 limit for all θ. Please provide the generalized solution or a systematic (θ,ξ) scan showing that the saturation value is approached as ξ→0 for every θ.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II, Eq. (6)] The factor e^{ikϕ_j} is dimensionally inconsistent because ϕ_j is a phase; it should likely read e^{iϕ_j}, or the phase should be defined as kx_j cosθ_j inside the exponential.
  2. [References [16] and [22]] References [16] and [22] cite the same paper by Söllner et al.; the duplicate should be consolidated.
  3. [§III.C, Eq. (14)] The range n∈[1-(mξ/π),(mξ/π)-1] is only well-defined when mξ/π is an integer; for general ξ the paper should specify how the integer values of n are selected.
  4. [§III.C, Eq. (13)] The IIPR definition in Eq. (12) is indeterminate when the denominator vanishes (e.g., for a perfectly uniform distribution); the paper should state how such cases are handled.
  5. [§V, Conclusion] There is a typo in 'interpartical spacing'; it should be 'interparticle spacing'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild circularity: Eq. (14) is fit from the numerical RIEL maps and then used to 'predict' the same maps; the main analytic 2/3 saturation result is self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III C, Eq. (14), Figs. 5(a)-5(d)]
    "by analyzing cross-sections along the diagonal (where cos θ1 = − cos θ2) of this distribution, we establish an empirical formula that captures the local minima of RIEL, which is cos θ1 − cos θ2 = 2nπ/mξ ... Therefore, Eq. (14) facilitates the prediction of RIEL distributions under D = 0 for different (N, ξ)."

    The formula is explicitly empirical: it is established by inspecting the local minima of the numerical RIEL maps in (cos θ1, cos θ2) space. The same local-minimum locations are then said to be 'predicted' by Eq. (14), so the prediction output is the fitting input. The apparent cross-check in Fig. 5(d) uses N=50, ξ=0.4π, giving mξ=10π, the same dimensionless product as the N=100, ξ=0.2π fitting panel, so it does not independently test the (N, ξ) extrapolation. This is a real but peripheral circularity: the central defect-driving saturation result (Eqs. 16-17) is derived analytically from the model equations, not from Eq. (14).

full rationale

The central claimed result, the saturated population lim_{ξ→0(2π)} P_m = 2/3 in the defect-driving scheme, is derived directly from the steady-state equations (6)-(8) via the explicit analytical expression (16) and the population formula (17). This derivation is self-contained and does not rely on any fitted parameter or on a self-citation chain; it is a direct solution of the model's linear system. The numerical values in Fig. 7(c) are consistent with this analytical result, not fitted to it. The only identified circularity is in Sec. III C: Eq. (14) is called an 'empirical formula' built from the RIEL data of Fig. 5 and then used to 'predict' those same RIEL distributions. That is a fitting-and-repredicting move, but it does not support the main single-site localization claim, which stands on the exact solution. Self-citations to the authors' earlier work (e.g., Refs. [44-46,60]) are used for background phase classification and not as the load-bearing justification for the 2/3 saturation. Thus the paper is not fundamentally circular; the empirical formula's circularity is real but peripheral, justifying a score of 2. The skeptic's point about γ_ng=0 changing the saturation limit is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity issue, and is therefore not factored into the score.

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

The central claims rest on standard open-quantum-system assumptions plus two paper-specific choices: reciprocal coupling for the analytic solutions and neglect of near-field corrections at small separations. No free parameters are fitted; Eq. (14) is an empirical formula extracted from numerics but contains no fitted coefficients.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation and Markovian Lindblad master equation (Eq. 1) describe the open system.
    Invoked in Sec. II before Eq. (1); assumes the waveguide reservoir is fast and memoryless, so the dynamics is Markovian.
  • domain assumption Weak-excitation limit restricts dynamics to ground state plus single-excitation subspace (Eq. 5).
    Assumes Ω_j much smaller than decay rates so multi-excitation events are negligible; all central steady-state results are computed in this subspace.
  • domain assumption Neglect of near-field corrections at small interparticle separations.
    Sec. III B excludes extremely small separations and states validity for ξ ≥ 0.1π, while the analytical saturation is evaluated at ξ→0 in Sec. IV B; this creates a validity tension.
  • domain assumption D = 0 reciprocal coupling for the analytic solution in Sec. IV B.
    The exact solution Eq. (16) and saturation 2/3 are derived for equal left and right decay rates; the paper argues localization favors low D but the closed form is restricted to reciprocal coupling.
  • domain assumption Plane-wave incident fields with independent angles per subchain and negligible unintentional excitation of the undriven atom.
    Sec. IV states the fields Ω1 and Ω2 do not unintentionally excite the m-th atom, an assumption on beam geometry and alignment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strongly Confined Atomic Excitation Localization in a Weakly-Driven Atom-Waveguide Interface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HFLCWQEL

@misc{pith2026241114098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strongly Confined Atomic Excitation Localization in a Weakly-Driven Atom-Waveguide Interface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HFLCWQEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14098}
}
read the original abstract

An atomic array coupled to a photonic crystal waveguide forms a strongly coupled quantum interface, exhibiting various intriguing collective features of quantum dynamics. Here we consider a homogeneous atomic array and theoretically investigate its steady-state distribution when the incident fields drive the atoms from both sides at asymmetric angles. This effectively creates an interface shared by two zones of atoms under different driving angles. This setup introduces a competition between photon-mediated dipole-dipole interactions and the directionality of coupling, while differences of the travelling phases from the incident angles further influence the overall steady-state behavior. Under this asymmetric driving scheme, the presence of strongly confined localization can be identified, where localization can occur either at the interface or at one of edges. Additionally, we examine the size effect on the atomic localization, deriving an empirical formula to predict parameter regimes that favor interfaced localization. We also consider a defect-driving scheme, where a third zone is created by undriven atoms under symmetric travelling phases. This results in strongly confined single-site excitation localization, which can be explained through analytical solutions under the reciprocal coupling. Finally, we propose several methods for precise control of multiple single-site localizations under the defect-driving scheme. Our results provide insights into driven-dissipative quantum systems with nonreciprocal couplings and pave the way for quantum simulation of exotic many-body states relevant to quantum information applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14098 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic diagram of a weakly-driven chiral-coupled atomic array. The system consists of a homogeneous one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The steady-state population distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Some examples of steady-state population distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. In the asymmetry-driven scheme, the inverse par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. In the asymmetry-driving scheme, the RIEL is pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Within the defect-driven scheme, the distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The saturation of the non-driven atom population [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Precise control of localization under the defect-driven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V. Iorsh, A. V. Poshakin- skiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Waveguide quantum electro- dynamics: Collective radiance and photon-photon corre- lations, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 015002 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Chiral quantum optics, Nature541, 473 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    D. E. Chang, J. S. Douglas, A. González-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Colloquium: Quantum matter built from nanoscopic lattices of atoms and photons, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031002 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Atomic-waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043213 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    E. Kim, X. Zhang, V. S. Ferreira, J. Banker, J. K. Iverson, A. Sipahigil, M. Bello, A. González-Tudela, M. Mirhosseini, and O. Painter, Quantum electrodynam- ics in a topological waveguide, Phys. Rev. X11, 011015 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Fayard, L

    N. Fayard, L. Henriet, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and D. E. Chang, Many-body localization in waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033233 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    D. G. Suárez-Forero, M. J. Mehrabad, C. Vega, A. González-Tudela, and M. Hafezi, Chiral quantum op- tics: recent developments, and future directions (2024), arXiv:2411.06495 [physics.optics]

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    H. H. Jen, Photon-mediated dipole-dipole interactions as a resource for quantum science and technology in cold atoms (2024), arXiv:2410.20665 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    K. Y. Bliokh and F. Nori, Transverse and longitudinal angular momenta of light, Physics Reports592, 1 (2015), transverse and longitudinal angular momenta of light

    2015

  2. [10]

    Mitsch, C

    R. Mitsch, C. Sayrin, B. Albrecht, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Quantum state-controlled directional spontaneous emission of photons into a nanophotonic waveguide, Nature Communications5, 5713 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Ramos, H

    T. Ramos, H. Pichler, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum spin dimers from chiral dissipation in cold-atom chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 237203 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Pichler, T

    H. Pichler, T. Ramos, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum optics of chiral spin networks, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042116 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Oulton, M

    I.J.Luxmoore, N.A.Wasley, A.J.Ramsay, A.C.T.Thi- jssen, R. Oulton, M. Hugues, S. Kasture, V. G. Achanta, A. M. Fox, and M. S. Skolnick, Interfacing spins in an ingaas quantum dot to a semiconductor waveguide cir- cuit using emitted photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 037402 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Arcari, I

    M. Arcari, I. Söllner, A. Javadi, S. Lindskov Hansen, S. Mahmoodian, J. Liu, H. Thyrrestrup, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, S. Stobbe, and P. Lodahl, Near-unity coupling effi- ciency of a quantum emitter to a photonic crystal waveg- uide, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 093603 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Yalla, M

    R. Yalla, M. Sadgrove, K. P. Nayak, and K. Hakuta, Cavity quantum electrodynamics on a nanofiber using a composite photonic crystal cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 143601 (2014)

    2014

  8. [17]

    Roushan, C

    P. Roushan, C. Neill, A. Megrant, Y. Chen, R. Bab- bush, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, J. Mutus, P. J. J. O’Malley, M. Neeley, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. White, E. Kapit, H. Neven...

    2017

  9. [18]

    D.-W. Wang, C. Song, W. Feng, H. Cai, D. Xu, H. Deng, H. Li, D. Zheng, X. Zhu, H. Wang, S.-Y. Zhu, and M. O. Scully, Synthesis of antisymmetric spin exchange interac- tion and chiral spin clusters in superconducting circuits, Nature Physics15, 382 (2019)

    2019

  10. [19]

    N. V. Corzo, J. Raskop, A. Chandra, A. S. Sheremet, B. Gouraud, and J. Laurat, Waveguide-coupled single collective excitation of atomic arrays, Nature566, 359 (2019)

    2019

  11. [20]

    Solano, P

    P. Solano, P. Barberis-Blostein, F. K. Fatemi, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, Super-radiance reveals infinite-range dipole interactions through a nanofiber, Nature Communications8, 1857 (2017). 11

    2017

  12. [21]

    Sayrin, C

    C. Sayrin, C. Clausen, B. Albrecht, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Storage of fiber-guided light in a nanofiber-trapped ensemble of cold atoms, Optica2, 353 (2015)

    2015

  13. [22]

    Söllner, S

    I. Söllner, S. Mahmoodian, S. L. Hansen, L. Midolo, A. Javadi, G. Kiršansk˙ e, T. Pregnolato, H. El-Ella, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, S. Stobbe, and P. Lodahl, Determinis- tic photon–emitter coupling in chiral photonic circuits, Nature Nanotechnology10, 775 (2015)

    2015

  14. [23]

    Y.Dong, J.Taylor, Y.S.Lee, H.R.Kong,andK.S.Choi, Waveguide-qed platform for synthetic quantum matter, Phys. Rev. A104, 053703 (2021)

    2021

  15. [24]

    Sipahigil, R

    A. Sipahigil, R. E. Evans, D. D. Sukachev, M. J. Bu- rek, J. Borregaard, M. K. Bhaskar, C. T. Nguyen, J. L. Pacheco, H. A. Atikian, C. Meuwly, R. M. Camacho, F. Jelezko, E. Bielejec, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, An integrated diamond nanophotonics platform for quantum-...

    2016

  16. [25]

    M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, A. Sipahigil, R. E. Evans, M. J. Burek, C. T. Nguyen, L. J. Rogers, P. Siyu- shev, M. H. Metsch, H. Park, F. Jelezko, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum nonlinear optics with a germanium-vacancy color center in a nanoscale diamond waveguide, Phy...

    2017

  17. [26]

    Vetsch, D

    E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagué, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Optical interface cre- atedbylaser-cooledatomstrappedintheevanescentfield surrounding an optical nanofiber, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 203603 (2010)

    2010

  18. [27]

    M. E. Kim, T.-H. Chang, B. M. Fields, C.-A. Chen, and C.-L. Hung, Trapping single atoms on a nanophotonic circuit with configurable tweezer lattices, Nature Com- munications 10, 1647 (2019)

    2019

  19. [28]

    J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, N. P. de Leon, J. Feist, A. V. Akimov, M. Gullans, A. S. Zibrov, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Coupling a single trapped atom to a nanoscale optical cavity, Science340, 1202 (2013)

    2013

  20. [29]

    Painter, and H

    A.Goban, C.-L.Hung, J.D.Hood, S.-P.Yu, J.A.Muniz, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimble, Superradiance for atoms trapped along a photonic crystal waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 063601 (2015)

    2015

  21. [30]

    H. H. Jen, Disorder-assisted excitation localization in chirally coupled quantum emitters, Phys. Rev. A102, 043525 (2020)

    2020

  22. [31]

    Ðorđević, P

    T. Ðorđević, P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, B. Grinkemeyer, I. Dimitrova, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement transport and a nanophotonic in- terface for atoms in optical tweezers, Science373, 1511 (2021)

    2021

  23. [32]

    O. A. Iversen and T. Pohl, Self-ordering of individ- ual photons in waveguide qed and rydberg-atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023002 (2022)

    2022

  24. [33]

    Fedorovich, D

    G. Fedorovich, D. Kornovan, A. Poddubny, and M. Petrov, Chirality-driven delocalization in disordered waveguide-coupled quantum arrays, Phys. Rev. A106, 043723 (2022)

    2022

  25. [34]

    Henriet, J

    L. Henriet, J. S. Douglas, D. E. Chang, and A. Albrecht, Critical open-system dynamics in a one-dimensional optical-lattice clock, Phys. Rev. A99, 023802 (2019)

    2019

  26. [35]

    Zhang and K

    Y.-X. Zhang and K. Mølmer, Theory of subradiant states of a one-dimensional two-level atom chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 203605 (2019)

    2019

  27. [36]

    Y. Ke, A. V. Poshakinskiy, C. Lee, Y. S. Kivshar, and A. N. Poddubny, Inelastic scattering of photon pairs in qubit arrays with subradiant states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 253601 (2019)

    2019

  28. [37]

    Albrecht, L

    A. Albrecht, L. Henriet, A. Asenjo-Garcia, P. B. Dieterle, O. Painter, and D. E. Chang, Subradiant states of quan- tum bits coupled to a one-dimensional waveguide, New Journal of Physics21, 025003 (2019)

    2019

  29. [38]

    H. H. Jen, M.-S. Chang, G.-D. Lin, and Y.-C. Chen, Subradiance dynamics in a singly excited chirally coupled atomic chain, Phys. Rev. A101, 023830 (2020)

    2020

  30. [39]

    Mahmoodian, G

    S. Mahmoodian, G. Calajó, D. E. Chang, K. Hammerer, and A. S. Sørensen, Dynamics of many-body photon bound states in chiral waveguide qed, Phys. Rev. X10, 031011 (2020)

    2020

  31. [40]

    H. H. Jen, Bound and subradiant multiatom excitations in an atomic array with nonreciprocal couplings, Phys. Rev. A103, 063711 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    Pennetta, M

    R. Pennetta, M. Blaha, A. Johnson, D. Lechner, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Col- lective radiative dynamics of an ensemble of cold atoms coupled to an optical waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 073601 (2022)

    2022

  33. [42]

    Pennetta, D

    R. Pennetta, D. Lechner, M. Blaha, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, P. Schneeweiss, and J. Volz, Observation of coher- ent coupling between super- and subradiant states of an ensemble of cold atoms collectively coupled to a single propagating optical mode, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 203601 (2022)

    2022

  34. [43]

    J. A. Needham, I. Lesanovsky, and B. Olmos, Subradiance-protected excitation transport, New Jour- nal of Physics21, 073061 (2019)

    2019

  35. [44]

    Wu, K.-T

    C.-C. Wu, K.-T. Lin, I. G. N. Y. Handayana, C.-H. Chien, S. Goswami, G.-D. Lin, Y.-C. Chen, and H. H. Jen, Atomic excitation delocalization at the clean to disordered interface in a chirally-coupled atomic array, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013159 (2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    Chung, I

    S.-H. Chung, I. G. N. Y. Handayana, Y.-L. Tsao, C.- C. Wu, G.-D. Lin, and H. H. Jen, Steady-state phases and interaction-induced depletion in a driven-dissipative chirally-coupled dissimilar atomic array, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023232 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    I. G. N. Y. Handayana, C.-C. Wu, S. Goswami, Y.-C. Chen, and H. H. Jen, Atomic excitation trapping in dis- similar chirally coupled atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013320 (2024)

    2024

  38. [47]

    Léonard, S

    J. Léonard, S. Kim, M. Rispoli, A. Lukin, R. Schittko, J. Kwan, E. Demler, D. Sels, and M. Greiner, Probing the onset of quantum avalanches in a many-body localized system, Nature Physics19, 481 (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    González-Tudela and D

    A. González-Tudela and D. Porras, Mesoscopic entan- glement induced by spontaneous emission in solid-state quantum optics, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 080502 (2013)

    2013

  40. [49]

    Mahmoodian, M

    S. Mahmoodian, M. Čepulkovskis, S. Das, P. Lodahl, K. Hammerer, and A. S. Sørensen, Strongly correlated photon transport in waveguide quantum electrodynam- ics with weakly coupled emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 143601 (2018)

    2018

  41. [50]

    C. A. Downing, J. C. L. Carreño, A. I. Fernández- Domínguez, and E. del Valle, Asymmetric coupling be- tween two quantum emitters, Phys. Rev. A102, 013723 (2020)

    2020

  42. [51]

    Le Jeannic, T

    H. Le Jeannic, T. Ramos, S. F. Simonsen, T. Pregnolato, Z. Liu, R. Schott, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, N. Rotenberg, J. J. García-Ripoll, and P. Lodahl, Experimental recon- struction of the few-photon nonlinear scattering matrix 12 from a single quantum dot in a nanophotonic waveg...

    2021

  43. [52]

    H. H. Jen, Quantum correlations of localized atomic ex- citations in a disordered atomic chain, Phys. Rev. A105, 023717 (2022)

    2022

  44. [53]

    Y.-K. Luo, Y. Yang, J. Lu, and L. Zhou, Control of a single-photon router via an extra cavity, Applied Physics Letters 123, 211103 (2023)

    2023

  45. [54]

    Olmos, C

    B. Olmos, C. Liedl, I. Lesanovsky, and P. Schneeweiss, Braggconditionforscatteringintoaguidedopticalmode, Phys. Rev. A104, 043517 (2021)

    2021

  46. [55]

    A. N. Poddubny, Driven anti-bragg subradiant correla- tions in waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 106, L031702 (2022)

    2022

  47. [56]

    T.Kirova, N.Jia, S.H.Asadpour, J.Qian, G.Juzeli¯ unas, and H. R. Hamedi, Strongly confined atomic localization by Rydberg coherent population trapping, Opt. Lett.45, 5440 (2020)

    2020

  48. [57]

    Cardenas-Lopez, S

    S. Cardenas-Lopez, S. J. Masson, Z. Zager, and A.Asenjo-Garcia,Many-bodysuperradianceanddynam- ical mirror symmetry breaking in waveguide qed, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 033605 (2023)

    2023

  49. [58]

    R. H. Lehmberg, Radiation from an n-atom system. i. general formalism, Phys. Rev. A2, 883 (1970)

    1970

  50. [59]

    Le Kien and A

    F. Le Kien and A. Rauschenbeutel, Nanofiber-mediated chiral radiative coupling between two atoms, Phys. Rev. A 95, 023838 (2017)

    2017

  51. [60]

    H. H. Jen, Steady-state phase diagram of a weakly driven chiral-coupled atomic chain, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013097 (2020)

    2020

  52. [61]

    N. C. Murphy, R. Wortis, and W. A. Atkinson, Gener- alized inverse participation ratio as a possible measure of localization for interacting systems, Phys. Rev. B83, 184206 (2011)

    2011

  53. [62]

    D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2594 (1998)

    1998

  54. [63]

    Fiscelli, L

    G. Fiscelli, L. Rizzuto, and R. Passante, Resonance en- ergy transfer between two atoms in a conducting cylin- drical waveguide, Phys. Rev. A98, 013849 (2018)

    2018

  55. [64]

    A. S. Kuraptsev and I. M. Sokolov, Incomplete sponta- neous decay in a waveguide caused by polarization selec- tion, Phys. Rev. A101, 053852 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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