Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Unwanted couplings can induce amplification in quantum memories despite negligible apparent noise

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 shows that in an NV-center-based absorptive quantum memory, unwanted energy levels and couplings can amplify the stored signal so that measured efficiency exceeds unity, even when the output in the absence of an input—the usual…

desk verdict A solid, transparent semiclassical study of a genuinely new FWM mechanism in quantum memories; the quantum-noise conclusion is inferred, not computed, but the paper itself says so. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15362 v2 pith:52XLYIUX submitted 2024-11-22 quant-ph

Faezeh Kimiaee Asadi , Janish Kumar , Jiawei Ji , Khabat Heshami , Christoph Simon This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Gy03.67.Hk
keywords quantummemoryNVcenterfour-wavemixingunwantedcouplingsefficiencyapparentnoisesemiclassicalanalysissignalamplification
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 argues that when realistic energy-level structures are taken into account, quantum memories based on NV centers can do something unexpected: unwanted couplings to neighboring levels amplify the retrieved signal, so the apparent memory efficiency exceeds 100 percent. The amplification occurs even though the output with no input field—the 'apparent noise' used in typical fidelity checks—is essentially zero, meaning such checks can certify a memory as noiseless when it is actually adding noise at the single-photon level. The mechanism is a four-wave-mixing process that requires one unwanted coupling to the control field and one to the signal field, working through a nearby excited level. The same effect is shown in a cavity-based rubidium memory, so the caution extends beyond NV centers. A strategy of increasing level splittings and detunings, and minimizing the unwanted couplings, is proposed to reduce the amplification.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 4-level reduction of the NV-center system, where the memory's spin coherence $\sigma'_{32}$ evolves under an equation whose unwanted 'term 8' is proportional to $N G^*_{29} \Omega_{39} G_{38} \Omega^*_{28} \sigma'_{23} / ((\gamma_d + \gamma_e - i\Delta_8)\alpha)$. Retaining only the desired term and this term yields the amplification equation with an exponentially growing solution $\exp\bigl(i\delta + \sqrt{b^2/(\Gamma^2 + \Delta_8^2)} - \delta^2\, t\bigr)$, where $b = N G^*_{29} \Omega_{39} G_{38} \Omega^*_{28}/\alpha$. This shows that the amplification arises from a four-wave-mixing process that needs both an unwanted coupling to the control field and an unwanted coupling to the signal field through a nearby excited level.

What would settle it

A full quantum input–output calculation of the 4-level memory that includes noise operators, computing the added noise in the retrieved temporal mode, would settle the matter: if the added noise does not grow with the predicted gain, or if the gain itself disappears when the field is quantized, the claim that amplification is a clear indication of quantum noise would need qualification. Experimentally, measuring the second-order correlation $g^2_{\rm out}(0)$ of the retrieved light, as the paper itself suggests, can discriminate: $g^2_{\rm out}(0) \geq 1$ together with efficiency above unity supports the amplification picture, while a sub-Poissonian retrieved field would contradict it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that unwanted energy levels and undesired couplings, typically neglected when modeling a memory as an ideal $\Lambda$ system, can amplify the output of an NV-center-based absorptive memory. The apparent efficiency, defined as $E = \int |a_{\rm out}(t)|^2 dt$ for a normalized input, can exceed unity even when the apparent noise (the output with no input) is negligible and the apparent fidelity stays at unity. This amplification is a clear indication of quantum-level noise in the signal mode, even though the semiclassical model used here does not explicitly include the noise operators. Generalizing to a 4-level system, the authors identify a complex four-wave-mixing path involving the unwanted couplings $G_{38}$ (signal field) and $\Omega_{28}$ (control field) as the origin, and they show that a cavity-based $^{87}$Rb memory exhibits the same behavior. They conclude that fidelity estimates based solely on apparent noise are insufficient and that mitigating the amplification requires increasing level splittings and detunings or minimizing the unwanted couplings.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's semiclassical analysis captures the gain but omits the quantum noise operators, so the conclusion that efficiency above unity implies added quantum noise rests on the amplifier-noise theorem applied to a classical gain that is never independently verified in a full quantum model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In NV-center memories, apparent efficiency greater than unity can occur with zero apparent noise, so apparent-noise measurements alone cannot certify quantum-memory fidelity.
  • The amplification requires unwanted couplings to both the control and signal fields; studies that consider only control-field unwanted couplings, as is common in four-wave-mixing noise analyses, will miss the effect.
  • Increasing the ground-state splitting $\delta$ and the detuning $\Delta_8$, or minimizing the ratio $G_{38}\Omega_{28}/\Delta_8$, reduces the amplification.
  • The effect is not limited to NV centers: a cavity-based $^{87}$Rb memory with realistic hyperfine levels shows apparent efficiency above unity with apparent fidelity of unity.
  • Previously reported memory efficiencies in atomic and solid-state systems may have been partly inflated by this amplification, depending on how noise or fidelity was characterized experimentally.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A full quantum treatment that includes noise operators would likely confirm that the added noise in the retrieved temporal mode grows with the predicted gain, as required by the amplifier-noise theorem; the semiclassical method here captures the gain but not the noise itself.
  • The paper's proposed measurement of the second-order correlation $g^2_{\rm out}(0)$ could be applied to existing warm-vapor or cavity memories: a retrieved field that becomes bunched or thermal as efficiency rises above unity would support the amplification picture, while a sub-Poissonian retrieved field would challenge it.
  • The same four-wave-mixing path may affect other multi-level memory platforms with weak selection rules, such as rare-earth-ion-doped crystals, where the $\Lambda$-simplification is standard; the authors' findings suggest checking for similar amplification there.
  • If the four-wave-mixing gain turns out to be phase-sensitive in a full quantum treatment, the noise could be suppressed in one quadrature, meaning efficiency above unity would not automatically imply added noise for all input states—an experimentally testable distinction.
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 paper studies an NV-center-based absorptive quantum memory using a semiclassical Maxwell-Bloch model that includes all nine relevant levels and both desired and unwanted couplings. It reports that the apparent memory efficiency can exceed unity due to unwanted couplings, even though the no-input output ('apparent noise') is negligible, and interprets this as evidence of quantum-level noise. The authors identify two critical unwanted couplings, G38 and Ω28, construct a reduced 4-level model, derive a semi-analytical equation whose last term produces exponential amplification, and extend the analysis to a hypothetical cavity-based rubidium memory. The central practical message is that characterizing memory fidelity via the no-input output is insufficient when unwanted couplings are present.

Significance. If the reported effect is physically real, the paper has clear practical importance: it challenges a common level-truncation practice in quantum-memory theory and warns that apparent-noise-based fidelity estimation can miss amplifier noise introduced by unwanted couplings. The paper's strengths include the use of published NV parameters with no parameter-fitting to produce the amplification, the reproduction of the effect in a reduced 4-level model, a semi-analytical equation with an explicit amplification parameter, and a second platform example. The amplification mechanism is concrete and falsifiable: the product G38Ω28/Δ8 controls the growth. However, the central quantum-noise conclusion is inferred rather than computed, and the semi-analytical model has a consistency issue that needs attention before the general claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Numerical estimations; Conclusion] The claim that the effect occurs 'even when the apparent noise is negligible' is a semiclassical statement, not a demonstrated physical property of the device. The apparent noise is computed from Eqs. (S3)-(S4), which drop the quantum Langevin noise operators. In a full quantum treatment of the same Hamiltonian, a device with gain greater than unity necessarily produces nonzero output in the signal mode even for vacuum input, for both phase-insensitive and phase-sensitive amplification. The paper itself states that 'accurately quantifying the associated noise requires a full quantum treatment.' Without such a calculation, the title/abstract assertion that this is 'a clear indication of unwanted noise at the quantum level' is an inference from the amplifier-noise theorem rather than a computed prediction. The authors should either provide a quantum input-output calculation (at least for the 4-level model) that quantifies the added noise, or explicitly restrict the claim to the semiclassical model and reframe the conclusion as a methodological warning about semiclassical efficiency estimates.
  2. [Supplement, Eq. (S5); Eq. (2)] The 4-level equations of motion in Eq. (S5) are not a consistent reduction of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1). The Hamiltonian includes the term -â G38 σ'83 e^{iδt} - H.c., so the Heisenberg equation for the cavity field should contain a back-action term iG38* σ'38 e^{-iδt}. Equation (S5) contains only iG29* σ'29 in the cavity-field equation. Since Eq. (2) is derived from Eq. (S5), the semi-analytical amplification term (term 8) and the growth parameter b in Eq. (4) may be artifacts of this truncation. The authors should either justify why the G38 back-action on the cavity mode can be neglected while the G38 terms in the atomic equations are retained, or correct Eq. (S5) and re-derive the 4-level results. This issue is load-bearing for the analytical explanation and for the rubidium example, which relies on the same simplified model.
  3. [Fig. 3 and surrounding text] The statement that G38 and Ω28 are 'essential' for efficiencies above unity is supported only by a two-parameter scan in which all other unwanted couplings are held at their original values. This shows that these two are necessary in that hyperplane, but it does not rule out that other unwanted couplings, or other pairs of couplings, can also produce amplification in the full 9-level system. Given that the 4-level explanation currently rests on the inconsistent truncation described above, the 'essential' claim needs additional numerical evidence, such as a scan that sets G38=Ω28=0 while varying other couplings, or a demonstration that term 8 in Eq. (2) is the unique amplification mechanism in the full model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction and Abstract] The phrase 'a clear indication of unwanted noise at the quantum level' should be qualified as an inference from the semiclassical gain, since the paper does not compute the quantum noise. Consider saying 'which, by the amplifier-noise theorem, indicates unwanted noise at the quantum level' to distinguish the theorem from a direct calculation.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'we observe no output in the absence of an input,' while the text later says the apparent noise 'remains near zero.' Please state the actual numerical value or threshold used to define 'no apparent noise' or 'negligible apparent noise.'
  3. [Eq. (2)] The long equation in Eq. (2) is hard to parse with the term labels 'terms 1 and 3-5' and 'terms 2 and 6-8.' Please mark the term numbers directly in the equation, or add a table listing each term with its physical origin.
  4. [Supplement A] The temperature-dependent decay rate γd(T) has a missing citation: the text contains '[? ]' after the expression γd(T) = Γ(T)/2. Please add the reference.
  5. [Conclusion and Rb example] The sentence 'previously reported impressive memory efficiencies in atomic memories may have been significantly influenced by amplification' is speculative. The Rb example is explicitly hypothetical, so please either soften this statement or provide a concrete experimental parameter set that would make the concern quantitative.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'negligible apparent noise' part of the central claim holds by construction of the semiclassical model, while the amplification result itself is a genuine model computation.

  1. self definitional [Numerical estimations (9-level NV center) and Supplemental Eqs. (S3)-(S4); Abstract/Intro statement 'this noise remains negligible despite the amplification']
    "we simplify the analysis by making a semi-classical approximation and treating the operators as atomic polarizations ... Our analysis thus neglects quantum noise and higher-order interactions. ... In fact, our semiclassical approach captures only the apparent noise, which is estimated as the output in the absence of an input field, and this noise remains negligible despite the amplification."

    The apparent noise is defined as the output field with no input. In the semiclassical Heisenberg-Langevin equations (S3)-(S4) there is no quantum (Langevin) noise operator: the cavity equation is ˙a = −κa + √2κ ain + iΣ... With ain = 0 and all centers initially in |2⟩, all coherences and a remain identically zero, so aout = √2κa − ain is exactly zero. Thus 'apparent fidelity of unity' and 'negligible apparent noise' are not numerical predictions; they are guaranteed by dropping the noise operators. The paper's headline phenomenon — amplification occurring 'even when the apparent noise ... is negligible' — is therefore true by construction within this model.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters to a target efficiency; coupling constants come from published dipole matrix elements and the authors scan parameters. The semi-analytical equation is derived from the same Hamiltonian as the numerical model, which is internal consistency rather than circularity. The cited amplifier-noise theorems [22,25] are external to the authors and do not depend on the present paper's fitted values. However, the central 'striking' claim that amplification occurs 'even when the apparent noise is negligible' rests on the semiclassical approximation's removal of quantum noise operators. Since apparent noise is defined as no-input output, and the no-input output is identically zero in the deterministic equations (S3)-(S4), that part of the claim reduces to the model definition. The paper itself acknowledges that quantifying the associated noise requires a full quantum treatment, but the abstract and Fig. 2 present the negligible-apparent-noise behavior as a finding. This is partial circularity: one load-bearing predicate of the central claim is true by construction, even though the gain mechanism itself is computed rather than fitted. Score 6.

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

The paper does not fit any parameter to create the amplification: couplings come from published dipole moments, and the authors scan G38, Omega28, and Delta8. Its central result rests on modeling assumptions and on input data from prior NV and Rb spectroscopy. The semiclassical closure and the uniform-coupling assumption are the most fragile entries.

free parameters (3)
  • Ensemble size N = 155 (NV), 250 (Rb)
    Chosen simulation input that sets the collective coupling strength and absolute efficiency. The qualitative amplification is reported at these values and persists under scans, so it is not fitted to force the result.
  • Control-field amplitudes amp1 and amp2 = 4.3 and 6 for NV; 0.05 and 0.1 for Rb
    Hand-selected to operate in the EIT/ATS regime and keep adiabatic elimination valid. Exact efficiency values depend on these choices, but the gain mechanism does not.
  • Cavity volume scaling factor = 2.4 (NV), 1.5 (Rb)
    Hand-set to control the cavity cooperativity C. It changes absolute efficiencies and the range of parameters, but is not adjusted to produce efficiency above unity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Collective atomic operators and the cavity field are treated as c-number amplitudes; quantum noise and higher-order correlations are neglected.
    Used in Eqs. (S3) to (S5) to close the Heisenberg-Langevin equations. This allows the amplification to be seen in classical gain, but it also means the claimed quantum noise is inferred, not computed.
  • domain assumption All NV centers are identically oriented and located at the cavity field maximum, so G_jk and Omega_jk are spatially uniform.
    Stated in the Numerical estimations section; the authors note that inhomogeneous coupling would reduce efficiency and add decoherence.
  • domain assumption The cavity mode and fast optical coherences sigma_39, sigma_29, and sigma_28 are eliminated adiabatically.
    Used to go from the 9-level model to Eq. (2) and the 4-level amplification equation. This is valid in the EIT regime, so the semi-analytical result does not cover all memory protocols.
  • domain assumption The published NV-center eigenenergies, dipole matrix elements, and dephasing rates from Refs. [14,27,28], and Rb D1-line data from [32], are correct.
    All coupling values in Table S1 and in the simulations derive from these external inputs. If these are wrong, the quantitative predictions change.
  • standard math A phase-insensitive amplifier with gain must add noise in the same mode as the signal.
    Invoked via Refs. [22,25] to move from semiclassical efficiency above unity to the conclusion of quantum-level noise. The authors do not verify this in a full quantum treatment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unwanted couplings can induce amplification in quantum memories despite negligible apparent noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/52XLYIUX

@misc{pith2026241115362,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unwanted couplings can induce amplification in quantum memories despite negligible apparent noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/52XLYIUX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15362}
}
abstract

Theoretical quantum memory design often involves selectively focusing on certain energy levels to mimic an ideal $\Lambda$-configuration, a common approach that may unintentionally overlook the impact of neighboring levels or undesired couplings. While this simplification may be justified in certain protocols or platforms, it can significantly distort the achievable memory performance. Through numerical semi-classical analysis, we show that the presence of unwanted energy levels and undesired couplings in an NV-center-based absorptive memory can significantly amplify the signal, resulting in memory efficiencies exceeding unity, a clear indication of unwanted noise at the quantum level. Strikingly, this effect occurs even when the apparent noise i.e., output in the absence of an input field, is negligible. We then generalize our results using semi-analytical estimations to analyze this amplification, and propose a strategy to reduce its effect. Our findings extend to memory platforms beyond NV centers; as an example, we also analyze a cavity-based rubidium memory that experiences the same issue.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15362 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The NV center’s energy level structure, influenced by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Storage and retrieval of the input pulse are shown as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Numerical results: Apparent efficiency (solid line) and fidelity (dashed line) of the 9-level NV center system, including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Apparent efficiency of the 4-level system as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Heshami, D

    K. Heshami, D. G. England, P. C. Humphreys, P. J. Bus- tard, V. M. Acosta, J. Nunn, and B. J. Sussman, Journal of modern optics 63, 2005 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Bussieres, N

    F. Bussieres, N. Sangouard, M. Afzelius, H. De Riedmat- ten, C. Simon, and W. Tittel, Journal of Modern Optics 60, 1519 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    A. I. Lvovsky, B. C. Sanders, and W. Tittel, Nature photonics 3, 706 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    H. J. Kimble, Nature 453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Simon, Nature Photonics 11, 678 (2017)

    C. Simon, Nature Photonics 11, 678 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    QEYSSat 2.0 -- White Paper on Satellite-based Quantum Communication Missions in Canada

    T. Jennewein, C. Simon, A. Fougeres, F. Babin, F. K. Asadi, K. B. Kuntz, M. Maisonneuve, B. Moffat, K. Mohammadi, and D. Panneton, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02481 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    D. F. Phillips, A. Fleischhauer, A. Mair, R. L. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, Physical review letters 86, 783 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    (4) The form of b shows that this amplification originates from a complex four-wave mixing (FWM) process caused by unwanted coupling between the ground and excited states

    − δ2)t where Γ = γe + γd, and b = N G∗ 29 Ω39 G38 Ω∗ 28 α . (4) The form of b shows that this amplification originates from a complex four-wave mixing (FWM) process caused by unwanted coupling between the ground and excited states. It is important to note that this FWM process involves simultaneous contributions from unwanted cou- plings to both the contr...

    work page

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Chaneli` ere, D

    T. Chaneli` ere, D. Matsukevich, S. Jenkins, S.-Y. Lan, T. Kennedy, and A. Kuzmich, Nature 438, 833 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    J. J. Longdell, E. Fraval, M. J. Sellars, and N. B. Man- son, Physical review letters 95, 063601 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    Michelberger, T

    P. Michelberger, T. Champion, M. Sprague, K. Kacz- marek, M. Barbieri, X. Jin, D. England, W. Kolthammer, D. Saunders, J. Nunn, et al., New Journal of Physics 17, 043006 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Fleischhauer, A

    M. Fleischhauer, A. Imamoglu, and J. P. Marangos, Re- views of modern physics 77, 633 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    J. Guo, X. Feng, P. Yang, Z. Yu, L. Chen, C.-H. Yuan, and W. Zhang, Nature communications 10, 148 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Heshami, C

    K. Heshami, C. Santori, B. Khanaliloo, C. Healey, V. M. Acosta, P. E. Barclay, and C. Simon, Physical Review A 89, 040301 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Saglamyurek, T

    E. Saglamyurek, T. Hrushevskyi, A. Rastogi, K. Hes- hami, and L. J. LeBlanc, Nature Photonics 12, 774 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Saunders, J

    D. Saunders, J. Munns, T. Champion, C. Qiu, K. Kacz- marek, E. Poem, P. Ledingham, I. Walmsley, and J. Nunn, Physical review letters 116, 090501 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Saglamyurek, T

    E. Saglamyurek, T. Hrushevskyi, L. Cooke, A. Rastogi, and L. J. LeBlanc, Physical Review Research 1, 022004 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Y. Lei, F. Kimiaee Asadi, T. Zhong, A. Kuzmich, C. Si- mon, and M. Hosseini, Optica 10, 1511 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Simon, M

    C. Simon, M. Afzelius, J. Appel, A. Boyer De La Giro- day, S. Dewhurst, N. Gisin, C. Hu, F. Jelezko, S. Kr¨ oll, J. M¨ uller,et al., The European Physical Journal D 58, 1 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    D. B. Higginbottom, F. K. Asadi, C. Chartrand, J.-W. Ji, L. Bergeron, M. L. Thewalt, C. Simon, and S. Simmons, PRX Quantum 4, 020308 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    S. Manz, T. Fernholz, J. Schmiedmayer, and J.-W. Pan, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics 75, 040101 (2007). 6

    2007

  14. [22]

    N. Lauk, C. O’Brien, and M. Fleischhauer, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 88, 013823 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    Consequently, the following results apply to memory protocols based on the adiabatic elimination of absorption, such as EIT [29]

    (see [26]). Consequently, the following results apply to memory protocols based on the adiabatic elimination of absorption, such as EIT [29]. Solving Eq. (2) analyt- ically is not feasible; however, a numerical solution can be employed to quantify the system’s performance (see...

  16. [24]

    K. Reim, J. Nunn, V. Lorenz, B. Sussman, K. Lee, N. Langford, D. Jaksch, and I. Walmsley, Nature Pho- tonics 4, 218 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Our analysis thus neglects quantum noise and higher-order interactions

    for equations of motion). Our analysis thus neglects quantum noise and higher-order interactions. Nonethe- less, as we will see below, the impact of amplification, which introduces additional noise at the quantum level, remains evident in the memory efficiency. To estimate the...

  19. [27]

    A. V. Gorshkov, A. Andr´ e, M. D. Lukin, and A. S. Sørensen, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 76, 033804 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    For parameters see Fig

    As shown, the presence of both unwanted couplings is essential to achieve apparent efficiencies greater than one. For parameters see Fig. 2. FIG. 4. Apparent efficiency of the 4-level system as a function of different terms in Eq. (2). Here, terms 1 and 3 are retained, while t...

  21. [29]

    Fleischhauer and M

    M. Fleischhauer and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review A 65, 022314 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    See supplemental material for more details,

    “See supplemental material for more details,”

  23. [31]

    Doherty, F

    M. Doherty, F. Dolde, H. Fedder, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, N. Manson, and L. Hollenberg, Physi- cal Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 85, 205203 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. Hollenberg, Physics Reports 528, 1 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Rastogi, E

    A. Rastogi, E. Saglamyurek, T. Hrushevskyi, S. Hubele, and L. J. LeBlanc, Physical Review A 100, 012314 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    J. Nunn, J. Munns, S. Thomas, K. T. Kaczmarek, C. Qiu, A. Feizpour, E. Poem, B. Brecht, D. Saunders, P. M. Ledingham, et al., Physical Review A 96, 012338 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    S. E. Thomas, T. M. Hird, J. H. Munns, B. Brecht, D. J. Saunders, J. Nunn, I. A. Walmsley, and P. M. Leding- ham, Physical Review A 100, 033801 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    L. Ma, X. Lei, J. Yan, R. Li, T. Chai, Z. Yan, X. Jia, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Nature communications 13, 2368 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Z. Wu, J. Guo, Z. Yu, W. Huang, C.-H. Yuan, W. Zhang, and L. Chen, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11098 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhang, J

    K. Zhang, J. Guo, L. Q. Chen, C. Yuan, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 90, 033823 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    T. M. Hird, Engineering a noise-free quantum memory for temporal mode manipulation, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford (2021). SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIAL A. NV center For an ensemble of NV center, the Hamiltonian of the system is given by ˆH = ˆH0 + ˆHint. Here ˆH0 is the free ...

    2021

  32. [40]

    S2 shows that reducing the unwanted coupling G38 has the same effect on apparent efficiency as reducing the other unwanted coupling, Ω 28

    The heatmap plot in Fig. S2 shows that reducing the unwanted coupling G38 has the same effect on apparent efficiency as reducing the other unwanted coupling, Ω 28. The last term in Equation 2 is the most significant unwanted contribution to amplification in the system. Fig. S3...

  33. [41]

    NV center Fig. S4 illustrates the achievable apparent memory ef- ficiency and fidelity in a simplified 4-level system, solved numerically, where only two unwanted couplings, G38 and Ω 28, are present. Even in this reduced setup, the system exhibits significant amplification, e...

  34. [42]

    S6, featuring two hyperfine ground states and two hyperfine excited states

    Rubidium memory The energy levels of the D1 line of the 87Rb are shown in Fig. S6, featuring two hyperfine ground states and two hyperfine excited states. Using the transition rules for the three different polarizations i.e., π (linear) and σ± (circular), one can compute the d...

Pith tools

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