Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Quantum simulation of interacting bosons with propagating waveguide photons

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A photon-number-selective phase gate based on three-level-atom subtraction and time-reversed addition gives propagating waveguide photons a tunable on-site interaction, enabling Trotterized simulation of Bose-Hubbard and fractional…

desk verdict The new photon-number-selective phase gate is undercut by a chirality/mirror inconsistency, but the framework around it is careful and worth a serious look. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15441 v3 pith:SFYH3U7L submitted 2025-04-21 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Xinyuan Zheng , Mahmoud Jalali Mehrabad , Avik Dutt , Nathan Schine , Edo Waks This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords waveguidequantumelectrodynamicsphoton-number-selectivephasegatephotonsubtractionBose-HubbardsimulationfractionalHallstatesoflightTrotterizationengineereddissipationtime-multiplexedphotoniccircuits
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 propagating waveguide photons, which so far could simulate only non-interacting boson physics, can be given strong, tunable on-site interactions by a photon-number-selective phase gate built from a three-level atom. The gate works by deterministically subtracting one photon from a Fock pulse, applying linear phase shifts, and time-reversing the subtraction so the pulse shape comes back undistorted. With this gate as the interaction term and beamsplitters as hopping, Trotterized circuits are claimed to simulate the Bose-Hubbard model and the fractional quantum Hall Hamiltonian, including engineered dissipation that drives the system toward a target ground state. If right, the result extends time-multiplexed waveguide photonics from single-particle physics into strongly interacting quantum many-body simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photon-number-selective phase gate: a Λ-system, two ground states coupled through a common excited state, chirally coupled to two waveguides, which acts as a deterministic Fock-state photon subtractor when the coupling γ is large. A k-photon pulse scattered off the atom leaves k−1 photons in the original waveguide and one photon in the second waveguide and flips the atom state; linear phase shifters then imprint phases, and phase-conjugating mirrors reflect both branches back so the scattering is time-reversed and the output is the original pulse shape with the desired photon-number-dependent phase. The analysis uses the virtual-cavity method to compute the few-photon scattering wavefunctions and bounds the subtraction-failure probability pfail by (1−Fsub), showing both can be made arbitrarily small as γ→∞. This gate is what converts the linear beamsplitter network of time-multiplexed waveguides into a simulator of Hamiltonians of the form H = Σ⟨i,j⟩(Jij b†i bj + h.c.) + Σi f(ni).

What would settle it

Perform the two-photon gate experiment with a Λ-system in a chiral waveguide, sending a two-photon Fock pulse through the subtraction, phase-shift, and time-reversal sequence and measuring the output by homodyne or photon-number-resolving detection. If the gate infidelity does not fall toward zero as 1/γ, or if the output two-photon wavefunction shows pulse-shape distortion or spurious photon-number components, the central claim collapses. A simpler check is to measure pfail directly for k=2 with a square pulse and γ=4000, which the paper predicts to be about 1.2×10−4; a result orders of magnitude larger would falsify the claimed scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the missing ingredient for interacting boson simulation with waveguide photons, a distortion-free, tunable, photon-number-selective phase gate, can be implemented by letting a k-photon Fock pulse scatter off a Λ-type atom that transfers one photon to a second waveguide, applying linear phase shifts to the two branches, and reflecting both back through phase-conjugating mirrors so the subtraction is time-reversed. In the limit of large atom-waveguide coupling γ, the subtraction failure probability vanishes, the gate applies the phase φ1+(k−1)φ2 for any photon number k, and cascaded layers make the phase per photon number programmable. The authors benchmark the gate by Trotterizing the 1D Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian and the 2D fractional quantum Hall Hamiltonian on a 4×4 lattice, obtaining interaction-induced fermionization in a quench and a 94.5% overlap between the circuit's two-photon ground state and the analytic Laughlin-type wavefunction. They further show that coupling each lattice mode to an ancilla coherent state through a beamsplitter simulates coherent drive plus single-photon loss, and that the steady state, post-selected on two photons, has over 95% overlap with the FQH ground space at resonant drive.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phase-conjugating mirrors exactly time-reverse the photon-subtraction scattering for arbitrary pulse shapes and photon numbers with no loss or distortion, and that the atom-waveguide coupling is perfectly chiral with no backward emission; if either fails, the gate error exceeds the claimed 1/γ scaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same time-multiplexed waveguide hardware already used for quantum walks, synthetic gauge fields, and topological evolution can now include a tunable on-site interaction, so previously demonstrated non-interacting tools carry over to interacting models.
  • Bose-Hubbard phenomena such as interaction-induced fermionization of two bosons can be observed with Trotter step δt = 0.2/J and interaction strength U = 10J.
  • A minimal 4×4 FQH lattice circuit reproduces the two-photon Laughlin-type ground state to 94.5% overlap and opens the expected gap between ground and excited states.
  • Engineered dissipation via ancilla coherent states and beamsplitter dumping can prepare the FQH ground state, with post-selected overlap exceeding 95% at resonance.
  • Cascaded subtraction layers make the interaction phase programmable for arbitrary photon number, so the same primitive can implement generic on-site potentials f(n).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If phase-conjugating mirrors turn out to be the practical bottleneck, an alternative time-reversal method that preserves pulse shape, such as dynamic modulation or echo-based reversal, could substitute without changing the gate's logic; the paper's fidelity analysis does not model mirror loss or wavefront distortion.
  • Because the gate is photon-number-selective rather than limited to two photons, the same primitive could be used for bosonic measurement-induced phase transitions or quantum neural networks, directions the authors mention only briefly.
  • A testable extension is to modulate the linear phase shifts during the Trotter loop, implementing time-dependent Hubbard U on the same hardware and enabling quench or Floquet many-body dynamics that the paper does not explicitly simulate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for quantum simulation of interacting bosonic many-body models using time-bin encoded propagating waveguide photons. The key ingredient is a photon-number-selective phase gate that applies a controllable phase to a k-photon Fock state in a single time bin without distorting the pulse shape. The gate is implemented by scattering the time-bin state from a three-level atom in a chiral waveguide (photon subtraction), applying linear phase shifts in the two waveguides, and then using phase-conjugating mirrors to time-reverse the subtraction so that the state is restored with the desired phase. The authors combine this gate with beamsplitters to Trotterize the Bose-Hubbard and fractional quantum Hall (FQH) Hamiltonians, and with ancilla coherent states plus beamsplitters to simulate engineered dissipation whose steady state is the FQH ground state. Numerical benchmarks are presented: fermionization in the Bose-Hubbard model, energy spectra and ground-state overlaps against analytic theta-function states for the FQH model, and post-selected overlaps for the dissipative preparation protocol.

Significance. If the phase gate operates as claimed, this would be a substantial advance for photonic quantum simulation: it would provide a distortion-free, photon-number-selective nonlinear phase for arbitrary photon numbers, with explicit error bounds that vanish as the atom-waveguide coupling γ grows, and it would integrate naturally with time-multiplexed waveguide circuits. The paper's numerical benchmarks are against independent analytic solutions and no parameters are fitted to the target results, which is a strength. The underlying photon-subtraction building block has been demonstrated experimentally. However, the central gate's physical realization has a serious internal inconsistency that must be resolved before the main claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [PHOTON PHASE GATE VIA THREE-LEVEL ATOMS and SI §I-II] The gate fidelity derivation in SI §I, leading to Eq. (17), assumes that after the linear phase shifters the state is reflected by phase-conjugating mirrors and undergoes a second atom-light scattering that exactly undoes the first subtraction. This is the load-bearing step of the entire proposal, but it is internally inconsistent with the chiral Hamiltonian used elsewhere in the paper. The SI Hamiltonian contains only right-propagating operators â_{h,z}, â_{v,z}, and the text states that chiral coupling is used to avoid backward emission. A phase-conjugating mirror that reflects the pulse reverses its propagation direction, placing the photons in left-moving modes; in a perfectly chiral waveguide the atom couples only to one direction, so the backward-moving photons do not scatter from the atom and the second subtraction/addition step does not occur. The final output would then not be the original k-photon Fock state with the desired phase, and the formula INF_gate = 2 p_fail(1-p_fail)(1-cos(δϕ)) is not a bound on the error of the proposed device. If the 'phase conjugating mirror' is instead intended as a direction-preserving time-reversal of the pulse envelope, the manuscript provides no Hamiltonian or unitary for such a device, and the assertion that the second scattering inverts the first (used in the unitarity argument preceding Eq. (13)) remains unproved. Because every simulation circuit (Bose-Hubbard, FQH, and dissipative preparation) inherits this gate, the main claim of the paper is not yet established.
  2. [SI §IV] The two-layer subtraction fidelity analysis in SI §IV inherits the same time-reversal assumption. The correlation function in Eq. (77) and the subsequent lower bound on p_succ are derived under the assumption that the output of the two subtraction layers is sent back through the same chiral atoms in reverse order. The same direction-reversal issue applies: the second pass would not occur for a chiral atom, so the upper bound on INF_gate in Eq. (73) is not a bound on a physically realizable device under the stated chiral coupling. A revision needs to provide a concrete physical model of the time-inversion step that is consistent with the chirality of the atom-waveguide interaction, or to replace the gate design with one that does not rely on exact time reversal.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The word 'Lindbadlian' is a typo and should be 'Lindbladian' in both the abstract and the introduction.
  2. [PHOTON PHASE GATE VIA THREE-LEVEL ATOMS] The sentence 'apply a phase e^{i(ϕ1+(k−1)ϕ2)} for any photon number k greater than 1' is imprecise about the k=1 case; the fidelity analysis suggests the formula also applies for k=1, so the phrase 'greater than 1' should be clarified or removed.
  3. [SI §IV] The text states 'lim_{γ→1} F_gate' twice; the limit should be γ→∞, not γ→1.
  4. [Figure 5 caption] The caption says 'The (c) panel is plotted as a function of the drive frequency'; this should be 'Panel (c) is plotted...'.
  5. [SI §VI and Figure 5] The assumption α ≪ Kδt ≪ 1 used in the expansion of the drive-dissipation channel is stated only in the SI; it should be mentioned in the main text where the parameter choices for Figure 5(c) are introduced, since the numerical choices satisfy this hierarchy.
  6. [PHOTON PHASE GATE VIA THREE-LEVEL ATOMS] The statement that an optical circulator is included 'to avoid back-reflection' does not explain how the reflected pulse is routed onward in the forward-propagating time-multiplexed circuits; a sentence or diagram clarifying the routing would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the phase gate is derived from a first-principles waveguide-QED Hamiltonian and the Bose-Hubbard/FQH benchmarks are checked against independent analytic results; the phase-conjugating mirror idealization is a physical realizability gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central photon-number-selective phase gate is not defined in terms of the quantities it is later used to predict. The subtraction dynamics are computed from the explicit Hamiltonian H = H_wg + H_atom + H_couple (SI Section I) using the virtual-cavity input-output method of Refs. [48,57], and the subtraction-failure probability p_fail is bounded from the scattering wavefunctions (SI Eqs. 34 and 64-69). The gate-infidelity formula INF_gate = 2 p_fail(1-p_fail)(1-cos(delta-phi)) follows from unitarity of the assumed time-reversal pass; the ideal time-reversal is an architectural assumption whose physical implementation is not modeled, but this is a correctness/realizability concern, not a circular reduction of the kind where an output equals an input by construction. The Bose-Hubbard and FQH simulations are benchmarked against independent targets: fermionization for the Bose-Hubbard quench compares with the known two-particle behavior of strongly interacting bosons, and the FQH ground states are compared with the analytic Jacobi theta-function wavefunctions in SI Eq. 94. The 94.5% overlap uses only an optimization over the two-dimensional degenerate ground-state basis, with no parameter fitted to the target result; the circuit angles are fixed by J, U, delta_t, and the plaquette flux. The dissipative-preparation protocol is derived independently in SI Section VI by expanding the beamsplitter-plus-ancilla channel to first order in delta_t, with parameters set by F = K alpha*, gamma delta_t = (K delta_t)^2, and Phi = Omega delta_t, so the steady-state overlap is a genuine test of the derived channel. Self-citations [19,29,30,53,54] concern prior non-interacting or topological photonics work and are not load-bearing for the present derivation. The closest thing to a circularity concern, the phase-conjugating-mirror time reversal, is an unverified physical hypothesis rather than an equation that reduces to itself, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a small set of physical idealizations: perfect chirality, lossless time-reversing mirrors, and the large-gamma limit. None of these are invented entities; they are assumptions about existing components. The numerical demonstrations also rely on chosen simulation parameters (delta_t, U, gamma) that are not fitted to target outputs.

free parameters (4)
  • Trotter step size delta_t = 0.2/J (Bose-Hubbard), 0.25 (FQH)
    Chosen by hand; simulation accuracy depends on it, and no convergence study is provided.
  • Atom-waveguide coupling rate gamma = Infinite in the analysis; gamma=4000 used for infidelity estimates
    Controls gate infidelity; the paper shows infidelity scales as C(k)/gamma.
  • Phase gate angles phi_l = Set by target interaction f(n), e.g., phi_1=0, phi_2=-U*delta_t for Bose-Hubbard two-photon interaction
    Tunable parameters that map the target Hamiltonian onto the gate; not fitted to output, but essential to the protocol.
  • Ancilla coherent amplitude alpha and beam splitter coupling K*delta_t = alpha*/(K*delta_t)=0.1; K*delta_t=0.05,0.1,0.15
    Used to simulate the drive and dissipation channel; values chosen for the numerical examples.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The waveguide modes are free, lossless photons with linear dispersion; time-bin encoding is exact with orthogonal modes.
    Standard model in waveguide QED, but real waveguides have dispersion, loss, and imperfect mode profiles.
  • domain assumption The atom is a perfect Lambda system with only two ground states and one excited state; chiral coupling is perfect with no backward emission or nonradiative decay.
    Invoked in the model Hamiltonian in SI section I-III; necessary for the claimed gate fidelity.
  • ad hoc to paper Phase-conjugating mirrors implement exact time reversal of the photon wavefunction without loss or spectral distortion.
    Introduced in the main text near Figure 2(b); no fidelity analysis is given for these mirrors, and their performance is assumed ideal.
  • standard math The Trotter-Suzuki decomposition converges for the chosen delta_t, and the error is negligible at the displayed step sizes.
    Standard expansion, but no explicit error bound is computed for these circuits.
  • standard math The analytic FQH ground states on the 4x4 torus are given by the Jacobi theta function expressions of SI section V.
    Taken from prior literature (ref [14] and standard FQH theory), used as a benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum simulation of interacting bosons with propagating waveguide photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SFYH3U7L

@misc{pith2026250415441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum simulation of interacting bosons with propagating waveguide photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SFYH3U7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15441}
}
read the original abstract

Optical networks composed of interconnected waveguides are a versatile platform to simulate bosonic physical phenomena. Significant work in the non-interacting regime has demonstrated the capabilities of this platform to simulate many exotic effects such as photon transport in the presence of gauge fields, dynamics of quantum walks, and topological transition and dissipation phenomena. However, the extension of these concepts to simulating interacting quantum many-body phenomena such as the Bose-Hubbard and the fractional quantum Hall (FQH) physics has remained elusive. In this work, we address this problem and demonstrate a framework for quantum many-body simulation as well as drive and dissipation in photonic waveguides. Specifically, we show that for waveguide photons, a tunable on-site interaction can be simulated using a photon-number-selective phase gate. We propose an implementation of such a phase gate based on a three-level-atom-mediated photon subtraction and addition. We apply this approach to bosonic lattice models and propose circuits that can accurately simulate the Bose-Hubbard and FQH Hamiltonian as benchmarking examples. Moreover, we show how to simulate the Lindbladian evolution with engineered dissipators such that the steady state of the Lindbadlian corresponds to the ground state of desired Hamiltonians. Our scheme extends the waveguide photonic simulation platform to the strongly interacting quantum many-body regime while retaining all of its crucial advantages, such as single-site addressability, Hamiltonian parameter controllability, and hardware efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15441 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Encoding discrete bosonic modes into a waveguide by separating the continuum into discrete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Implementation of photon number selective phase gate for waveguide-encoded bosonic modes using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic and results for Bose-Hubbard Simulation. (a) We decompose the Full 1D Bose-Hubbard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic for FQH Hamiltonian simulation. (a) The FQH Hamiltonian defined on a 4x4 square [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulating the FQH model with coherent drive and dissipation. (a) The effect of coherent drive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: To be precise, the virtual cavity ˆaC has time-dependent complex coupling i[g ∗ (t)ˆaC aˆ † h,0−− h.c.] to the waveguide field ˆah,0−, which is the input field of the three-level atom. In particular, if one takes the coupling coefficient to be g(t) = ψ ∗ √ (−t) 1− ´ t …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The virtual cavity method for a single layer of photon subtraction. The dashed box is the virtual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Subtraction infidelity 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The virtual cavity approach for two layers of photon subtraction. Each green circle represents a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Subtraction infidelity for two-layer subtraction. (a) (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Sketch of the Energy level diagram of the FQH Hamiltonian considered in this work. For each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (a) Average photon number of the steady state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a) The new protocol for FQH ground state preparation, using ancilla initialized in the single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Complete waveguide circuit that implements periodic boundary conditions for the 1D Bose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Noh and D

    C. Noh and D. G. Angelakis, Quantum simulations and many-body physics with light, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016401 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    M. J. Hartmann, Quantum simulation with interacting photons, Journal of Optics 18, 104005 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    L. Yuan, Q. Lin, M. Xiao, and S. Fan, Synthetic dimension in photonics, Optica 5, 1396 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    phase conjugating mirror reflection

    We fix J = 1 andU = 10J with Trotter step size δt = 0.25. The circuit shown in Figure 4(b) implements a unitary Uδt which conserves the total photon number in the lattice. Thus, one can diagonalize the unitary operator Uδt within the k-photon sector, and obtain an ensemble of eigenvalues u(k) j and corresponding eigenvectors. These eigenvalues for such a ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Aspuru-Guzik and P

    A. Aspuru-Guzik and P. Walther, Photonic quantum simulators, Nature physics 8, 285 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    M. S. Underwood and D. L. Feder, Bose-hubbard model for universal quantum-walk-based computation, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 85, 052314 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    A. M. Childs, D. Gosset, and Z. Webb, The bose-hubbard model is qma-complete, in Automata, Languages, and Programming: 41st International Colloquium, ICALP 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 8-11, 2014, Proceedings, Part I 41 (Springer, 2014) pp. 308–319

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, nature 409, 46 (2001)

    2001

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Umucalılar and I

    R. Umucalılar and I. Carusotto, Fractional quantum hall states of photons in an array of dissipative coupled cavities, Physical Review Letters 108, 206809 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    J. Cho, D. G. Angelakis, and S. Bose, Fractional Quantum Hall State in Coupled Cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 246809 (2008), publisher: American Physical Society

    2008

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    Reinhard, T

    A. Reinhard, T. Volz, M. Winger, A. Badolato, K. J. Hennessy, E. L. Hu, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Strongly correlated photons on a chip, Nature Photonics 6, 93 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Wang, F.-M

    C. Wang, F.-M. Liu, M.-C. Chen, H. Chen, X.-H. Zhao, C. Ying, Z.-X. Shang, J.-W. Wang, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Z. Peng, et al. , Realization of fractional quantum hall state with interacting photons, Science 384, 579 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    A. H. Karamlou, I. T. Rosen, S. E. Muschinske, C. N. Barrett, A. Di Paolo, L. Ding, P. M. Harrington, M. Hays, R. Das, D. K. Kim, et al. , Probing entanglement in a 2d hard-core bose–hubbard lattice, Nature , 1 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Kapit, M

    E. Kapit, M. Hafezi, and S. H. Simon, Induced self-stabilization in fractional quantum hall states of light, Physical Review X 4, 031039 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Schreiber, A

    A. Schreiber, A. G´ abris, P. P. Rohde, K. Laiho, M. ˇStefaˇ n´ ak, V. Potoˇ cek, C. Hamilton, I. Jex, and C. Silberhorn, A 2d quantum walk simulation of two-particle dynamics, Science 336, 55 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Marques Muniz, F

    A. Marques Muniz, F. Wu, P. Jung, M. Khajavikhan, D. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, Observation of photon-photon thermodynamic processes under negative optical temperature conditions, Science 379, 1019 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Bogaerts, D

    W. Bogaerts, D. P´ erez, J. Capmany, D. A. Miller, J. Poon, D. Englund, F. Morichetti, and A. Melloni, Programmable photonic circuits, Nature 586, 207 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Monika, F

    M. Monika, F. Nosrati, A. George, S. Sciara, R. Fazili, A. L. Marques Muniz, A. Bisianov, R. Lo Franco, W. J. Munro, M. Chemnitz, et al. , Quantum state processing through controllable synthetic temporal photonic lattices, Nature Photonics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Zheng, M

    X. Zheng, M. Jalali Mehrabad, J. Vannucci, K. Li, A. Dutt, M. Hafezi, S. Mittal, and E. Waks, Dynamic control of 2d non-hermitian photonic corner skin modes in synthetic dimensions, Nature Communications 15, 10881 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Chalabi, S

    H. Chalabi, S. Barik, S. Mittal, T. E. Murphy, M. Hafezi, and E. Waks, Synthetic gauge field for two- dimensional time-multiplexed quantum random walks, Physical Review Letters 123, 150503 (2019). 39

    2019

  14. [22]

    Chalabi, S

    H. Chalabi, S. Barik, S. Mittal, T. E. Murphy, M. Hafezi, and E. Waks, Guiding and confining of light in a two-dimensional synthetic space using electric fields, Optica 7, 506 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Leefmans, A

    C. Leefmans, A. Dutt, J. Williams, L. Yuan, M. Parto, F. Nori, S. Fan, and A. Marandi, Topological dissipation in a time-multiplexed photonic resonator network, Nature Physics 18, 442 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Parto, C

    M. Parto, C. Leefmans, J. Williams, F. Nori, and A. Marandi, Non-abelian effects in dissipative pho- tonic topological lattices, Nature Communications 14, 1440 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Weidemann, M

    S. Weidemann, M. Kremer, T. Helbig, T. Hofmann, A. Stegmaier, M. Greiter, R. Thomale, and A. Szameit, Topological funneling of light, Science 368, 311 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Weidemann, M

    S. Weidemann, M. Kremer, S. Longhi, and A. Szameit, Topological triple phase transition in non- hermitian floquet quasicrystals, Nature 601, 354 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Q. Lin, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Manipulating directional flow in a two-dimensional photonic quantum walk under a synthetic magnetic field, Nature Communications 14, 6283 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    J¨ urgensen, S

    M. J¨ urgensen, S. Mukherjee, and M. C. Rechtsman, Quantized nonlinear thouless pumping, Nature 596, 63 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    C. R. Leefmans, M. Parto, J. Williams, G. H. Li, A. Dutt, F. Nori, and A. Marandi, Topological temporally mode-locked laser, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    C. J. Flower, M. Jalali Mehrabad, L. Xu, G. Moille, D. G. Suarez-Forero, O.¨Orsel, G. Bahl, Y. Chembo, K. Srinivasan, S. Mittal, et al. , Observation of topological frequency combs, Science 384, 1356 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Jalali Mehrabad and M

    M. Jalali Mehrabad and M. Hafezi, Strain-induced landau levels in photonic crystals, Nature Photonics 18, 527 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    F. Yang, M. M. Lund, T. Pohl, P. Lodahl, and K. Mølmer, Deterministic photon sorting in waveguide qed systems, Physical Review Letters 128, 213603 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    M. M. Lund, F. Yang, V. R. Christiansen, D. Kornovan, and K. Mølmer, Subtraction and addition of propagating photons by two-level emitters, Physical Review Letters 133, 103601 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    N. Tomm, S. Mahmoodian, N. O. Antoniadis, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. Javadi, and R. J. Warburton, Photon bound state dynamics from a single artificial atom, Nature Physics 19, 857 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Babin, R

    C. Babin, R. St¨ ohr, N. Morioka, T. Linkewitz, T. Steidl, R. W¨ ornle, D. Liu, E. Hesselmeier, V. Vorobyov, A. Denisenko, et al. , Fabrication and nanophotonic waveguide integration of silicon carbide colour centres with preserved spin-optical coherence, Nature materials 21, ...

    2022

  28. [36]

    V. S. Ferreira, G. Kim, A. Butler, H. Pichler, and O. Painter, Deterministic generation of multidimen- sional photonic cluster states with a single quantum emitter, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Shen and S

    J.-T. Shen and S. Fan, Strongly correlated multiparticle transport in one dimension through a quantum impurity, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 76, 062709 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Mahmoodian, G

    S. Mahmoodian, G. Calaj´ o, D. E. Chang, K. Hammerer, and A. S. Sørensen, Dynamics of many-body photon bound states in chiral waveguide qed, Physical Review X 10, 031011 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Peyronel, O

    T. Peyronel, O. Firstenberg, Q.-Y. Liang, S. Hofferberth, A. V. Gorshkov, T. Pohl, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuleti´ c, Quantum nonlinear optics with single photons enabled by strongly interacting atoms, Nature 488, 57 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    D. E. Chang, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum nonlinear optics—photon by photon, Nature Photonics 8, 685 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    I. T. Rosen, S. Muschinske, C. N. Barrett, A. Chatterjee, M. Hays, M. A. DeMarco, A. H. Karamlou, D. A. Rower, R. Das, D. K. Kim, et al., A synthetic magnetic vector potential in a 2d superconducting qubit array, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Cheng, K

    D. Cheng, K. Wang, and S. Fan, Artificial non-abelian lattice gauge fields for photons in the synthetic frequency dimension, Physical Review Letters 130, 083601 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    V. V. Albert, B. Bradlyn, M. Fraas, and L. Jiang, Geometry and response of lindbladians, Physical Review X 6, 041031 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    Duan and H

    L.-M. Duan and H. Kimble, Scalable photonic quantum computation through cavity-assisted interac- tions, Physical review letters 92, 127902 (2004). 40

    2004

  38. [46]

    Hacker, S

    B. Hacker, S. Welte, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, A photon–photon quantum gate based on a single atom in an optical resonator, Nature 536, 193 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Hafezi, D

    M. Hafezi, D. E. Chang, V. Gritsev, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum transport of strongly interacting photons in a one-dimensional nonlinear waveguide, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 85, 013822 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Shomroni, S

    I. Shomroni, S. Rosenblum, Y. Lovsky, O. Bechler, G. Guendelman, and B. Dayan, All-optical routing of single photons by a one-atom switch controlled by a single photon, Science 345, 903 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Rosenblum, S

    S. Rosenblum, S. Parkins, and B. Dayan, Photon routing in cavity qed: Beyond the fundamental limit of photon blockade, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 84, 033854 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    Sivan and J

    Y. Sivan and J. B. Pendry, Time reversal in dynamically tuned zero-gap periodic systems, Physical review letters 106, 193902 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    A. V. Chumak, V. S. Tiberkevich, A. D. Karenowska, A. A. Serga, J. F. Gregg, A. N. Slavin, and B. Hillebrands, All-linear time reversal by a dynamic artificial crystal, Nature communications 1, 141 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    M. F. Yanik and S. Fan, Time reversal of light with linear optics and modulators, Physical review letters 93, 173903 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    P. M. Preiss, R. Ma, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, P. Zupancic, Y. Lahini, R. Islam, and M. Greiner, Strongly correlated quantum walks in optical lattices, Science 347, 1229 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Su´ arez-Forero, M

    D. Su´ arez-Forero, M. Jalali Mehrabad, C. Vega, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and M. Hafezi, Chiral quantum optics: Recent developments and future directions, PRX Quantum 6, 020101 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Jalali Mehrabad, S

    M. Jalali Mehrabad, S. Mittal, and M. Hafezi, Topological photonics: Fundamental concepts, recent developments, and future directions, Physical Review A 108, 040101 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Measurement-induced phase transitions in the dynamics of entanglement, Physical Review X 9, 031009 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    G. R. Steinbrecher, J. P. Olson, D. Englund, and J. Carolan, Quantum optical neural networks, npj Quantum Information 5, 60 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Input-output theory with quantum pulses, Physical review letters 123, 123604 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.