Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 112 references

Atomic motion in subwavelength arrays dresses polaritons with phonons, making polaron-polaritons the fundamental collective excitations and resonant phonon-assisted scattering the organizing principle for decay, transport, and mirror reflec

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Atomic motion in subwavelength arrays is captured by polaron-polaritons, whose resonant phonon scattering explains subradiant decay, robust transport, and mirror reflectivity loss.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuine polaron-polariton framework for atomic arrays, with careful derivations and honest caveats, but the quantitative claims near saddle-point resonances rest on a one-phonon truncation that the paper itself shows breaks down, so use the numbers with caution. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.21062 v2 pith:PBK3QZ65 submitted 2026-01-28 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Polaron-Polaritons in Subwavelength Arrays of Trapped Atoms

Kristian Knakkergaard Nielsen , Lukas Wangler , David Castells-Graells , J. Ignacio Cirac , Ana Asenjo-Garcia , Daniel Malz , Cosimo C. Rusconi This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords polaron-polaritonssubwavelength atomic arraysphonon-assisted scatteringsubradianceatomic mirror reflectivityLamb-Dicke regimeFröhlich interactionquantum optics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 argues that when atoms in ordered subwavelength arrays can move inside their traps, the fundamental optical excitations are not bare polaritons but polaron-polaritons: collective spin excitations dressed by lattice vibrations (phonons). The paper's organizing principle is resonant phonon-assisted scattering: a polariton can absorb or emit a phonon and scatter into another collective mode, and when that process is resonant it dominates decay, transport, and light scattering. On this basis the authors show that phonons can strongly enhance the decay of subradiant states and also provide a direct laser route to excite them; that transport of dark excitations stays robust over a broad range of trap frequencies except when resonant scattering reverses the excitation's momentum; and that atomic motion degrades the reflectivity of a two-dimensional atomic mirror, but that shifting the phonon sidebands out of resonance can restore reflectivity above 99%. This matters because nearly all proposed applications of subwavelength atom arrays—mirrors, quantum memories, waveguide QED—assume pinned atoms, and the paper supplies a unified framework to compute how real trapped atoms, which always move, change those predictions.

Core claim

The central claim is that the optomechanical backaction between light-mediated dipole-dipole interactions and atomic vibrations hybridizes polaritons with phonons into polaron-polaritons, described by a Fröhlich-type interaction in the Lamb-Dicke regime. The key consequences, obtained from an analytical self-energy and confirmed by numerical simulation, are: subradiant states acquire phonon-induced nonradiative decay but become excitable via sidebands; propagation of dark excitations remains close to the pinned-atom limit wherever resonant phonon scattering is weak; and the main loss mechanism of a 2D atomic mirror is resonant scattering into motional sidebands, which can be suppressed by tu

What carries the argument

The central object is the polaron-polariton, a quasiparticle composed of a collective atomic excitation (polariton) dressed by one or more lattice phonons. The argument is carried by the Fröhlich-type spin-phonon coupling g^α_{q,p} (Eq. 8) that describes a polariton hopping from momentum p to q while creating a phonon; the self-energy Σ_p(ω) (Eq. 14) built from it; and the quasiparticle spectral weight Z_p (Eq. 17). The self-energy separates into resonant and off-resonant parts: the resonant part, proportional to the density of states of the polariton band, produces nonradiative decay via Fermi's golden rule, while the off-resonant part renormalizes radiative decay. The Chevy ansatz—a wavefu

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a perturbative treatment with at most one phonon and only second-order processes is sufficient; near saddle points of the polariton dispersion this perturbation theory diverges logarithmically and the quasiparticle weight vanishes, and the paper does not compute the higher-order corrections that would decide whether the resonances are genuine or merely softened.

What would settle it

Measure the collective decay rate or mirror loss of a subwavelength array as a function of trap frequency for a mode whose dispersion has a saddle point. If no sharp resonant enhancement appears near the critical trap frequency ν_c predicted by the resonance condition, or if transport already breaks down at ν∼γ0 for perpendicular polarization where the theory predicts robustness, the central claim fails; a nonperturbative calculation including two-phonon processes would also settle whether the perturbative divergence is physical or an artifact.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Subradiant states, which are completely dark for pinned atoms, can be resonantly excited by a laser through a phonon sideband; the excitation rate can exceed the intrinsic subradiant lifetime by about two orders of magnitude.
  • Transport of subradiant excitations remains ballistic and nearly lossless down to trap frequencies around ν∼0.1γ0 for perpendicular polarization, contradicting the frozen-motion prediction of localization-like breakdown; breakdown occurs only when resonant phonon scattering, which reverses momentum, dominates.
  • The reflectivity of a 2D atomic mirror is limited mainly by resonant scattering into phonon sidebands; increasing the out-of-plane trap frequency or changing the lattice geometry can push reflectivity above 99% on resonance.
  • In the limit ν≪γ0 and for out-of-plane motion, the polaron-polariton input-output theory reduces exactly to the frozen-motion description, while for ν≫γ0 it reduces to the fast-motion averaged description, so the framework interpolates between the two previous limiting approximations.
  • In the event of a recoil, the emitted field is collective and directional when the drive hits a phonon sideband, but reduces to a single recoiling dipole pattern when sidebands are far off resonance—so the scattered light's angular pattern reveals which collective modes are excited.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the predicted logarithmic divergences at saddle points are softened by higher-order phonon processes, the quantitative decay-rate and excitation-rate peaks would saturate, but the organizing role of resonant phonon scattering would likely survive; the authors state the higher-order calculation is beyond the paper's scope.
  • The same phonon-mediated hopping that dresses a single polariton should, for two or more excitations, mediate an effective interaction between polaritons—potentially a new source of photon-photon nonlinearity in atomic arrays, which the paper only mentions as future work.
  • Because the framework treats trap frequency and Lamb-Dicke parameter as independent, it could be applied to species with much smaller linewidths or to non-magic traps by adding an internal-state-dependent potential; the quantitative mirror-loss figures, however, assume magic-wavelength traps and ground-state phonon populations that not all current experiments provide.
  • A direct experimental check would be to measure the mirror loss spectrum versus trap frequency: phonon sideband resonances should appear as sharp loss peaks that move and weaken as the trap frequency is increased, and the zero-phonon reflectivity should recover.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a polaron-polariton framework for subwavelength arrays of trapped atoms, treating atomic motion as phonons coupled to collective dipole excitations (polaritons) via a Fröhlich-type interaction. Starting from a Lamb–Dicke expansion of the non-Hermitian master equation, the authors derive a second-order self-energy (Eq. (14)), quasiparticle energies and spectral weights, and apply the formalism to three central problems: decay and excitation of subradiant states, transport of dark excitations, and the reflectivity of a 2D atomic mirror. The central claim is that resonant phonon-assisted scattering is the organizing principle controlling how motion reshapes collective optical properties, with resonant scattering opening non-radiative decay channels, reversing the momentum of propagating excitations, and dominating mirror loss. The authors also propose schemes to mitigate these losses and to use phonons as a resource for exciting subradiant states, predicting reflectivities above 99% under favorable conditions.

Significance. If the framework holds, it provides a unified, parameter-free description bridging the previously separate fast- and frozen-motion regimes, with direct implications for atomic mirrors, quantum memories, and waveguide QED with subwavelength arrays. The paper is commendable for the analytical transparency of the self-energy derivation, the exact recovery of the frozen-motion limit in Appendix H2, the independent Schrödinger-equation simulations in Sec. IV (Figs. 3–4), and the explicitly stated limitations. The predictions are falsifiable and the formalism is reproducible from the appendices. However, the quantitative claims rest on a second-order perturbative treatment whose validity is explicitly called into question by the paper's own results at saddle-point resonances; this is the main risk to the significance of the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IIIA, Eqs. (23)–(24)] The central mechanism of the paper is resonant phonon-assisted scattering, yet at the saddle point of the dispersion the second-order self-energy diverges logarithmically (Eq. (23)) and the quasiparticle weight vanishes linearly, |Z_p| ~ |ν−ν_c|/(2η² c_p γ₀) (Eq. (24)). The authors state that including higher-order processes is 'beyond the scope of this work' and 'expect it to merely lead to a softening.' This expectation is not derived, and the breakdown occurs precisely in the regime identified as the 'central organizing principle.' Because Eq. (42), the transport conclusions in Sec. IV, and the mirror-loss figures in Sec. V inherit the same divergent density of states, the quantitative predictions are contingent on an unverified resummation. The paper should either provide a controlled higher-order calculation (e.g., a multi-phonon Chevy ansatz or diagrammatic resummation) for the res
  2. [Sec. IVC and Fig. 3(d)] The claimed suppression of transport in the slow-motion limit is attributed to resonant phonon scattering, Γ_ph. However, the paper itself notes that when Γ_ph/Γ_rad is large, the phonon population grows to order unity and the one-phonon truncation becomes invalid for quantitative predictions. The frozen-motion comparison is suggestive, but the crossover and the momentum-reversal mechanism are not controlled beyond second order. A concrete test would be a numerical simulation including two-phonon states in the ν≪γ₀ regime (or a truncated-Wigner approach) to verify that the predicted transport breakdown is not an artifact of the truncation.
  3. [Sec. V and Table I] The claim of reflectivity above 99% under 'realistic conditions' relies on assumptions that are not simultaneously satisfied by current experiments, as the authors acknowledge in Sec. VII: magic-wavelength trapping for ⁸⁷Rb is not yet realized, and ground-state phonon populations are assumed. The paper should clarify which existing platform satisfies all assumptions, and provide a sensitivity estimate for non-magic traps and finite initial phonon population. Without this, the 'realistic conditions' phrasing overstates the direct experimental applicability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical and stylistic inconsistencies: 'Brillioun' (Sec. V), 'aknowledges' (Acknowledgments), 'Polaron-polarition' (Sec. IA), and inconsistent capitalization of 'polaron-polaritons' vs. 'Polaron-Polaritons' in headings. These should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. VI] The text refers to 'Fig. (8)' instead of 'Fig. 8'. Also, the caption of Fig. 8 correctly notes the log-divergent peaks, but the main text should explicitly state that the sharp features are artifacts of the unperturbed dispersion used in Eq. (42), as acknowledged later in the same section.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The definitions of η_α and the condition n_th,α ≪ 1 are introduced somewhat abruptly. A brief statement that these are evaluated independently for each spatial direction and that the isotropic case used later is a specialization would improve readability.
  4. [Reference [22]] Reference [22] is a YouTube link. If there is a published version or a more archival reference for the super- and subradiance experiment, it should be cited instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central quantities are derived from the stated model; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The starting point is a stated Born-Markov dipolar model (Eqs. (1)-(3)); the Lamb-Dicke expansion (Eq. (5)) and Chevy ansatz (Eq. (11)) are explicit approximations, not inputs disguised as predictions. The self-energy (Eq. (14)), quasiparticle weight (Eq. (17)), resonant/off-resonant decomposition (Eqs. (20)-(22)), input-output amplitudes (Eq. (35)), and subradiant excitation rate (Eq. (42)) are all derived from the model's Hamiltonian and Green's function without fitting any parameter to the predicted observable. The zero-point motion correction in Eq. (19) is rederived in Appendix D2 rather than imported; the paper even notes that a prior derivation considered only the far-field contribution and shows this assumption is unnecessary. Agreement with numerical simulations is a consistency check on the same truncated Hamiltonian, while the frozen-motion equivalence is proven analytically in Appendix H2. The only substantive caveat is the one-phonon truncation near saddle-point resonances, where the paper itself states that the second-order result breaks down (Eq. (24)) and that the higher-order calculation is 'beyond the scope of this work, though we expect it to merely lead to a softening' (Sec. IIIA). This is an acknowledged limitation of the perturbative expansion, not a circular reduction: the divergent self-energy is computed, not imposed, and the 'softening' is labeled an expectation, not a derived prediction. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [3, 47, 54]) provide standard, independently published background (pinned-array polaritons, master equation with recoil); the load-bearing motional results do not rest on an unverified self-citation. No equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the model inputs are standard atomic parameters (γ0, d, ν, η) and theoretical assumptions. The main burden rests on the Lamb-Dicke/one-phonon truncation and on the unproven expectation that higher-order corrections only soften saddepoint divergences. The polaron-polariton quasiparticle is derived from the model rather than postulated independently, but it is included for completeness.

axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation for the photon bath; dynamics captured by non-Hermitian Hamiltonian plus recycling term.
    Used in Eq. (1); standard for atomic arrays but assumes memoryless photon reservoir and weak atom-field coupling.
  • domain assumption Lamb-Dicke expansion truncated at second order in the Lamb-Dicke parameter, with at most one phonon.
    Central to the whole framework via Eq. (4) and the Chevy ansatz Eq. (11); limits validity to small η and low phonon occupation.
  • domain assumption Harmonic trapping potential identical for ground and excited states (magic-wavelength trap).
    Assumed in Eq. (2) and discussed in Sec. VII; if the trap is not magic, extra heating modifies the optical response.
  • domain assumption Atoms are initially in their motional ground state and heating is slow compared with internal dynamics.
    Stated in Sec. VII; finite-temperature corrections are only given perturbatively in Eq. (43).
  • domain assumption Linear response: at most one spin excitation; spin-phonon coherences of order higher than η^2 are neglected.
    Used to derive Eqs. (32)-(33) and Appendix H; required for the input-output steady-state solution.
  • standard math Free-space electromagnetic Green's tensor form for dipole-dipole interactions, with G(0) = -iγ0/2.
    Standard quantum-optics result in Appendix D, Eqs. (D1)-(D3); provides the photon-mediated hopping and dissipation structure.
  • domain assumption Large-N/infinite-array limit; replacing sums by Brillouin-zone integrals.
    Used in Eq. (18) and throughout Sec. III; finite-size corrections are not systematically quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper Higher-order processes only soften the saddle-point divergences of the second-order self-energy without changing qualitative conclusions.
    Explicitly left unproven near Eq. (24): 'This calculation is beyond the scope of this work, though we expect it to merely lead to a softening of the appearing resonances.'
invented entities (1)
  • polaron-polariton quasiparticle independent evidence
    purpose: Dressed collective excitation of a spin polariton plus virtual/real phonons; organizes the self-energy, spectral weight, and optical response of trapped-atom arrays.
    Not a new fundamental particle but a derived quasiparticle. Its poles predict measurable decay rates, sideband resonances, and reflectivity spectra; independent truncated Schrödinger simulations in Sec. IV reproduce the predicted decay rate (Fig. 3d).

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polaron-Polaritons in Subwavelength Arrays of Trapped Atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBK3QZ65

@misc{pith2026260121062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polaron-Polaritons in Subwavelength Arrays of Trapped Atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBK3QZ65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.21062}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Subwavelength arrays of atoms trapped in optical lattices or tweezers are inherently susceptible to deformations: Optomechanical forces displace atoms within their trapping potential and produce lattice distortions, which in turn modify the optical response of the array. We show that this optomechanical coupling hybridizes collective atomic excitations (polaritons) with phonons, forming polaron-polaritons -- the fundamental quasiparticles governing light-matter interactions in arrays of trapped atoms. Using analytical polaron theory and numerical simulations, we find that: (1) phonons can strongly enhance the decay of subradiant states, but also enable their efficient excitation; (2) transport of dark excitations remains remarkably robust even at low trap frequencies, except when a polariton can resonantly scatter phonons; and (3) motion reduces the reflectivity of a two-dimensional atomic mirror; by identifying design principles that mitigate this degradation, we recover reflectivity above 99% under realistic conditions. Our findings lay the foundation for analyzing motional effects in key applications and suggest new ways to harness them in state-of-the-art experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.21062 by Ana Asenjo-Garcia, Cosimo C. Rusconi, Daniel Malz, David Castells-Graells, J. Ignacio Cirac, Kristian Knakkergaard Nielsen, Lukas Wangler.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: under different driving conditions. We only keep the far-field component of the emission stemming from the terms in G ¯¯(r) ∝ 1/r. Figures 7(a), 7(e) as well as 7(b), 7(f) describe situations in which the drive is reso￾nant with collective sidebands associated to the modes indicated by the blue line and red circles in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (8) to first order in the Lamb-Dicke approximaiton

    First order spin-phonon coupling Using the specific properties of the free-space Green’s function we obtain explicit expressions for the spin- phonon coupling Eq. (8) to first order in the Lamb-Dicke approximaiton. It is convenient to consider separately the case of 1D and 2D arrays. 1D Arrays.We consider a one-dimensional atomic array aligned along thex-...

  2. [2]

    (A5), can only be obtained in special cases

    Correction to zero-point motion Simple expressions for the zero-point motion correc- tions to the dispersion relation, Eq. (A5), can only be obtained in special cases. In the following we focus on two such cases. The case of isotropic trap frequencies, that we assume in Sec. IV and the case where two trap frequency are equal, that we use in Sec. V. For is...

  3. [3]

    (D16) as the difference of two diverging terms is however not practically feasi- ble

    Com- puting the contribution in Eq. (D16) as the difference of two diverging terms is however not practically feasi- ble. We thus employ a regulation procedure inspired by Refs. [18]. We introduce in Eq. (D7) a Gaussian cutoff e−(p+g)2/Λ2 at a momentum rangeΛ. With this choice, Eq. (D16) reads ∆εp =−η 2 ∥ε(0) p − iη2 ∥γ0 2 + (η2 z−η 2 ∥) ×lim Λ→∞ { 3πiγ0 ...

  4. [4]

    (18) by takingD= 1

    1D Array Self-energy .For a 1D free space array the self-energy is obtained from Eq. (18) by takingD= 1. It reads Σ1D p ≡−η 2d ∫π/d −π/d dq (2π) (gx q,p)2 ε(0) p −ε (0) q −ν+i0 + , (E1) where we assumed the array to be aligned along thex- axis. To correctly evaluate Eq. (E1), it is essential to take care of the divergences of the integrand function. These...

  5. [5]

    (18) by takingD= 2 Σp(ε(0) p ) =−η 2d2 ∫ BZ d2q (2π)2 ∑ α(gα q,p)2 ε(0) p −ε (0) q −ν+i0 + .(E8) To numerically compute Eq

    2D Arrays The contribution to the second-order energy shift from the self-energy for a 2D array is obtained from Eq. (18) by takingD= 2 Σp(ε(0) p ) =−η 2d2 ∫ BZ d2q (2π)2 ∑ α(gα q,p)2 ε(0) p −ε (0) q −ν+i0 + .(E8) To numerically compute Eq. (E8), it is beneficial to write the integral in polar coordinates, because a pole can ap- pear as a function ofq=|q|...

  6. [6]

    (6), (7) and by (A2)

    Details on the numerical simulation Transport of an excitation in a 1D and 2D array are computed by numerically integrating the Schrödinger 1 Details on the numerical simulation 27 equation with the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian ˆH≃ ˆH0 +η ∑ α ˆHα 1 + η2 2 ∑ α,β ˆHαβ 2 ,(G1) where the termsˆH0, ˆHα 1 , and ˆHαβ 2 are given respectively by the real space expre...

  7. [7]

    The results are shown in Figure 12

    Transport in 1D arrays with parallel polarization We now consider transport along a 1D array of paral- lel polarized atoms. The results are shown in Figure 12. As compared to the case of perpendicular polarization, excitation transport deviates from the pinned atom limit at a much larger trap frequency [cf. Fig. 12(a,b) and Fig. 3(a,b)]. This behavior ori...

  8. [8]

    ] .(H6) In the following we consider the Lamb-Dicke regime in Eq

    Steady state of the array at normal incidence The dynamics of the expectation value⟨ˆA⟩= tr[ ˆAρ]of a generic system’s operator is given by the master equa- tion in Appendix C, and reads ∂t⟨ ˆA⟩=i ⣨[ ˆH+ ˆHd, ˆA ]⟩ +γ 0 ∑ n,m ∫ duD(u)× × ⣨ e−ik0u·ˆrm ˆσ+ m [ ˆA,eik0u·ˆrn ˆσ− n ]⟩ , (H5) where we included the driving Hamiltonian in the rotat- ing wave appr...

  9. [9]

    (33), together with the input-output equation Eq

    Frozen motion limit The general result for the steady state of the sys- tem in Eq. (33), together with the input-output equation Eq. (H4), allow to obtain the output field for any value of the atomic trap frequency. In the limit ofν/γ0→0 and considering motion only perpendicular to the array (η∥ = 0), we can show analytically that this result coin- cides ...

  10. [10]

    For a field at siter, this reads ⟨ˆbα,n=0 ˆE+(r)⟩=µ 0ω2 0 [∑ n ¯¯G(r−r n)℘⟨ˆbα,n=0ˆσ− n⟩ −ηα ¯¯Gα(r)⟨ˆσ− 0⟩ ] .(H13) Equation (H13) is derived from Eq

    Output field subject to the detection of a phonon To study the effect of recoil on the scattering more closely, we derive the expression for the output field con- ditioned on the detection of a phonon at the siten=0 of the array. For a field at siter, this reads ⟨ˆbα,n=0 ˆE+(r)⟩=µ 0ω2 0 [∑ n ¯¯G(r−r n)℘⟨ˆbα,n=0ˆσ− n⟩ −ηα ¯¯Gα(r)⟨ˆσ− 0⟩ ] .(H13) Equation (...

  11. [11]

    D. E. Chang, J. S. Douglas, A. González-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031002 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    Hammerer, A

    K. Hammerer, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1041 (2010)

    2010

  13. [13]

    Asenjo-Garcia, M

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Phys. Rev. X7, 031024 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    R. J. Bettles, S. A. Gardiner, and C. S. Adams, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 103602 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    Shahmoon, D

    E. Shahmoon, D. S. Wild, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 113601 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    M. T. Manzoni, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Asenjo- Garcia, J. V. Porto, A. V. Gorshkov, and D. E. Chang, New J. Phys.20, 083048 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    Guimond, A

    P.-O. Guimond, A. Grankin, D. V. Vasilyev, B. Ver- mersch, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 093601 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    Solomons, R

    Y. Solomons, R. Ben-Maimon, and E. Shahmoon, PRX Quantum5, 020329 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Moreno-Cardoner, D

    M. Moreno-Cardoner, D. Goncalves, and D. E. Chang, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 263602 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Porras and J

    D. Porras and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A78, 053816 (2008)

    2008

  21. [21]

    Bekenstein, I

    R. Bekenstein, I. Pikovski, H. Pichler, E. Shahmoon, S. F. Yelin, and M. D. Lukin, Nature Physics16, 676 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    Zhang, V

    L. Zhang, V. Walther, K. Mølmer, and T. Pohl, Quan- tum6, 674 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    A. V. Gorshkov, A. André, M. Fleischhauer, A. S. Sørensen, andM.D.Lukin,Phys.Rev.Lett.98,123601 (2007)

    2007

  24. [24]

    J. D. Thompson, T. L. Nicholson, Q.-Y. Liang, S. H. Cantu, A. V. Venkatramani, S. Choi, I. A. Fedorov, D. Viscor, T. Pohl, M. D. Lukin,et al., Nature542, 206 (2017). 32

    2017

  25. [25]

    K. E. Ballantine and J. Ruostekoski, PRX Quantum2, 040362 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Rubies-Bigorda, V

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, V. Walther, T. L. Patti, and S. F. Yelin, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013110 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    S. V. Syzranov, M. L. Wall, B. Zhu, V. Gurarie, and A. M. Rey, Nature communications7, 13543 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    Perczel, J

    J. Perczel, J. Borregaard, D. E. Chang, H. Pichler, S. F. Yelin, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 023603 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Perczel, J

    J. Perczel, J. Borregaard, D. E. Chang, H. Pichler, S. F. Yelin, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A96, 063801 (2017)

    2017

  30. [30]

    Henriet, J

    L. Henriet, J. S. Douglas, D. E. Chang, and A. Al- brecht, Phys. Rev. A99, 023802 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    Fayard, L

    N. Fayard, L. Henriet, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and D. E. Chang, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033233 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Super- and sub- radiance beyond the dicke limit,

    M. Greiner, “Super- and sub- radiance beyond the dicke limit,” https://youtu.be/ho3Goqa6tPQ?si=fGaXa0iwUwYdor9l (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Multi-excitation scattering in subwavelength atomic arrays,

    Y. Wang, O. Rubies-Bigorda, V. Walther, and S. F. Yelin, “Multi-excitation scattering in subwavelength atomic arrays,” (2025), arXiv:2509.17148 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    M.Moreno-Cardoner, D.Plankensteiner, L.Ostermann, D. E. Chang, and H. Ritsch, Phys. Rev. A100, 023806 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    S.J.MassonandA.Asenjo-Garcia,Phys.Rev.Research 2, 043213 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Brechtelsbauer and D

    K. Brechtelsbauer and D. Malz, Phys. Rev. A104, 013701 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    T. L. Patti, D. S. Wild, E. Shahmoon, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 223602 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Castells-Graells, D

    D. Castells-Graells, D. Malz, C. C. Rusconi, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A104, 063707 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    Buckley-Bonanno, S

    S. Buckley-Bonanno, S. Ostermann, O. Rubies-Bigorda, T. L. Patti, and S. F. Yelin, Phys. Rev. A106, 053706 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    The maximum refractiveindexofanatomiccrystal–fromquantumop- tics to quantum chemistry,

    F. Andreoli, B. Windt, S. Grava, G. M. Andolina, M. J. Gullans, A. A. High, and D. E. Chang, “The maximum refractiveindexofanatomiccrystal–fromquantumop- tics to quantum chemistry,” (2023), arXiv:2303.10998 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Glicenstein, G

    A. Glicenstein, G. Ferioli, N. Šibalić, L. Brossard, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 253602 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Hollerith, J. Zeiher, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, Nature 583, 369 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Srakaew, P

    K. Srakaew, P. Weckesser, S. Hollerith, D. Wei, D. Adler, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Nature Physics19, 714 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    R. B. Hutson, W. R. Milner, L. Yan, J. Ye, and C. San- ner, Science383, 384 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Holman, Y

    A. Holman, Y. Xu, X. Sun, J. Wu, M. Wang, Z. Zhu, B. Seo, N. Yu, and S. Will, Nature (2026), 10.1038/s41586-025-09961-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09961-5 2026

  46. [46]

    Hofer, D

    B. Hofer, D. Bloch, G. Biagioni, N. Bonvalet, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, PRX Quantum 6, 030364 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Olmos, D

    B. Olmos, D. Yu, Y. Singh, F. Schreck, K. Bongs, and I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 143602 (2013)

    2013

  48. [48]

    R. J. Bettles, S. A. Gardiner, and C. S. Adams, Phys. Rev. A92, 063822 (2015)

    2015

  49. [49]

    F. m. c. Damanet, D. Braun, and J. Martin, Phys. Rev. A93, 022124 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    Asenjo-Garcia, H

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, H. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 25503 (2019)

    2019

  51. [51]

    J. A. Needham, I. Lesanovsky, and B. Olmos, New Journal of Physics21, 073061 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    Shahmoon, M

    E. Shahmoon, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin (Academic Press, 2019) pp. 1–38

    2019

  53. [53]

    Shahmoon, M

    E. Shahmoon, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, Phys. Rev. A101, 063833 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Shahmoon, D

    E. Shahmoon, D. S. Wild, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.01973 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  55. [55]

    Shahmoon, D

    E. Shahmoon, D. S. Wild, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.01972 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  56. [56]

    R. J. Bettles, M. D. Lee, S. A. Gardiner, and J. Ru- ostekoski, Communications Physics3, 141 (2020)

    2020

  57. [57]

    C. C. Rusconi, T. Shi, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 104, 033718 (2021)

    2021

  58. [58]

    A105, 043703 (2022)

    R.Gutiérrez-JáureguiandA.Asenjo-Garcia,Phys.Rev. A105, 043703 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    Castells-Graells, J

    D. Castells-Graells, J. I. Cirac, and D. S. Wild, Phys. Rev. A111, 053712 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    Olmos and I

    B. Olmos and I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 243602 (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Robicheaux and S

    F. Robicheaux and S. Huang, Phys. Rev. A99, 013410 (2019)

    2019

  62. [62]

    D. A. Suresh and F. Robicheaux, Phys. Rev. A103, 043722 (2021)

    2021

  63. [63]

    D. A. Suresh and F. Robicheaux, Phys. Rev. A105, 033706 (2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    Rubies-Bigorda, R

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, R. Holzinger, A. Asenjo-Garcia, O.Romero-Isart, H.Ritsch, S.Ostermann, C.Gonzalez- Ballestero, S. F. Yelin, and C. C. Rusconi, Phys. Rev. A112, 023714 (2025)

    2025

  65. [65]

    P. R. Berman, Phys. Rev. A55, 4466 (1997)

    1997

  66. [66]

    Robicheaux, Phys

    F. Robicheaux, Phys. Rev. A111, 013711 (2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    Eltohfa and F

    M. Eltohfa and F. Robicheaux, Phys. Rev. A112, 023112 (2025)

    2025

  68. [68]

    X. Deng, V. E. Kravtsov, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 110602 (2018)

    2018

  69. [69]

    Asenjo-Garcia, J

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, J. D. Hood, D. E. Chang, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A95, 033818 (2017)

    2017

  70. [70]

    Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences215, 291 (1952)

    H.Fröhlich,ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences215, 291 (1952)

    1952

  71. [71]

    L. D. Landau, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion3, 644 (1933)

    1933

  72. [72]

    L. D. Landau and S. I. Pekar, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.18 (1948)

    1948

  73. [73]

    Barišić, J

    S. Barišić, J. Labbé, and J. Friedel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 919 (1970)

    1970

  74. [74]

    Zhang, N

    C. Zhang, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. B104, 035143 (2021)

    2021

  75. [75]

    Chevy, Phys

    F. Chevy, Phys. Rev. A74, 063628 (2006)

    2006

  76. [76]

    Scarlatella, A

    O. Scarlatella, A. A. Clerk, and M. Schiro, New Journal of Physics21, 043040 (2019)

    2019

  77. [77]

    Sidler, P

    M. Sidler, P. Back, O. Cotlet, A. Srivastava, T. Fink, M. Kroner, E. Demler, and A. Imamoglu, Nature Physics13, 255 (2017)

    2017

  78. [78]

    L. B. Tan, O. Cotlet, A. Bergschneider, R. Schmidt, P. Back, Y. Shimazaki, M. Kroner, and A. m. c. İmamoğlu, Phys. Rev. X10, 021011 (2020)

    2020

  79. [79]

    K. K. Nielsen, A. Camacho-Guardian, G. M. Bruun, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 035301 (2020). 33

    2020

  80. [80]

    Camacho-Guardian, K

    A. Camacho-Guardian, K. K. Nielsen, T. Pohl, and G. M. Bruun, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023102 (2020)

    2020

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.