Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Light Statistics from Large Ensembles of Independent Two-level Emitters: Classical or Non-classical?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Weakly driven, non-interacting two-level atoms scatter light with direction-dependent photon correlations, from superbunching to antibunching, controlled by the number of excitations $sN$.

desk verdict Exact N-atom g2 formula is solid and worth knowing; the disorder-enhanced scaling claims rest on fits to conditional means, not the per-realization extrema the paper headlines. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17377 v1 pith:PBT55NMI submitted 2024-11-26 quant-ph

M. Bojer , A. Cidrim , P. P. Abrantes , R. Bachelard , J. von Zanthier This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords photonstatisticssecond-ordercorrelationantibunchingsuperbunchingstructurefactorweakdrivingdisorderedatomicensemblesresonancefluorescence
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 establishes that an ensemble of independent, non-interacting two-level atoms under resonant weak drive scatters light whose two-photon statistics are far from what a classical oscillator model would predict. The exact equal-time second-order autocorrelation function $g^{(2)}_{\mathbf{k}}$ — the ratio of coincident two-photon detection to the uncorrelated expectation — depends on the structure factor $S(\mathbf{k})$ and can take values much greater than 2 (superbunching) or much less than 1 (antibunching) depending on observation direction. In the weak-drive limit, $sN\ll 1$, the correlations scale as $1/s$ to $1/s^2$ for superbunching and as $s$ for antibunching, with disorder in the emitter positions improving both scalings by factors of $1/s$ and $\sqrt{N}$, respectively. The paper identifies $sN$, the number of excitations, as the control parameter, and shows the same pattern holds at all correlation orders ($g^{(m)}\propto 1/s^m$ or $\propto s$). This matters because it shows that a simple ensemble without interactions can be a tunable source of strongly non-classical photon correlations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the structure factor $S(\mathbf{k})=\sum_{\mu=1}^{N}e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{R}_\mu}$, the phase sum over emitter positions; for higher orders the paper introduces a generalized $m$-th order structure factor $S^{(m)}(\mathbf{k})$ built from integer partitions of $m$, Eq. (6). The exact $g^{(2)}_{\mathbf{k}}$ formula, Eq. (1), is written entirely in terms of $S(\mathbf{k})$, $S(2\mathbf{k})$, $N$, and $s$, with the denominator $sN+|S(\mathbf{k})|^2$ separating the spontaneous-emission (incoherent) and interference (coherent) contributions to the intensity. The two conditions $S(\mathbf{k})=0$ and $S^2(\mathbf{k})=S(2\mathbf{k})$ select the superbunching and antibunching directions, and the generalized condition $S^{(m)}(\mathbf{k})=0$ extends antibunching to all orders. These conditions carry the argument: they convert one exact formula into the scaling laws $g^{(2)}\propto 1/s^2N$, $g^{(2)}\propto 4s\sqrt{N}$, and their higher-order counterparts.

What would settle it

Measure $g^{(2)}$ in a direction where the first-order structure factor vanishes for a disordered cloud with known positions and $sN\ll 1$, and check whether the maximum value grows as $1/(s^2N)$ as $s$ and $N$ are varied; if the scaling is instead $1/(sN)$ or something else, the disorder enhancement claim fails, and the full angular map of $g^{(2)}$ can be compared against Eq. (1) computed from the measured positions to test the exact formula itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an ensemble of $N$ independent, non-interacting two-level atoms driven resonantly by a weak laser does not scatter light with the coherent statistics ($g^{(2)}=1$) of classical Lorentz oscillators, even though to first order in the drive its steady state matches a coherent state. Using the exact equal-time second-order autocorrelation function $$$g^{{(2)}}$_{\mathbf{k}}=\frac{2sN[2+s(N-1)]+4s(N-2)|S(\mathbf{k})|^2+|$S^{2}$(\mathbf{k})-S(2\mathbf{k})|^2}{(sN+|S(\mathbf{k})|^2)^2},$$ with $S(\mathbf{k})=\sum_{\mu=1}^{N}e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{R}_\mu}$ the structure factor and $s$ the saturation parameter, the paper derives that in the limit $sN\ll 1$ the correlations become extreme and direction-dependent: destructive-interference directions give superbunching $g^{(2)}\sim 1/(sN)$ in ordered arrays and $\sim 1/(s^2N)$ in disordered clouds, while special directions give antibunching $g^{(2)}\sim sN$ ordered and $\sim 4s\sqrt{N}$ disordered. The same mechanism yields $m$-th order scalings $g^{(m)}\sim 1/s^m$ and $g^{(m)}\sim s$. The paper concludes that the number of excitations $sN$ is the control parameter for the photon statistics of the ensemble.

Load-bearing premise

The exact formula Eq. (1) needs only the independent-atom assumption, but the disorder-enhanced scalings $g^{(2)}\sim 1/(s^2N)$ and $g^{(2)}\sim 4s\sqrt{N}$ additionally rest on numerical fits for the conditional structure-factor statistics, $\langle|S(2\mathbf{k})|^2\rangle\sim N$ under $S(\mathbf{k})=0$ and $|S(\mathbf{k})|\sim N^{1/4}$ under $S^2(\mathbf{k})=S(2\mathbf{k})$, obtained from 200 realizations with $N$ up to 500; if those fits fail for larger clouds or other geometries, the extreme scalings would not follow even though Eq. (1) itself stands.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The number of excitations $sN$ acts as a single control knob for the photon statistics: lowering the drive makes correlations more extreme in both directions, at the price of a lower photon flux.
  • The two-photon statistics of the ensemble are set by observation direction, so a single cloud can simultaneously display regions of superbunching and antibunching in its radiation pattern.
  • Disorder in emitter positions enhances both effects relative to ordered arrays (an extra $1/s$ for superbunching and a factor $\sqrt{N}$ for antibunching), so irregular clouds are advantageous rather than detrimental.
  • In the strong-drive limit $s\to\infty$, the formula reproduces chaotic light with $g^{(2)}\to 2$, recovering the familiar thermal statistics from spontaneous emission.
  • The same mechanism produces higher-order non-classical correlations, with $g^{(m)}\propto 1/s^m$ for superbunching and $g^{(m)}\propto s$ for antibunching, so multi-photon bundles are predicted.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the directional map of $g^{(2)}$ could serve as a sensitive probe of the excitation number $sN$: because the extreme scalings are so steep in $s$, measuring the maximum and minimum of the correlation function over many directions could estimate the effective number of excitations in a cloud.
  • The conditional structure-factor scalings ($\langle|S(2\mathbf{k})|^2\rangle\sim N$ under $S(\mathbf{k})=0$, $|S(\mathbf{k})|\sim N^{1/4}$ under $S^2(\mathbf{k})=S(2\mathbf{k})$) look like universal speckle-statistics statements; if they hold for other random geometries, the $1/s^2$ and $\sqrt{N}$ enhancements would be a general feature of disordered ensembles rather than a property of the specifi
  • The closing remark about superradiance suggests a concrete test: if the emitters are brought close enough that spontaneous emission becomes collective and directional, the isotropic incoherent background in Eq. (1) changes, and the extreme scalings would likely be modified; a model with dipole–dipole interactions would show whether the non-classical statistics survive.
  • The predicted higher-order scalings $g^{(m)}\sim 1/s^m$ imply that the superbunched light arrives in bursts of $m$ photons; a photon-number-resolving measurement could test whether the $m$-photon coincidences dominate over all lower-order combinations, which would be a sharper signature than $g^{(2)}$ alone.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the equal-time second-order photon autocorrelation function of N independent, resonantly driven two-level emitters in the far field, with emphasis on the weak-driving regime. The central formal result is Eq. (1), a closed-form expression for g^(2)_k in terms of the saturation parameter s and the structure factor S(k), derived explicitly in Supplement B from the optical Bloch equations and a product steady state. For ordered arrays, destructive-interference directions S(k)=0 yield superbunching g^(2) ~ 4/(sN), and directions satisfying S^2(k)=S(2k) yield antibunching g^(2) ~ 8sN. For disordered clouds, the paper claims that destructive-interference directions have |S(2k)|^2 ~ N and hence g^(2) ~ 1/(s^2 N), while antibunching directions obey |S(k)| ~ N^{1/4} and hence g^(2) ~ 4s sqrt(N). The manuscript further generalizes the superbunching and antibunching conditions to m-th order correlations, obtaining g^(m) ~ 1/s^m and g^(m) ~ s respectively. The paper identifies the number of excitations sN as the control parameter and interprets the phenomena as arising from the interplay between spatially fluctuating coherent scattering and isotropic spontaneous emission.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper is significant: it provides an exact, analytically transparent formula for the photon statistics of a large ensemble of independent emitters, reproduces the single-emitter antibunching limit and the chaotic-light limit g^(2) -> 2, and predicts extreme nonclassical correlations in a simple setting with possible applications to tunable quantum light sources. The explicit derivation of Eq. (1) in Supplement B is a genuine strength, as is the clean treatment of the ordered-array case. The paper is also not circular: the reported correlations are not fitted to the data; only auxiliary conditional structure-factor averages are fitted numerically. The main significance is conditional on the disorder-dependent N-scalings, which currently rest on numerical fits rather than on a derivation from the exact formula.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplement D / Eqs. (4)-(5) and Fig. 2(b)] The N-dependence of the disordered scalings is not yet established for the quantities actually claimed. The fits in Supplement D (200 realizations, N up to 500, no error bars) determine conditional ensemble averages at fixed directions: <|S(2k)|^2> ~ N under S(k)=0 and |S(k)| ~ N^{1/4} under S^2(k)=S(2k). However, Eqs. (4)-(5) are used to claim scalings of max_k g^(2)_k and min_k g^(2)_k over all observation directions for a single disordered cloud. For a speckle pattern the number of independent speckles grows with the system size, and the extreme values of a random field over many speckles generally scale differently from a typical fixed-direction conditional mean, often with an extra logarithmic or different power-law factor. Figure 2(b) plots extrema for only N=100 and N=500 as functions of s, without fitting the N-dependence of the extrema themselves, so the quoted 1/(s^2 N) and 4s sqrt(N) behaviors are not directly demonstrated. Please supply either an analytic treatment of the extremal statistics or direct numerical fits to the N-exponents of the per-realization maxima and minima, with error bars and a wider range of N.
  2. [Fig. 2(b) and numerical resolution] The numerical validation of the extrema in Fig. 2(b) should specify the angular sampling and demonstrate convergence. In the regime sN << 1, the angular regions that produce the strongest superbunching and deepest antibunching become narrow, so values of max_k g^(2)_k and min_k g^(2)_k evaluated on a fixed angular grid can be resolution-limited rather than true extrema. If the plotted 1/s^2 trend at small s is partly an artifact of grid undersampling, the numerical support for the disorder-enhanced scaling would be weakened. The authors should state the angular discretization or maximization procedure and show that the reported extrema converge as the grid is refined or a local optimization is used.
  3. [Higher-order correlations, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The generalization to arbitrary correlation order is presented only at the level of the s-scaling; the N-dependence of the generalized structure factor S^(m)(k) under the disorder conditions is not analyzed. In particular, for disordered clouds the claims g^(m) ~ 1/s^m and g^(m) ~ s require control of the relevant moments of S^(m)(k) under S(k)=0 and S^(m)(k)=0, respectively, just as the second-order claim requires control of |S(2k)|^2 and |S(k)|. Since the disordered enhancement is a central message of the paper, the higher-order statements need either explicit estimates of these moments or numerical fits for m=3 and m=4.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplement D] The fits of the two conditional structure-factor averages should report confidence intervals or error bars for the fitted exponents b, and ideally include larger N and a second cloud geometry, so the reader can judge whether b=1 and b=0.5 are asymptotic scalings rather than finite-size effective exponents.
  2. [Fig. 2(b) caption] The caption should state explicitly that the maximum and minimum of g^(2)_k are taken over the full observation solid angle, and should describe the angular grid used; this is directly relevant to the numerical convergence concern raised above.
  3. [Eq. (5) and surrounding text] In the derivation of the antibunching scaling, it would be helpful to state the intermediate inequality that the condition S^2(k)=S(2k) imposes |S(k)| <= sqrt(N), since this motivates the numerical search for the effective scaling |S(k)| ~ N^{1/4}.
  4. [General notation] The generalized structure factor S^(m)(k) in Eq. (6) is indexed by an integer partition; a one-sentence definition of the notation P_{c1,...,cm} in the main text would improve readability for readers who do not consult the supplement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The g^(2) derivation is self-contained; disordered-case scalings rest on auxiliary structure-factor fits, not on fitted g^(2) values.

full rationale

The central object g_k^(2), Eq. (1), is derived explicitly from the optical Bloch equations with the product-state ansatz ρ̂ = ⊗_μ ρ̂_μ, and Supplement B reproduces the calculation term-by-term; it is not obtained by fitting to the phenomena it is used to explain. The ordered-array scalings (superbunching ~ 4/sN, antibunching ~ 8sN) follow analytically by inserting S(k)=0 or S^2(k)=S(2k) into Eq. (1). For disordered ensembles, the scalings quoted in Eqs. (4)-(5) are obtained by algebraically evaluating Eq. (1) under the same conditions and then using numerical fits to conditional structure-factor averages (⟨|S(2k)|^2⟩ ~ N under S(k)=0; ⟨(1+|S(k)|^2)/|S(k)|^4⟩ ~ N^{-1/2} under S^2(k)=S(2k)) from Supplement D. These fits are to auxiliary speckle-statistics quantities, not to the target g^(2) values, so the derivation is not circular: the g^(2) scalings are algebraically implied by the fitted auxiliary quantities rather than fitted themselves. The repeated citation [8] is to the paper's own supplemental material, but the derivations are included in the submission and do not import an unverified external theorem. A reviewer concern that conditional-mean scalings may not control the per-realization extrema of g^(2) is a robustness/rigor issue about the disordered-case extrapolation, not a circularity: it does not make the prediction equal to its input by construction. No load-bearing step reduces to a fit of the claimed prediction or to an ansatz smuggled in by citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The model uses standard optical Bloch equations and structure factors. The main hidden cost is the numerical scaling laws for disordered structure factors, which are fitted rather than derived, and the assumptions of independent emitters and far-field single-scattering detection.

free parameters (2)
  • scaling exponent b for ⟨|S(2k)|²⟩ under S(k)=0 = b≈1
    Supplement D fits the conditional average of |S(2k)|² to aN^b over 200 realizations; this is used to claim g2∝1/(s²N) in disordered superbunching.
  • scaling exponent b for |S(k)| under S²(k)=S(2k) = b≈0.5, giving |S(k)|~N^{1/4}
    Supplement D fits (1+|S(k)|²)/|S(k)|⁴ to (1+aN^b)/(aN^b)²; used to claim g2∝4s√N in disordered antibunching.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The N emitters are independent: interactions and multiple scattering are neglected, so the steady state is a product state ρ=⊗_μ ρ_μ.
    Stated in the main text after Eq. (1): 'the emitters are distant enough from each other so that interactions between them can be neglected.' The entire factorization of correlation functions relies on this.
  • domain assumption Each atom is a resonantly driven two-level system with standard optical Bloch steady-state values ρ_ee=s/(2(1+s)) and ρ_eg=-√s/(√2(1+s)).
    These values are quoted as known and used to evaluate all expectation values in the Supplemental Material; no derivation is given.
  • domain assumption The field is detected in the far field with operator E^(+)=∑ e^{-ik·R} σ^-_μ and k=k_obs-k_L.
    Introduced in the main text before Eq. (1); the simplification to a single scattering direction ignores near-field and multiple-scattering corrections.
  • ad hoc to paper The conditional structure-factor statistics in disordered clouds follow the fitted scalings ⟨|S(2k)|²⟩~N and |S(k)|~N^{1/4}.
    These scalings are established only numerically in Appendix D and are load-bearing for the disorder-enhancement claims.
  • standard math Integer partition and conjugacy-class combinatorics are used to construct the generalized structure factor S^(m)(k).
    Supplement E invokes Stirling numbers and conjugacy class cardinalities; these are standard and not in dispute.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light Statistics from Large Ensembles of Independent Two-level Emitters: Classical or Non-classical?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBT55NMI

@misc{pith2026241117377,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light Statistics from Large Ensembles of Independent Two-level Emitters: Classical or Non-classical?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBT55NMI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17377}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the photon statistics of an ensemble of coherently driven non-interacting two-level atoms in the weak driving regime. As it turns out, the system displays unique emission characteristics that are strongly in contrast to the emission of classical oscillating dipoles. By deriving the second-order autocorrelation function, we show that extraordinary two-photon correlations are obtained, ranging from strong antibunching to superbunching. These features are enhanced by disorder in the emitter positions, and the control parameter is the number of excitations in the system. We observe the appearance of bunching and antibunching when the light is scattered by the atoms predominantly coherently, i.e., mimicking classical Rayleigh scattering, whereas thermal photon statistics is obtained when the light is scattered via spontaneous decay, a well-known quantum effect. The underlying mechanism is the interplay between coherent scattering, which exhibits spatial fluctuations due to interference, and dissipation in the form of isotropic spontaneous decay.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17377 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Second-order autocorrelation function for a disordered cloud of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Second-order autocorrelation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Second-order autocorrelation function as a function of the polar angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Analysis of the structure factor expression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Lass`egues, M

    P. Lass`egues, M. A. F. Biscassi, M. Morisse, A. Cidrim, P. G. S. Dias, H. Eneriz, R. C. Teixeira, R. Kaiser, R. Bachelard, and M. Hugbart, Transition from classical to quantum loss of light coherence, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042214 (2023)

    2023

  2. [34]

    S. Wolf, S. Richter, J. von Zanthier, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, Light of two atoms in free space: Bunching or antibunching?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 063603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [1]

    Einstein, Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung, Physikalische Zeitschrift 18, 121 (1917)

    A. Einstein, Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung, Physikalische Zeitschrift 18, 121 (1917)

    work page 1917

  4. [2]

    B. R. Mollow, Power spectrum of light scattered by two-level systems, Phys. Rev. 188, 1969 (1969)

    work page 1969

  5. [3]

    H. J. Carmichael and D. F. Walls, A quantum-mechanical mas- ter equation treatment of the dynamical stark e ffect, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 9, 1199–1219 (1976)

    work page 1976

  6. [4]

    J. F. Clauser, Experimental distinction between the quantum and classical field-theoretic predictions for the photoelectric ef- fect, Phys. Rev. D 9, 853 (1974)

    work page 1974

  7. [5]

    H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, Photon antibunch- ing in resonance fluorescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 (1977)

    work page 1977

  8. [6]

    Diedrich and H

    F. Diedrich and H. Walther, Nonclassical radiation of a single stored ion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 203 (1987)

    1987

Show all 51 references
  1. [7]

    Kurtsiefer, S

    C. Kurtsiefer, S. Mayer, P. Zarda, and H. Weinfurter, Stable solid-state source of single photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 290 (2000)

    2000

  2. [8]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by pub- lisher] for: discussion on the light statistics for the Lorentz oscillator model; calculation of the second-order autocorrela- tion function, with detailed analysis of both ordered and disor- dered cases; generalized s...

  3. [9]

    A. A. Svidzinsky, J.-T. Chang, and M. O. Scully, Cooperative spontaneous emission of n atoms: Many-body eigenstates, the effect of virtual lamb shift processes, and analogy with radiation of n classical oscillators, Phys. Rev. A 81, 053821 (2010)

    2010

  4. [10]

    Cottier, R

    F. Cottier, R. Kaiser, and R. Bachelard, Role of disorder in super- and subradiance of cold atomic clouds, Phys. Rev. A98, 013622 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Loudon, The quantum theory of light (Oxford Science Pub- lications, 1973)

    R. Loudon, The quantum theory of light (Oxford Science Pub- lications, 1973)

    1973

  6. [13]

    J. C. L ´opez Carre˜no, E. Z. Casalengua, F. P. Laussy, and E. del Valle, Joint subnatural-linewidth and single-photon emission from resonance fluorescence, Quantum Science and Technol- ogy 3, 045001 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    Hanschke, L

    L. Hanschke, L. Schweickert, J. C. L. Carre ˜no, E. Sch ¨oll, K. D. Zeuner, T. Lettner, E. Z. Casalengua, M. Reindl, S. F. C. da Silva, R. Trotta, J. J. Finley, A. Rastelli, E. del Valle, F. P. Laussy, V . Zwiller, K. M ¨uller, and K. D. J ¨ons, Origin of an- tibunching in res...

    2020

  8. [15]

    C. L. Phillips, A. J. Brash, D. P. S. McCutcheon, J. Iles-Smith, E. Clarke, B. Royall, M. S. Skolnick, A. M. Fox, and A. Nazir, Photon statistics of filtered resonance fluorescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 043603 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    J ¨ordens, N

    R. J ¨ordens, N. Strohmaier, K. G ¨unter, H. Moritz, and T. Esslinger, A mott insulator of fermionic atoms in an optical lattice, Nature 455, 204–207 (2008)

    2008

  10. [17]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de L ´es´eleuc, V . Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbi- trary two-dimensional atomic arrays, Science 354, 1021–1023 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. An- schuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V . Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one- dimensional cold atom arrays, Science 354, 1024–1027 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Hollerith, J. Zeiher, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, A subradiant optical mirror formed by a single structured atomic layer, Nature 583, 369–374 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    Srakaew, P

    K. Srakaew, P. Weckesser, S. Hollerith, D. Wei, D. Adler, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, A subwavelength atomic array switched by a single rydberg atom, Nature Physics 19, 714–719 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    Zhang, V

    L. Zhang, V . Walther, K. Mølmer, and T. Pohl, Photon-photon interactions in rydberg-atom arrays, Quantum 6, 674 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    S. P. Pedersen, L. Zhang, and T. Pohl, Quantum nonlinear meta- surfaces from dual arrays of ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L012047 (2023). 6

    2023

  16. [23]

    J. W. Goodman, Speckle Phenomena in Optics: Theory and Ap- plications, Second Edition (SPIE, 2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    A. S. A. G. Asuero and A. G. Gonz ´alez, The correlation coef- ficient: An overview, Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry 36, 41 (2006)

    2006

  18. [25]

    Caspani, C

    L. Caspani, C. Xiong, B. J. Eggleton, D. Bajoni, M. Liscidini, M. Galli, R. Morandotti, and D. J. Moss, Integrated sources of photon quantum states based on nonlinear optics, Light: Sci- ence and Applications 6, e17100–e17100 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Pan, Z.-B

    J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y . Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and M. ˙Zukowski, Multiphoton entanglement and interferome- try, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 777 (2012)

    2012

  20. [27]

    Liang, A

    Q.-Y . Liang, A. V . Venkatramani, S. H. Cantu, T. L. Nicholson, M. J. Gullans, A. V . Gorshkov, J. D. Thompson, C. Chin, M. D. Lukin, and V . Vuleti´c, Observation of three-photon bound states in a quantum nonlinear medium, Science 359, 783–786 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    S. H. Cantu, A. V . Venkatramani, W. Xu, L. Zhou, B. Je- lenkovi´c, M. D. Lukin, and V . Vuleti ´c, Repulsive photons in a quantum nonlinear medium, Nature Physics 16, 921–925 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    C. Dory, K. A. Fischer, K. M ¨uller, K. G. Lagoudakis, T. Sarmiento, A. Rundquist, J. L. Zhang, Y . Kelaita, N. V . Sapra, and J. Vu ˇckovi´c, Tuning the photon statistics of a strongly coupled nanophotonic system, Phys. Rev. A 95, 023804 (2017)

    2017

  23. [30]

    Laiho, T

    K. Laiho, T. Dirmeier, M. Schmidt, S. Reitzenstein, and C. Mar- quardt, Measuring higher-order photon correlations of faint quantum light: A short review, Physics Letters A 435, 128059 (2022)

    2022

  24. [31]

    Laiho, M

    K. Laiho, M. Avenhaus, and C. Silberhorn, Characteristics of displaced single photons attained via higher order factorial mo- ments, New J. Phys. 14, 105011 (2012)

    2012

  25. [32]

    J. R. Klauder and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Fundamentals of quan- tum optics, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, Mi- neola, NY , 2006)

    2006

  26. [33]

    M. L. Juan, C. Bradac, B. Besga, M. Johnsson, G. Brennen, G. Molina-Terriza, and T. V olz, Cooperatively enhanced dipole forces from artificial atoms in trapped nanodiamonds, Nature Physics 13, 241–245 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Singh, A

    K. Singh, A. Cidrim, A. Kovalenko, T. Pham, O. ˇC´ıp, L. Slodi ˇcka, and R. Bachelard, Coherent control of pho- ton correlations in trapped ion crystals, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09465 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Bloch, Ultracold quantum gases in optical lattices, Nature Physics 1, 23–30 (2005)

    I. Bloch, Ultracold quantum gases in optical lattices, Nature Physics 1, 23–30 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    M. J. Martin, M. Bishof, M. D. Swallows, X. Zhang, C. Benko, J. von Stecher, A. V . Gorshkov, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, A quan- tum many-body spin system in an optical lattice clock, Science 341, 632 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F ¨olling, and M. Greiner, A quantum gas microscope for detecting single atoms in a hubbard-regime optical lattice, Nature 462, 74–77 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Beugnon, C

    J. Beugnon, C. Tuchendler, H. Marion, A. Ga ¨etan, Y . Mirosh- nychenko, Y . R. P. Sortais, A. M. Lance, M. P. A. Jones, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Two-dimensional transport and transfer of a single atomic qubit in optical tweez- ers, Nature Physics 3, 696–699 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    M. A. Norcia, A. W. Young, and A. M. Kaufman, Microscopic control and detection of ultracold strontium in optical-tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041054 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    R. H. Lehmberg, Radiation from an n-atom system. ii. spon- taneous emission from a pair of atoms, Phys. Rev. A 2, 889 (1970)

    1970

  34. [42]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  35. [43]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Superradiance: An essay on the the- ory of collective spontaneous emission, Physics Reports93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  36. [44]

    J. G. Bohnet, Z. Chen, J. M. Weiner, D. Meiser, M. J. Holland, and J. K. Thompson, A steady-state superradiant laser with less than one intracavity photon, Nature 484, 78–81 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Wiegner, S

    R. Wiegner, S. Oppel, D. Bhatti, J. von Zanthier, and G. S. Agarwal, Simulating superradiance from higher-order- intensity-correlation measurements: Single atoms, Phys. Rev. A 92, 033832 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, A non-equilibrium superradiant phase transition in free space, Nature Physics 19, 1345–1349 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Somech and E

    O. Somech and E. Shahmoon, Quantum entangled states of a classically radiating macroscopic spin, PRX Quantum 5, 010349 (2024). 1 Supplemental Material for: Light Statistics from Large Ensembles of Independent Two-level Emitters: Classical or Non-classical? M. Bojer1, A. Cidrim...

    2024

  40. [48]

    (A6) On the other hand, for two-level emitters these same density matrix entries can be approximated by |g,..., g⟩⟨g,..., g| : ( 2 + s 2(1 + s) )N ≈ 1− sN 2 , (A7) ˆσ+ µ|g,..., g⟩⟨g,..., g| :− ( 2 + s 2(1 + s) )N−1 √s√ 2(1 + s) ≈− √s√ 2 , (A8) ˆσ+ µ|g,..., g⟩⟨g,..., g| ˆσ− µ :...

  41. [49]

    superbunching

    (A10) arXiv:2411.17377v1 [quant-ph] 26 Nov 2024 2 That is, up to the first order in s and restricting the state to only one excitation, the coherent state and the atomic state can be mapped onto each other. From this perspective, one might conclude that for a vanishing number ...

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Dummit and R

    D. Dummit and R. Foote, Abstract Algebra (Wiley, 2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    R. P. Stanley, Enumerative Combinatorics, 2nd ed., Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

Pith tools

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