Probing subradiant dynamics in cold atomic ensembles via population and emitted light measurements

Antoine Glicenstein; Apoorva Apoorva; Daniel Benedicto Orenes; Rapha\"el Saint-Jalm; Robin Kaiser

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Probing subradiant dynamics in cold atomic ensembles via population and emitted light measurements

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Direct imaging of excited-state population in cold 174Yb clouds shows that the subradiant decay time grows linearly with optical depth, with a measured slope of 0.34(4) that matches the two-level coupled-dipole prediction of 0.367(9).

desk verdict New population-based observable for subradiance, but the quantitative scaling claim rests on a background correction that isn't fully demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16549 v1 pith:DG2NPOVH submitted 2025-07-22 physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.optics

Antoine Glicenstein , Daniel Benedicto Orenes , Apoorva Apoorva , Raphaël Saint-Jalm , Robin Kaiser This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.optics

keywords subradiancecoldatomicensemblesdepletionimagingexcited-statepopulationmeasurementopticaldepthscalingytterbiumcollectivescattering

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

Subradiant atomic ensembles release stored light much more slowly than single atoms, but experiments have usually watched only the emitted photons, leaving the internal atomic state hidden. This paper reports a depletion-imaging method for cold 174Yb atoms that directly records the excited-state population while the subradiant modes decay, and it compares that population with the simultaneously measured scattered light. The central quantitative result is that the late subradiant decay time scales linearly with resonant optical depth, τsub/τg = 0.34(4) b0,g, in agreement with the two-level coupled-dipole prediction of 0.367(9) b0,g and with the intensity-based measurement. By seeing the same timescale in an observable that carries coherence information and one that does not, the paper establishes a direct, spatially resolved signature of subradiance in the atomic state itself.

What carries the argument

The central object is the depletion image ratio $R(x,y)=I_d(x,y)/I_r(x,y)-1$ between a cloud with excited-state population and a reference cloud, which maps the excited-state column density. The identity $\Sigma_e = \frac{1}{\sigma_{\mathrm{sc,b}}}\iint R(x,y)\,dx\,dy$ converts that two-dimensional image into the total number of atoms in the $^3P_1$ state. The time resolution comes from a 200 ns probe pulse on the broad 399 nm transition, far shorter than the 1 μs natural lifetime of the narrow intercombination transition, so the excited population is effectively frozen during each snapshot. Repeated at a chosen delay after the excitation pulse, these images give the full decay curve $\Sigma_e(t)$.

What would settle it

Re-measure the population decay at a fixed optical depth while reducing the imaging probe intensity enough to suppress radiation pressure and light-assisted collisions. If the extracted late-time decay constant changes by more than the reported uncertainty, the 0.34(4) b0,g slope is an artifact of the background correction rather than intrinsic subradiant dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the subradiant decay time of an optically dense cold atomic cloud can be measured directly from the time-resolved excited-state population, and that this population observable is quantitatively described by a simple two-level coupled-dipole model in the weak-driving limit. Using the broad and narrow transition pair of 174Yb, the authors image the population of atoms in the 3P1 state after a strong resonant excitation pulse; integrating the image ratio gives Σe(t). At late times, they extract τsub and find τsub/τg = 0.34(4) b0,g from the population fits, consistent with scattered-intensity measurements and with the numerical prediction τsub/τg = 0.367(9) b0,g. The same technique shows that cloud boundaries decay faster than the center, and that subradiant population (but not the decay time) grows with driving intensity, corroborating earlier saturation-pumping results.

Load-bearing premise

The population measurement assumes that density differences between the reference and depleted clouds caused by the imaging probe (radiation pressure and light-assisted collisions) are either negligible or completely removed by subtracting the infinite-time background, which the authors state limits reliable data to tΓ < 10.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Population and scattered-intensity measurements give the same subradiant decay time at late times, showing both are valid probes and that late-time subradiant emission is effectively incoherent.
The linear scaling of τsub with optical depth, reproduced by the two-level coupled-dipole model, confirms that the 1S0–3P1 transition in 174Yb behaves as a clean quantum version of a classical dipole.
Spatially resolved population imaging shows slower decay in the high-optical-depth center than at the edges, opening the way to direct studies of the spatial structure of collective modes.
The decay time is independent of driving intensity and detuning, while the subradiant population grows with intensity, confirming the pumping mechanism that populates long-lived states without changing their lifetime.
The method can track light transport and localization inside dense ensembles by following the excited-state population in situ.

Reading between the lines

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

If the early-time difference between intensity and population reflects coherent versus incoherent content, that difference could be used as a time-resolved measure of the transition from superradiant to subradiant dynamics.
Comparing τsub measured in different spatial regions with the local optical depth b(r) would test whether subradiant decay is governed by a local-density picture or by global modes of the whole cloud.
The technique should transfer to strontium and other alkaline-earth-like atoms, and to any species with a narrow cooling transition plus a broad probe transition, enabling population-resolved collective-dynamics studies where alkali hyperfine structure spoils the two-level comparison.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a real experimental step forward. They directly image the excited-state population of an optically dense Yb cloud during subradiant decay, something only inferred from photon counting before, and they get spatially-resolved decay maps. The main quantitative claim is that tau_sub scales linearly with optical depth with slope 0.34(4), matching an independent two-level coupled-dipole prediction of 0.367(9). That agreement is real on its face, and the model is not fit to the data. Good.

The technique itself is borrowed from their prior PRL (depletion imaging on Yb), so the novelty is the application to subradiance and the combined population-plus-intensity comparison. The intensity-independence and detuning-independence checks are solid and add confidence. Citation pattern is fine; they reference their own prior calibration and the relevant subradiance literature. The V/\Lambda transition inconsistency between the abstract and the full text is a minor typo but should be fixed.

The soft spot is exactly what the paper flags: the reliable data window is t\Gamma < 10, and for the highest optical depths used in the slope fit (b0 ~ 50), the fitted tau_sub ~ 17 tau_g, which is nearly twice the entire observation window. That means less than one e-fold of the decay is directly observed before the density-dependent background dominates. They subtract an infinite-time offset that grows with density, and the contrast decreases with b0. If that baseline has a small density-dependent bias, it could create a spurious linear slope. The fitting procedure, error model, and simulation details are all in a supplemental that is not provided, and the data are not public. That makes the central agreement hard to verify. The reader's conditional verdict is fair.

That said, the paper is openly honest about the limitation, and the scaling law itself is not new—it has been predicted and seen via intensity measurements. The new contribution is the observable, and that stands. The slope measurement is suggestive but not definitive until the baseline treatment is shown to be stable across the full range.

Recommendation: send to peer review. A serious referee should ask for the supplemental and a baseline sensitivity analysis. This deserves consideration as a letter after revision; the technique and the spatially-resolved maps are worth publishing even if the scaling claim gets softened.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The letter presents a depletion-imaging technique on the 1S0–1P1 transition of 174Yb to measure, with time and spatial resolution, the excited-state population in the 3P1 state during the decay of a laser-excited cold atomic cloud. It compares the population decay with single-mode-fiber scattered-intensity measurements at 35 degrees and with coupled-dipole numerical simulations. The central quantitative result is a linear scaling of the late-time subradiant decay time with resonant optical depth, reporting τsub/τg = (0.34 ± 0.04) b0,g for population measurements versus a numerical prediction of (0.367 ± 0.009) b0,g. The authors also report independence of the decay rate from driving intensity and detuning, and observe faster decay at the cloud boundaries.

Significance. The work introduces a genuinely new observable—directly imaged excited-state population—into the study of collective subradiance, and it demonstrates a capability (space-resolved decay) that far-field intensity measurements do not provide. If the slope agreement is correct, it is a valuable quantitative confirmation of two-level coupled-dipole behavior in a system with unit Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. I also credit the authors for using an independent numerical prediction rather than fitting the theory to the data. The main risk is that the key fitting and simulation information is not present in the submitted manuscript, and the high-optical-depth data cover less than one e-fold of the decay.

major comments (3)

[Fig. 1(d) and Fig. 2 (population data)] The claim that the late decay time scales linearly with b0,g is not directly resolvable at the optical depths that most constrain the fit. The authors state that for large optical depths the limited contrast does not allow reliable data for tΓ > 10; for b0,g ≈ 50, the fit value τsub/τg ≈ 17 means the fitted decay constant is almost twice the entire reliable window. In this regime the data cover less than one e-fold, and the infinite-time background (dashed lines in Fig. 1(d)) is density-dependent, so the extracted τsub is highly sensitive to the baseline model. A small density-dependent baseline bias would produce an artificial linear increase of τsub with b0,g. Please provide a quantitative check—for example, restrict the slope fit to b0,g values for which τsub is within the reliable window, or show that the baseline subtraction is validated on independent datasets.
[Supplemental material references (fitting procedure and simulation)] The fit function, error model, and numerical simulation are presented only by reference to a Supplemental Material that is not included in the submitted manuscript. The central comparison (0.34(4) versus 0.367(9)) cannot be checked as submitted. Please include, in the manuscript or in the supplement provided to reviewers, the explicit decay model (including the treatment of Σ′_{e,t→∞} as a free parameter per dataset), the uncertainty propagation from the decay fits to the slope, and sufficient coupled-dipole simulation parameters (number of atoms, geometry, cloud profile, and fitting range for τsub) to reproduce the numerical scaling.
[Fig. 2 and slope uncertainty] The stated slope uncertainty of ±0.04 appears to reflect only the statistical error of the linear fit. The systematic sensitivity of the slope to the choice of fitting window, background model, and the b0,g range included in the fit is not discussed. Please report these systematic checks; without them the claimed 1σ agreement with 0.367(9) is not a meaningful statement of accuracy.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and main text] The abstract describes the internal level structure as V-type, while the main text calls it Λ-type; please reconcile the terminology.
[References] References 5 and 26 are the same paper (Guerin, Araújo, and Kaiser, PRL 116, 083601) listed twice with different formatting; consolidate them.
[Fig. 4] The inset of Fig. 4 has a garbled axis label ("tΓg") and a typographic apostrophe in Σ‘e; please fix the typography and define all axes explicitly.
[Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The ratio image is first defined as Id/Ir, then R(x,y) is introduced as Id/Ir − 1; the same symbol should not be used for both, and the sentence containing "absorption picture" should read "absorption imaging".
[Fig. 1(d) inset] The linear fit to the contrast C as a function of b0 is shown without fit parameters or error bars; report the extracted slope and intercept.
[Fig. 2] The scattered-intensity data (black triangles) are not fitted or quantitatively compared; either include a fit and its uncertainty or state explicitly that these points are shown only for qualitative comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coupled-dipole prediction is independent of the measured slope, which is the reported result rather than an input.

full rationale

The central claim is the measured linear scaling tau_sub/tau_g = 0.34(4) b0,g from population data and its agreement with the numerical prediction tau_sub/tau_g = 0.367(9) b0,g. The prediction is generated by a two-level classical coupled-dipole model in the weak-driving limit; the paper does not fit the model to the data, and the only free parameter in the experimental analysis is the fitted slope, which is the output being reported. Equation (2) derives Sigma_e from absorption ratios without importing the target timescale, and the depletion-imaging calibration is an independent prior technique (Ref. [21]) that does not presuppose subradiant lifetimes. The self-citations to prior subradiance studies ([5], [26], [32]) are corroborating context, not the load-bearing derivation. I also weighed the acknowledged limitation that population data are reliable only for t*Gamma < 10 and that the background offset grows with density (Fig. 1(d)); that is a legitimate robustness concern about the baseline correction, but the baseline is not a parameter inherited from the theory and the fit does not reduce to the theory by construction. No step in the derivation chain was found where a predicted quantity is defined as, or fitted from, the quantity it is supposed to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are introduced beyond the background offset used in the population extraction; the model relies on the two-level dipole approximation and the small-density imaging linearization. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

Per-dataset infinite-time background offset Σ'_{e,t→∞} = not stated explicitly; varies with optical depth (see Fig. 1d)
Used to correct the depleted-image ratio for imperfect contrast; the authors identify this background as the main limitation of the method, and its uncertainty affects the extracted decay times.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The 174Yb 1S0-3P1 transition is treated as a two-level system with all Clebsch-Gordan coefficients equal to 1, making it equivalent to a classical dipole in zero magnetic field.
Invoked in the section 'Subradiant scaling of decay time' to justify comparison with a two-level coupled-dipole simulation.
domain assumption The numerical simulation is performed in the weak-driving limit, while the experiment uses I ≃ Isat per beam; the authors rely on prior results that the subradiant decay time is intensity-independent.
Stated in the experimental protocol description and in the 'Subradiant scaling of decay time' section; the validity of applying a weak-driving model at Isat is assumed.
domain assumption The depletion imaging ratio approximation R ≈ σ_bsc ρ_e,⊥ holds for densities below 1e12 at/cm3 and cloud radius ~400 µm.
Stated in the text immediately after Eq. (2); if violated, the calculated excited-state population would be biased.
domain assumption The reference and depleted clouds have identical spatial distributions except for the excited-state fraction; density-dependent effects are negligible or correctable.
Acknowledged as imperfect in the paragraph discussing contrast limitations; the letter states that light-assisted collisions or radiation pressure can introduce differences between the two images.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing subradiant dynamics in cold atomic ensembles via population and emitted light measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DG2NPOVH

@misc{pith2026250716549,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing subradiant dynamics in cold atomic ensembles via population and emitted light measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DG2NPOVH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16549}
}

read the original abstract

In this letter, we report on the time- and space-resolved measurement of subradiant excited state population in an ultra-cold atomic cloud of 174Yb atoms. We use a depletion imaging technique that exploits the V-type internal energy structure of alkaline-earth-like atoms to directly observe the time-resolved spatial distribution of excited state population. We characterize the decay dynamics of the subradiant modes using both the excited state population and scattered light intensity, finding good quantitative agreement with numerical predictions from simulations of two-level atomic ensembles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16549 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** a) Schematic representation of the experimental setup detailed in the main text. b) Chronogram of the experimental sequence to take depletion images. c) Example of one depleted, reference and the computed ratio image, illustrating the method. Note that the fringes in the images are residual interference effects that are not fully suppressed using a reference image, but not a fundamental feature of the atomic cloud.… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Subradiance with populations and scattered light measurements. Measured late decay times as a function of the resonant optical depth b0,g. Green points correspond to measurements of the excited state population. Black triangles are the result of the scattered intensity measurements. The dashed, orange line corresponds to the numerically obtained value τsub/τg ∼ 0.367(9) b0,g. The green dotted line is the result of… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Subradiance from population measurements. a) Blue points show the extracted latest decay time of the atomic clouds as a function of the driving intensity. Red points show the corresponding (relative) excitation that remains in the cloud after t Γg = 5, that we define as the subradiant population. Error bars correspond to the standard error over 20 repetitions. The cloud’s peak optical depth is b0,g ≃ 39. b) Normali… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Black trace is the normalized intensity I ′ collected as described in the main text. The signal corresponds to integrated photon counts in time-bins of δt = 0.1 µs. Green points are the normalized excited-state population Σ‘e, and the line is just a guide for the eye.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

[1]

R., Phys

Dicke and H. R., Phys. Rev. 93, 99–110 (1954)

work page 1954
[2]

Gross and S

M. Gross and S. Haroche, Phys. Reports 93, 301–396 (1982)

work page 1982
[3]

R. G. Devoe and R. G. Brewer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2049–2052 (1996)

work page 1996
[4]

Pavolini, A

D. Pavolini, A. Crubellier, P . Pillet,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1917–1920 (1985)

work page 1985
[5]

Guerin, M

W. Guerin, M. O. Araújo, and R. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 083601 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

Ferioli, A

G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, L. Henriet, et al., Phys. Rev. X 11, 021031 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Labeyrie, R

G. Labeyrie, R. Kaiser, and D. Delande, Appl. Phys. B81, 1001–1008 (2005)

work page 2005
[8]

Weiss, M

P . Weiss, M. O. Araújo, R. Kaiser, and W. Guerin, New J. Phys. 20, 063024 (2018)

work page 2018

Show all 65 references

[9]

P . W. Courteille, S. Bux, E. Lucioni,et al., The Eur. Phys. J. D 58, 69 (2010)

2010
[10]

Sutherland and F

R. Sutherland and F . Robicheaux, Phys. Rev. A 93, 023407 (2016)

2016
[11]

S. L. Bromley, B. Zhu, M. Bishof, et al., Nat. communications 7, 11039 (2016)

2016
[12]

Ferioli, A

G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, F . Robicheaux,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 243602 (2021)

2021
[13]

Glicenstein, G

A. Glicenstein, G. Ferioli, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, Opt. Lett. 47, 1541 (2022)

2022
[14]

Ferioli, A

G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, Nat. Phys. 19, 1345–1349 (2023)

2023
[15]

J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, et al., Nature 583, 369–374 (2020)

2020
[16]

D. Das, B. Lemberger, and D. D. Y avuz, Phys. Rev. A 102, 043708 (2020)

2020
[17]

Pennetta, D

R. Pennetta, D. Lechner, M. Blaha, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 203601 (2022)

2022
[18]

Liedl, F

C. Liedl, F . Tebbenjohanns, C. Bach,et al., Phys. Rev. X 14, 011020 (2024)

2024
[19]

N. A. Moreira, R. Kaiser, and R. Bachelard, Europhys. Lett.127, 54003 (2019)

2019
[20]

L. G. Celardo, M. Angeli, F . Mattiotti, and R. Kaiser, Europhys. Lett. 145, 35002 (2024)

2024
[21]

Glicenstein, A

A. Glicenstein, A. Apoorva, D. B. Orenes, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 233401 (2024)

2024
[22]

T. S. do Espirito Santo, P . Weiss, A. Cipris,et al., Phys. Rev. A 101, 013617 (2020)

2020
[23]

Rosario, A

P . Rosario, A. C. Santos, N. Piovella,et al., Phys. review letters 133, 050203 (2024)

2024
[24]

Letellier, A

H. Letellier, A. M. G. d. Melo, A. Dorne, and R. Kaiser, Rev. Sci. Instruments 94, 123203 (2023)

2023
[25]

Álvaro M. G. de Melo, H. Letellier, A. Apoorva, et al., Opt. Express 32, 6204 (2024)

2024
[26]

Guerin, M

W. Guerin, M. O. Araújo, and R. Kaiser, Phys. review letters 116, 083601 (2016)

2016
[27]

Cipris, N

A. Cipris, N. A. Moreira, T. do Espirito Santo, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 103604 (2021)

2021
[28]

D. Das, B. Lemberger, and D. Y avuz, Phys. Rev. A102, 043708 (2020)

2020
[29]

Hueck, N

K. Hueck, N. Luick, L. Sobirey, et al., Opt. express 25, 8670 (2017)

2017
[30]

Reinaudi, T

G. Reinaudi, T. Lahaye, Z. Wang, and D. Guéry-Odelin, Opt. letters32, 3143 (2007)

2007
[31]

Benedicto-Orenes, A

D. Benedicto-Orenes, A. Kowalczyk, K. Bongs, and G. Barontini, Opt. express 25, 19701 (2017)

2017
[32]

Guerin and R

W. Guerin and R. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. A 95, 053865 (2017)

2017
[34]

Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes,

Dicke and H. R., “Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes,” Phys. Rev. 93, 99–110 (1954)

1954
[35]

Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission,

M. Gross and S. Haroche, “Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission,” Phys. Reports 93, 301–396 (1982)

1982
[36]

Observation of superradiant and subradiant spontaneous emission of two trapped ions,

R. G. Devoe and R. G. Brewer, “Observation of superradiant and subradiant spontaneous emission of two trapped ions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2049–2052 (1996)

1996
[37]

Experimental evidence for subradiance,

D. Pavolini, A. Crubellier, P . Pillet,et al., “Experimental evidence for subradiance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1917–1920 (1985)

1985
[38]

Subradiance in a large cloud of cold atoms,

W. Guerin, M. O. Araújo, and R. Kaiser, “Subradiance in a large cloud of cold atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 083601 (2015)

2015
[39]

Storage and release of subradiant excitations in a dense atomic cloud,

G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, L. Henriet, et al., “Storage and release of subradiant excitations in a dense atomic cloud,” Phys. Rev. X 11, 021031 (2021)

2021
[40]

Radiation trapping in a cold atomic gas,

G. Labeyrie, R. Kaiser, and D. Delande, “Radiation trapping in a cold atomic gas,” Appl. Phys. B 81, 1001–1008 (2005)

2005
[41]

Subradiance and radiation trapping in cold atoms,

P . Weiss, M. O. Araújo, R. Kaiser, and W. Guerin, “Subradiance and radiation trapping in cold atoms,” New J. Phys.20, 063024 (2018)

2018
[42]

Modification of radiation pressure due to cooperative scattering of light,

P . W. Courteille, S. Bux, E. Lucioni, et al., “Modification of radiation pressure due to cooperative scattering of light,” The Eur. Phys. J. D 58, 69–73 (2010)

2010
[43]

Coherent forward broadening in cold atom clouds,

R. Sutherland and F . Robicheaux, “Coherent forward broadening in cold atom clouds,” Phys. Rev. A 93, 023407 (2016)

2016
[44]

Collective atomic scattering and motional effects in a dense coherent medium,

S. L. Bromley, B. Zhu, M. Bishof,et al., “Collective atomic scattering and motional effects in a dense coherent medium,” Nat. communications 7, 11039 (2016)

2016
[45]

Laser-driven superra- diant ensembles of two-level atoms near dicke regime,

G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, F . Robicheaux,et al., “Laser-driven superra- diant ensembles of two-level atoms near dicke regime,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 243602 (2021)

2021
[46]

From superradiance to subradiance: exploring the many-body dicke ladder,

A. Glicenstein, G. Ferioli, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, “From superradiance to subradiance: exploring the many-body dicke ladder,” Opt. Lett. 47, 1541 (2022)

2022
[47]

A non- equilibrium superradiant phase transition in free space,

G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, “A non- equilibrium superradiant phase transition in free space,” Nat. Phys. 19, 1345–1349 (2023)

2023
[48]

A subradiant optical mirror formed by a single structured atomic layer,

J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, et al. , “A subradiant optical mirror formed by a single structured atomic layer,” Nature 583, 369–374 (2020)

2020
[49]

Subradiance and superradiance-to-subradiance transition in dilute atomic clouds,

D. Das, B. Lemberger, and D. D. Y avuz, “Subradiance and superradiance-to-subradiance transition in dilute atomic clouds,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 043708 (2020)

2020
[50]

Observation of Coherent Coupling between Super- and Subradiant States of an Ensemble of Cold Atoms Collectively Coupled to a Single Propagating Optical Mode,

R. Pennetta, D. Lechner, M. Blaha, et al., “Observation of Coherent Coupling between Super- and Subradiant States of an Ensemble of Cold Atoms Collectively Coupled to a Single Propagating Optical Mode,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 203601 (2022)

2022
[51]

Observation of Superradi- ant Bursts in a Cascaded Quantum System,

C. Liedl, F . Tebbenjohanns, C. Bach,et al., “Observation of Superradi- ant Bursts in a Cascaded Quantum System,” Phys. Rev. X 14, 011020 (2024)

2024
[52]

Localization vs. subra- diance in three-dimensional scattering of light,

N. A. Moreira, R. Kaiser, and R. Bachelard, “Localization vs. subra- diance in three-dimensional scattering of light,” Europhys. Lett. 127, 54003 (2019)

2019
[53]

Localization of light in three dimensions: A mobility edge in the imaginary axis in non-hermitian hamiltonians,

L. G. Celardo, M. Angeli, F . Mattiotti, and R. Kaiser, “Localization of light in three dimensions: A mobility edge in the imaginary axis in non-hermitian hamiltonians,” Europhys. Lett. 145, 35002 (2024)

2024
[54]

In situ measurements of light diffusion in an optically dense atomic ensemble,

A. Glicenstein, A. Apoorva, D. B. Orenes, et al., “In situ measurements of light diffusion in an optically dense atomic ensemble,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 233401 (2024)

2024
[55]

Collective excitation dynamics of a cold atom cloud,

T. S. do Espirito Santo, P . Weiss, A. Cipris,et al., “Collective excitation dynamics of a cold atom cloud,” Phys. Rev. A101, 013617 (2020)

2020
[56]

Detecting entanglement from macroscopic measurements of the electric field and its fluctua- tions,

P . Rosario, A. C. Santos, N. Piovella,et al., “Detecting entanglement from macroscopic measurements of the electric field and its fluctua- tions,” Phys. review letters133, 050203 (2024)

2024
[57]

Loading of a large Yb MOT on the 1S0 → 1P1 transition,

H. Letellier, A. M. G. d. Melo, A. Dorne, and R. Kaiser, “Loading of a large Yb MOT on the 1S0 → 1P1 transition,” Rev. Sci. Instruments 94, 123203 (2023)

2023
[58]

Laser frequency stabilization by modulation transfer spectroscopy and balanced detec- tion of molecular iodine for laser cooling of 174Yb,

Álvaro M. G. de Melo, H. Letellier, A. Apoorva, et al., “Laser frequency stabilization by modulation transfer spectroscopy and balanced detec- tion of molecular iodine for laser cooling of 174Yb,” Opt. Express 32, 6204–6214 (2024)

2024
[59]

Subradiance in a large cloud of cold atoms,

W. Guerin, M. O. Araújo, and R. Kaiser, “Subradiance in a large cloud of cold atoms,” Phys. review letters116, 083601 (2016)

2016
[60]

Subradiance with saturated atoms: population enhancement of the long-lived states,

A. Cipris, N. A. Moreira, T. do Espirito Santo, et al., “Subradiance with saturated atoms: population enhancement of the long-lived states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 103604 (2021)

2021
[61]

Subradiance and superradiance- to-subradiance transition in dilute atomic clouds,

D. Das, B. Lemberger, and D. Y avuz, “Subradiance and superradiance- to-subradiance transition in dilute atomic clouds,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 043708 (2020)

2020
[62]

Calibrating high intensity ab- sorption imaging of ultracold atoms,

K. Hueck, N. Luick, L. Sobirey, et al. , “Calibrating high intensity ab- sorption imaging of ultracold atoms,” Opt. express 25, 8670–8679 (2017)

2017
[63]

Strong sat- uration absorption imaging of dense clouds of ultracold atoms,

G. Reinaudi, T. Lahaye, Z. Wang, and D. Guéry-Odelin, “Strong sat- uration absorption imaging of dense clouds of ultracold atoms,” Opt. letters 32, 3143–3145 (2007)

2007
[64]

Endo- scopic imaging of quantum gases through a fiber bundle,

D. Benedicto-Orenes, A. Kowalczyk, K. Bongs, and G. Barontini, “Endo- scopic imaging of quantum gases through a fiber bundle,” Opt. express 25, 19701–19710 (2017)

2017
[65]

Population of collective modes in light scat- tering by many atoms,

W. Guerin and R. Kaiser, “Population of collective modes in light scat- tering by many atoms,” Phys. Rev. A95, 053865 (2017)

2017
[66]

Single-atom resolved collec- tive spectroscopy of a one-dimensional atomic array,

B. Hofer, D. Bloch, G. Biagioni, et al. , “Single-atom resolved collec- tive spectroscopy of a one-dimensional atomic array,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02541 (2024)

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R., Phys

Dicke and H. R., Phys. Rev. 93, 99–110 (1954)

work page 1954

[2] [2]

Gross and S

M. Gross and S. Haroche, Phys. Reports 93, 301–396 (1982)

work page 1982

[3] [3]

R. G. Devoe and R. G. Brewer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2049–2052 (1996)

work page 1996

[4] [4]

Pavolini, A

D. Pavolini, A. Crubellier, P . Pillet,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1917–1920 (1985)

work page 1985

[5] [5]

Guerin, M

W. Guerin, M. O. Araújo, and R. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 083601 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Ferioli, A

G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, L. Henriet, et al., Phys. Rev. X 11, 021031 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Labeyrie, R

G. Labeyrie, R. Kaiser, and D. Delande, Appl. Phys. B81, 1001–1008 (2005)

work page 2005

[8] [8]

Weiss, M

P . Weiss, M. O. Araújo, R. Kaiser, and W. Guerin, New J. Phys. 20, 063024 (2018)

work page 2018