Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Selective excitation of molecular vibrations via a two-mode cavity Raman scheme

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By pairing two cavity modes—one to pump, one to dump through photon leakage—this paper claims selective population of chosen ground-state vibrational levels with 90–98% efficiency, while keeping the electronic excited state nearly empty.

desk verdict A smart two-cavity STIRAP variant with solid numerics; the absent vibrational relaxation keeps it a proof of principle rather than a route to real selective chemistry. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07753 v1 pith:CNS5URBG submitted 2025-09-09 physics.chem-ph

Lucas Borges , Thomas Schnappinger , Markus Kowalewski This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords molecularpolaritonicselectronicstrongcouplingselectivevibrationalexcitationSTIRAPtwo-cavitymodecavityphotonleakageLindbladdynamicsground-statecontrol
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 paper proposes a way to use optical cavities to do the opposite of what molecular polaritonics usually aims for: instead of altering excited-state chemistry, it pumps a molecule into a specific excited vibrational level of its electronic ground state. The scheme pairs two cavity modes, a 'pump' that drives the molecule-cavity system and a 'dump' that provides a fast, tunable decay path through photon leakage. The transfer is STIRAP-like: a dark superposition state with no electronic-excited component carries population from the vibrationless ground state to a selected vibration, while spontaneous-emission heating is suppressed. In a model diatomic molecule, the paper reports about 90% transfer into the first excited ground-state vibration with a single dump mode under direct laser pumping, and up to about 98% into that same manifold with the two-cavity setup under coherent pumping. If the mechanism survives in real molecules, it would give a practical handle on ground-state vibrational chemistry—selective vibrational activation without shaped infrared pulses.

What carries the argument

Two-cavity Raman pump-dump scheme: a pump cavity mode (ωp) resonant with the 0-0 electronic transition and a dump cavity mode (ωd) resonant with the vg=1→ve=0 vibronic transition. The two modes form three polaritonic eigenstates, and the middle eigenstate |M⟩, a dark superposition of |vg=0;1p,0d⟩ and |vg=1;0p,1d⟩ with no excited-electronic contribution, is the carrier of selective transfer. Photon leakage from the dump mode turns |M⟩ into a dissipative channel that empties into the target ground-state vibration; tuning ωd selects which vibrational level is populated.

What would settle it

Run the same open-system dynamics with an added Lindblad relaxation channel that transfers population from |vg=1⟩ and higher ground-state vibrations back toward |vg=0⟩ (an IVR/dephasing rate), and check whether the 90–98% target-state population at 10–50 ps survives; if a modest IVR rate comparable to half the cavity decay rate collapses it, the scheme is limited to vibrationally isolated molecules.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that coupling a molecular electronic transition to two cavity modes—one resonant with the 0-0 transition and one resonant with the target vg=0 to vg=1 vibronic transition—creates an efficient, tunable relaxation channel that selectively accumulates population in a chosen ground-state vibrational level. In the single-molecule model, a continuous-wave laser plus a resonant dump cavity transfers about 90% of the population to |vg=1;0d⟩ within 10 ps, and with the two-cavity setup the coherently pumped scheme sends about 98% of the population into the |vg=1;0p0d⟩/|vg=1;1p0d⟩ manifold. The mechanism is a STIRAP analog: the two light modes and the vibronic transition form thr

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes the ground-state vibrational levels are stable—no vibrational relaxation, dephasing, or energy flow to other molecular modes—so the populated vibration acts as a trap; with fast intramolecular vibrational redistribution in a real polyatomic molecule, the selectivity would leak away.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single dump cavity mode under direct laser pumping transfers about 90% of the population to |vg=1⟩ within 10 ps, and with two cavity modes the coherently pumped scheme reaches about 98% in the |vg=1⟩ manifold.
  • Tuning the dump cavity frequency selects the final vibrational state: resonances at the vg=1, 2, and 3 vibronic transitions each yield more than 95% transfer to the corresponding level in the direct-pump case.
  • The transfer proceeds through a dark polaritonic state with no electronic-excited contribution, so the electronically excited state stays nearly empty and spontaneous-emission heating is suppressed.
  • With two identical molecules, the same two cavity modes perform two sequential pump-dump cycles, exciting both molecules to the vg=1,vg=1 collective state with more than 95% population under coherent pumping.
  • Coherent pumping outperforms incoherent pumping in purity and resistance to vibrational heating, while incoherent pumping still works at the weak-to-strong coupling boundary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Adding a realistic intramolecular vibrational redistribution (IVR) rate to the model is the natural stress test: the scheme's selectivity should degrade as the IVR rate approaches the 2 ps−1 cavity decay used here, so molecular candidates with slow IVR, such as isolated high-frequency stretches, are the most promising testbeds.
  • Because the final vibrational level is set by tuning ωd, the same setup could serve as a readout tool: a frequency scan of the dump mode maps out vibronic resonances and Franck-Condon overlaps without needing shaped infrared pulses.
  • A natural extension is to more than two molecules, where repeated pump-dump cycles might drive all molecules into the same excited vibrational level; the two-molecule result suggests the cycle repeats, but the paper does not test larger ensembles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-cavity-mode scheme, under electronic strong coupling, to selectively populate vibrational states of a molecular electronic ground state. A pump mode drives the 0-0 transition, while a dump mode is tuned to a specific vibronic transition and provides a fast photon-leakage decay channel, forming a STIRAP-like dark-state transfer that suppresses the electronic excited-state population. Using a Lindblad master equation with a diatomic MgH+ model (plus an extension to two molecules), the authors report 90-98% population transfer to selected ground-state vibrational levels for direct, coherent, and incoherent pumping, and show frequency-scan selectivity. The paper is explicitly framed as a proof-of-principle model that neglects vibrational relaxation.

Significance. If upheld, the study provides a conceptually new dissipative mechanism for preparing selected ground-state vibrational states in polaritonic setups, with possible implications for mode-selective chemistry. The efficiencies are emergent simulation outputs rather than fitted targets; convergence checks (SI Figs. S5-S6), RWA validation (SI Fig. S2), documented parameters, and a reproducible computational environment (Nix) are notable strengths. The main value is the photon-leakage channel as a controllable dissipation element in a Raman/STIRAP-like scheme. The chemical relevance, however, is contingent on the model's neglect of ground-state vibrational relaxation, which is a serious limitation for real polyatomic systems.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The Lindblad dissipators in Eq. (4) have the sign reversed relative to the standard Lindblad form. For photon loss the correct term is κ/2(2aρa† − [a†a,ρ]_+), whereas Eq. (4) contains κ/2([a†a,ρ]_+ − 2aρa†), which would produce amplification rather than damping. The same sign reversal appears in the spontaneous-emission term of Eq. (4) and in the incoherent pump term of Eq. (8). The reported simulations, which show decay to a steady state, are inconsistent with the operators as written, so presumably the opposite sign was implemented in the code. The equations should be corrected or the sign convention explicitly clarified.
  2. [Section II (after Eq. 5) and figure captions] The text states that spontaneous decay rates were increased by a factor of 10^3 to mimic condensed-phase lifetimes, but every figure caption reports Γ00 = 1/40 ps^-1, which is the bare, unenhanced rate. If the simulations used the enhanced rate, the quoted linewidths and the competition between κd and Γ are misreported; if the captions are correct, the description of the enhancement is wrong. Because spontaneous emission directly competes with the cavity decay channel in the mechanism, this inconsistency affects the interpretation of the reported population dynamics and efficiencies.
  3. [Section II and Section III] The selectivity depends on ground-state vibrational states acting as stable population traps, which the paper explicitly states in Section III: the coupled system has no true steady state because 'we neglect the spontaneous decay of the vibrational states in |g⟩'. In real molecules, IVR and solvent-induced vibrational relaxation occur on picosecond timescales, comparable to the 10-100 ps transfer and observation windows in Figs. 2, 4, and 6. The Section II disclaimer that the model 'serves only as a proof of principle because it does not include potentially relevant factors such as vibrational relaxation' is honest, but the abstract and conclusions claim selective excitation of molecular vibrations and a route to ground-state chemistry. Without a quantitative assessment of the effect of IVR—e.g., a master-equation calculation with a vibrational bath or at least a timescale comparison—the
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] Typo: 'Stimulated Raman Adiabtic Passage' should be 'Stimulated Raman Adiabatic Passage'.
  2. [Section III A] Typo: 'traget state' should be 'target state'.
  3. [Figure captions (Figs. 3, 5, 8)] Typo: 'resonaces' should be 'resonances'.
  4. [Main text, Section III (after Eq. 7)] The empty-cavity photon dynamics are referenced as 'Fig. S8', but the empty-cavity results appear in SI Fig. S7; SI Fig. S8 shows single-mode cavity pumping of a molecule. Please correct the cross-reference.
  5. [Section IV] The Conclusions section begins and ends with 'In summary'; consider restructuring to avoid repetition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported transfer efficiencies are emergent solutions of the Lindblad master equation; the MgH+ PES self-citations are independent ab initio inputs, and the paper's disclaimers about vibrational relaxation are honest scope limitations, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (≈90% transfer to |vg=1;0d⟩ in Fig. 2b; ≈95–98% into the vg=1 manifold in Fig. 4; selectivity peaks in the frequency scans of Figs. 3, 5, 8) are all outputs of propagating the stated Lindblad master equation (Eq. 4) under the Hamiltonian in Eqs. 1–3. The inputs are physically motivated: cavity frequencies set to the molecular energy differences ωp=Δω00 and ωd=Δω10 from the ab initio PESs; coupling strengths g=√(2πω/NV)μij with computed Franck–Condon factors; cavity decay κ=2 ps⁻¹ from Q=65; spontaneous decay rates from Einstein coefficients; and pump rates ζ, η calibrated to match empty-cavity photon numbers. None of the target populations (90–98%) appears in any of these inputs, so the efficiencies are emergent rather than fitted. The frequency scans further show nontrivial detuning behavior (loss of selectivity and vibrational heating off resonance), which would not occur if the result were built into the definitions. The self-citations for the MgH+ PESs (refs. 43–45) are parameter-free ab initio data that do not include the target result, so under rule 4 they count as real evidence and do not raise the circularity score. The STIRAP-like dark state |M⟩ is derived in the SI (Figs. S3–S4), not imported from an unverified self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The paper's own caveats—'the molecular model used serves only as a proof of principle because it does not include potentially relevant factors such as vibrational relaxation' (Sec. II) and 'the coupled system, strictly speaking, has no steady state, since we neglect the spontaneous decay of the vibrational states in |g⟩' (Sec. III)—are honest scope limitations about missing IVR physics that would matter for polyatomic applicability, but they do not constitute a circular reduction because the simulation is internally self-consistent with its stated Hamiltonian and dissipators. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard Markovian cavity-QED open-system framework plus a heavily simplified molecular model. The most consequential input is the neglect of ground-state vibrational relaxation, which turns the target vibrational state into a stable population trap. No new physical entities (particles, forces, or dimensions) are introduced; the 'dark state' is a superposition of existing basis states.

free parameters (5)
  • spontaneous decay scaling factor = 10^3
    Section II states all Gamma_ij were increased by 10^3 to mimic condensed matter lifetimes, but all simulation captions report Gamma_00 = 1/40 ps^-1 (unenhanced). This is an internal inconsistency that makes the actual used value unclear.
  • cavity photon decay rate kappa = 2 ps^-1 (Q=65)
    Chosen to match typical Fabry-Perot cavities with Q <= 100. Determines the efficiency of the photon-leakage dump channel.
  • coupling strength of pump mode gp = 1.00 meV and 5.00 meV
    Chosen to place the system at the weak-strong coupling boundary and well inside the electronic strong coupling regime. These values set the selectivity and are scanned in the paper.
  • pump rates zeta (coherent) and eta (incoherent) = zeta = 1.00 ps^-1, eta = 0.50 ps^-1
    Chosen to achieve comparable average photon numbers in the empty cavity (about 0.25-0.33). These are input intensities, not fitted to the population outcome.
  • Hilbert space truncation = ng=7, ne=5 (single molecule); ng=5, ne=3 (two molecules); max 2 photons in p, 1 in d
    Chosen for computational tractability; convergence to <10^-3 is shown in the SI. This is a numerical approximation rather than a physical free parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption MgH+ ab initio potential energy surfaces and transition dipoles from refs 43-45 are accurate inputs for a molecular vibronic model.
    The dynamics are computed on these surfaces; the paper does not re-derive them but treats them as given background.
  • standard math The rotating wave approximation applies at coupling strengths up to 5 meV.
    Validated by comparing Jaynes-Cummings and Dicke eigenvalue spectra in SI Section SII; differences are negligible below 50 meV.
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with Markovian photon and spontaneous emission decay captures the open-system dynamics.
    Standard treatment of cavity QED and dissipative molecular dynamics; assumed throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper Ground-state vibrational states have no decay and no dephasing (no IVR), so they act as stable population traps.
    Central simplification, acknowledged in Section II as a proof-of-principle limitation. Without it, the demonstrated selectivity would be degraded on real molecular timescales.
  • domain assumption For identical molecules, only symmetric collective states are optically active; antisymmetric dark combinations are neglected.
    Section III.B restricts the discussion to dipole-active symmetric linear combinations and does not model antisymmetric dark states, which would be present in a larger ensemble.
  • ad hoc to paper Photon number truncation (<=2 photons in pump mode, <=1 in dump mode) is sufficient for the dynamics.
    Chosen for computational tractability; convergence to <10^-3 is checked in SI Figs. S5-S6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Selective excitation of molecular vibrations via a two-mode cavity Raman scheme." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNS5URBG

@misc{pith2026250907753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Selective excitation of molecular vibrations via a two-mode cavity Raman scheme},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNS5URBG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07753}
}
read the original abstract

The experimental realization of strong light-matter coupling with molecules initiated the rapidly evolving field of molecular polaritonics. Most studies focus on how exciton polaritons, which combine electronic excitations with confined light modes, alter photochemistry. In this paper, we investigate their use in selectively exciting molecular vibrational states in the ground state. Selectively exciting molecules to high vibrational states with infrared lasers to catalyze ground-state chemical reactions is a challenging task. Here, we propose a two-cavity mode setup in the electronic strong coupling regime inspired by the process of Stimulated Raman Adiabatic Passage (STIRAP) to selectively populate excited vibrational states. One cavity mode actively pumps the molecular system, while the other provides a highly effective and tunable decay channel via photon leakage. We demonstrate the ability to selectively populate vibrational states for coherent and incoherent light sources using a molecular model system. Our initial findings show high efficiency and suggest a possible route to steering and controlling chemical reactions in the electronic ground state based on electronic strong coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Energy diagram of the multilevel model formed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time evolution of a single molecule directly driven by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Frequency scan over the cavity mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time evolution of a single molecule coupled to two cav [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Frequency scan of cavity mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Temporal evolution of the populations of two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Diagram of the relevant bare (i.e., field-free) vi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Frequency scan of Populations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Trauner ,\ 10.1002/anie.201708325 journal journal Angew

    author author D. Trauner ,\ 10.1002/anie.201708325 journal journal Angew. Chem. Int. Ed Engl. \ volume 57 ,\ pages 4177 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1002/anie.201708325 2018

  2. [2]

    Buglioni , author F

    author author L. Buglioni , author F. Raymenants , author A. Slattery , author S. D. A. \ Zondag , \ and\ author T. Noël ,\ 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00332 journal journal Chem. Rev. \ volume 122 ,\ pages 2752 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00332 2022

  3. [3]

    author author D. J. \ Tannor \ and\ author S. A. \ Rice ,\ 10.1063/1.449767 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 83 ,\ pages 5013 ( year 1985 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.449767 1985

  4. [4]

    author author W. S. \ Warren , author H. Rabitz , \ and\ author M. Dahleh ,\ 10.1126/science.259.5101.1581 journal journal Science \ volume 259 ,\ pages 1581 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    work page arXiv 1993

  5. [5]

    Rabitz , author R

    author author H. Rabitz , author R. de Vivie-Riedle , author M. Motzkus , \ and\ author K. Kompa ,\ 10.1126/science.288.5467.824 journal journal Science \ volume 288 ,\ pages 824 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.824

  6. [6]

    Ruetzel , author C

    author author S. Ruetzel , author C. Stolzenberger , author F. Dimler , author D. J. \ Tannor , \ and\ author T. Brixner ,\ 10.1039/c0cp02318c journal journal Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. \ volume 13 ,\ pages 8627 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1039/c0cp02318c 2011

  7. [7]

    Gollub , author M

    author author C. Gollub , author M. Kowalewski , author S. Thallmair , \ and\ author R. de Vivie-Riedle ,\ 10.1039/C0CP01657H journal journal Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 15780 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1039/c0cp01657h 2010

  8. [8]

    Debnath , author C

    author author A. Debnath , author C. Falvo , \ and\ author C. Meier ,\ 10.1021/jp410473u journal journal J. Phys. Chem. A \ volume 117 ,\ pages 12884 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/jp410473u 2013

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Thallmair , author D

    author author S. Thallmair , author D. Keefer , author F. Rott , \ and\ author R. de Vivie-Riedle ,\ 10.1088/1361-6455/aa6100 journal journal J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. \ volume 50 ,\ pages 082001 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Keefer \ and\ author R

    author author D. Keefer \ and\ author R. de Vivie-Riedle ,\ 10.1002/qute.201800099 journal journal Advanced Quantum Technologies \ volume 2 ,\ pages 1800099 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    author author J. C. \ Owrutsky , author D. Raftery , \ and\ author R. M. \ Hochstrasser ,\ 10.1146/annurev.pc.45.100194.002511 journal journal Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. \ volume 45 ,\ pages 519 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994

  4. [12]

    Witte , author T

    author author T. Witte , author T. Hornung , author L. Windhorn , author D. Proch , author R. de Vivie-Riedle , author M. Motzkus , \ and\ author K. L. \ Kompa ,\ 10.1063/1.1540101 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 118 ,\ pages 2021 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Stensitzki , author Y

    author author T. Stensitzki , author Y. Yang , author V. Kozich , author A. A. \ Ahmed , author F. Kössl , author O. Kühn , \ and\ author K. Heyne ,\ 10.1038/nchem.2909 journal journal Nat. Chem. \ volume 10 ,\ pages 126 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Delor , author P

    author author M. Delor , author P. A. \ Scattergood , author I. V. \ Sazanovich , author A. W. \ Parker , author G. M. \ Greetham , author A. J. H. M. \ Meijer , author M. Towrie , \ and\ author J. A. \ Weinstein ,\ 10.1126/science.1259995 journal journal Science \ volume 346 ...

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Heyne \ and\ author O

    author author K. Heyne \ and\ author O. Kühn ,\ 10.1021/jacs.9b02600 journal journal J. Am. Chem. Soc. \ volume 141 ,\ pages 11730 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Herrera \ and\ author J

    author author F. Herrera \ and\ author J. Owrutsky ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5136320 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 152 ,\ pages 100902 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    author author F. J. \ Garcia-Vidal , author C. Ciuti , \ and\ author T. W. \ Ebbesen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd0336 journal journal Science \ volume 373 ,\ pages eabd0336 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    author author T. E. \ Li , author B. Cui , author J. E. \ Subotnik , \ and\ author A. Nitzan ,\ https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-physchem-090519-042621 journal journal Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. \ volume 73 ,\ pages 43 ( year 2022 a ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Orgiu , author J

    author author E. Orgiu , author J. George , author J. A. \ Hutchison , author E. Devaux , author J. F. \ Dayen , author B. Doudin , author F. Stellacci , author C. Genet , author J. Schachenmayer , author C. Genes , author G. Pupillo , author P. Samorì , \ and\ author T. W. \ ...

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Eizner , author L

    author author E. Eizner , author L. A. \ Mart\'inez-Mart\'inez , author J. Yuen-Zhou , \ and\ author S. K\'ena-Cohen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax4482 journal journal Science Advances \ volume 5 ,\ pages eaax4482 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Polak , author R

    author author D. Polak , author R. Jayaprakash , author T. P. \ Lyons , author L. A. \ Mart\'inez-Mart\'inez , author A. Leventis , author K. J. \ Fallon , author H. Coulthard , author D. G. \ Bossanyi , author K. Georgiou , author A. J. \ Petty , Ii , author J. Anthony , auth...

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Wellnitz , author G

    author author D. Wellnitz , author G. Pupillo , \ and\ author J. Schachenmayer ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0037412 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 154 ,\ pages 054104 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Sokolovskii , author R

    author author I. Sokolovskii , author R. H. \ Tichauer , author D. Morozov , author J. Feist , \ and\ author G. Groenhof ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42067-y journal journal Nat. Commun. \ volume 14 ,\ pages 6613 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Balasubrahmaniyam , author A

    author author M. Balasubrahmaniyam , author A. Simkhovich , author A. Golombek , author G. Sandik , author G. Ankonina , \ and\ author T. Schwartz ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-022-01463-3 journal journal Nat. Mater. \ volume 22 ,\ pages 338 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Wallner , author C

    author author L. Wallner , author C. Remnant , \ and\ author O. Vendrell ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.4c04207 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. A \ volume 128 ,\ pages 8897 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    author author E. R. \ Koessler , author A. Mandal , author A. J. \ Musser , author T. D. \ Krauss , \ and\ author P. Huo ,\ 10.1039/D5SC01911G journal journal Chem. Sci. \ ( year 2025 ),\ 10.1039/D5SC01911G NoStop

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Esteso , author L

    author author V. Esteso , author L. Cali\'o , author H. Espin\'os , author G. Lavarda , author T. Torres , author J. Feist , author F. J. \ Garc\'ia-Vidal , author G. Bottari , \ and\ author H. M\'iguez ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/solr.202100308 journal journal Sol. RRL \ volum...

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Wu , author D

    author author F. Wu , author D. Finkelstein-Shapiro , author M. Wang , author I. Rosenkampff , author A. Yartsev , author T. Pascher , author T. C. \ Nguyen-Phan , author R. Cogdell , author K. Börjesson , \ and\ author T. Pullerits ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34613-...

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Zhong , author T

    author author X. Zhong , author T. Chervy , author S. Wang , author J. George , author A. Thomas , author J. A. \ Hutchison , author E. Devaux , author C. Genet , \ and\ author T. W. \ Ebbesen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201600428 journal journal Angew. Chem. Weinheim Berg...

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Zhang , author Y

    author author B. Zhang , author Y. Gu , author V. M. \ Freixas , author S. Sun , author S. Tretiak , author J. Jiang , \ and\ author S. Mukamel ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.4c06727 journal journal J. Am. Chem. Soc. \ volume 146 ,\ pages 26743 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Krupp , author G

    author author N. Krupp , author G. Groenhof , \ and\ author O. Vendrell ,\ 10.1038/s41467-025-61298-9 journal journal Nat. Commun. \ volume 16 ,\ pages 5431 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    Fukushima , author S

    author author T. Fukushima , author S. Yoshimitsu , \ and\ author K. Murakoshi ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c02991 journal journal J. Am. Chem. Soc. \ volume 144 ,\ pages 12177 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Patrahau , author M

    author author B. Patrahau , author M. Piejko , author R. J. \ Mayer , author C. Antheaume , author T. Sangchai , author G. Ragazzon , author A. Jayachandran , author E. Devaux , author C. Genet , author J. Moran , \ and\ author T. W. \ Ebbesen ,\ 10.1002/anie.202401368 journal...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Thomas , author L

    author author A. Thomas , author L. Lethuillier-Karl , author K. Nagarajan , author R. M. A. \ Vergauwe , author J. George , author T. Chervy , author A. Shalabney , author E. Devaux , author C. Genet , author J. Moran , \ and\ author T. W. \ Ebbesen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1126...

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Ahn , author J

    author author W. Ahn , author J. F. \ Triana , author F. Recabal , author F. Herrera , \ and\ author B. S. \ Simpkins ,\ https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade7147 journal journal Science \ volume 380 ,\ pages 1165 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    author author T. E. \ Li , author A. Nitzan , \ and\ author J. E. \ Subotnik ,\ 10.1038/s41467-022-31703-8 journal journal Nat. Commun. \ volume 13 ,\ pages 4203 ( year 2022 b ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Ji \ and\ author T

    author author X. Ji \ and\ author T. E. \ Li ,\ 10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c00848 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. Lett. \ volume 16 ,\ pages 5034 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    Ben-Asher , author T

    author author A. Ben-Asher , author T. Schnappinger , author M. Kowalewski , \ and\ author J. Feist ,\ 10.1063/5.0252988 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 162 ,\ pages 094308 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    Gaubatz , author P

    author author U. Gaubatz , author P. Rudecki , author S. Schiemann , \ and\ author K. Bergmann ,\ 10.1063/1.458514 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 92 ,\ pages 5363 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    1990 doi

  32. [40]

    author author V. S. \ Malinovsky \ and\ author D. J. \ Tannor ,\ 10.1103/physreva.56.4929 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 56 ,\ pages 4929 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    1997 doi

  33. [41]

    author author I. R. \ Solá , author V. S. \ Malinovsky , \ and\ author D. J. \ Tannor ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.3081 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 60 ,\ pages 3081 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999 doi

  34. [42]

    Hennrich , author T

    author author M. Hennrich , author T. Legero , author A. Kuhn , \ and\ author G. Rempe ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4872 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 85 ,\ pages 4872 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    doi

  35. [46]

    author author E. T. \ Jaynes \ and\ author F. W. \ Cummings ,\ https://doi.org/10.1109/proc.1963.1664 journal journal Proc. IEEE \ volume 51 ,\ pages 89 ( year 1963 ) NoStop

    1963

  36. [48]

    Scala , author B

    author author M. Scala , author B. Militello , author A. Messina , author J. Piilo , \ and\ author S. Maniscalco ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.013811 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 75 ,\ pages 013811 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  37. [49]

    Betzholz , author B

    author author R. Betzholz , author B. G. \ Taketani , \ and\ author J. M. \ Torres ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/abc39d journal journal Quantum Science and Technology \ volume 6 ,\ pages 015005 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi

  38. [50]

    Fox ,\ @noop title Quantum optics ,\ edition repr

    author author M. Fox ,\ @noop title Quantum optics ,\ edition repr. \ ed.,\ series Oxford master series in physics \ No. number 15 \ ( publisher Oxford Univ. Press ,\ address Oxford [u.a.] ,\ year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  39. [51]

    Mony , author M

    author author J. Mony , author M. Hertzog , author K. Kushwaha , \ and\ author K. B \"o rjesson ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b07283 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. C \ volume 122 ,\ pages 24917 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  40. [52]

    Johansson , author P

    author author J. Johansson , author P. Nation , \ and\ author F. Nori ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2012.02.021 journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 183 ,\ pages 1760 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  41. [53]

    Kowalewski \ and\ author P

    author author M. Kowalewski \ and\ author P. Seeber ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.26872 journal journal Int. J. Quantum Chem. \ volume 122 ,\ pages e26872 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  42. [54]

    Davidsson \ and\ author M

    author author E. Davidsson \ and\ author M. Kowalewski ,\ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0033773 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 153 ,\ pages 234304 ( year 2020 a ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  43. [55]

    Davidsson \ and\ author M

    author author E. Davidsson \ and\ author M. Kowalewski ,\ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.0c03867 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. A \ volume 124 ,\ pages 4672 ( year 2020 b ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  44. [56]

    Borges , author T

    author author L. Borges , author T. Schnappinger ,\ and\ author M. Kowalewski ,\ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0214362 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 161 ,\ pages 044119 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  45. [57]

    Tavis \ and\ author F

    author author M. Tavis \ and\ author F. W. \ Cummings ,\ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(67)90957-7 journal journal Phys. Lett. A \ volume 25 ,\ pages 714 ( year 1967 ) NoStop

    1967 doi

  46. [58]

    author author R. H. \ Dicke ,\ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.93.99 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 93 ,\ pages 99 ( year 1954 ) NoStop

    1954 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.