Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 91 references

Photon-mediated interactions by Floquet photonic lattices

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Periodically driving a one-dimensional photonic lattice opens a temporal band gap whose bound states let emitters exchange excitations coherently, even where a static lattice would dissipate them.

desk verdict Solid Floquet-engineering result: π-gap bound states deliver coherent emitter interactions, but the analytic formulas' quantitative domain is narrower than claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10439 v1 pith:5BQNA32Z submitted 2025-06-12 quant-ph

Jia-Qiang Chen , Peng-Bo Li , Álvaro Gómez-León , Alejandro González-Tudela This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords FloquetphotoniclatticeSu-Schrieffer-Heegermodelemitter-photonboundstatespi-gapphoton-mediatedinteractionscoherentexcitationexchangequantumemitterstopologicaledge
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 asks whether time-periodic driving of a photonic lattice can give quantum emitters new ways to interact through the lattice's light modes. It studies two-level emitters coupled to a one-dimensional Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) lattice whose hopping amplitudes oscillate at frequency $\Omega$, and it argues that the drive creates emitter-photon bound states in a temporal gap, the $\pi$-gap, that has no static counterpart. Using Floquet theory, an analytically derived effective Hamiltonian, and exact numerics, the paper shows that these $\pi$-gap bound states mediate coherent, tunable excitation exchange between emitters. The central payoff is that coherent interactions appear in frequency regions where a static lattice would simply dissipate the excitation, and even between emitters with different frequencies, which static baths cannot do. If correct, the result makes Floquet engineering a practical tool for tailoring photon-mediated interactions in quantum simulation and information processing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the periodically driven SSH lattice, defined by $J_1(t)=J+2V\cos(\Omega t)$ and $J_2(t)=J'-2V\cos(\Omega t)$, treated with Floquet theory. The load-bearing mechanism is the formation of a $\pi$-gap: the drive hybridizes the Floquet sidebands and opens a temporal gap in the quasi-energy spectrum, and this gap supports topological edge states characterized by a winding number $\nu_\pi$. When an emitter's frequency lies in the 0- or $\pi$-gap, the light-matter coupling produces an emitter-photon bound state; the analytic description of the bound state and of the inter-emitter interaction rests on truncating the Jacobi-Anger expansion at the zeroth and first Bessel functions, $J_0$ and $J_1$, and on a rotating-wave approximation that drops terms oscillating at $\Omega+2\omega_d(k)$. These approximations yield the effective couplings $F^{\alpha}_{n,r,k}$, the self-energy $\Sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}(z)$, and the exchange rate $G^{\alpha\beta}_{nm}$ that match the exact numerical dynamics for the chosen parameters.

What would settle it

Solve the exact single-excitation Schrödinger equation for the driven SSH lattice without the truncation, keeping all Bessel terms, at parameters where $V/\Omega$ is not small, say $V=0.5J$ and $\Omega=2.5J$, and check whether an emitter at $\Delta=\Omega/2$ still shows fractional decay with vanishing asymptotic decay rate; if the excitation instead decays into the Floquet sidebands, the claimed $\pi$-gap bound state and the coherent exchange do not exist in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors demonstrate, for an AC-driven SSH photonic lattice, that each Floquet band gap -- the usual 0-gap and the drive-induced $\pi$-gap -- can host emitter-photon bound states when the emitter detuning falls inside it, and that these bound states mediate coherent exchange between emitters. For the $\pi$-gap, the exchange rate is non-monotonic in distance and the mediating state is time-periodic, so the effective interaction is governed by the time-averaged bound state. The paper derives a semi-analytical effective self-energy $\Sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}(z)=g^2/(2N)\sum_{r,k} |F^{\alpha}_{n,r,k}|^2/(z-\lambda_r)$ and an exchange amplitude $G^{\alpha\beta}_{nm}=g^2/(2N)\sum_{r,k} F^{\alpha}_{n,r,k}\,F^{\beta,*}_{m,r,k} e^{ikj_{nm}}/(\Delta-\lambda_r)$, and it verifies these against exact numerical dynamics. Key results are that emitters at $\Delta=\Omega/2$, which would decay in the static lattice, undergo perfect coherent population exchange, and that emitters with frequency difference equal to the drive frequency $\Omega$ can also exchange coherently because the drive photon compensates the mismatch. The paper claims this establishes Floquet photonic lattices as a platform for tuning both the shape and the existence of photon-mediated interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The analytical predictions for the $\pi$-gap rest on the assumption that keeping only the leading and first correction terms of the oscillating hopping, and dropping the fastest-oscillating terms, captures the physics; if the neglected higher-order terms become significant, the derived exchange rates would be modified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Emitters tuned to the $\pi$-gap will exchange excitations coherently even though a static lattice at the same frequency would cause exponential decay, because the drive supplies the missing energy.
  • Emitters with different frequencies can still exchange coherently when their frequency difference equals the drive frequency $\Omega$, since a drive photon compensates the energy mismatch.
  • The shape and range of the mediated interaction can be tuned by the drive amplitude $V$ and frequency $\Omega$ rather than only by lattice geometry, giving non-monotonic spatial profiles for $G^{\alpha\beta}_{nm}$.
  • The interaction is mediated by a time-averaged bound state, so choosing drive parameters can design effective spin-spin couplings in photon lattices.
  • The same mechanism should carry over to higher-dimensional Floquet photonic lattices, providing new configurations for quantum simulation and metrology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the $\pi$-gap mechanism would be to measure the exchange rate $G^{\alpha\beta}_{12}$ as a function of drive amplitude $V$; the Bessel-function dependence predicted by the paper's Eq. (35) is a signature that static bound-state models cannot reproduce.
  • When $V/\Omega$ is not small, higher-order Bessel terms may give the $\pi$-gap bound state a finite lifetime or replace it by multi-photon resonances, so probing that regime would set the practical operating range.
  • The same drive-compensation of frequency mismatch could serve as a frequency-selective quantum bus, where only emitters whose detuning difference is resonant with $\Omega$ talk to each other and all others stay decoupled.
  • In higher dimensions, $\pi$-gap bound states could mediate anisotropic or direction-dependent interactions, extending the class of synthetic spin models accessible in static topological lattices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies two-level emitters coupled to a one-dimensional, periodically driven SSH photonic lattice. It derives an effective Floquet description of the bath via a unitary transformation and a Jacobi-Anger expansion truncated at zeroth and first order, obtaining renormalized bands with a drive-induced π-gap in addition to the static 0-gap. It then derives effective light-matter couplings, a single-emitter self-energy, and emitter-emitter exchange rates, and it compares these analytics with exact numerical time evolution of the time-periodic Hamiltonian in the single-excitation subspace. The central qualitative claims are that emitter-photon bound states in the π-gap mediate coherent excitation exchanges in frequency regions where a static bath would be dissipative, and that Floquet driving can compensate for different emitter frequencies, enabling coherent exchanges not possible with static baths.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a valuable extension of photon-mediated interaction engineering to time-dependent structured baths, offering new frequency windows for coherent interactions and a route to interactions between emitters with different transition frequencies. The paper's strongest evidence is its use of direct numerical time evolution of the time-periodic Hamiltonian in the single-excitation subspace, which is independent of the effective-Hamiltonian derivation; the analytical expressions are compared, not fitted, to the numerics. There is no circularity in the main prediction. The main weakness is that the analytical results, including the exchange rates that underpin the tunability claim, rest on a J0/J1 Bessel truncation and a bath rotating-wave approximation whose quantitative domain of validity is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A, Eqs. (13)-(14), Appendix A] The analytical framework truncates the Jacobi-Anger expansion after J0 and J1, but the text only states that this is expected to work when one-photon resonances dominate, without giving a quantitative failure threshold. Since z_k = 2|d_k|/Ω can reach 0.8 for V = 0.5J and Ω = 2.5J, the argument of the Bessel functions entering γ_k is 2z_k = 1.6, where J2(1.6) ≈ 0.16 is not negligible relative to J1(1.6) ≈ 0.57. Higher-order Bessel terms feed into the dressed self-energy and the exchange rates, so this truncation is load-bearing for Eqs. (33), (35), and (37) and for the analytic curves in Figs. 8-10. The authors should quantify the truncation error, for example by giving a criterion in terms of V/Ω and J'/J, and benchmark the analytic rates against exact numerics outside the narrow parameter window used in the figures.
  2. [Sec. III C, Fig. 10(a), Appendix C] The detuned-emitter result in the 0-gap is one of the paper's two headline demonstrations of frequency-mismatch compensation, yet the exact and analytical dynamics disagree increasingly with time, with the mismatch attributed in Appendix C to counter-rotating terms that are not small. The manuscript gives no quantitative estimate of the resulting frequency shift and no criterion for when the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (36) is valid. Given that Fig. 10(a) is presented as a demonstration of the effect, the authors should either supply a corrected effective model or clearly delimit the parameter regime in which Eq. (37) applies.
  3. [Sec. III C, Eqs. (35) and (37)] The exchange rates are obtained after a bath rotating-wave approximation that removes terms at Ω + 2ω_d(k), as shown in Eq. (A15) of Appendix A. The paper does not state quantitative conditions for this RWA, such as |γ_k| and |ω_d(k) - Ω/2| being small compared with Ω + 2ω_d(k), nor does it verify these conditions for the parameters used in Figs. 8-10. Without such conditions, the quantitative predictions of G_12 and its spatial shape rest on an implicit assumption, so the domain of the 'tunable-range' claim is not established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II A, Eq. (14)] The expression for γ_k contains a removable singularity at k = 0, since |d_k| = 0 there; please provide the limiting value or define it separately.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The quasi-energy expression should be written with parentheses as ωc + (2m+1)Ω/2 ± λ(k) and with m ∈ Z stated explicitly; the current form '2m+1/2 Ω' is ambiguous.
  3. [Fig. 9 caption] The axis label '×10□3' is garbled and should read '×10^{-3}'.
  4. [Introduction] The word 'non-reciprocitiy' should be 'non-reciprocity'.
  5. [Fig. 6 caption] The parenthetical '(solid blue)' is ambiguous because it refers to different curves in panels (a) and (b); please specify the curve in each panel.
  6. [After Eq. (24)] The phrase 'α = a, bis' should be 'α = a,b is'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytical interaction rates are derived from a stated effective-Hamiltonian approximation and then benchmarked, not fitted, against independent exact time evolution of the full time-periodic bath Hamiltonian.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The analytical interaction rate in Eq. (35) and the detuned-emitter rate in Eq. (37) are computed from the effective light-matter Hamiltonian obtained in Appendix A via a unitary transformation, a J0/J1 Jacobi-Anger truncation, and a bath rotating-wave approximation. The paper does not fit G_12 to any output; it compares the closed-form expression against independent exact numerical time evolution of Eq. (28), which keeps the full time-periodic bath Hamiltonian and drops only the counter-rotating light-matter terms. Figures 8-10 show solid (exact) and dashed (analytical) curves with no adjustable parameter. The detuned-emitter condition in Fig. 10(a), Delta_1 = Omega - delta_omega(Omega), is obtained from the analytical self-energy rather than extracted from the exact dynamics, so it is a prediction rather than a fitted input. The only self-citation is to the coauthor formalism of Ref. [75] for the interaction-picture transformation, but the required expressions are rederived in Appendix A, and no uniqueness theorem or unstated ansatz is imported from that reference. The J0/J1 truncation and the RWA are acknowledged approximations whose quantitative failure threshold is not fully characterized, but that is an accuracy and domain-of-validity concern, not a circularity, because the central qualitative claims are benchmarked against numerics that do not use the bath truncation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard Floquet theory and a set of clearly stated approximations (Bessel truncation, RWA, Born-Markov). No constants are fitted to data and no new physical entities are introduced; the π-gap bound state is a state of the model, not a new degree of freedom.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Floquet theorem: solutions of the time-periodic Hamiltonian factor as e^{-iεαt}|Φα(t)> with periodic |Φα(t)>, and quasi-energies follow from the one-period time-evolution operator, Eqs. (9)-(10).
    This is the backbone of the quasi-energy description of the driven bath and the definition of the 0- and π-gaps.
  • domain assumption Jacobi-Anger expansion truncated at Bessel orders J0 and J1 in the driven bath Hamiltonian, Eqs. (11)-(14) and Appendix A.
    The analytical bath Hamiltonian relies on this truncation; the paper states it is valid when one-photon resonances dominate but does not quantify the breakdown.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation for the driven bath, removing terms oscillating at Ω + 2ω_d(k), leading to the time-independent H_B^RWA of Eq. (16).
    Used to define the π-gap topology and the effective light-matter couplings; standard in the intermediate-frequency regime.
  • domain assumption Light-matter RWA: excitation non-conserving terms σ†α† and σα are dropped, Eq. (28), valid for g ≪ ωc, ωn.
    The numerical simulations used as the exact benchmark are exact in the single-excitation subspace only after this standard RWA.
  • domain assumption Born-Markov master equation for the emitters after eliminating the bath, Appendix C Eq. (C2).
    Used to derive the dipole-dipole interaction G_12 and the single-emitter self-energy; assumes weak coupling and vacuum bath correlations.
  • domain assumption Intermediate-frequency regime Ω ∈ 2ω(k) where the π-gap closes and re-opens, allowing coexistence of 0- and π-gap edge states, Section II A.
    The π-gap phenomena central to the paper occur only in this drive-frequency window.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photon-mediated interactions by Floquet photonic lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5BQNA32Z

@misc{pith2026250610439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photon-mediated interactions by Floquet photonic lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5BQNA32Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10439}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the interactions between two-level emitters mediated by time-dependent, one-dimensional, structured photonic baths, focusing on Floquet topological lattices. Building on the framework of periodically driven photonic lattices, we demonstrate and characterize the emergence of tunable-range emitter's interactions mediated by bound states absent in static photonic lattices. In particular, we show that one can not only obtain different spatial interaction dependencies with respect to the static bath scenarios, but also in qualitatively different regimes due to the time-dependent nature of the bath, for example, when the emitters have different frequencies. This work sheds light on the interplay between non-equilibrium photonics and quantum optics and can serve as the basis for analyzing Floquet photonic lattices in higher dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10439 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic representation of the setup: two-level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic of the time-dependent coupled-cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Quasi-energy spectrum of finite coupled-cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatio-temporal shape of the edge modes in 0-gap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Decay rate and Lamb shift for an emitter coupled to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatio-temporal shape of the bound states for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Coherent exchanges for emitter 1 in sublattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Coherent exchanges for emitter 1 in sublattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between analytical solution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Solid lines represent the exact solution and wide dashed lines for analytical solution, and black dotted- dashed lines for static case

    (b) ∆ = Ω /2. Solid lines represent the exact solution and wide dashed lines for analytical solution, and black dotted- dashed lines for static case. Other parameters: J ′ = 0 .6J, V = 0.1J, Ω = 2.5J, g = 0.03J. in both the 0- and π-gaps. In Fig. 7, we plot the cor- responding spatial shape of the bound-states of the 0- (upper row) and π-gaps (lower row) ...

    2000

  2. [2]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, D. Chang, J. Cirac, and H. Kimble, Nat. Photon. 9, 320 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    J. S. Douglas, H. Habibian, C.-L. Hung, A. V. Gorshkov, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Nat. Photon. 9, 326 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Armon, S

    T. Armon, S. Ashkenazi, G. Garc ´ ıa-Moreno, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and E. Zohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 250501 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Tabares, A

    C. Tabares, A. M. n. d. l. Heras, L. Tagliacozzo, D. Por- ras, and A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 073602 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Bornet, G

    G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, B. Ye, M. Block, M. Bintz, J. A. Boyd, D. Barredo, T. Comparin, F. Mezzacapo, T. Roscilde, T. Lahaye, N. Y. Yao, and A. Browaeys, Nature 621, 10.1038/s41586-023-06414-9 (2023)

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06414-9 2023

  7. [7]

    W. J. Eckner, N. Darkwah Oppong, A. Cao, A. W. Young, W. R. Milner, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature 621, 10.1038/s41586-023-06360- 6 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06360- 2023

  8. [8]

    Chang, J

    D. Chang, J. Douglas, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. Kimble, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 031002 (2018)

    2018

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V. Iorsh, A. V. Poshakin- skiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 015002 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela, A

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, A. Reiserer, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and F. J. Garc ´ ıa-Vidal, Light-matter interactions in quantum nanophotonic devices (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    J. D. Joannopoulos, P. R. Villeneuve, and S. Fan, Nature 386, 143 (1997)

    1997

  4. [12]

    Calaj´ o, F

    G. Calaj´ o, F. Ciccarello, D. Chang, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. A 93, 33833 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Shi, Y.-H

    T. Shi, Y.-H. Wu, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and J. Cirac, Phys. Rev. X 6, 10.1103/PhysRevX.6.021027 (2016)

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Shi, Y.-H

    T. Shi, Y.-H. Wu, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and J. Cirac, New Journal of Physics 20, 10.1088/1367-2630/aae4a9 (2018)

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 97, 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.043831 (2018)

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Calaj´ o, M

    G. Calaj´ o, M. J. Schuetz, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. A 99, 053852 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and F

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and F. Galve, ACS Photonics 6, 10.1021/acsphotonics.8b01455 (2019)

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Bello, G

    M. Bello, G. Platero, J. I. Cirac, and A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, Science Advances 5, eaaw0297 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Leonforte, A

    L. Leonforte, A. Carollo, and F. Ciccarello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 063601 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    De Bernardis, Z.-P

    D. De Bernardis, Z.-P. Cian, I. Carusotto, M. Hafezi, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 103603 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Perczel and M

    J. Perczel and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 101, 033822 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Perczel, J

    J. Perczel, J. Borregaard, D. E. Chang, S. F. Yelin, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 083603 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    C. Vega, M. Bello, D. Porras, and A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, Phys. Rev. A 104, 053522 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Roccati, S

    F. Roccati, S. Lorenzo, G. Calaj` o, G. M. Palma, G. M. Palma, A. Carollo, A. Carollo, F. Ciccarello, and F. Ci- ccarello, Optica 9, 565 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    C. Vega, D. Porras, and A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023031 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    I. n. Garc ´ ıa-Elcano, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and J. Bravo- Abad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 163602 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    I. n. Garc ´ ıa-Elcano, J. Bravo-Abad, and A. Gonz´ alez- Tudela, Phys. Rev. A 103, 033511 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    I. n. Garc ´ ıa-Elcano, J. Merino, J. Bravo-Abad, and A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, Science Advances9, 10.1126/SCI- ADV.ADF8257 (2023)

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Roccati, M

    F. Roccati, M. Bello, Z. Gong, M. Ueda, F. Ciccarello, A. Chenu, and A. Carollo, Nat. Commun. 15, 1 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Bello and J

    M. Bello and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B 107, 054301 17 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Di Benedetto, A

    E. Di Benedetto, A. Gonzalez-Tudela, and F. Ciccarello, arXiv: 2405.20382 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Leonforte, X

    L. Leonforte, X. Sun, D. Valenti, B. Spagnolo, F. Illu- minati, A. Carollo, and F. Ciccarello, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 015057 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Du and A

    L. Du and A. F. Kockum, arXiv: 2408.09826 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Salinas, J

    I. Salinas, J. C. Cornejo, A. Szameit, P. Solano, and R. A. Vicencio, APL Photonics 9, 10.1063/5.0185504/3262380 (2024)

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    R. A. Vicencio, F. G. L. Carcamo-Macaya, and P. Solano, arXiv: 2501.09261 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lanuza, J

    A. Lanuza, J. Kwon, Y. Kim, and D. Schneble, Phys. Rev. A 105, 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.023703 (2022)

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Lanuza and D

    A. Lanuza and D. Schneble, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 033196 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Goban, C.-L

    A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, S.-P. Yu, J. D. Hood, J. A. Muniz, J. H. Lee, M. J. Martin, A. C. McClung, K. S. Choi, D. E. Chang, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimblemblrm, Nat. Commun. 5, 3808 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, N. P. de Leon, J. Feist, A. V. Akimov, M. Gullans, A. S. Zibrov, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, Science 340, 1202 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Goban, C.-L

    A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, J. D. Hood, S.-P. Yu, J. A. Mu- niz, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 63601 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    J. D. Hood, A. Goban, A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Lu, S.-P. Yu, D. E. Chang, and H. J. Kimble, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 10507 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    J. B. Beguin, J. Laurat, X. Luan, A. P. Burgers, Z. Qin, and H. J. Kimble, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 26109 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    X. Zhou, H. Tamura, T.-H. Chang, and C.-L. Hung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 103601 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    M. E. Kim, T. H. Chang, B. M. Fields, C. A. Chen, and C. L. Hung, Nat. Commun. 10, 10.1038/s41467-019- 09635-7 (2019)

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Samutpraphoot, P

    P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, C. Senko, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 063602 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Dordevic, P

    T. Dordevic, P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, B. Grinkemeyer, I. Dimitrova, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science 373, 1511 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    S. G. Menon, N. Glachman, M. Pompili, A. Dibos, and H. Bernien, Nat. Comumnn. 15, 1 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Tiranov, V

    A. Tiranov, V. Angelopoulou, C. J. van Diepen, B. Schrinski, O. A. Dall’Alba Sandberg, Y. Wang, L. Mi- dolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lodahl, Science 379, 389 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    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, and others, Science362, 662 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    D. M. Lukin, M. A. Guidry, J. Yang, M. Ghezellou, S. D. Mishra, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. Ul-Hassan, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, arXiv:2202.04845 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A. E. Rugar, C. Dory, S. Aghaeimeibodi, H. Lu, S. Sun, S. D. Mishra, Z. X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, ACS Photonics 7, 2356 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    A. E. Rugar, S. Aghaeimeibodi, D. Riedel, C. Dory, H. Lu, P. J. McQuade, Z. X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Phys. Rev X11, 031021 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Liu and A

    Y. Liu and A. A. Houck, Nat. Phys. 13, 48 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    N. M. Sundaresan, R. Lundgren, G. Zhu, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011021 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Mirhosseini, E

    M. Mirhosseini, E. Kim, X. Zhang, A. Sipahigil, P. B. Dieterle, A. J. Keller, A. Asenjo-Garcia, D. E. Chang, and O. Painter, Nature 569, 692 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Scigliuzzo, G

    M. Scigliuzzo, G. Calaj` o, F. Ciccarello, D. Perez Lozano, A. Bengtsson, P. Scarlino, A. Wallraff, D. Chang, P. Dels- ing, and S. Gasparinetti, Phys. Rev. X12, 031036 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    E. Kim, X. Zhang, V. S. Ferreira, J. Banker, J. K. Iverson, A. Sipahigil, M. Bello, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, M. Mirhosseini, and O. Painter, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011015 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Zhang, J

    H. Zhang, J. Li, H. Jiang, N. Li, J. Wang, J. Xu, C. Zhu, and Y. Yang, Phys. Rev. A 105, 053703 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    J. C. Owens, M. G. Panetta, B. Saxberg, G. Roberts, S. Chakram, R. Ma, A. Vrajitoarea, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Nat. Phys. , 1 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Krinner, M

    L. Krinner, M. Stewart, A. Pazmino, J. Kwon, and D. Schneble, Nature 559, 589 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    J. Kwon, Y. Kim, A. Lanuza, and D. Schneble, Nat. Phys. 18, 657 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Y. Kim, A. Lanuza, and D. Schneble, Nat. Phys. , 1 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Castillo-Moreno, K

    C. Castillo-Moreno, K. R. Amin, I. Strandberg, M. Kervi- nen, A. Osman, and S. Gasparinetti, arXiv: 2404.05547 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Galiffi, R

    E. Galiffi, R. Tirole, S. Yin, H. Li, S. Vezzoli, P. A. Huido- bro, M. G. Silveirinha, R. Sapienza, A. Al` u, and J. B. Pendry, Photonics of time-varying media (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    D. L. Sounas and A. Al` u, Non-reciprocal photonics based on time modulation (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Lustig, Y

    E. Lustig, Y. Sharabi, and M. Segev, Optica 5, 10.1364/optica.5.001390 (2018)

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 79, 10.1103/Phys- RevB.79.081406 (2009)

    2009 doi

  60. [68]

    N. H. Lindner, G. Refael, and V. Galitski, Nat. Phys. 7, 10.1038/nphys1926 (2011)

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    A. G. Grushin, . G´ omez-Le´ on, and T. Neupert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.156801 (2014)

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    D ´ ıaz-Fern´ andez, E

    A. D ´ ıaz-Fern´ andez, E. D ´ ıaz, A. G´ omez-Le´ on, G. Platero, and F. Dom ´ ınguez-Adame, Phys. Rev. B 100, 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.075412 (2019)

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    F. Qin, C. H. Lee, and R. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 106, 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.235405 (2022)

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    Kitagawa, E

    T. Kitagawa, E. Berg, M. Rudner, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B 82, 235114 (2010)

    2010

  65. [73]

    M. S. Rudner, N. H. Lindner, E. Berg, and M. Levin, Phys. Rev. X 3, 10.1103/PHYSREVX.3.031005 (2013)

    2013 doi

  66. [74]

    Nathan and M

    F. Nathan and M. S. Rudner, New Journal of Physics 17, 125014 (2015)

    2015

  67. [75]

    D. Roy, C. M. Wilson, and O. Firstenberg, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 021001 (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    G \’omez-Le\’on, Quantum 8, 1522 (2024)

    A. G \’omez-Le\’on, Quantum 8, 1522 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    L. P. Gavensky, G. Usaj, and N. Goldman, arXiv:2408.13576 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Y. H. Wang, H. Steinberg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and N. Gedik, Science 342, 453 (2013)

    2013

  71. [79]

    Wintersperger, C

    K. Wintersperger, C. Braun, F. N. ¨Unal, A. Eckardt, M. D. Liberto, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidels- burger, Nature Physics 16, 1058 (2020)

    2020

  72. [80]

    A. F. Adiyatullin, L. K. Upreti, C. Lechevalier, C. Evain, F. Copie, P. Suret, S. Randoux, P. Delplace, and A. Amo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 056901 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    El Sokhen,

    R. El Sokhen, . G´ omez-Le´ on, A. F. Adiyatullin, S. Ran- 18 doux, P. Delplace, and A. Amo, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 023282 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    V. P. Bykov, Soviet Journal of Quantum Electronics 4, 861 (1975)

    1975

  75. [83]

    John and J

    S. John and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2418 (1990)

    1990

  76. [84]

    Kurizki, Phys

    G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. A 42, 2915 (1990)

    1990

  77. [85]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Physical Review Letters 42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  78. [86]

    J. K. Asb´ oth, L. Oroszl´ any, and A. P´ alyi 10.1007/978-3- 319-25607-8 (2015)

    2015 doi

  79. [87]

    Goldman, J

    N. Goldman, J. Dalibard, M. Aidelsburger, and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. A 91, 033632 (2015)

    2015

  80. [88]

    P. M. Perez-Piskunow, L. E. Foa Torres, and G. Usaj, Phys. Rev. A 91, 043625 (2015)

    2015

  81. [89]

    M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 229 (2020)

    2020

  82. [90]

    Rodriguez-Vega, M

    M. Rodriguez-Vega, M. Lentz, and B. Seradjeh, New Journal of Physics 20, 093022 (2018)

    2018

  83. [91]

    M. Vogl, M. Rodriguez-Vega, and G. A. Fiete, Phys. Rev. B 101, 024303 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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