Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 79 references

Polarization-Resolved Photon Statistics of Cavity Quantum Materials

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Polarization-resolved g^{(2)} of cavity-transmitted photons encodes magnetic point-group symmetries of quantum materials.

desk verdict Polarization-resolved g^(2) offers a concrete way to read magnetic symmetries in this cavity spin model, but the mapping to Raman factors needs checking against losses. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.11550 v1 pith:B7BKPZHG submitted 2026-06-10 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-elphysics.opticsquant-ph

Benjamin Kass , Spenser Talkington , Martin Claassen This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-elphysics.opticsquant-ph
keywords photonstatisticsg(2)correlationfunctioncavityQEDKitaev-Heisenbergmodelmagneticpoint-groupsymmetriesRamanstructurefactorlight-mattercouplingpolarization-resolvedmeasurements
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that the second-order photon correlation function g^{(2)}, measured in a polarization-resolved way for light transmitted through an optical cavity, can be directly related to material correlation functions such as the Raman structure factor. This relation ties observable patterns of photon bunching and antibunching to the underlying properties of the embedded quantum material. When demonstrated on the stripy-to-antiferromagnetic transition in the Kitaev-Heisenberg spin model, the polarization dependence of these patterns distinguishes the magnetic symmetries of each phase and tracks changes at the boundary. The work further shows that g^{(2)} collected on output photons polarized orthogonal to the input isolates higher-order scattering channels that access higher-order material correlations.

What carries the argument

The direct mapping of polarization-resolved cavity g^{(2)} onto the Raman structure factor (and higher-order matter correlations), which converts photon statistics into signatures of magnetic symmetries.

What would settle it

Experimental g^{(2)} patterns measured on a cavity containing a Kitaev-Heisenberg material that fail to match the polarization-dependent symmetries predicted from its Raman structure factor would falsify the mapping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By relating g^{(2)} to matter correlation functions such as the Raman structure factor, polarization-resolved photon statistics of cavity-transmitted light link bunching and antibunching directly to material properties. Applied to the Kitaev-Heisenberg model, polarization-dependent patterns of bunching and antibunching encode the magnetic point-group symmetries of the stripy and antiferromagnetic phases and characterize the phase boundary. Measuring g^{(2)} for output photon pairs polarized orthogonal to the input isolates higher-order light-matter scattering processes that probe higher-order material correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The direct mapping from cavity-transmitted polarization-resolved g^{(2)} to the Raman structure factor holds without dominant cavity-loss or multi-mode effects altering the relation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Polarization-dependent bunching and antibunching patterns distinguish the magnetic point-group symmetries of different phases.
  • The same patterns characterize the behavior across the stripy-to-antiferromagnetic phase boundary.
  • Orthogonal-polarization g^{(2)} measurements isolate higher-order light-matter scattering that accesses higher-order correlations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method could serve as a non-invasive probe for tracking magnetic phase transitions in real time via changes in photon statistics.
  • Similar polarization-resolved correlation measurements might extend to other cavity-embedded spin or charge systems to read out their symmetry properties.
  • The orthogonal-polarization channel opens a route to access multi-particle material correlations that are otherwise difficult to isolate optically.
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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that polarization-resolved second-order photon correlation functions g^{(2)} measured on light transmitted through an optical cavity provide a diagnostic for material properties in cavity quantum materials. By relating g^{(2)} to matter correlation functions such as the Raman structure factor, the authors link photon bunching and antibunching to material symmetries; applying this to the stripy-to-antiferromagnetic transition in the Kitaev-Heisenberg model, they find that polarization-dependent patterns encode the magnetic point-group symmetries of each phase and the behavior at the phase boundary. They further predict that g^{(2)} for output pairs polarized orthogonal to the input isolates higher-order light-matter scattering processes probing higher-order material correlations.

Significance. If the central mapping is robust, the work supplies a concrete, experimentally accessible optical route to characterize light-matter coupling and magnetic symmetries in cavity-embedded materials, extending beyond conventional spectroscopy. The explicit application to the Kitaev-Heisenberg model with symmetry-specific predictions and the suggestion for isolating higher-order correlations constitute clear strengths; the absence of free parameters in the core relations is also noted positively.

major comments (2)
  1. [Derivation of g^{(2)} to Raman mapping] The derivation of the g^{(2)}–Raman structure factor mapping (central to §§ on the relation between photon statistics and matter correlations) is performed in the ideal single-mode, lossless limit. The manuscript does not provide a perturbative analysis or numerical test showing how finite cavity loss or multi-mode effects modify the extracted symmetry encoding; because this mapping is load-bearing for the claim that polarization patterns diagnose magnetic point-group symmetries, the robustness under realistic parameters must be demonstrated.
  2. [Kitaev-Heisenberg phase analysis] In the Kitaev-Heisenberg application (section on the stripy-to-AFM transition), the polarization-dependent bunching/antibunching patterns are asserted to encode the point-group symmetries, but no explicit comparison is given between the ideal mapping and the same quantities computed with a Lindblad or input-output treatment that includes cavity decay; this leaves open whether the reported patterns survive under the loss rates typical of the cited cavity platforms.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the polarization basis and the definition of the input versus output polarization channels should be introduced with an explicit figure or equation early in the text to avoid ambiguity when discussing orthogonal-pair g^{(2)}.
  2. The abstract states the mapping to the Raman structure factor but does not indicate the order of the correlation functions retained; a brief statement of the truncation or exact relation used would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive assessment of its significance. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Derivation of g^{(2)} to Raman mapping] The derivation of the g^{(2)}–Raman structure factor mapping (central to §§ on the relation between photon statistics and matter correlations) is performed in the ideal single-mode, lossless limit. The manuscript does not provide a perturbative analysis or numerical test showing how finite cavity loss or multi-mode effects modify the extracted symmetry encoding; because this mapping is load-bearing for the claim that polarization patterns diagnose magnetic point-group symmetries, the robustness under realistic parameters must be demonstrated.

    Authors: The g^{(2)}–Raman mapping is derived exactly in the single-mode, lossless limit because this is the regime in which the connection to the matter correlation functions is direct, exact, and free of additional parameters. This limit isolates the symmetry properties of the material that are encoded in the polarization dependence. The point-group symmetry signatures arise from the structure of the Raman tensor and the spin correlations; these are intrinsic features that are not altered by the idealization. While finite loss and multi-mode effects are relevant for experiment, they lie outside the scope of the present work, which establishes the fundamental diagnostic in the limit where the mapping holds without approximation. revision: no

  2. Referee: [Kitaev-Heisenberg phase analysis] In the Kitaev-Heisenberg application (section on the stripy-to-AFM transition), the polarization-dependent bunching/antibunching patterns are asserted to encode the point-group symmetries, but no explicit comparison is given between the ideal mapping and the same quantities computed with a Lindblad or input-output treatment that includes cavity decay; this leaves open whether the reported patterns survive under the loss rates typical of the cited cavity platforms.

    Authors: The polarization patterns reported for the stripy and antiferromagnetic phases are obtained by direct application of the ideal mapping to the Raman structure factors of the Kitaev-Heisenberg model. Because the mapping is exact in the considered limit, the patterns necessarily encode the magnetic point-group symmetries of each phase. The manuscript does not include a Lindblad or input-output calculation with decay because the central claim concerns the information carried by g^{(2)} in the ideal case; such a calculation would constitute a separate, more applied study. The cited cavity platforms are high-Q systems for which the ideal limit provides the appropriate theoretical benchmark. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper presents a theoretical relation between polarization-resolved photon g^{(2)} and matter correlation functions (e.g., Raman structure factor) to connect optical observables to magnetic point-group symmetries in the Kitaev-Heisenberg model. This mapping is derived from the cavity QED setup rather than obtained by fitting parameters to data or by self-referential definition. No load-bearing steps reduce to self-citations, ansatzes smuggled via prior work, or renaming of known results by construction. The central claim that polarization patterns encode phase symmetries follows from the stated relation under the ideal-cavity assumption and remains independent of the inputs.

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

Abstract-only; the central claim rests on the unverified domain assumption that cavity g^(2) faithfully reports the Raman structure factor and higher-order correlations without additional cavity-induced modifications.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Cavity-transmitted polarization-resolved g^(2) maps directly onto the material Raman structure factor and higher-order correlations.
    This mapping is required to link photon statistics to material properties and symmetries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarization-Resolved Photon Statistics of Cavity Quantum Materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7BKPZHG

@misc{pith2026260611550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarization-Resolved Photon Statistics of Cavity Quantum Materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7BKPZHG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.11550}
}
abstract

By forming hybrid light-matter states, optical cavities offer a route for engineering material properties, however, unambiguously probing the effects of light-matter coupling remains difficult. Here, we show that the polarization-resolved statistics of photons transmitted through a cavity, measurable via $g^{(2)}$, provide one such diagnostic. By relating $g^{(2)}$ to matter correlation functions such as the Raman structure factor, we link photon bunching and antibunching to material properties. By applying this method to the stripy-to-antiferromagnetic transition in the Kitaev-Heisenberg spin model, we find that polarization-dependent patterns of bunching and antibunching encode the magnetic point-group symmetries of each phase and characterize the behavior at the phase boundary. Finally, we predict measuring $g^{(2)}$ for output photon pairs polarized orthogonal to the input field will isolate higher-order light-matter scattering processes that probe higher-order material correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.11550 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (d) shows the resulting coincidence spectrum g (2)(ωic) versus the J-K mixing angle ϕ with model pa￾rameters specified in the caption. The input frequency detuning ωic = ωin − ωc subtracts the elementary cavity one-photon resonance ωc, which can be obtained exper￾imentally via transmission and can be interpreted as a shifted bare cavity resonance due to changes in the intra￾cavity dielectric constant from the materi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows G(1)(ωic) across the stripy-to-AFM QPT with the same parameters as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Diagrams for amplitudes contributing to the un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Scattering amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We note that a faithful representation of the KSL excitation spectrum however requires access to larger system sizes inaccessible using exact diagonalization

    as described in the polarization-rotated channel could potentially probe non-local andZ 2 flux operators. We note that a faithful representation of the KSL excitation spectrum however requires access to larger system sizes inaccessible using exact diagonalization. In Kitaev-Heisenberg materials, including Na 2IrO3, α-RuCl3, andα-Li 2IrO3, substantial effo...

  2. [2]

    Bloch, A

    J. Bloch, A. Cavalleri, V. Galitski, M. Hafezi, and A. Ru- bio, Strongly correlated electron–photon systems, Nature 606, 41 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Schlawin, D

    F. Schlawin, D. Kennes, and M. A. Sentef, Cavity quantum materials, Applied Physics Reviews9, 011312 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    H¨ ubener, U

    H. H¨ ubener, U. de Giovannini, C. Sch¨ afer, J. Andberger, M. Ruggenthaler, J. Faist, and A. Rubio, Engineering quantum materials with chiral optical cavities, Nature Materials20, 438 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    H¨ ubener, E

    H. H¨ ubener, E. V. Bostr¨ om, M. Claassen, S. Latini, and A. Rubio, Quantum materials engineering by structured cavity vacuum fluctuations, Materials for Quantum Tech- nology4, 023002 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Garc´ ıa-Vidal, C

    F. Garc´ ıa-Vidal, C. Ciuti, and T. Ebbesen, Manipulating matter by strong coupling to vacuum fields, Science373, abd0336 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    H. M. Bretscher, L. Graziotto, M. H. Michael, A. Mon- tanaro, I.-T. Lu, A. Grankin, J. W. McIver, J. Faist, D. Fausti, M. Eckstein,et al., Fluctuation engineering in cavity quantum materials, arXiv2604, 08666 (2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    Appugliese, J

    F. Appugliese, J. Enkner, G. L. Paravicini-Bagliani, M. Beck, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, G. Scalari, C. Ciuti, and J. Faist, Breakdown of topological protection by cav- ity vacuum fields in the integer quantum Hall effect, Sci- ence375, 1030 (2022)

    2022

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Enkner, L

    J. Enkner, L. Graziotto, D. Borici, F. Appugliese, C. Re- ichl, G. Scalari, N. Regnault, W. Wegscheider, C. Ciuti, and J. Faist, Tunable vacuum-field control of fractional and integer quantum Hall phases, Nature641, 884 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Graziotto, J

    L. Graziotto, J. Enkner, S. Chattopadhyay, J. B. Cur- tis, E. Koskas, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, G. Scalari, E. Demler, and J. Faist, Cavity QED Control of Quan- tum Hall Stripes, arXiv2502, 15490 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    M. A. Sentef, M. Ruggenthaler, and A. Rubio, Cav- ity quantum-electrodynamical polaritonically enhanced electron-phonon coupling and its influence on supercon- ductivity, Sci. Adv.4, eaau6969 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Schlawin, A

    F. Schlawin, A. Cavalleri, and D. Jaksch, Cavity- mediated electron-photon superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 133602 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Grankin, M

    A. Grankin, M. Hafezi, and V. M. Galitski, Enhance- ment of superconductivity with external phonon squeez- ing, Phys. Rev. B104, L220503 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    J. B. Curtis, Z. M. Raines, A. A. Allocca, M. Hafezi, and V. M. Galitski, Cavity quantum Eliashberg enhance- ment of superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 167002 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Thomas, E

    A. Thomas, E. Devaux, K. Nagarajan, T. Chervy, M. Sei- del, G. Rogez, J. Robert, M. Drillon, T.-T. Ruan, S. Schlittenhardt,et al., Exploring superconductivity un- der strong coupling with the vacuum electromagnetic field, J. Chem. Phys.162, 134701 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Keren, T

    I. Keren, T. A. Webb, S. Zhang, J. Xu, D. Sun, B. S. Y. Kim, D. Shin, S. S. Zhang, J. Zhang, G. Pereira, et al., Cavity-altered superconductivity, Nature650, 864 (2026)

    2026

  9. [17]

    H. Xu, A. Baydin, Q. Yi, I.-T. Lu, N. Zhu, T. E. Kritzell, J. Doumani, D. Kim, F. Tay, A. Rubio,et al., Vacuum- dressed superconductivity in NbN observed in a high-Q terahertz cavity, arXiv2601, 08191 (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    G. Jarc, S. Y. Mathengattil, A. Montanaro, F. Giusti, E. M. Rigoni, R. Sergo, F. Fassioli, S. Winnerl, S. Dal Zilio, D. Mihailovic,et al., Cavity-mediated ther- mal control of metal-to-insulator transition in 1T-TaS2, Nature622, 487 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Fassioli, J

    F. Fassioli, J. Faist, M. Eckstein, and D. Fausti, Control- ling radiative heat flow through cavity electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. B111, 165425 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Weber, E

    L. Weber, E. Vi˜ nas Bostr¨ om, M. Claassen, A. Rubio, and D. M. Kennes, Cavity-renormalized quantum criti- cality in a honeycomb bilayer antiferromagnet, Commu- nications Physics6, 247 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    B. Kass, S. Talkington, A. Srivastava, and M. Claassen, Many-Body Photon Blockade and Quantum Light Generation from Cavity Quantum Materials (2024), arXiv:2411.08964 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024

  14. [22]

    S. Sur, Y. Wang, M. Mahankali, S. Paschen, and Q. Si, Amplified response of cavity-coupled quantum-critical systems, arXiv2509, 26620 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Chiocchetta, D

    A. Chiocchetta, D. Kiese, C. P. Zelle, F. Piazza, and S. Diehl, Cavity-induced quantum spin liquids, Nature Communications12, 5901 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Vi˜ nas Bostr¨ om, A

    E. Vi˜ nas Bostr¨ om, A. Sriram, M. Claassen, and A. Rubio, Controlling the magnetic state of the proximate quantum spin liquidα-RuCl3 with an optical cavity, npj Comput. Mater.9, 202 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Nambiar, A

    G. Nambiar, A. Grankin, and M. Hafezi, Diagnosing elec- tronic phases of matter using photonic correlation func- tions, Phys. Rev. X15, 041020 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Orgiu, J

    E. Orgiu, J. George, J. Hutchison, E. Devaux, J. Dayen, B. Doudin, F. Stellacci, C. Genet, J. Schachenmayer, C. Genes, G. Pupillo, P. Samor´ ı, and T. Ebbesen, Con- ductivity in organic semiconductors hybridized with the vacuum field., Nature materials14, 1123 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Ebbesen, Hybrid Light-Matter States in a Molecular and Material Science Perspective, Accounts of Chemical Research49, 2403 (2016)

    T. Ebbesen, Hybrid Light-Matter States in a Molecular and Material Science Perspective, Accounts of Chemical Research49, 2403 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    D. M. Juraschek, T. Neuman, J. Flick, and P. Narang, Cavity control of nonlinear phononics, Physical Review Research3, L032046 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Mazza and A

    G. Mazza and A. Georges, Superradiant Quantum Ma- terials, Physical Review Letters122, 017401 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Kiffner, J

    M. Kiffner, J. R. Coulthard, F. Schlawin, A. Ardavan, and D. Jaksch, Manipulating quantum materials with 11 quantum light, Phys. Rev. B99, 085116 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Nagarajan, A

    K. Nagarajan, A. Thomas, and T. Ebbesen, Chemistry under Vibrational Strong Coupling, Journal of the Amer- ican Chemical Society143, 16877 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Latini, D

    S. Latini, D. Shin, S. A. Sato, C. Sch¨ afer, U. D. Giovan- nini, H. H¨ ubener, and A. Rubio, The ferroelectric photo ground state of SrTiO 3: Cavity materials engineering, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2105618118 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    C. J. Eckhardt, G. Passetti, M. Othman, C. Karrasch, F. Cavaliere, M. A. Sentef, and D. M. Kennes, Quan- tum Floquet engineering with an exactly solvable tight- binding chain in a cavity, Communications Physics5, 122 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Passetti, C

    G. Passetti, C. J. Eckhardt, M. A. Sentef, and D. M. Kennes, Cavity Light-Matter Entanglement through Quantum Fluctuations, Physical Review Letters131, 023601 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Shaffer, M

    D. Shaffer, M. Claassen, A. Srivastava, and L. H. Santos, Entanglement and topology in Su-Schrieffer-Heeger cav- ity quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. B109, 155160 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    G. Kipp, H. M. Bretscher, B. Schulte, D. Herrmann, K. Kusyak, M. W. Day, S. Kesavan, T. Matsuyama, X. Li, S. M. Langner, J. Hagelstein, F. Sturm, A. M. Potts, C. J. Eckhardt, Y. Huang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, A. Rubio, D. M. Kennes, M. A. Sentef, E. Baudin, G. Meier, M. H...

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Mandel, Fluctuations of photon beams: the distri- bution of the photo-electrons, Proc

    L. Mandel, Fluctuations of photon beams: the distri- bution of the photo-electrons, Proc. Phys. Soc.74, 233 (1959)

    1959

  30. [38]

    R. J. Glauber, The quantum theory of optical coherence, Phys. Rev.130, 2529 (1963)

    1963

  31. [39]

    R. H. Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Correlation between pho- tons in two coherent beams of light, Nature177, 27 (1956)

    1956

  32. [40]

    Paul, Photon antibunching, Rev

    H. Paul, Photon antibunching, Rev. Mod. Phys.54, 1061 (1982)

    1982

  33. [41]

    D. E. Chang, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum nonlinear optics—photon by photon, Nature Photonics 8, 685 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Ridolfo, M

    A. Ridolfo, M. Leib, S. Savasta, and M. J. Hartmann, Photon blockade in the ultrastrong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 193602 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Flayac and V

    H. Flayac and V. Savona, Input-output theory of the un- conventional photon blockade, Phys. Rev. A88, 033836 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    H. Goto, S. Mizukami, Y. Tokunaga, and T. Aoki, Fig- ure of merit for single-photon generation based on cav- ity quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A99, 053843 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Heinisch, F

    N. Heinisch, F. Salusti, M. R. Hogg, T. L. Baltisberger, M. A. Marczak, S. R. Valentin, A. Ludwig, K. D. J¨ ons, R. J. Warburton, and S. Schumacher, High-quality single photons from cavity-enhanced biexciton-to-exciton tran- sition, arXiv2602, 18153 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    Trivedi, M

    R. Trivedi, M. Radulaski, K. A. Fischer, S. Fan, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Photon blockade in weakly driven cavity quantum electrodynamics systems with many emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 243602 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    M. Chen, J. Tang, L. Tang, H. Wu, and K. Xia, Pho- ton blockade and single-photon generation with multiple quantum emitters, Phys. Rev. Research4, 033083 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Delteil, T

    A. Delteil, T. Fink, A. Schade, S. Hofling, C. Schneider, and A. Imamoglu, Towards polariton blockade of con- fined exciton–polaritons, Nat. Mater.18, 219 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Talkington, B

    S. Talkington, B. Kass, and M. Claassen, Ultrastrong Coupling Signatures in Photon Statistics from Terahertz Higgs-Polaritons (2026), arXiv:2604.15417 [cond-mat.str- el]

    2026 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Grunwald, E

    L. Grunwald, E. V. Bostr¨ om, M. K. Svendsen, D. M. Kennes, and A. Rubio, Cavity spectroscopy for strongly correlated polaritonic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 246901 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    D. L. Rousseau, R. P. Bauman, and S. Porto, Normal mode determination in crystals, J. Raman Spectroscopy 10, 253 (1981)

    1981

  44. [52]

    T. P. Devereaux and R. Hackl, Inelastic light scatter- ing from correlated electrons, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 175 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    C. W. Gardiner, Driving a quantum system with the output field from another driven quantum system, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2269 (1993)

    1993

  46. [54]

    Gardiner and M

    C. Gardiner and M. Collett, Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differential equa- tions and the master equation, Phys. Rev. A31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  47. [55]

    M. A. Sentef, J. Li, F. K¨ unzel, and M. Eckstein, Quantum to classical crossover of Floquet engineering in correlated quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033033 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Reiserer and G

    A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Cavity-based quantum net- works with single atoms and optical photons, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1379 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Mott Insulators in the Strong Spin-Orbit Coupling Limit: From Heisenberg to a Quantum Compass and Kitaev Models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    J. c. v. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Zigzag Magnetic Order in the Iridium Oxide Na 2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 097204 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Generic Spin Model for the Honeycomb Iridates beyond the Kitaev Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 077204 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    S. M. Winter, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent´ ı, Chal- lenges in design of Kitaev materials: Magnetic interac- tions from competing energy scales, Phys. Rev. B93, 214431 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, M. Daghofer, J. van den Brink, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, and R. Valent´ ı, Models and materials for generalized Kitaev magnetism, J Phys Condens Matter29, 493002 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Gotfryd, J

    D. Gotfryd, J. Rusnaˇ cko, K. Wohlfeld, G. Jackeli, J. c. v. Chaloupka, and A. M. Ole´ s, Phase diagram and spin cor- relations of the Kitaev-Heisenberg model: Importance of quantum effects, Phys. Rev. B95, 024426 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, P. A. Maksimov, A. L. Chernyshev, A. Honecker, and R. Valent´ ı, Breakdown of magnons in a strongly spin-orbital coupled magnet, Nature Communications8, 1152 (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    Sriram and M

    A. Sriram and M. Claassen, Light-induced control of magnetic phases in Kitaev quantum magnets, Physical Review Research4, L032036 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    Singh and P

    Y. Singh and P. Gegenwart, Antiferromagnetic Mott in- sulating state in single crystals of the honeycomb lattice 12 material Na2IrO3, Phys. Rev. B82, 064412 (2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    X. Liu, T. Berlijn, W.-G. Yin, W. Ku, A. Tsvelik, Y.-J. Kim, H. Gretarsson, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, and J. P. Hill, Long-range magnetic ordering in Na 2IrO3, Phys. Rev. B83, 220403 (2011)

    2011

  59. [67]

    Singh, S

    Y. Singh, S. Manni, J. Reuther, T. Berlijn, R. Thomale, W. Ku, S. Trebst, and P. Gegenwart, Relevance of the Heisenberg-Kitaev Model for the Honeycomb Lattice Iri- datesA 2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 127203 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    S. C. Williams, R. D. Johnson, F. Freund, S. Choi, A. Jesche, I. Kimchi, S. Manni, A. Bombardi, P. Manuel, P. Gegenwart, and R. Coldea, Incommensurate counter- rotating magnetic order stabilized by Kitaev interactions in the layered honeycombα−Li 2IrO3, Phys. Rev. B93, 195158 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    H. B. Cao, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, B. C. Chak- oumakos, and S. E. Nagler, Low-temperature crystal and magnetic structure ofα−RuCl 3, Phys. Rev. B93, 134423 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    Banerjee, J

    A. Banerjee, J. Yan, J. Knolle, C. A. Bridges, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Neutron scattering in the proximate quantum spin liquidα-RuCl3, Science356, 1055 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Baek, S.-H

    S.-H. Baek, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, Y. S. Kwon, A. U. B. Wolter, S. Nishimoto, J. van den Brink, and B. B¨ uchner, Evidence for a Field-Induced Quantum Spin Liquid in α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 037201 (2017)

    2017

  64. [72]

    Zheng, K

    J. Zheng, K. Ran, T. Li, J. Wang, P. Wang, B. Liu, Z.- X. Liu, B. Normand, J. Wen, and W. Yu, Gapless Spin Excitations in the Field-Induced Quantum Spin Liquid Phase ofα−RuCl 3, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 227208 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Stahl, T

    Q. Stahl, T. Ritschel, G. Garbarino, F. Cova, A. Isaeva, T. Doert, and J. Geck, Pressure-tuning ofα-RuCl3 to- wards a quantum spin liquid, Nature Communications 15, 8142 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Flamini, N

    F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quantum information processing: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 016001 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nat. Photonics1, 165 (2007)

    2007

  68. [76]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    Talkington, A

    S. Talkington, A. Chakraborty, and M. Claassen, Manip- ulating quantum input light with cavity quantum mate- rials, forthcoming (2026)

    2026

  70. [78]

    Winkler,Spin—Orbit Coupling Effects in Two- Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003) pp

    R. Winkler,Spin—Orbit Coupling Effects in Two- Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003) pp. 201–205. Appendix A: Kitaev Material Phases and Biasing For the purposes of fitting light-matter coupling, we used a fullJ-K-Γ model, ...

    2003

  71. [79]

    (A1) forα-RuCl 3

    to estimateJ,K, Γ, and Γ ′ of theJ-K-Γ model of Eq. (A1) forα-RuCl 3. This involves starting from a Hubbard-Kanamori Hamiltonian plus hopping terms for electrons in Ru 3+ d-orbitals, intermediated by Cl – p-orbitals, corresponding to a singlexy(z) bond of the J-K-Γ model. This...

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.