Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

WaveguideQED.jl: An Efficient Framework for Simulating Non-Markovian Waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents WaveguideQED.jl, an open-source Julia framework that simulates waveguide quantum electrodynamics with full two-photon traveling wavefunctions and non-Markovian delayed feedback, using the collision model with…

desk verdict A genuinely useful open-source collision-model simulator for waveguide QED; the two-photon and feedback sectors are the least externally validated part, but the core single-photon dynamics are solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13332 v2 pith:OCEARXCB submitted 2024-12-17 quant-ph

Matias Bundgaard-Nielsen , Dirk Englund , Mikkel Heuck , Stefan Krastanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords waveguidequantumelectrodynamicscollisionmodeltime-bindiscretizationnon-Markovianfeedbacktwo-photonwavefunctionsnumericalsimulationemittermatrix-freeoperators
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

WaveguideQED.jl is an open-source Julia package that turns the collision model of light–matter interaction into a fast simulation tool for waveguide quantum electrodynamics. The traveling field is sliced into discrete time bins that interact one at a time with a localized quantum system, and the full quantum state of up to two photons is kept rather than reduced to expectation values. The paper shows the framework reproduces analytic single-photon scattering, captures the entangled two-photon output from an emitter, handles multiple waveguide channels, and simulates a mirror-induced delayed feedback where a phase of $\pi$ traps the emitter excitation. The result is that non-Markovian and multi-photon waveguide physics can be studied routinely, with simulations orders of magnitude faster than a naive sparse-matrix implementation and memory use independent of the number of time bins.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the discrete time-bin formalism of the collision model: the waveguide is divided into $N$ bins of width $\Delta t$, with annihilation and creation operators $w_k$, $w_k^\dagger$ satisfying $[w_j,w_k^\dagger]=\delta_{jk}$, and the interaction Hamiltonian is constant within each bin, so evolution proceeds as a sequence of unitary steps $U_n=\exp(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int H_{\mathrm{int}}dt')$. The paper couples this picture with two implementation techniques: a custom basis that keeps only the vacuum, single-excitation, and two-excitation amplitudes of the waveguide, and matrix-free operator kernels that perform the action of $w_k$ without constructing a matrix, combined through lazy operators that delay all summation, product, and tensor-product algebra until the operator is applied to a state. This makes the time-dependent interaction $i\hbar\sqrt{\gamma/\Delta t}(\sigma^\dagger w_k - \sigma w_k^\dagger)$ cheap to evaluate at every step and keeps memory usage constant in the number of bins.

What would settle it

Take the two-photon scattering setup and insert a narrow spectral filter between the emitter and the waveguide so that the effective coupling strength varies strongly across the pulse bandwidth; simulate the same problem with an independent spectrally resolved calculation. If the two-photon wavefunctions differ significantly, the flat-coupling assumption that the framework rests on would be shown to be load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the quantum collision model, discretized into time-bin modes, can serve as the basis of a general, efficient, and open-source framework for waveguide QED. The key demonstrations are: a custom excitation-restricted basis that represents the two-photon waveguide state with $\sim N^2/2$ amplitudes instead of an exponentially large product space; waveguide operators implemented as matrix-free kernel functions and combined through lazy operator algebra, so that no sparse matrix is allocated for each time step; a single-photon scattering result that converges to the input–output equations of motion as the time step shrinks; a scattered two-photon state that is genuinely entangled and not a product of single-photon pulses; and a delayed-feedback mirror simulation in which the emitted field returns with a phase and can either hasten decay or trap the excitation at a steady state. These examples support the conclusion that the package offers a complete description of the traveling photon wavefunction in regimes where most existing approaches give only observables or product states.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the emitter couples equally strongly to every photon frequency, which is what lets the field be split into independent time bins that interact one at a time; if a problem has a strongly frequency-dependent coupling, this time-bin collision picture no longer applies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A researcher can set up and run a single- or two-photon waveguide scattering simulation in minutes, and the results match the analytic input–output equations of motion in the continuum limit.
  • Delayed feedback from mirrors or distant emitters can be simulated while retaining the full photon wavefunction, making effects such as excitation trapping directly visible.
  • The waveguide operators combine with arbitrary local systems from the host quantum optics package, so multi-level emitters, cavities, and other local Hamiltonians require no new derivations.
  • Benchmarks show orders-of-magnitude speedups over preallocating sparse matrices, with memory usage independent of the number of time bins, so fine discretizations are practical.
  • The same basis and kernel structure can be extended to three- or four-photon states at predictable cost, and to GPU execution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the framework's flat-coupling assumption is accepted, it becomes a convenient testbed for few-photon entanglement measures and for the design of photon-photon gates, because the complete two-photon wavefunction is available rather than only expectation values.
  • The same time-bin machinery could be adapted to other local interaction problems with engineered delays, such as electron transport through quantum dots, since the collision picture is not specific to photons.
  • A direct way to stress-test the method is to apply the convergence protocol of the appendix to a multi-emitter or giant-emitter layout, where delays are comparable to the pulse width; the paper has not yet reported such a benchmark.
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 paper introduces WaveguideQED.jl, an open-source Julia framework for simulating waveguide quantum electrodynamics based on the collision model. The traveling field is discretized into time-bins, the waveguide state is represented in a sparse basis restricted to at most two photons, and the waveguide operators are implemented as matrix-free kernel functions combined with LazyOperators from QuantumOptics.jl. The manuscript demonstrates single- and two-photon scattering off a two-level emitter, a two-waveguide splitter setup, delayed-feedback dynamics for an emitter in front of a mirror, and benchmarks against a naive sparse-matrix implementation and a space-discretized model. The only quantitative convergence check, in Appendix A, compares the single-photon scattering result against an analytical equation of motion derived from the same discretized Hamiltonian.

Significance. If the framework performs as claimed, it fills a useful niche: a fast, open, intuitive tool for full two-photon wavefunctions with delayed feedback, backed by complete code samples and a public repository. The design choices are sensible—restricted two-excitation basis, lazy operators, kernel-based operator application—and the single-photon convergence test is a genuine strength. The main caveat is that the two-photon and delayed-feedback sectors, which are the distinctive advertised capabilities, lack independent quantitative validation; correctness in those sectors currently rests on internal consistency and qualitative plausibility. The acknowledged limitations (flat spectral density, two-photon maximum, quasi-constant wavefunction per time-bin) are stated clearly and are appropriate for the intended scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A; Sec. 3.2; Sec. 4.2] The distinctive two-photon and delayed-feedback capabilities are validated only qualitatively. The convergence test in Appendix A (Fig. 7) exercises the single-photon sector, where the framework reduces to Eqs. (16)-(17); the two-photon basis in Eq. (9), the action of the waveguide operators on two-photon states, and the delayed operators in Eq. (20) are never benchmarked against an independent analytic or numerical solution. An indexing or normalization error in this machinery would produce plausible-looking but quantitatively wrong correlations in Figs. 3-5, directly affecting the advertised generality. I request at least one quantitative external check, e.g., comparing the two-photon scattering in Fig. 3 with known analytic two-photon scattering solutions for a two-level emitter, and comparing the feedback dynamics in Fig. 5 with the published results of Ref. [50] or with an independent space-discretized simulation using the same parameters.
  2. [Eqs. (19)-(20) vs. Eq. (10) and Code Samples 4-5] The displayed Hamiltonians in Eqs. (19) and (20) are inconsistent with Eq. (10) and with the corresponding code samples. Eq. (10) gives H_time = sum_k f_k(t) i hbar sqrt(gamma/Delta t)(sigma^dag w_k - sigma w_k^dag), and Code Samples 4 and 5 use `im*sqrt(...)*(...)`. Eqs. (19) and (20) omit the imaginary unit and the hbar factor, and Eq. (19) also uses a plus sign where Eq. (10) has a minus sign. As written, a reader implementing from these equations would obtain different dynamics (Hermitian vs. non-Hermitian, or with the wrong relative phase). The equations should be corrected to match the interaction-picture Hamiltonian used in the code, or the notation should be explicitly defined if a different convention (e.g., hbar=1 and a particular sign convention) is intended.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, memory scaling claim] The statement that "the memory usage of WaveguideQED.jl is constant in the number of time-bins N" is incorrect for the two-photon simulations showcased in the paper. The state vector for a two-photon waveguide contains O(N^2) amplitudes (as given in Sec. 5.3: N(N+1)/2 elements per waveguide mode), so memory necessarily grows with N. The likely intended point is that the operator implementation does not require preallocating N sparse matrices; this should be stated precisely to avoid a false scalability claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, first paragraph; Sec. 3.2] There are several typos: "WagveguideQED.jl" should be "WaveguideQED.jl", and "the two solutions agreement agree very well" should read "the two solutions agree very well".
  2. [Eq. (13)] The emitter operators are written as a and a^dag in Eq. (13) without definition, while the rest of the paper uses sigma and sigma^dag; please align the notation or define a explicitly as the emitter lowering operator.
  3. [Sec. 5.3, element counting] The total element count for multiple waveguides omits the N diagonal two-photon states per waveguide. The count should be N_W * N(N+1)/2 for two photons in the same waveguide plus N_W(N_W-1)/2 * N^2 for two photons in different waveguides; the displayed expression "N_W N(N-1)/2 + N_W N^2" misses the N diagonal terms.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 4.2] The term "non-Markovian" may mislead readers without qualification: the framework assumes a flat, frequency-independent system-bath coupling, and memory effects enter only through engineered delays. This is stated in Sec. 4.2, but a one-sentence qualifier in the abstract would help set expectations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the framework is an implementation of an explicitly stated collision model, and the single-photon validation is a convergence test, not a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The collision-model Hamiltonian in Eq. (10) follows from the explicitly stated flat-coupling assumption g(ν)=i√(γ/2π) in Section 2, which is a modeling premise, not a quantity fitted to the results. The single-photon equations of motion (16)-(17) are derived in the paper from the same discretized unitary evolution, and Appendix A uses their analytic solution only to test convergence of the numerical discretization (Fig. 7); this is an internal consistency check of the implementation and discretization, not a claim that the model is independently confirmed. The two-photon and delayed-feedback examples are demonstrations of what the code can compute rather than predictions of new physics, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The delayed-feedback Hamiltonian (20) is attributed to an external prior result [50], and the collision-model basis is supported by external reviews [40,46]. Self-citations such as [2], [41], and [42] concern earlier development of the same formalism, but the load-bearing derivation in Section 2.2 is performed in the paper itself, so the argument does not reduce to an unverified self-citation. The lack of an independent two-photon or feedback benchmark is a validation gap (correctness risk), not circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted constants; all example parameters (gamma, tau, phi) are physical inputs. The central algorithmic reliance is on the time-bin collision model with flat spectral density and a two-photon truncation, both explicitly disclosed.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat, frequency-independent coupling g(nu) = i*sqrt(gamma/2*pi)
    Invoked in Section 2 after Eq. (3) to transform the interaction into the single time-mode form of Eq. (4); restricts the framework to Markovian system-bath coupling.
  • domain assumption Time-bin discretization with bin width Delta-t small enough that the wavefunction is quasi-constant in each bin
    Introduced in Section 2.1; convergence in Appendix A shows error decreases with smaller Delta-t, so correctness depends on sufficiently fine discretization.
  • domain assumption Truncation to at most two photons in the waveguide basis
    Stated in Sections 2.1 and 5.4; limits the Hilbert space and is a disclosed limitation, not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Modeling a mirror by a second interaction point with a delay operator w_{k+tau} and phase exp(i*phi)
    Section 4.2, Eq. (20), following Whalen [50]; equivalent to the physical mirror picture of Fig. 5(a).
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and Schrodinger evolution
    Underpins all equations; no need to re-derive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WaveguideQED.jl: An Efficient Framework for Simulating Non-Markovian Waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCEARXCB

@misc{pith2026241213332,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WaveguideQED.jl: An Efficient Framework for Simulating Non-Markovian Waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCEARXCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13332}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce a numerical framework designed to solve problems within the emerging field of Waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics (WQED). The framework is based on collision quantum optics, where a localized quantum system interacts sequentially with individual time-bin modes. This approach provides a physically intuitive model that allows researchers familiar with tools such as QuTiP in Python, Quantum Optics Toolbox for Matlab, or QuantumOptics.jl in Julia to efficiently set up and execute WQED simulations. Despite its conceptual simplicity, we demonstrate the framework's robust ability to handle complex WQED scenarios. These applications include the scattering of single- or two-photon pulses by quantum emitters or cavities, as well as the exploration of non-Markovian dynamics, where emitted photons are reflected back, thereby introducing feedback mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13332 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a): Numerical representation of a time-binned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The scattered two-photon wavefunction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a): Sketch of the system. A two-photon pulse in the right-propagating mode is scattered into both left- and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a): A sketch of a semi-infinite waveguide termi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The computational time of processes involved in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The relative error of the L2-norm between the EOM solution and WaveguideQED.jl solution as defined in Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Sofia Arranz Regidor, Gavin Crowder, Howard Carmichael, and Stephen Hughes. “Model- ing quantum light-matter interactions in waveg- uide QED with retardation, nonlinear inter- actions, and a time-delayed feedback: Matrix product states versus a space-discretized waveg- uide model”. Physical Review Research 3, 023030 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [50]

    Collision model for non- Markovian quantum trajectories

    S. J. Whalen. “Collision model for non- Markovian quantum trajectories”. Physical Re- view A 100, 052113 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    Single-photon Kerr non- linearities do not help quantum computation

    Jeffrey H. Shapiro. “Single-photon Kerr non- linearities do not help quantum computation”. Physical Review A 73, 062305 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [2]

    Controlled-Phase Gate Using Dynami- cally Coupled Cavities and Optical Nonlineari- ties

    Mikkel Heuck, Kurt Jacobs, and Dirk R. En- glund. “Controlled-Phase Gate Using Dynami- cally Coupled Cavities and Optical Nonlineari- ties”. Physical Review Letters 124 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    Waveguide quantum elec- trodynamics: Collective radiance and photon- photon correlations

    Alexandra S. Sheremet, Mihail I. Petrov, Ivan V. Iorsh, Alexander V. Poshakinskiy, and Alexan- der N. Poddubny. “Waveguide quantum elec- trodynamics: Collective radiance and photon- photon correlations”. Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 015002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [4]

    Interfacing single photons and sin- gle quantum dots with photonic nanostructures

    Peter Lodahl, Sahand Mahmoodian, and Søren Stobbe. “Interfacing single photons and sin- gle quantum dots with photonic nanostructures”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 347–400 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [5]

    Quantum nonlinear optics - Photon by photon

    Darrick E. Chang, Vladan Vuleti´ c, and Mikhail D. Lukin. “Quantum nonlinear optics - Photon by photon”. Nature Photonics 8, 685–694 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [6]

    Dynamical photon-photon interaction mediated by a quantum emitter

    Hanna Le Jeannic, Alexey Tiranov, Jacques Car- olan, Tom´ as Ramos, Ying Wang, Martin Hay- hurst Appel, Sven Scholz, Andreas D. Wieck, Arne Ludwig, Nir Rotenberg, Leonardo Midolo, Juan Jos´ e Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, Anders S. Sørensen, and Peter Lodahl. “Dynamical photon-photon interaction mediated by a quantum emitter”. Na- ture Physics 18, 1191–1195 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [7]

    Bidirectional Multiphoton Communication be- tween Remote Superconducting Nodes

    Joel Grebel, Haoxiong Yan, Ming Han Chou, Gustav Andersson, Christopher R. Conner, Yash J. Joshi, Jacob M. Miller, Rhys G. Povey, Hong Qiao, Xuntao Wu, and Andrew N. Cleland. “Bidirectional Multiphoton Communication be- tween Remote Superconducting Nodes”. Physi- cal Review Le...

    2024

  2. [8]

    Pro- posal for an optomechanical traveling wave phonon-photon translator

    Amir H. Safavi-Naeini and Oskar Painter. “Pro- posal for an optomechanical traveling wave phonon-photon translator”. New Journal of Physics13 (2011)

    2011

  3. [9]

    Comparison of Quantum and Semiclassical Radiation Theo- ries with Application to the Beam Maser

    E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings. “Comparison of Quantum and Semiclassical Radiation Theo- ries with Application to the Beam Maser”. Pro- ceedings of the IEEE 51, 89–109 (1963)

    1963

  4. [10]

    Input-Output Theory with Quantum Pulses

    Alexander Holm Kiilerich and Klaus Mølmer. “Input-Output Theory with Quantum Pulses”. Physical Review Letters 123, 123604 (2019)

    2019

  5. [11]

    Quantum interactions with pulses of radiation

    Alexander Holm Kiilerich and Klaus Mølmer. “Quantum interactions with pulses of radiation”. Physical Review A 102, 1–14 (2020)

    2020

  6. [12]

    Photonic Cir- cuits with Time Delays and Quantum Feedback

    Hannes Pichler and Peter Zoller. “Photonic Cir- cuits with Time Delays and Quantum Feedback”. Physical Review Letters116 (2016)

    2016

  7. [13]

    Delayed coherent quantum feedback from a scattering theory and a matrix product state perspective

    P-O Guimond, M Pletyukhov, H Pichler, and P Zoller. “Delayed coherent quantum feedback from a scattering theory and a matrix product state perspective”. Quantum Science and Tech- nology 2, 044012 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    N-Photon wave packets interacting with an arbitrary quantum system

    Ben Q. Baragiola, Robert L. Cook, Agata M. Branczyk, and Joshua Combes. “N-Photon wave packets interacting with an arbitrary quantum system”. Physical Review A 86, 013811 (2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    Quan- tum trajectories for propagating Fock states

    Ben Q. Baragiola and Joshua Combes. “Quan- tum trajectories for propagating Fock states”. Physical Review A96 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Scattering into one-dimensional waveguides from a coherently-driven quantum-optical sys- tem

    Kevin A. Fischer, Rahul Trivedi, Vinay Ra- masesh, Irfan Siddiqi, and Jelena Vuˇ ckovi´ c. “Scattering into one-dimensional waveguides from a coherently-driven quantum-optical sys- tem”. Quantum 2, 69 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    Quantum theory of light scattering in a one- dimensional channel: Interaction effect on pho- ton statistics and entanglement entropy

    Mikhail Pletyukhov and Vladimir Gritsev. “Quantum theory of light scattering in a one- dimensional channel: Interaction effect on pho- ton statistics and entanglement entropy”. Phys- ical Review A 91, 063841 (2015)

    2015

  12. [19]

    Hierarchical equa- tions of motion analog for systems with delay: Application to intercavity photon propagation

    R. Fuchs and M. Richter. “Hierarchical equa- tions of motion analog for systems with delay: Application to intercavity photon propagation”. Physical Review B 107, 205301 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    A purified input-output pseudomode model for structured open quantum systems

    P. Liang, N. Lambert, S. Luo, L. Guo, and M. Cirio. “A purified input-output pseudomode model for structured open quantum systems”. arXiv:2412.04264 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Input- Output Hierarchical Equations Of Motion

    M. Cirio, P. Liang, and N. Lambert. “Input- Output Hierarchical Equations Of Motion”. arXiv:2408.12221 (2025). Accepted in Quantum 2025-04-10, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 13

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Universal photonic quantum computation via time-delayed feedback

    Hannes Pichler, Soonwon Choi, Peter Zoller, and Mikhail D. Lukin. “Universal photonic quantum computation via time-delayed feedback”. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114, 11362– 11367 (2017)

    2017

  16. [23]

    Experimental Reconstruction of the Few-Photon Nonlinear Scattering Ma- trix from a Single Quantum Dot in a Nanopho- tonic Waveguide

    Hanna Le Jeannic, Tom´ as Ramos, Signe F. Si- monsen, Tommaso Pregnolato, Zhe Liu, R¨ udi- ger Schott, Andreas D. Wieck, Arne Ludwig, Nir Rotenberg, Juan Jos´ e Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and Peter Lodahl. “Experimental Reconstruction of the Few-Photon Nonlinear Scattering Ma- trix fro...

    2021

  17. [24]

    Fano interfer- ence in two-photon transport

    Shanshan Xu and Shanhui Fan. “Fano interfer- ence in two-photon transport”. Physical Review A94 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    Few-photon transport in Fano-resonance waveguide geome- tries

    Kristoffer B. Joanesarson, Jake Iles-Smith, Mikkel Heuck, and Jesper Mørk. “Few-photon transport in Fano-resonance waveguide geome- tries”. Physical Review A 101 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Open quantum systems with delayed coherent feedback

    S J Whalen, A L Grimsmo, and H J Carmichael. “Open quantum systems with delayed coherent feedback”. Quantum Science and Technology 2, 044008 (2017)

    2017

  20. [27]

    Strongly entangled system-reservoir dynamics with multiphoton pulses beyond the two-excitation limit: Exciting the atom-photon bound state

    Kisa Barkemeyer, Andreas Knorr, and Alexander Carmele. “Strongly entangled system-reservoir dynamics with multiphoton pulses beyond the two-excitation limit: Exciting the atom-photon bound state”. Physical Review A 103 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Multiphoton-scattering theory and gen- eralized master equations

    Tao Shi, Darrick E. Chang, and J. Ignacio Cirac. “Multiphoton-scattering theory and gen- eralized master equations”. Physical Review A 92, 053834 (2015)

    2015

  22. [29]

    Quantum dynamics of propagating pho- tons with strong interactions: a generalized in- put–output formalism

    Tommaso Caneva, Marco T Manzoni, Tao Shi, James S Douglas, J Ignacio Cirac, and Darrick E Chang. “Quantum dynamics of propagating pho- tons with strong interactions: a generalized in- put–output formalism”. New Journal of Physics 17, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  23. [30]

    Few-photon scattering and emission from low-dimensional quantum systems

    Rahul Trivedi, Kevin Fischer, Shanshan Xu, Shanhui Fan, and Jelena Vuckovic. “Few-photon scattering and emission from low-dimensional quantum systems”. Physical Review B98 (2018)

    2018

  24. [31]

    Particle emission from open quantum systems

    Kevin A. Fischer, Rahul Trivedi, and Daniil Lukin. “Particle emission from open quantum systems”. Physical Review A 98 (2018)

    2018

  25. [32]

    Solv- ing the scattering of ¡i¿N¡/i¿ photons on a two- level atom without computation

    Alexandre Roulet and Valerio Scarani. “Solv- ing the scattering of ¡i¿N¡/i¿ photons on a two- level atom without computation”. New Journal of Physics 18, 093035 (2016)

    2016

  26. [33]

    Scattering of two photons on a quantum emit- ter in a one-dimensional waveguide: exact dy- namics and induced correlations

    Anders Nysteen, Philip Trøst Kristensen, Dara P S McCutcheon, Per Kaer, and Jesper Mørk. “Scattering of two photons on a quantum emit- ter in a one-dimensional waveguide: exact dy- namics and induced correlations”. New Journal of Physics 17, 023030 (2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    Quantum multimode treatment of light scatter- ing by an atom in a waveguide

    William Konyk and Julio Gea-Banacloche. “Quantum multimode treatment of light scatter- ing by an atom in a waveguide”. Physical Review A 93, 063807 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    Perfect splitting of a two-photon pulse

    Mads M. Lund, Fan Yang, and Klaus Mølmer. “Perfect splitting of a two-photon pulse”. Phys- ical Review A 107, 023715 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    Deterministic Pho- ton Sorting in Waveguide QED Systems

    Fan Yang, Mads M. Lund, Thomas Pohl, Peter Lodahl, and Klaus Mølmer. “Deterministic Pho- ton Sorting in Waveguide QED Systems”. Phys- ical Review Letters 128, 213603 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    En- hanced TEMPO Algorithm for Quantum Path Integrals with Off-Diagonal System-Bath Cou- pling: Applications to Photonic Quantum Net- works

    Marten Richter and Stephen Hughes. “En- hanced TEMPO Algorithm for Quantum Path Integrals with Off-Diagonal System-Bath Cou- pling: Applications to Photonic Quantum Net- works”. Physical Review Letters 128 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    Quantum trajectory theory of few-photon cavity-QED systems with a time- delayed coherent feedback

    Gavin Crowder, Howard Carmichael, and Stephen Hughes. “Quantum trajectory theory of few-photon cavity-QED systems with a time- delayed coherent feedback”. Physical Review A101 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    Quantum trajectory theory and sim- ulations of nonlinear spectra and multiphoton effects in waveguide-QED systems with a time- delayed coherent feedback

    Gavin Crowder, Lora Ramunno, and Stephen Hughes. “Quantum trajectory theory and sim- ulations of nonlinear spectra and multiphoton effects in waveguide-QED systems with a time- delayed coherent feedback”. Physical Review A106 (2022)

    2022

  33. [40]

    Collision models in quan- tum optics

    Francesco Ciccarello. “Collision models in quan- tum optics”. Quantum Measurements and Quan- tum Metrology4 (2018)

    2018

  34. [41]

    Photon-photon interactions in dy- namically coupled cavities

    Mikkel Heuck, Kurt Jacobs, and Dirk R. En- glund. “Photon-photon interactions in dy- namically coupled cavities”. Physical Review A101 (2020)

    2020

  35. [42]

    Controlled-phase gate by dynamic coupling of photons to a two-level emitter

    Stefan Krastanov, Kurt Jacobs, Gerald Gilbert, Dirk R. Englund, and Mikkel Heuck. “Controlled-phase gate by dynamic coupling of photons to a two-level emitter”. npj Quantum Information 8, 103 (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    QuTiP: An open-source Python frame- work for the dynamics of open quantum sys- tems

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and Franco Nori. “QuTiP: An open-source Python frame- work for the dynamics of open quantum sys- tems”. Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760–1772 (2012)

    2012

  37. [44]

    QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynam- ics of open quantum systems

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and Franco Nori. “QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynam- ics of open quantum systems”. Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234–1240 (2013)

    2013

  38. [45]

    QuantumOp- tics.jl: A Julia framework for simulating open Accepted in Quantum 2025-04-10, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 14 quantum systems

    Sebastian Kr¨ amer, David Plankensteiner, Laurin Ostermann, and Helmut Ritsch. “QuantumOp- tics.jl: A Julia framework for simulating open Accepted in Quantum 2025-04-10, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 14 quantum systems”. Computer Physics Commu- nications 22...

    2018

  39. [46]

    Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V. Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma. “Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from repeated interactions”. Physics Reports 954, 1–70 (2022)

    2022

  40. [47]

    Documentation of WaveguideQED.jl

    “Documentation of WaveguideQED.jl”. https://qojulia.github.io/WaveguideQED. jl/dev/

  41. [48]

    Github repository of WaveguideQED.jl

    “Github repository of WaveguideQED.jl”. https://github.com/qojulia/WaveguideQED. jl

  42. [49]

    LazyOperators in QuantumOptics.jl

    “LazyOperators in QuantumOptics.jl”. https://docs.qojulia.org/quantumobjects/ operators/

  43. [51]

    QuTiP 5: The Quantum Toolbox in Python

    N. Lambert, E. Gigu` ere, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Su´ arez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gad- hvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Na- tion, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, “QuTiP 5: The Quantum Toolbox in Python”, arXiv:2412.04705 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bound states in ultrastrong waveg- uide QED

    J. Rom´ an-Roche, E. S´ anchez-Burillo, and D. Zueco, “Bound states in ultrastrong waveg- uide QED”, Phys. Rev. A 102, 023702 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Collisional picture of quantum optics with giant emitters

    D. Cilluffo, A. Carollo, S. Lorenzo, J. A. Gross, G. M. Palma, and F. Ciccarello, “Collisional picture of quantum optics with giant emitters”, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043070 (2020). Accepted in Quantum 2025-04-10, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 15 101 102 103 Num...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.