Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 92 references

Second-order correlation and squeezing of photons in cavities with ultrastrong magnon-photon interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Counter-rotating magnon-photon coupling can squeeze cavity light below the classical g(2)=1 bound.

desk verdict Genuine and original derivation of cavity-photon g(2) in ultrastrong magnon-photon systems; the sub-Poissonian predictions are real but should be presented as quiet-cavity, low-temperature results. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18512 v3 pith:V4PKTF5X submitted 2024-11-27 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Vemund Falch , Arne Brataas , Alireza Qaiumzadeh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords cavitymagnonicsultrastrongcouplingphotonblockadequadraturesqueezingsecond-ordercorrelationantiferromagneticmagnonscounter-rotatinginteractionsub-Poissonianstatistics
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 tries to establish that in the ultrastrong coupling regime of cavity-magnon systems, the counter-rotating magnon-photon interaction terms (usually dropped in the rotating-wave approximation) squeeze the cavity photon mode, and that pumping photons along the squeezed quadrature produces sub-Poissonian statistics, $g^{(2)}(t,0) < 1$. If true, this gives a photon-blockade mechanism that does not rely on Kerr nonlinearities or parametric drives, and a way to tune blockade strength by adjusting the asymmetry between rotating and counter-rotating couplings. The paper also claims a qualitative difference between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic cavities: in ferromagnets the relative squeezing grows as $G_r/G_n$ and can in principle drive $g^{(2)}$ toward zero, whereas in antiferromagnets the two chiral magnon modes suppress squeezing and impose a lowest-order lower bound $g^{(2)} \geq 6/7$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bogoliubov diagonalization of the damped cavity–magnon system combined with the Laplace-space solution of the linear operator equations. The cavity mode is written as a coherent part $\Omega(t)$ plus a thermal-fluctuation operator $\hat\mu(t)$ expanded in bath operators; the bath sums are evaluated in the continuum limit under a random-phase approximation and an Ohmic spectral density, producing the averages $\tilde n_0$, $\tilde n_a$, and $\tilde n_s$ that enter the correlation function. The squeezing itself comes from two Bogoliubov eigenmodes that squeeze the cavity along orthogonal quadratures: their contributions cancel at lowest order, but the coupling opens a gap $\omega_2-\omega_1 \approx 2G_r$, making the coefficients $v_1 > v_2$ and leaving a residual $\langle\hat\mu\hat\mu\rangle \propto G_r G_n$. Equation (14) is the central identity connecting these averages to $g^{(2)}(t,0)$.

What would settle it

Measure the equal-time photon correlation $g^{(2)}(t,0)$ in a circularly polarized ultrastrong-coupling cavity containing a ferromagnet with easy-plane anisotropy, at $k_B T \approx 0.08\,\hbar\omega_\alpha$ and with magnon damping much larger than cavity damping, sweeping $G_r > G_n$; the central claim fails if no region with $g^{(2)}<1$ appears. For the antiferromagnetic case, the bound is falsifiable by measuring the minimum of $g^{(2)}$ on the symmetric line $G_1=G_2$ and finding it clearly below $6/7$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an exact treatment of photon statistics beyond the rotating-wave approximation: solving the Heisenberg–Langevin equations in Laplace space yields integral expressions for all bath-induced averages that enter $g^{(2)}(t,\tau)$, including the anomalous average $\langle\hat\mu_t\hat\mu_t\rangle$ that measures quadrature squeezing. The formula for equal-time correlations, $g^{(2)}(t,0) = 2 + \left(|\langle\hat\mu_t\hat\mu_t\rangle|^2 - 2|\Omega|^2|\langle\hat\mu_t\hat\mu_t\rangle| - |\Omega|^4\right)/(|\Omega|^2 + \langle\hat\mu_t^\dagger\hat\mu_t\rangle)^2$, shows that sub-Poissonian statistics require $|\langle\hat\mu_t\hat\mu_t\rangle| > \langle\hat\mu_t^\dagger\hat\mu_t\rangle$, i.e. a squeezed state, and pumping along the reduced-uncertainty quadrature. For a ferromagnet the residual squeezing is proportional to $G_r G_n$ while the thermal occupation is set by $G_n^2$, so the relative squeezing grows as $G_r/G_n$ with no lowest-order ceiling. For an antiferromagnet, the sublattice-symmetric coupling of the cavity to two opposite-chirality magnon modes changes the scaling to $\langle\hat\mu^\dagger\hat\mu\rangle \propto G_1^2 + G_2^2$ and $\langle\hat\mu\hat\mu\rangle \propto G_1 G_2$, giving a maximum relative squeezing of $2$ and hence $g^{(2)}(t,0) \geq 6/7$ to lowest order.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative sub-Poissonian predictions, including the $6/7$ antiferromagnetic bound, assume a low temperature ($k_B T = 0.08\,\hbar\omega_\alpha$) and a cavity bath much quieter than the magnon bath ($\eta_\alpha \gg \eta_c$); when $\eta_c \gtrsim \eta_\alpha$ the results depend strongly on microscopic cavity-bath details and on the cutoff frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{cut}}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sub-Poissonian cavity light can be produced in ultrastrong magnon cavities without Kerr nonlinearities or parametric amplification, provided the pumping is oriented along the squeezed quadrature.
  • In ferromagnetic cavities, increasing $G_r$ relative to $G_n$ strengthens the blockade without raising the cavity photon occupation, giving a tuning knob for single-photon purity.
  • In antiferromagnetic cavities, symmetric coupling of the two chiral magnon modes limits the blockade: to lowest order $g^{(2)}(t,0)$ cannot fall below $6/7$.
  • The equal-time sub-Poissonian regime is accompanied by initial bunching in the time-delayed correlation, so photon blockade here does not imply antibunching.
  • The predicted $g^{(2)}$ is directly measurable in a Hanbury-Brown-Twiss experiment under the stated low-temperature, quiet-cavity conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same squeezing-plus-quadrature-pumping mechanism should transfer to other bosonic ultrastrong-coupling platforms, such as circuit QED or Landau-polariton systems, where an analogous asymmetry between rotating and counter-rotating couplings could yield sub-Poissonian statistics without added nonlinearity.
  • The $6/7$ bound gives a sharp diagnostic: sweeping $G_1/G_2$ in an antiferromagnetic cavity and tracking the minimum of $g^{(2)}$ should trace a curve whose floor touches $6/7$ at the symmetric point; deviations would signal phase-coherent bath coupling or higher-order corrections.
  • Because the results become sensitive to the cavity-bath cutoff when $\eta_c \gtrsim \eta_\alpha$, comparing two cavities with different cutoff frequencies but identical magnon parameters could serve as a direct test of the bath model.
  • The paper's 'bunched but sub-Poissonian' result implies that conventional photon-blockade criteria based solely on $g^{(2)}<1$ may need to be supplemented by time-resolved measurements to distinguish blockade from squeezing-induced statistics.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the second-order photon correlation function g(2)(t,τ) of a cavity mode coupled ultrastrongly to ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic magnons, using a linearized bosonic model with separate thermal baths and coherent magnon pumping. The authors derive integral expressions for g(2) in the steady state, show that counter-rotating (anisotropic) magnon-photon couplings generate quadrature squeezing of the cavity mode, and demonstrate numerically that pumping along the squeezed quadrature yields sub-Poissonian statistics g(2)<1 in a window of coupling strengths for ferromagnetic cavities. In the antiferromagnetic case they find that the two chiral magnon modes suppress squeezing and, to lowest order, impose a lower bound g(2) ≥ 6/7. They also compute time-delayed correlations and relate the results to the Bogoliubov structure of the eigenmodes.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers a mechanism for photon blockade based on intrinsic squeezing from counter-rotating interactions, without requiring Kerr nonlinearities, and identifies a qualitative distinction between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic cavities. The derivation is transparent: the formulas for g(2) reduce to known limits for coherent, thermal, and squeezed vacuum states, and the sub-Poissonian condition |⟨μμ⟩|>⟨μ†μ⟩ follows directly from Eq. (18). The AFM bound is a falsifiable prediction, and the model makes specific predictions for the dependence on coupling asymmetry, detuning, and temperature. These strengths are, however, conditional on the quiet-cavity, low-temperature regime that the authors explicitly restrict to; outside that regime, the quantitative predictions are not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV and Sec. V (Eqs. (14)–(18), Fig. 2)] The sub-Poissonian window in Fig. 2(b) is established only for the specific parameters ηα=10^-3, ηc=10^-5, and kBT=0.08ħωα, while the cavity-bath contributions in Eq. (16) (denoted n~ζt and n~ζc in the text) require an ultraviolet cutoff ω_cut for convergence and are stated at the end of Sec. IV to depend strongly on the microscopic details of the cavity bath and on ω_cut when ηc ≳ ηα. Since the condition g(2)(t,0)<1 from Eq. (18) rests on the inequality |⟨μμ⟩|>⟨μ†μ⟩, and both expectation values receive cavity-bath contributions, increasing ηc/ηα by one order of magnitude can alter this balance. The central claim is therefore demonstrated only in a quiet-cavity, low-temperature regime; please add a quantitative sensitivity study over ηc/ηα and ω_cut, or explicitly state this limitation in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Sec. VI and Abstract] The AFM lower bound g(2)=6/7 is derived to lowest order in G1, G2 and in the low-temperature limit, and the text explicitly notes that the bound is not exact due to higher-order contributions. The abstract's unqualified statement that the sublattice symmetry 'impose[s] a lower bound on correlation functions' overstates the robustness of this result. Please qualify the abstract and conclusions, and specify the parameter range over which the bound holds.
  3. [Sec. III and Appendix B] The random phase approximation for the bath phases is introduced with the statement that it 'introduces only a minor quantitative correction and does not significantly affect the results,' but no supporting calculation or numerical comparison is provided in the manuscript. Because the RPA discards phase-coherent terms that contribute to the squeezing expectation ⟨μμ⟩ in Eq. (16c), the quantitative values of g(2) are conditional on this assumption. Please provide the evidence for the RPA claim or state it explicitly as a limitation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (14)] The notation |⟨μ† μ†⟩|^2 is confusing; since ⟨μ† μ†⟩ is the complex conjugate of ⟨μμ⟩, the absolute value should be written as |⟨μμ⟩|^2 for consistency with the preceding term.
  2. [Sec. IV around Eq. (16)] The text refers to n~ζt and n~ζc, but the quantities defined in Eq. (16) are n~ν0, n~νa, and n~νs; please align the notation.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'exact integral solutions' overstates the status of the results, since the derivation uses the random phase approximation and an Ohmic spectral density with a cutoff; consider saying 'exact for the linearized model with the stated approximations'.
  4. [Fig. 5(b)] The colorbar spans 0 to 2, but the actual AFM values lie near and above 6/7; a narrower range would improve readability.
  5. [Sec. V, first paragraph] The claim that the results are 'qualitatively similar for larger damping rates with similar relative strengths' would be more convincing if accompanied by a figure or a parameter scan; as written it is a statement without visible evidence.
  6. [Eq. (23) and surrounding text] The frequency shift is introduced as Δα in the text but the equation and later text use Δ; please use one symbol consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central predictions are derived from the stated Hamiltonian via exact integral equations, with no fitted inputs and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the magnon-cavity Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), with the coupling asymmetry justified in Appendix A from a Zeeman-coupled spin model, the authors solve the Heisenberg-Langevin equations in Laplace space, express the cavity operator as a coherent part plus a bath-induced part in Eq. (10), and derive exact integral expressions for g^(2)(t,tau) in Eqs. (13)-(16). The equal-time expression Eq. (14) and its optimized form Eq. (18) are algebraic identities given the Gaussian bath statistics; the condition g^(2)<1 iff |<mu mu>| > <mu^dagger mu> is a consequence of Eq. (18), not an input. The FM sub-Poissonian regions in Figs. 2-3 and the AFM 6/7 bound in Fig. 5 are numerical evaluations and a low-order analytic estimate, respectively, of these integrals. No parameter is fitted to the target g^(2) values, and no benchmark data are used. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [46], [47], [77], [88]) appear as background references for standard Hamiltonians or squeezing facts, but the model is re-derived in Appendix A and the bath damping is derived in Appendix B, so the central claims do not reduce to a self-citation chain. The paper openly flags robustness limitations: in Sec. IV the cavity-bath contributions require a cutoff and are stated to be strongly influenced by high-frequency bath modes and the cutoff frequency; in Sec. V the authors state that for eta_c >~ eta_alpha the results depend strongly on the microscopic details of the cavity bath; in Sec. V they note the time-delayed results are not quantitatively correct in the limit of large tau; and in Sec. VI they state the AFM bound is not exact due to higher-order contributions. These are honest caveats about parameter sensitivity, not circular reasoning. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on a specific open-quantum-system description: independent Ohmic baths for magnons and cavity, random phase approximation for bath phases, low temperature, and a single Kittel mode. The only ad hoc parameter is the bath cutoff frequency, which affects certain integrals. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Bath cutoff frequency Ωγ / ω_cut = Not specified (regularization scale)
    Introduced in Appendix B for the Ohmic spectral density; the integrals ~nζt and ~nζc require a cutoff ω_cut and the paper notes results depend on it.
  • Magnon damping ηα = 10^-3 ωα
    Chosen to represent a high-quality magnet; the paper states results are qualitatively similar for other values.
  • Cavity damping ηc = 10^-5 ωα
    Chosen to be much smaller than ηα; for ηc ≳ ηα the results become sensitive to microscopic bath details.
  • Temperature T = kBT = 0.08 ħωα
    Chosen because for kBT ≳ ħω the correlations stay above 1 and do not reach the quantum regime.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The magnon and cavity modes are each coupled to independent thermal baths with Ohmic spectral densities.
    Used in Sec. III and Appendix B to derive the effective damping and the correlation integrals.
  • domain assumption Random phase approximation: the phases of bath coupling constants f_k are uncorrelated, so only |f_k|^2 terms survive.
    Stated in Sec. III; the authors say it is a minor quantitative correction for the FM case.
  • domain assumption The magnet is described by a single uniform Kittel mode, neglecting higher-order magnon modes and nonlinear terms.
    Sec. II: 'we assume the magnet is sufficiently large to neglect higher order nonlinear terms', and the cavity mode couples only to the FMR mode.
  • domain assumption Low temperature and ηα ≫ ηc regime.
    Sec. V: the quantum regime is only reached at low T, and for ηc ≥ ηα the results depend on the microscopic cavity-bath details.
  • domain assumption For the AFM case, the two magnon modes couple to a common bath and the induced bath coupling ∆α is set to zero.
    Sec. VI: they expect the same central finding for separate baths; ∆ = 0 is argued to be a minor correction.
  • standard math Markov approximation for the bath: Γγ ≫ |Γ|.
    Used in Appendix B to simplify the bath sum to a local damping term.
  • domain assumption Steady-state limit tΓ_{1,2} ≫ 1, neglecting transient dynamics.
    Sec. III: the solution is restricted to the steady state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Second-order correlation and squeezing of photons in cavities with ultrastrong magnon-photon interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4PKTF5X

@misc{pith2026241118512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Second-order correlation and squeezing of photons in cavities with ultrastrong magnon-photon interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4PKTF5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18512}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the second-order photon correlation function in cavity-magnon systems, focusing on ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic cavities within the ultrastrong coupling regime, and extending beyond the rotating-wave approximation. By deriving exact integral solutions for the second-order correlation function, we demonstrate that counter-rotating magnon-photon interactions induce quadrature squeezing in the cavity mode. Furthermore, we show that tuning the anisotropic magnon-cavity couplings enhances the squeezing effect by changing the level repulsion of the magnon-cavity photon hybrid mode without increasing the cavity photon occupation number. Our study reveals distinct quantum correlation behaviors in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic cavities: For ferromagnetic cavities, we show that squeezing increases with coupling strength asymmetry, whereas in the antiferromagnetic case, magnon modes with opposite chirality suppress quantum effects and impose a lower bound on correlation functions. These findings provide a pathway to optimize photon blockade for quantum information technology in magnon-cavity systems in the ultrastrong coupling limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18512 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic presentation of a simple microwave cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The equal time second-order correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The equal-time second-order correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The time-delayed second-order correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) The minimum of the equal-time second-order cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The localization of the integrals (a) ˜n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zare Rameshti, S

    B. Zare Rameshti, S. Viola Kusminskiy, J. A. Haigh, K. Usami, D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Nakamura, C.-M. Hu, H. X. Tang, G. E. Bauer, and Y. M. Blanter, Cavity magnonics, Phys. Rep. 979, 1 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    (14), with the minimum occurring on the diagonal G1 = G2

    ≤ 2, which corresponds to a g(2)(t, 0) ≥ 6/7 in Eq. (14), with the minimum occurring on the diagonal G1 = G2. This ex- plains the observed behavior in Fig. 5 (a) and (b), even though the bound is not exact due to higher-order con- tributions in G1, G2. VII. SUMMAR Y AND CONCLUDING REMARKS We have studied photon second-order correlations and squeezing thro...

  3. [3]

    Y. Li, W. Zhang, V. Tyberkevych, W.-K. Kwok, A. Hoff- mann, and V. Novosad, Hybrid magnonics: Physics, cir- cuits, and applications for coherent information process- ing, J. Appl. Phys. 128, 130902 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    H. Yuan, Y. Cao, A. Kamra, R. A. Duine, and P. Yan, Quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science, Phys. Rep. 965, 1 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    A. A. Clerk, K. W. Lehnert, P. Bertet, J. R. Petta, and Y. Nakamura, Hybrid quantum systems with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nat. Phys. 16, 257 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Wan, H.-L

    Q.-K. Wan, H.-L. Shi, and X.-W. Guan, Quantum- enhanced metrology in cavity magnonics, Phys. Rev. B 109, L041301 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Liu, Y.-q

    Z. Liu, Y.-q. Liu, Z.-y. Mai, Y.-j. Yang, N.-n. Zhou, and C.-s. Yu, Enhancing weak-magnetic-field sensing of a cavity-magnon system with dual frequency modulation, Phys. Rev. A 109, 023709 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Lachance-Quirion, S

    D. Lachance-Quirion, S. P. Wolski, Y. Tabuchi, S. Kono, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Entanglement-based single- shot detection of a single magnon with a superconducting qubit, Science 367, 425 (2020)

    2020

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Cavity magnomechanics, Sci. Adv. 2, e1501286 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    F. Wang, C. Gou, J. Xu, and C. Gong, Hybrid magnon- atom entanglement and magnon blockade via quantum interference, Phys. Rev. A 106, 013705 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Hirosawa, A

    T. Hirosawa, A. Mook, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Mag- netoelectric cavity magnonics in skyrmion crystals, PRX Quantum 3, 040321 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Li, S.-Y

    J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, and G. S. Agarwal, Magnon-photon- phonon entanglement in cavity magnomechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 203601 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Yang, W.-J

    Z.-B. Yang, W.-J. Wu, J. Li, Y.-P. Wang, and J. Q. You, Steady-entangled-state generation via the cross-Kerr ef- fect in a ferrimagnetic crystal, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012419 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    D. Kong, J. Xu, and F. Wang, Nonreciprocal entangle- ment of ferrimagnetic magnons and nitrogen-vacancy- center ensembles by Kerr nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 034061 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Li, S.-Y

    J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, and G. S. Agarwal, Squeezed states of magnons and phonons in cavity magnomechanics, Phys. Rev. A 99, 021801 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Q. Guo, J. Cheng, H. Tan, and J. Li, Magnon squeezing by two-tone driving of a qubit in cavity-magnon-qubit systems, Phys. Rev. A 108, 063703 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Zhang, M

    Z. Zhang, M. O. Scully, and G. S. Agarwal, Quantum entanglement between two magnon modes via Kerr non- linearity driven far from equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 023021 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Hayashida, T

    K. Hayashida, T. Makihara, N. Marquez Peraca, D. Fal- las Padilla, H. Pu, J. Kono, and M. Bamba, Perfect intrinsic squeezing at the superradiant phase transition critical point, Sci. Rep. 13, 2526 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Hybridizing ferromagnetic magnons and microwave photons in the quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 083603 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Le Jeannic, A

    H. Le Jeannic, A. Cavaill` es, K. Huang, R. Filip, and J. Laurat, Slowing quantum decoherence by squeezing in phase space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 073603 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Zhang, X.-M

    D. Zhang, X.-M. Wang, T.-F. Li, X.-Q. Luo, W. Wu, F. Nori, and J. Q. You, Cavity quantum electrodynam- ics with ferromagnetic magnons in a small yttrium-iron- garnet sphere, npj Quantum Inf. 1, 15014 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    J. T. Hou and L. Liu, Strong coupling between microwave photons and nanomagnet magnons, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 107702 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    with low damping rates reaching the strong coupling limit with high cooperativity, where the magnon-photon coupling is stronger than the damping rates [24, 25]. Recent advances have also demonstrated that the ul- trastrong coupling regime, where the light-matter cou- pling is ...

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Strongly coupled magnons and cavity microwave photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 156401 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    L. V. Abdurakhimov, S. Khan, N. A. Panjwani, J. D. Breeze, M. Mochizuki, S. Seki, Y. Tokura, J. J. L. Mor- ton, and H. Kurebayashi, Magnon-photon coupling in the noncollinear magnetic insulator Cu2OSeO3, Phys. Rev. B 99, 140401 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Bienfait, J

    A. Bienfait, J. J. Pla, Y. Kubo, M. Stern, X. Zhou, C. C. Lo, C. D. Weis, T. Schenkel, M. L. W. Thewalt, D. Vion, D. Esteve, B. Julsgaard, K. Mølmer, J. J. L. Morton, and P. Bertet, Reaching the quantum limit of sensitivity in electron spin resonance, Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 253 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Wagle, A

    D. Wagle, A. Rai, M. T. Kaffash, and M. B. Jungfleisch, Controlling magnon-photon coupling in a planar geome- try, J. Phys. Mater. 7, 025005 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Golovchanskiy, N

    I. Golovchanskiy, N. Abramov, V. Stolyarov, A. Gol- ubov, M. Y. Kupriyanov, V. Ryazanov, and A. Ustinov, Approaching deep-strong on-chip photon-to-magnon cou- pling, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 034029 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Ghirri, C

    A. Ghirri, C. Bonizzoni, M. Maksutoglu, A. Mercu- rio, O. Di Stefano, S. Savasta, and M. Affronte, Ultra- strong magnon-photon coupling achieved by magnetic 13 films in contact with superconducting resonators, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 024039 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Silaev, Ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling, squeezed vacuum, and entanglement in superconduc- tor/ferromagnet nanostructures, Phys

    M. Silaev, Ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling, squeezed vacuum, and entanglement in superconduc- tor/ferromagnet nanostructures, Phys. Rev. B 107, L180503 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    J. M. Lee, M.-J. Hwang, and H.-W. Lee, Topological magnon-photon interaction for cavity magnonics, Com- mun. Phys. 6, 194 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Bourhill, N

    J. Bourhill, N. Kostylev, M. Goryachev, D. L. Creedon, and M. E. Tobar, Ultrahigh cooperativity interactions between magnons and resonant photons in a YIG sphere, Phys. Rev. B 93, 144420 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Bourcin, J

    G. Bourcin, J. Bourhill, V. Vlaminck, and V. Castel, Strong to ultrastrong coherent coupling measurements in a YIG/cavity system at room temperature, Phys. Rev. B 107, 214423 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    W. Qin, A. F. Kockum, C. S. Mu˜ noz, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Quantum amplification and simulation of strong and ultrastrong coupling of light and matter, Phys. Rep. 1078, 1 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    X. Li, M. Bamba, Q. Zhang, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gard- ner, W. Gao, M. Lou, K. Yoshioka, M. J. Manfra, and J. Kono, Vacuum Bloch–Siegert shift in Landau polari- tons with ultra-high cooperativity, Nat. Photon. 12, 324 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Forn-D ´ ıaz, L

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

    2019

  29. [37]

    X. Tu, Y. Zhang, S. Zhou, W. Tang, X. Yan, Y. Rui, W. Wang, B. Yan, C. Zhang, Z. Ye, H. Shi, R. Su, C. Wan, D. Dong, R. Xu, Q.-Y. Zhao, L.-B. Zhang, X.-Q. Jia, H. Wang, L. Kang, J. Chen, and P. Wu, Tamm-cavity terahertz detector, Nat. Commun. 15, 5542 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015005 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Jungwirth, X

    T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Nat. Nanotechnol.11, 231 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Grishunin, T

    K. Grishunin, T. Huisman, G. Li, E. Mishina, T. Rasing, A. V. Kimel, K. Zhang, Z. Jin, S. Cao, W. Ren, G.-H. Ma, and R. V. Mikhaylovskiy, Terahertz magnon-polaritons in TmFeO3, ACS Photon. 5, 1375 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Scalari, C

    G. Scalari, C. Maissen, D. Turˇ cinkov´ a, D. Hagenm¨ uller, S. D. Liberato, C. Ciuti, C. Reichl, D. Schuh, W. Wegscheider, M. Beck, and J. Faist, Ultrastrong cou- pling of the cyclotron transition of a 2D electron gas to a THz metamaterial, Science 335, 1323 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    T. E. Kritzell, A. Baydin, F. Tay, R. Rodriguez, J. Doumani, H. Nojiri, H. O. Everitt, I. Barsukov, and J. Kono, Terahertz cavity magnon polaritons, Adv. Opt. Mater. 12, 2302270 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    H. Y. Yuan and X. R. Wang, Magnon-photon coupling in antiferromagnets, Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 082403 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    T. S. Parvini, V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, and S. V. Kus- minskiy, Antiferromagnetic cavity optomagnonics, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 022027 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Y. Xiao, X. H. Yan, Y. Zhang, V. L. Grigoryan, C. M. Hu, H. Guo, and K. Xia, Magnon dark mode of an anti- ferromagnetic insulator in a microwave cavity, Phys. Rev. B 99, 094407 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Johansen and A

    O. Johansen and A. Brataas, Nonlocal coupling between antiferromagnets and ferromagnets in cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 087204 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    H. Y. Yuan, S. Zheng, Z. Ficek, Q. Y. He, and M.- H. Yung, Enhancement of magnon-magnon entanglement inside a cavity, Phys. Rev. B 101, 014419 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    J. B. Curtis, A. Grankin, N. R. Poniatowski, V. M. Galit- ski, P. Narang, and E. Demler, Cavity magnon-polaritons in cuprate parent compounds, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013101 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Integrated photonic quantum technologies, Nat. Photon. 14, 273 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Boventer, H

    I. Boventer, H. T. Simensen, B. Brekke, M. Weides, A. Anane, M. Kl¨ aui, A. Brataas, and R. Lebrun, Anti- ferromagnetic cavity magnon polaritons in collinear and canted phases of hematite, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 014071 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Photonic quantum technologies, Nat. Photon. 3, 687 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. C. L¨ obl, A. R. Korsch, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. J. Warburton, A bright and fast source of coherent single photons, Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 399 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Maring, A

    N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margaria, W. Hease, A. Pishchagin, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, T. H. Au, S. Boissier, E. Bertasi, A. Baert, M. Valdivia, M. Billard, O. Acar, A. Brieussel, R. Mezher, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, P. Sinnott, D. A. Fioret...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Y.-M. He, Y. He, Y.-J. Wei, D. Wu, M. Atat¨ ure, C. Schneider, S. H¨ ofling, M. Kamp, C.-Y. Lu, and J.- W. Pan, On-demand semiconductor single-photon source with near-unity indistinguishability, Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 213 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Mandel, Squeezed states and sub-poissonian photon statistics, Phys

    L. Mandel, Squeezed states and sub-poissonian photon statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 136 (1982)

    1982

  48. [56]

    G. J. Milburn and D. F. Walls, Quantum Optics, 2nd ed. (Springer Berlin, 2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    Jin and J

    Z.-y. Jin and J. Jing, Stabilizing a single-magnon state by optimizing magnon blockade, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012459 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    T. C. H. Liew and V. Savona, Single photons from coupled quantum modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 183601 (2010)

    2010

  51. [59]

    Imamo¯ glu, H

    A. Imamo¯ glu, H. Schmidt, G. Woods, and M. Deutsch, Strongly interacting photons in a nonlinear cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1467 (1997)

    1997

  52. [60]

    K. M. Birnbaum, A. Boca, R. Miller, A. D. Boozer, T. E. Northup, and H. J. Kimble, Photon blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom, Nature 436, 87 (2005)

    2005

  53. [61]

    Zhang, S

    W. Zhang, S. Liu, S. Zhang, and H.-F. Wang, Magnon blockade induced by parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. A 109, 043712 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Bamba, A

    M. Bamba, A. Imamo˘ glu, I. Carusotto, and C. Ciuti, Origin of strong photon antibunching in weakly nonlinear photonic molecules, Phys. Rev. A 83, 021802 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    Fan, Y.-N

    X.-H. Fan, Y.-N. Zhang, J.-P. Yu, M.-Y. Liu, W.-D. He, H.-C. Li, and W. Xiong, Nonreciprocal unconven- tional photon blockade with Kerr magnons, Adv. Quan- tum Technol. 7, 2400043 (2024). 14

    2024

  56. [64]

    Xie, S.-l

    J.-k. Xie, S.-l. Ma, and F.-l. Li, Quantum-interference- enhanced magnon blockade in an yttrium-iron-garnet sphere coupled to superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042331 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Ding, Y.-P

    Z. Ding, Y.-P. Gao, and Y. Zhang, Magnon blockade in a strongly coupled nonlinear cavity-magnon system, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 41, 332 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    jun Xu, T

    Y. jun Xu, T. le Yang, L. Lin, and J. Song, Conven- tional and unconventional magnon blockades in a qubit- magnon hybrid quantum system, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 38, 876 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Makihara, K

    T. Makihara, K. Hayashida, G. T. Noe II, X. Li, N. Mar- quez Peraca, X. Ma, Z. Jin, W. Ren, G. Ma, I. Katayama, J. Takeda, H. Nojiri, D. Turchinovich, S. Cao, M. Bamba, and J. Kono, Ultrastrong magnon–magnon coupling dominated by antiresonant interactions, Nat. Commun. 12, 3115 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    H. Y. Yuan and R. A. Duine, Magnon antibunching in a nanomagnet, Phys. Rev. B 102, 100402 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Amazioug, D

    M. Amazioug, D. Dutykh, B. Teklu, and M. Asjad, Achieving strong magnon blockade through magnon squeezing in a cavity magnetomechanical system, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 536, 2300357 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    J. Li, R. Fazio, Y. Wang, and S. Chesi, Spin fluctuations in the dissipative phase transitions of the quantum Rabi model, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043250 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Q.-T. Xie, S. Cui, J.-P. Cao, L. Amico, and H. Fan, Anisotropic Rabi model, Phys. Rev. X 4, 021046 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    M. Liu, S. Chesi, Z.-J. Ying, X. Chen, H.-G. Luo, and H.-Q. Lin, Universal scaling and critical exponents of the anisotropic quantum Rabi model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 220601 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    R¨ uckriegel, P

    A. R¨ uckriegel, P. Kopietz, D. A. Bozhko, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Magnetoelastic modes and lifetime of magnons in thin yttrium iron garnet films, Phys. Rev. B 89, 184413 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum optics (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    1997

  68. [76]

    Beaudoin, J

    F. Beaudoin, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Dissipation and ultrastrong coupling in circuit QED, Phys. Rev. A 84, 043832 (2011)

    2011

  69. [77]

    Ghasemian, Dissipative dynamics of magnons under the influence of thermal environment: Bunched, anti- bunched and coherent magnons, Phys

    E. Ghasemian, Dissipative dynamics of magnons under the influence of thermal environment: Bunched, anti- bunched and coherent magnons, Phys. B 651, 414594 (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    Kreyzig, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 10th ed

    E. Kreyzig, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 10th ed. (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Hoboken, N.J., 2011)

    2011

  71. [79]

    Haidar, P

    M. Haidar, P. D¨ urrenfeld, M. Ranjbar, M. Balinsky, M. Fazlali, M. Dvornik, R. K. Dumas, S. Khartsev, and J. ˚Akerman, Controlling gilbert damping in a YIG film using nonlocal spin currents, Phys. Rev. B 94, 180409 (2016)

    2016

  72. [80]

    Kamra, E

    A. Kamra, E. Thingstad, G. Rastelli, R. A. Duine, A. Brataas, W. Belzig, and A. Sudbø, Antiferromagnetic magnons as highly squeezed fock states underlying quan- tum correlations, Phys. Rev. B 100, 174407 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Torr˜ ao, O

    R. Torr˜ ao, O. Alves, B. Archanjo, L. Sampaio, and F. Garcia, Reproducible low Gilbert damping yttrium iron garnet by magnetron sputtering, J. Alloys Compd. 923, 166300 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    as all parameter choices should be experimentally feasible, which has already been done for photon block- ades in other hybrid cavity systems in the weak driving regime [83–85]. However, due to the increasing avail- ability of the ultra-strong coupling regime in magnon- caviti...

  75. [83]

    G. Lyu, K. Kottmann, M. B. Plenio, and M.-J. Hwang, Multicritical dissipative phase transitions in the anisotropic open quantum Rabi model, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033075 (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    H. Y. Yuan, W. P. Sterk, A. Kamra, and R. A. Duine, Master equation approach to magnon relaxation and de- phasing, Phys. Rev. B 106, 224422 (2022)

    2022

  77. [85]

    M. Chen, J. Tang, L. Tang, H. Wu, and K. Xia, Pho- ton blockade and single-photon generation with multiple quantum emitters, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033083 (2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    H. J. Snijders, J. A. Frey, J. Norman, H. Flayac, V. Savona, A. C. Gossard, J. E. Bowers, M. P. van Ex- ter, D. Bouwmeester, and W. L¨ offler, Observation of the unconventional photon blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 043601 (2018)

    2018

  79. [87]

    Vaneph, A

    C. Vaneph, A. Morvan, G. Aiello, M. F´ echant, M. Aprili, J. Gabelli, and J. Est` eve, Observation of the unconven- tional photon blockade in the microwave domain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 043602 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    Hamsen, K

    C. Hamsen, K. N. Tolazzi, T. Wilk, and G. Rempe, Two- photon blockade in an atom-driven cavity QED system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 133604 (2017)

    2017

  81. [89]

    Hahn and P

    V. Hahn and P. Kopietz, Effect of magnon decays on parametrically pumped magnons, Phys. Rev. B 103, 094416 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    Kamra, U

    A. Kamra, U. Agrawal, and W. Belzig, Noninteger-spin magnonic excitations in untextured magnets, Phys. Rev. B 96, 020411 (2017)

    2017

  83. [91]

    Shiranzaei, R

    M. Shiranzaei, R. E. Troncoso, J. Fransson, A. Brataas, and A. Qaiumzadeh, Thermal squeezing and nonlinear spectral shift of magnons in antiferromagnetic insulators, New J. Phys. 24, 103009 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    Takei, Spin transport in an electrically driven magnon gas near Bose-Einstein condensation: Hartree-Fock- Keldysh theory, Phys

    S. Takei, Spin transport in an electrically driven magnon gas near Bose-Einstein condensation: Hartree-Fock- Keldysh theory, Phys. Rev. B 100, 134440 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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