Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Spin Grouping in Ring Cavity and its Protection on Entangled States Transfer

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spins spaced an odd multiple of $\lambda/4$ in a ring cavity split into two protected groups, and this grouping can carry an entangled state from one remote spin pair to another with fidelity above 99.9%.

desk verdict Solid exact SVD analysis and numerics for even-N entangled state transfer, but the claimed generality is overstated and the effective model is under-derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02361 v1 pith:TNGPQ6NR submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

Chang Li This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords ringcavityquantumelectrodynamicsspinarrayTavis-CummingsmodelentanglementtransfergroupingSTIRAPcounterpropagatingmodes
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

This work argues that a spin chain coupled to a ring cavity with two counterpropagating modes has a spatial symmetry that can be exploited for long-range quantum communication. When adjacent spins are spaced an odd multiple of $\lambda/4$, the spins organize into two parity groups, and an excitation moves only within its own group. Because the two polariton pairs are degenerate, the relative phase between the groups is preserved, so an entangled state prepared on one spin pair can be transferred to a distant spin pair without direct spin-spin interaction. This matters because it offers a route to connect distant qubits, and eventually small quantum processors, using only a shared cavity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the structure factor $s$, together with the singular value decomposition of the $2\times N$ coupling matrix $G$. The SVD produces two bright polariton pairs with strengths $\lambda_\pm$, and the condition $s=0$ at $\Delta\phi=\pi/2$ makes those pairs degenerate, separating the bright spin modes into even-parity and odd-parity collective states. Equivalently, the two counterpropagating cavity modes interfere into a standing wave, and spins separated by an odd multiple of $\lambda/4$ sit at nodes or antinodes that select one parity group; the effective flip-flop interaction between the groups vanishes. This degeneracy is what carries the protection: the two groups exchange population through the cavity while keeping their relative phase fixed.

What would settle it

In a four-spin ring cavity with spacing exactly $\lambda/4$, excite spin 0 and record the time-resolved populations of spins 1 and 3; the grouping claim requires these odd-group populations to stay near zero while spin 2 oscillates, so seeing transfer into the odd group at a significant fraction of the even-group amplitude would refute the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the single-excitation sector, the paper writes the coupling between the two cavity modes and $N$ spins through a matrix $G$ whose singular values are $\lambda_\pm = g_c\sqrt{1\pm|s|}$, with structure factor $s = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{m=0}^{N-1} e^{2im\Delta\phi}$. At interval phase $\Delta\phi=\pi/2$ and even $N$, one has $s=0$, the two bright polariton pairs become degenerate, and the collective spin eigenstates are alternating superpositions of even-index and odd-index spins. Each parity group couples to a different mixed cavity mode, so population transport is confined within a group, while coherence between groups is protected by the degeneracy. Starting from $(S_0^+ + S_1^+)/\sqrt{2}|\mathrm{vac}\rangle$, the excitation transfers to $(S_2^+ + S_3^+)/\sqrt{2}|\mathrm{vac}\rangle$; in a six-spin simulation with a detuned middle pair, the entangled state $(S_1^+ + S_2^+)/\sqrt{2}|\mathrm{vac}\rangle$ moves to $(S_0^+ - S_5^+)/\sqrt{2}|\mathrm{vac}\rangle$ with fidelity above $99.9\%$. The paper further shows that adiabatic detuning ramps (STIRAP) make the transfer deterministic and tolerant of pulse-shape variations.

Load-bearing premise

The broad promise of the scheme depends on the claim that spin grouping persists for any arrangement whose two groups sit an odd multiple of $\lambda/4$ apart, but that generality rests on an effective spin-spin interaction whose validity regime is not stated, and the supplement itself narrows it by excluding odd numbers of spins from the transfer protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An entangled state prepared on a local spin pair can be moved to any other pair in the cavity by positioning and detuning that pair, without relying on direct spin-spin interactions.
  • Remote spin pairs become entangled through the shared cavity, so the mechanism acts as a long-range interaction resource for modular quantum processors.
  • The STIRAP-based transfer tolerates pulse-shape variations: final fidelity stays above $99.5\%$ when the detuning ratio $\Delta_1/\Delta_0$ ranges from 0.5 to 1.4.
  • Detuning a target spin pair by about $10g_c$ suppresses population leakage and routes the entangled state to a different remote pair, as demonstrated with the six-spin transfer to spins $(0,5)$.
  • Both atomic (171Yb in a bow-tie cavity) and superconducting (qubits in a cable cavity) platforms can host the protocol, with the superconducting option giving a larger coupling-to-dissipation ratio.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the relative phase of the two spin groups selects which circulating direction (cw or ccw) carries the photon, so the same mechanism could function as a directional quantum interconnect without separate waveguide elements.
  • Inference: the two-excitation example suggests parity blocking may extend beyond the formal single-excitation derivation, but the paper does not prove this; a direct multi-excitation spectrum calculation would be the natural check.
  • Inference: the supplement's odd-spin caveat points to a useful generalization—if the polariton degeneracy for odd $N$ could be restored by engineering couplings or phases, the transfer protocol would apply to arbitrary chain lengths.
  • Inference: the quoted fidelities are for ideal closed dynamics; inserting the atomic decay and cavity linewidth parameters quoted in the paper would lower the fidelity, so an experiment would need $g_c$ well above those rates or error detection.
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 studies N two-level spins coupled to a ring cavity supporting two counterpropagating modes, working in the single-excitation regime and setting the bare spin and cavity frequencies to zero. The central technical step is an SVD of the 2×N coupling matrix G, whose nonzero singular values are λ± = gc√(1±|s|), with s the structure factor. For equal spin spacing with Δφ = π/2 and even N, the paper shows s=0, the two bright polariton pairs become degenerate, and the bright collective spin states are supported on even- and odd-indexed sublattices separately. This 'spin grouping' is then used to argue that exciton transport is confined within each group, that coherence between groups is preserved, and that an entangled state initially on one spin pair can be transferred to a remote pair. Numerical QuTiP simulations are presented for four spins (free transfer and STIRAP-mediated transfer) and for a six-spin example with two detuned intermediate spins. The paper closes with experimental platform proposals based on 171Yb atoms and superconducting qubits.

Significance. If the even-N claims stand, the paper offers a simple, parameter-free mechanism for remote entanglement transfer in a cavity that does not rely on direct spin-spin interactions. The SVD analysis is exact and yields a clean physical picture: at Δφ=π/2, the even and odd sublattices couple to orthogonal standing-wave combinations of the two cavity modes. The numerical simulations are concrete and reproducible, and data availability is stated. The main weakness is that the advertised generality beyond equally spaced even-N configurations is not established: the effective flip-flop model in the supplement is written down without derivation or validity conditions, and the supplement itself concedes that odd-N systems do not support the transfer protocol. The paper's core contribution is therefore narrower than its title and introduction suggest, but the core even-N results remain defensible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Exciton transport section and Supplemental Eq. (S11)] The main text states that the spin grouping mechanism 'remains valid regardless of the total spin number or specific arrangement' as long as the two groups are separated by an odd multiple of λ/4. This claim is not supported by the supplement. Equation (S11) is written as an effective spin-spin flip-flop Hamiltonian with prefactor g_c^2 and no energy denominators; it is not derived from Eq. (1). At the paper's working point ωa=ωc, the cavity photon is resonant and cannot be adiabatically eliminated in the manner suggested, and a correct elimination away from resonance would contain prefactors of order g^2/δ together with Lamb-shift terms. Moreover, Sec. III of the supplement explicitly concedes that for an odd number of spins the polariton pairs are non-degenerate at Δφ=π/2 and that the transfer protocol is not applicable. The 'regardless' claim should be removed, or Eq. (S11) should be supplied with a proper derivation and a clearly stated regime of validity.
  2. [Entangled state transfer section, Fig. 3(b)] The six-spin remote-transfer example is not fully specified. If all six spins are equally spaced with Δφ=π/2 around the ring, the total phase accumulated around the ring is 6×(π/2)=3π, which is incompatible with the periodic boundary condition kL=2πn required for the ring cavity modes used in Eq. (1). If the spins are not equally spaced, then the structure factor and the bright/dark subspaces differ from those in Eq. (S10), and the mapping from Ψ12 to Ψ05 needs an explicit derivation. The authors should state the positions of the six spins, verify consistency with the ring boundary condition, and explain how the detuning of spins (3,4) leads to the specific mapping spin 1→5 and spin 2→0.
  3. [Entangled state transfer section, first paragraph] The claim that an entangled state protected by spin grouping 'can be transferred to any position within the cavity, with the transfer speed determined solely by the coupling strength' is too broad. In the six-spin example, additional dynamical detuning of the intermediate pair (3,4) is necessary to prevent leakage, and for arbitrary arrangements the degeneracy λ_+=λ_− required for coherent pair-to-pair transfer is lost, as the supplement itself notes for odd N. The general conditions under which arbitrary-placement transfer works should be stated quantitatively, and the 'any position' claim should be qualified accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (4) and Supplemental Eq. (S10)] The collective spin states |A+⟩ and |A−⟩ are not normalized as written: with the 1/√(2N) prefactor in Eq. (S10), the norm is 1/2 for N/2 terms, and Eq. (4) omits the normalization factor entirely. The prefactor should be √(2/N).
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'identiacl', 'exicton', 'coulping', 'conresponding', 'nacw' (likely 'nccw'), and 'writed'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Eq. (S11)] Even as a heuristic, the prefactor in Eq. (S11) should be g^2 rather than g_c^2 if the sum is over individual spin pairs; as written, the collective coupling g_c = g√N overestimates the pairwise amplitude by a factor of N.
  4. [Fig. 2(b) and Fidelity definition] The fidelity FΨi(t)=⟨Ψi|ρ(t)|Ψi⟩ is stated for pure target states; for the detuned-spin simulations in Fig. 3, the authors should clarify whether ρ(t) is traced over the cavity and detuned-spin degrees of freedom before computing fidelity, since tracing over spectator spins can affect the reported fidelity values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-grouping and entangled-state-transfer results follow directly from the SVD of the model coupling matrix, with no fitted parameters or self-citation chain supplying the central claims.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the extended Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian in Eq. 1, the coupling matrix G in Eq. 3 is exactly decomposed by SVD. The singular values lambda_plus/minus = g_c sqrt(1 +/- |s|) and the structure factor s are direct algebraic consequences of G, not fitted quantities. At Delta_phi = pi/2 with even N, s = 0, so lambda_plus = lambda_minus = g_c; the collective spin eigenstates in Eq. S10 are even/odd index superpositions, which is exactly the spin-grouping claim. Exciton transport and entangled-state transfer are then computed by time-evolving this same Hamiltonian with QuTiP, so the numerical fidelities are not constructed to equal the input. The STIRAP detunings are optimized numerically, but this is parameter selection for a standard protocol rather than a prediction forced by a fit. The effective flip-flop interaction in Eq. S11 is heuristic and not rigorously derived, since no energy denominator or validity regime is stated, and the Supplement concedes that odd-numbered spin arrays do not allow the transfer protocol; these are correctness and rigor weaknesses in the generality claim, not circular reasoning. Self-citations in the paper point to its own Supplemental Material and to a data repository, and the SVD derivation does not depend on any external self-cited uniqueness theorem. Therefore no load-bearing circular step is present.

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

The central protocol rests on standard cavity-QED assumptions (RWA, single-excitation, homogeneous coupling, ideal two-mode cavity). The main fragility is the effective flip-flop model used to extend the grouping beyond the equally-spaced even-N case; this is an ad hoc assumption not derived from the Hamiltonian. The free parameters are control knobs (detunings, ramp time) optimized by hand for the STIRAP transfer, not fitted to data.

free parameters (3)
  • STIRAP detunings Δ0 and Δ1 = 10 g_c (initial values)
    Chosen by hand after scanning in Fig. S4 to obtain maximum transfer fidelity; they are control parameters, not fitted to external data.
  • STIRAP ramp duration = g_c t = 10
    Fixed simulation time; chosen to allow adiabatic following while keeping evolution short.
  • Detuning of spectator spins in 6-spin example = 10 g_c
    Chosen large enough to effectively decouple spins 3 and 4 from the cavity, as shown in Fig. 3(b).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation for spin-cavity coupling
    Used in Eq. 1; standard in cavity QED when coupling is much smaller than transition frequencies.
  • domain assumption Single-excitation restriction for the analytical results
    The paper restricts to total exciton number = 1 for the eigenstate analysis; it later checks a two-excitation example numerically.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous coupling strength g and identical spin frequencies ωa
    Assumed in Eq. 1 and used throughout; experimental implementations would need tuning to satisfy this.
  • domain assumption Ring cavity supports exactly two counterpropagating modes with no backscattering or mode mixing
    The model neglects scattering between cw and ccw modes and other cavity modes; deviations would break the exact standing-wave grouping.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective flip-flop interaction in Supplemental Eq. S11 has the stated cos(kΔx) form without energy denominators
    Used to argue generality of spin grouping for arbitrary arrangements; not derived and no regime of validity stated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin Grouping in Ring Cavity and its Protection on Entangled States Transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNGPQ6NR

@misc{pith2026250602361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin Grouping in Ring Cavity and its Protection on Entangled States Transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNGPQ6NR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02361}
}
read the original abstract

Long-range interactions are essential for large-scale quantum computation and quantum interconnections. Cavities provide a promising avenue to achieve long-range interaction by enhancing the coupling of remote qubits through shared cavity modes. In this work, we investigate a spin array coupled to a ring cavity supporting two counterpropagating modes, focusing on the system's eigenstates and spin dynamics in the low-excitation regime. We show that, under specific spatial configurations, the spins naturally self-organize into two groups, within which exciton transport is confined. This spin-grouping mechanism preserves coherence between spins across the two groups, and is leveraged to deterministically transfer entangled states between remote spin pairs with additional dynamical addressing. We further propose feasible implementations using atomic qubits or solid-state platforms. Our scheme enables entangling remote spins within a cavity, highlighting potential applications in scalable quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02361 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A spin chain coupled to a ring cavity (a) A schematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Exciton transport (a) Exciton transport under two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Remote entangled state transfer. (a) Spin pair (2, 3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Practical implementation (a) Atomic array in tweezer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr ` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Long-range interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Defenu, A

    N. Defenu, A. Lerose, and S. Pappalardi, Out-of- equilibrium dynamics of quantum many-body systems with long-range interactions, Physics Reports 1074, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Quantum low- density parity-check codes, PRX Quantum 2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    The entangled state is then transferred to Ψ 05

    prevents their participation in the state transfer process, therefore, the exciton in spin 1 (2) is transferred to spin 5 (0) as indicated by blue (red) dashed arrow. The entangled state is then transferred to Ψ 05. (c) Entangled state transfer via STIRAP. Both spin pair (0, 1) and (2, 3) are detuned by ∆ 0 (pink) and ∆ 1 (yellow) respectively with initia...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Richerme, Z.-X

    P. Richerme, Z.-X. Gong, A. Lee, C. Senko, J. Smith, M. Foss-Feig, S. Michalakis, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Non-local propagation of correlations in quantum systems with long-range interactions, Nature 511, 198 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Landig, L

    R. Landig, L. Hruby, N. Dogra, M. Landini, R. Mottl, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Quantum phases from com- peting short-and long-range interactions in an optical lat- tice, Nature 532, 476 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    K. T. Kapale, G. S. Agarwal, and M. O. Scully, Cavity- mediated long-range interaction for fast multiqubit quan- tum logic operations, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052304 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    2019

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    G. A. Quantum, Collaborators* †, F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, et al., Hartree- fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, Sci- ence 369, 1084 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Zhong, H

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, et al., Quantum computational advantage using photons, Sci- ence 370, 1460 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Ror- tais, T. Vincent, J. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins, et al., Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor, Na- ture 606, 75 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Hangleiter and J

    D. Hangleiter and J. Eisert, Computational advantage of quantum random sampling, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035001 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature 607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Shao, Y.-X

    H.-J. Shao, Y.-X. Wang, D.-Z. Zhu, Y.-S. Zhu, H.-N. Sun, S.-Y. Chen, C. Zhang, Z.-J. Fan, Y. Deng, X.-C. Yao, et al., Antiferromagnetic phase transition in a 3d fermionic hubbard model, Nature 632, 267 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Guo, Y.-K

    S.-A. Guo, Y.-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y. Wang, R.-Y. Yan, Y.-J. Yi, Y.-L. Xu, et al., A site-resolved two-dimensional quantum simulator with 6 hundreds of trapped ions, Nature 630, 613–618 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, et al., Quantum optimization of maximum independent set using rydberg atom arrays, Science 376, 1209 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. Allman, C. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, et al., Demonstration of the trapped-ion quan- tum ccd computer architecture, Nature 592, 209 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, et al., A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Dordevi´ c, P

    T. Dordevi´ c, P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, B. Grinkemeyer, I. Dimitrova, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement transport and a nanophotonic in- terface for atoms in optical tweezers, Science 373, 1511 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Kurpiers, P

    P. Kurpiers, P. Magnard, T. Walter, B. Royer, M. Pechal, J. Heinsoo, Y. Salath´ e, A. Akin, S. Storz, J.-C. Besse, et al., Deterministic quantum state transfer and remote entanglement using microwave photons, Nature 558, 264 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Zhong, H.-S

    Y. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, A. Bienfait, ´E. Dumur, M.-H. Chou, C. R. Conner, J. Grebel, R. G. Povey, H. Yan, D. I. Schuster, et al., Deterministic multi-qubit entanglement in a quantum network, Nature 590, 571 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Storz, J

    S. Storz, J. Sch¨ ar, A. Kulikov, P. Magnard, P. Kurpiers, J. L¨ utolf, T. Walter, A. Copetudo, K. Reuer, A. Akin, et al., Loophole-free bell inequality violation with super- conducting circuits, Nature 617, 265 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Xiang, J

    L. Xiang, J. Chen, Z. Zhu, Z. Song, Z. Bao, X. Zhu, F. Jin, K. Wang, S. Xu, Y. Zou, et al., Enhanced quan- tum state transfer by circumventing quantum chaotic be- havior, Nature Communications 15, 4918 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    Mivehvar, F

    F. Mivehvar, F. Piazza, T. Donner, and H. Ritsch, Cavity qed with quantum gases: new paradigms in many-body physics, Advances in Physics 70, 1 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Y. Guo, R. M. Kroeze, B. P. Marsh, S. Gopalakrishnan, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, An optical lattice with sound, Nature 599, 211 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Helson, T

    V. Helson, T. Zwettler, F. Mivehvar, E. Colella, K. Roux, H. Konishi, H. Ritsch, and J.-P. Brantut, Density-wave ordering in a unitary fermi gas with photon-mediated interactions, Nature 618, 716 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Sauerwein, F

    N. Sauerwein, F. Orsi, P. Uhrich, S. Bandyopadhyay, F. Mattiotti, T. Cantat-Moltrecht, G. Pupillo, P. Hauke, and J.-P. Brantut, Engineering random spin models with atoms in a high-finesse cavity, Nature Physics 19, 1128 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    M. A. Norcia, R. J. Lewis-Swan, J. R. Cline, B. Zhu, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Cavity-mediated col- lective spin-exchange interactions in a strontium super- radiant laser, Science 361, 259 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Ferri, R

    F. Ferri, R. Rosa-Medina, F. Finger, N. Dogra, M. Sori- ente, O. Zilberberg, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Emerg- ing dissipative phases in a superradiant quantum gas with tunable decay, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041046 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Dreon, A

    D. Dreon, A. Baumg¨ artner, X. Li, S. Hertlein, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Self-oscillating pump in a topological dissipative atom–cavity system, Nature 608, 494 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    D. J. Young, A. Chu, E. Y. Song, D. Barberena, D. Well- nitz, Z. Niu, V. M. Sch¨ afer, R. J. Lewis-Swan, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Observing dynamical phases of bcs superconductors in a cavity qed simulator, Nature 625, 679 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, J. I. Park, and R. W. Simmonds, Co- herent quantum state storage and transfer between two phase qubits via a resonant cavity, Nature 449, 438 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    X. Mi, M. Benito, S. Putz, D. M. Zajac, J. M. Taylor, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, A coherent spin–photon interface in silicon, Nature 555, 599 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    J. Niu, L. Zhang, Y. Liu, J. Qiu, W. Huang, J. Huang, H. Jia, J. Liu, Z. Tao, W. Wei, et al., Low-loss intercon- nects for modular superconducting quantum processors, Nature Electronics 6, 235 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V. Krutyanskiy, M. Canteri, M. Meraner, V. Krcmarsky, and B. Lanyon, Multimode ion-photon entanglement over 101 kilometers, PRX Quantum 5, 020308 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Hartung, M

    L. Hartung, M. Seubert, S. Welte, E. Distante, and G. Rempe, A quantum-network register assembled with optical tweezers in an optical cavity, Science 385, 179 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    LaRacuente, K

    N. LaRacuente, K. N. Smith, P. Imany, K. L. Silverman, and F. T. Chong, Modeling short-range microwave net- works to scale superconducting quantum computation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08825 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    M. M. Wilde and D. Fattal, Nonlocal quantum infor- mation in bipartite quantum error correction, Quantum Information Processing 9, 591 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Chandra, G

    O. Chandra, G. Muraleedharan, and G. K. Brennen, Non-local resources for error correction in quantum ldpc codes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05818 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Wickenbrock, M

    A. Wickenbrock, M. Hemmerling, G. R. M. Robb, C. Emary, and F. Renzoni, Collective strong coupling in multimode cavity qed, Phys. Rev. A 87, 043817 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Botzung, D

    T. Botzung, D. Hagenm¨ uller, S. Sch¨ utz, J. Dubail, G. Pupillo, and J. Schachenmayer, Dark state semilo- calization of quantum emitters in a cavity, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144202 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    X. Li, Y. Zhou, and H. Zhang, Tunable atom-cavity in- teractions with configurable atomic chains, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 044028 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Mattiotti, J

    F. Mattiotti, J. Dubail, D. Hagenm¨ uller, J. Schachen- mayer, J.-P. Brantut, and G. Pupillo, Multifractality in the interacting disordered tavis-cummings model, Phys. Rev. B 109, 064202 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    See Supplemental Material for more details on eigen- modes of TC model, flip-flop interaciton, energy levels, State transfer and fidelity of states, STIRAP process and related Refs.[64-66]

  38. [46]

    N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Stimulated raman adiabatic passage in physics, chemistry, and beyond, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015006 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Zhang, Z

    X. Zhang, Z. Yu, H. Zhang, D. Xiang, and H. Zhang, Cav- ity dark mode mediated by atom array without atomic scattering loss, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L042026 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Y.-T. Chen, M. Szurek, B. Hu, J. de Hond, B. Braver- man, and V. Vuletic, High finesse bow-tie cavity for 7 strong atom-photon coupling in rydberg arrays, Optics Express 30, 37426 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Chakram, A

    S. Chakram, A. E. Oriani, R. K. Naik, A. V. Dixit, K. He, A. Agrawal, H. Kwon, and D. I. Schuster, Seamless high-q microwave cavities for multimode circuit quantum elec- trodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 107701 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Milul, B

    O. Milul, B. Guttel, U. Goldblatt, S. Hazanov, L. M. Joshi, D. Chausovsky, N. Kahn, E. C ¸ ifty¨ urek, F. Lafont, and S. Rosenblum, Superconducting cavity qubit with tens of milliseconds single-photon coherence time, PRX Quantum 4, 030336 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    J. Song, S. Yang, P. Liu, H.-L. Zhang, G.-M. Xue, Z.-Y. Mi, W.-G. Zhang, F. Yan, Y.-R. Jin, and H.- F. Yu, Realization of high-fidelity perfect entangler between remote superconducting quantum processors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20338 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    X. Deng, W. Zheng, X. Liao, H. Zhou, Y. Ge, J. Zhao, D. Lan, X. Tan, Y. Zhang, S. Li, et al., Long-range zz interaction via resonator-induced phase in superconduct- ing qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16617 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Welte, B

    S. Welte, B. Hacker, S. Daiss, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Cavity carving of atomic bell states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 210503 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Grinkemeyer, E

    B. Grinkemeyer, E. Guardado-Sanchez, I. Dimitrova, D. Shchepanovich, G. E. Mandopoulou, J. Borregaard, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Error-detected quantum operations with neutral atoms mediated by an optical cavity, Science 387, 1301 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    B. C. Rose, A. M. Tyryshkin, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosi- mov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, K. M. Itoh, and S. A. Lyon, Coherent rabi dynamics of a super- radiant spin ensemble in a microwave cavity, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031002 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Guerci, P

    D. Guerci, P. Simon, and C. Mora, Superradiant phase transition in electronic systems and emergent topological phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 257604 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Yang, S.-h

    D. Yang, S.-h. Oh, J. Han, G. Son, J. Kim, J. Kim, M. Lee, and K. An, Realization of superabsorption by time reversal of superradiance, Nature Photonics 15, 272 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Holzinger, R

    R. Holzinger, R. Guti´ errez-J´ auregui, T. H¨ onigl-Decrinis, G. Kirchmair, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and H. Ritsch, Control of localized single- and many-body dark states in waveg- uide qed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 253601 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Z. Yan, J. Ho, Y.-H. Lu, S. J. Masson, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Superradiant and subradiant cavity scattering by atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 253603 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Baghdad, P.-A

    M. Baghdad, P.-A. Bourdel, S. Schwartz, F. Ferri, J. Reichel, and R. Long, Spectral engineering of cavity- protected polaritons in an atomic ensemble, Nature Physics 19, 1104 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    B. P. Marsh, R. M. Kroeze, S. Ganguli, S. Gopalakrish- nan, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Entanglement and replica symmetry breaking in a driven-dissipative quantum spin glass, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011026 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Goncalves, L

    D. Goncalves, L. Bombieri, G. Ferioli, S. Pancaldi, I. Ferrier-Barbut, A. Browaeys, E. Shahmoon, and D. Chang, Driven-dissipative phase separation in free- space atomic ensembles, PRX Quantum 6, 020303 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Li, Spin grouping in ring cavity and its protection on entangled state transfer data of all figures, 10.5281/zen- odo.14575410 (2024)

    C. Li, Spin grouping in ring cavity and its protection on entangled state transfer data of all figures, 10.5281/zen- odo.14575410 (2024)

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    R. E. Evans, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, C. T. Nguyen, A. Sipahigil, M. J. Burek, B. Machielse, G. H. Zhang, A. S. Zibrov, E. Bielejec, et al., Photon-mediated interactions between quantum emitters in a diamond nanocavity, Science 362, 662 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    Gheeraert, S

    N. Gheeraert, S. Kono, and Y. Nakamura, Programmable directional emitter and receiver of itinerant microwave photons in a waveguide, Phys. Rev. A 102, 053720 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Kannan, A

    B. Kannan, A. Almanakly, Y. Sung, A. Di Paolo, D. A. Rower, J. Braum¨ uller, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Karamlou, K. Serniak, et al., On-demand directional microwave photon emission using waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Nature Physics 19, 394 (2023). 1 SUPPLEMENT AL...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.