Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Bridging distributed quantum materials via multi-hotspot vacuum: remote Cooper pairing and Andreev teleportation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single cavity mode can glue two millimeter-apart quantum materials into one correlated, superconducting-like state using only its vacuum fluctuations.

desk verdict A genuinely new equilibrium architecture for remote Cooper pairing via multi-gap cavity vacuum, but the central interaction's regime of validity is under-specified and the direct numerical evidence uses stronger coupling than the simulated value. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18916 v1 pith:7QVB5LE2 submitted 2026-07-21 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-con

Zuzhang Lin , Zhijian Song , Chengxin Xiao , Wang Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con
keywords cavityquantumelectrodynamicsvacuumfluctuationssplit-ringresonatormoirésuperlatticeremoteCooperpairingAndreevteleportationmesoscopicsuperconductivitycurrent-currentinteraction
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 argues that the vacuum fluctuations of a single cavity photon can act as a shared glue between mesoscopic quantum materials placed at separate hot spots of the same mode. The concrete proposal is a terahertz split-ring resonator with two split gaps, each hosting a metallic moiré superlattice; virtual exchange of a photon between the gaps produces an attractive current–current interaction strong enough to bind a pair whose partners live in different, millimeter-separated lattices. The authors show numerically that the two lattices enter a paired ground state with a critical temperature up to roughly 20 K, that the entanglement between the lattices grows linearly with their size, and that a hole entering one gap is converted into an electron leaving the other—Andreev teleportation. If correct, the result extends cavity control of matter from modifying properties of a single material to creating equilibrium correlations and nonlocal functionalities between distributed nodes of a quantum network.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a multi-gap split-ring resonator: a single cavity mode whose vacuum electric field is compressed into two deep-subwavelength hot spots at separate split gaps, millimeters apart. Electrons in each moiré superlattice couple to the mode through the Peierls phase; expanding that phase to first order in the light–matter coupling and then canonically eliminating the photon yields an effective two-body current–current interaction V = 2χ²t²/ℏω between carriers in the two gaps. Because the interaction's sign follows the relative current direction, it contains attractive channels. At a simulated V = 0.22 t these channels bind a pair across the two gaps, with pairing concentr

What would settle it

Solve the full light–matter Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with a truncated photon Hilbert space at the simulated coupling strengths and check whether the two-hole binding energy and the remote pairing amplitude match the effective-model predictions. If the full model shows no negative binding energy, or if exact diagonalization with the photon keeps the two moirés in a normal state at the same parameters, the remote-pairing claim fails. An experimental counterpart: measure nonlocal conductance from one gap to the other below 20 K; a remote current whose sign indicates hole-in/electron-out conversion and

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

One cavity mode with electric-field hot spots at two split gaps of a metallic ring mediates an attractive current–current interaction between electrons in two separate moiré superlattices placed in those gaps. After the photon is eliminated, the interaction's sign depends on relative hopping direction, and between different gaps the attractive channels dominate because Coulomb repulsion is negligible at millimeter separation. At the simulated cavity field (10 nm spacer), the effective interaction V = 0.22 t exceeds the critical strength, producing inter-moiré pairing amplitudes concentrated at corresponding levels and sites, a negative two-hole binding energy in density-matrix renormalizatio

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on assuming that the first-order expansion of the Peierls phase and the subsequent photon-eliminating transformation remain accurate at the ultrastrong coupling strengths advertised; no small parameter or convergence check is supplied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two moiré lattices embedded in the two gaps of a THz split-ring resonator will spontaneously form a paired, entangled ground state in equilibrium; at the simulated coupling the pairing survives up to about 20 K.
  • A transport lead attached to one gap should show Andreev teleportation: injecting a hole produces an outgoing electron at the remote gap, with probability up to 78% at normal incidence inside the pairing gap, dropping to 9% at 60° incidence.
  • The bipartite entanglement between the two lattices is extensive: the entanglement entropy grows linearly with total number of sites, with roughly 30% of it coming from particle-number fluctuations of the pairs.
  • Pair–pair correlations decay algebraically with an oscillatory factor, so the paired state has quasi-long-range order and likely finite-momentum pairing rather than a simple uniform condensate.
  • Adding more split gaps to the ring should bridge more than two nodes, since the same mechanism only requires a mode with multiple hot spots.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pairing survives in a realistic full-photon treatment, the two-gap ring becomes a tunable equilibrium source of nonlocal particle–hole conversion; one immediate test would be a zero-bias or pair-bias peak in the nonlocal conductance between the two gaps that vanishes above the critical temperature.
  • Because the effective attraction scales as V ∝ 1/ω², lowering the cavity frequency or shrinking the gaps could push the critical temperature higher; that optimization is not explored in the paper.
  • The same geometry could entangle three or more mesoscopic nodes in equilibrium, opening a route to distributed quantum information that the authors only gesture at.
  • The validity of the first-order perturbative derivation at ultrastrong coupling is the main open question; a non-perturbative calculation with a truncated photon Hilbert space would show whether V = 2χ²t²/ℏω is the right low-energy description or whether dressing corrections set an upper bound on pairing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a multi-gap split-ring resonator architecture in which a single cavity mode has two spatially separated deep-subwavelength hotspots, each coupled to a metallic TMD moiré superlattice. Starting from a Peierls-coupled electron-photon Hamiltonian [Eq. (1)], the authors derive an effective static current-current interaction [Eq. (2)] with strength V=2χ²t²/ℏω by expanding to first order in χ and applying a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation. For a COMSOL-simulated THz square SRR at 10 nm spacer thickness, they quote V=0.22t. DMRG and ED calculations on small lattices show negative binding energy and power-law pair-pair correlations; mean-field calculations on 10×10 superlattices yield a pairing amplitude and a critical temperature up to ~20 K; and a BdG mode-matching calculation predicts remote Andreev teleportation with probability up to 78% at zero incident energy. The central claim is that the cavity vacuum can bridge distributed mesoscopic nodes in equilibrium, forming a single correlated system with remote Cooper pairing and nonlocal particle-hole conversion.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper proposes a conceptually new equilibrium architecture for quantum networks: remote Cooper pairing between nodes separated by hundreds of microns, enabled by a passive THz cavity, and distinct from crossed Andreev reflection in a single-superconductor geometry. The numerical support is internally consistent—DMRG and ED agree, the interaction strength V is derived from a COMSOL field simulation rather than fitted to the pairing result, and the model Hamiltonian is explicitly stated. The main risk is that all quantitative results (T_c ~20 K, teleportation probability) inherit from a perturbative reduction whose control parameter is never reported. With an explicit validation of Eq. (2), or a direct many-body calculation on the original light-matter Hamiltonian at realistic parameters, the paper would be a strong contribution. As it stands, the quantitative predictions are suggestive rather than fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (1)-(2), text after Eq. (2)] The effective interaction V=2χ²t²/ℏω is obtained by expanding the Peierls phase to first order in χ and then eliminating the photon by a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation. The paper never reports the actual χ and ℏω for the COMSOL mode; it only quotes the combination V=0.22t. This matters because the manuscript advertises the ultrastrong-coupling regime (refs. [44,45]) and uses a THz resonator. With t=4.8 meV and a ~1 THz mode, ℏω≈4 meV, so the photon frequency is not large compared with the electronic bandwidth, and there is no stated small parameter for the SW expansion. Higher-order Peierls terms (including the diamagnetic A² term), counter-rotating couplings, and polaron dressing can renormalize or invalidate the static interaction. The ED check on Eq. (1) is performed only on small lattices and cannot validate the 20 K mean-field T_c or the 78% teleportation probability. Please provid
  2. [Fig. 3(b),(f) and Discussion] The critical temperature is extracted from the temperature dependence of the mean-field pairing parameter in finite lattices. Because the DMRG pair correlations are power-law [Fig. 2(c),(d)] and the system is a finite 2D mesoscopic lattice, this T_c is a mean-field crossover temperature, not a true thermodynamic transition. Fluctuation effects can substantially suppress the temperature at which robust remote pairing appears; the quoted 'T_c can reach nearly 20 K' therefore overstates what is established. The authors should either frame T_c explicitly as a mean-field estimate with a discussion of phase fluctuations, or provide a fluctuation-corrected estimate. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Fig. 3(f) present 20 K as an experimentally meaningful quantity.
  3. [Model around Eq. (2)] In deriving the effective Hamiltonian, all intra-gap cavity-mediated interactions and Coulomb repulsion are dropped, with the justification that Coulomb suppresses intra-gap pairing and is negligible between gaps. However, the same cavity mode also mediates an intra-moiré current-current interaction with comparable strength, and dropping it can alter the single-moiré Fermi surface and hence the inter-gap pairing. No quantitative estimate of the intra-gap Coulomb scale versus V is given. The authors should either include the intra-gap channel in the DMRG/ED benchmark or provide a bound showing it does not affect the remote pairing and T_c.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary material] Supplementary Notes 1-9 and Figs. S1-S6 are referenced throughout but are not included in the arXiv submission; as a result the SW derivation, COMSOL details, and DMRG/ED benchmarks cannot be checked. Please include them.
  2. [Fig. 3(f)] The statement 'The entire range of V lies within achievable...' is stronger than the evidence: COMSOL is shown for one spacer thickness (10 nm) and one mode. Discuss sensitivity to spacer thickness, alignment, and material parameters.
  3. [Fig. 3(e)] The entanglement entropy is said to scale 'linearly with the area (total number of sites)', which conflates area with site count. Clarify the scaling variable and whether the 2D geometry matters.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The geometric factor ξ_{ijσ} is used in the Hamiltonian but not explicitly defined in the main text; it is only described verbally. Please define it in the text or with an explicit equation.
  5. [Abstract and introduction] The word 'unprecedented' overstates novelty relative to prior proposals for cavity-mediated superconductivity [39-43]. The genuine novelty is the multi-node distributed equilibrium architecture; the introduction should calibrate this claim more carefully.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the remote-pairing derivation is self-contained, V is computed from a COMSOL field simulation rather than fitted, and the self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The core derivation chain starts from the Peierls-substituted Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), applies a Schrieffer–Wolff elimination to obtain the effective current–current interaction Eq. (2) with V = 2χ²t²/ℏω, and then computes binding energies (DMRG/ED), pairing amplitudes (mean-field), T_c, and Andreev teleportation probabilities from that V. The value V = 0.22 is quoted as obtained from the COMSOL-simulated vacuum field profile in Fig. 1(b), not adjusted to reproduce any pairing or teleportation target; t = 4.8 meV is a material-bandstructure fit, and the pairing results are emergent outputs. No equation reduces by construction to a fitted target. The paper's own caveat that higher-frequency modes are 'not explicitly count[ed]' and the unverified validity of the perturbative Schrieffer–Wolff expansion in the ultrastrong-coupling regime are correctness risks, not circularity. The self-citations (refs. [32], [37], [61]) appear only as background or feasibility context—remote gate control, symmetry breaking, and an experimental observation—and do not carry the load-bearing derivation; no uniqueness theorem from the same authors is invoked to force the model. Thus the central claim has independent content; the score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or mediator fields; it uses the existing cavity photon as the mediator. The only new named object is the process 'Andreev teleportation,' which is a coined term for a scattering process rather than a new entity. The free parameters are material and simulation inputs, not constants fitted to make the pairing prediction come out.

free parameters (4)
  • nearest-neighbor hopping t = 4.8 meV
    Fitted from the moiré miniband dispersion at 6 nm period (Supplementary Fig. S1); sets the energy scale and enters the derived interaction V = 2χ²t²/ℏω.
  • cavity-mediated interaction strength V (fundamental mode) = 0.22 in units of t
    Computed from the COMSOL-simulated zero-point field of the square SRR with a 10 nm spacer; not fitted to the pairing result, but the T_c ~ 20 K prediction depends directly on it.
  • chemical potential / filling factor ν = ν = 0.6 for mean-field plots
    Chosen to place the Fermi level in the band; pairing, T_c, and entanglement all depend on filling.
  • Numerical interaction strengths in DMRG/ED = V = 1 (DMRG/ED), V = 0.2 (mean-field)
    Chosen for numerical demonstration; V = 0.2 is representative of the simulated V = 0.22, while V = 1 is used for the small-system DMRG/ED benchmarks.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Peierls substitution with a single quantized mode, expansion of the phase to first order in χ, and Schrieffer-Wolff elimination of photons to second order give the low-energy effective interaction.
    Invoked after Eq. (1) to obtain Eq. (2). No small-parameter or convergence check is given, and the paper simultaneously invokes ultrastrong coupling, where this perturbative treatment is questionable.
  • domain assumption The moiré superlattices are described as non-interacting single-orbital triangular-lattice metals.
    The text states 'an otherwise trivial metal phase in a hole-doped heterobilayer described by a single-orbital triangular lattice'; no Hubbard U or long-range Coulomb term is included in the Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Only inter-gap cavity-mediated interactions are retained; intra-gap cavity-mediated interactions and higher cavity modes are neglected.
    The text says 'To limit the scope to its essential features, we retain only cavity-mediated interactions between holes in different split gaps.' The neglected terms could change the sign or magnitude of the pairing channel.
  • domain assumption BCS mean-field decoupling of the interaction in Eq. (3) is a valid treatment for the larger-system pairing amplitude, T_c, and entanglement.
    Used for all 10x10 lattice results and the Andreev teleportation calculation; it is not derived from the small-system DMRG/ED results, which are used only as support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging distributed quantum materials via multi-hotspot vacuum: remote Cooper pairing and Andreev teleportation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7QVB5LE2

@misc{pith2026260718916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging distributed quantum materials via multi-hotspot vacuum: remote Cooper pairing and Andreev teleportation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7QVB5LE2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18916}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce an architecture where mesoscopic quantum matter distributed over spatially separated nodes can be correlated in equilibrium, creating an unprecedented form of many-body quantum system. Central to the design is a multi-gap split-ring resonator (SRR) where the cavity photon has multiple hot spots -- each with deep-subwavelength volume at a split gap and separated by millimeter-scale distances. The cavity's vacuum fluctuations can then mediate a many-body interaction that bridges the distributed quantum materials embedded in the multiple gaps, coupling them into a single correlated mesoscopic system in equilibrium. As an example, we consider a THz SRR with two split gaps, each proximitized to a metallic moir\'e superlattice, where virtual exchange of a photon in the cavity vacuum mediates a current-current interaction across the gaps. The inherent attractive interaction channels lead to remote Cooper pairing reminiscent of mesoscopic superconductivity, demonstrated with density matrix renormalization group and exact diagonalization calculations. With the two constituents of a Cooper pair now paired across a millimeter-scale separation, a hole incident at one split gap can be converted into an outgoing electron at the remote gap, a process we term Andreev teleportation. The entanglement entropy between the two mesoscopic superlattices is shown to scale linearly with the area (total number of sites) of the mesoscopic lattice. Our results suggest an intriguing paradigm for equilibrium quantum networks of mesoscopic matter that enable emergent nonlocal functionalities and distributed quantum resources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18916 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distributed mesoscopic matter at multiple hotspots of a cavity mode, bridged via its vacuum fluctuations. (a) Schematic of a metallic ring THz resonator with two split gaps, each proximitized by a moiré superlattice. A cavity mode has a spatial profile spread across both gaps, and its vacuum fluctuations can mediate an attractive interaction between carriers across the two gaps, leading to remote Cooper pairing. Thi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) shows the chemical potential 𝜇(𝑁ℎ ) ≡ 𝐸(𝑁ℎ + 1) − 𝐸(𝑁ℎ ), i.e., the discrete addition energy for adding a sin￾gle hole. The even–odd oscillation already signifies the ten￾dency of inter-split-gap pairing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Remote pairing and distributed entanglement—mean-field solutions on larger-scale superlattices. (a) Maximum pairing am￾plitude |⟨ ̃𝑐̂ 𝑛,𝐴 ̃𝑐̂ 𝑚,𝐵⟩| at zero temperature, as function of the cavity-vacuum-mediated interaction 𝑉 . Pairing emerges above a critical interaction strength that depends on the filling factor 𝜈. (b) Temperature dependence of the maximum pairing amplitude at 𝑉 = 0.15, exhibiting a critical tempe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Andreev Teleportation. (a) Schematic of the local scattering channels (normal reflection and transmission) and the remote Andreev teleportation channels (particle–hole interconversion across the two split gaps). (b) Scattering probabilities as functions of incident ene…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The even–odd oscillation already signifies the ten- dency of inter-split-gap pairing

    −𝐸(𝑁ℎ), i.e., the discrete addition energy for adding a sin- gle hole. The even–odd oscillation already signifies the ten- dency of inter-split-gap pairing. Figure 2(b) plots the corre- sponding binding energy𝜇(𝑁 ℎ + 1) −𝜇(𝑁 ℎ), which is neg- ative when the two moirés have equal number of holes. The Figure 2.Many-body ground state under cavity-vacuum- med...

  2. [2]

    Mivehvar, F

    F. Mivehvar, F. Piazza, T. Donner, and H. Ritsch, Cavity QED with quantum gases: new paradigms in many-body physics, Adv. Phys.70, 1 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Chang, J

    D. Chang, J. Douglas, A. González-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. Kimble, Colloquium: Quantum matter built from nanoscopic lattices of atoms and photons, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 031002 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Cir- cuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Schlawin, D

    F. Schlawin, D. M. Kennes, and M. A. Sentef, Cavity quantum materials, Appl. Phys. Rev.9, 011312 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Ritsch, P

    H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical potentials, Re- views of Modern Physics85, 553 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Pellizzari, S

    T. Pellizzari, S. A. Gardiner, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Deco- herence, Continuous Observation, and Quantum Computing: A Cavity QED Model, Physical Review Letters75, 3788 (1995)

    1995

  8. [8]

    ˙Imamo˘glu, D

    A. ˙Imamo˘glu, D. D. Awschalom, G. Burkard, D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Loss, M. Sherwin, and A. Small, Quantum Information Pro- cessing Using Quantum Dot Spins and Cavity QED, Physical Review Letters83, 4204 (1999)

    1999

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Dimer, B

    F. Dimer, B. Estienne, A. S. Parkins, and H. J. Carmichael, Pro- posed realization of the Dicke-model quantum phase transition in an optical cavity QED system, Physical Review A75, 013804 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Baumann, C

    K. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Dicke quantum phase transition with a superfluid gas in an optical cav- ity, Nature464, 1301 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    H. Gao, F. Schlawin, M. Buzzi, A. Cavalleri, and D. Jaksch, Photoinduced Electron Pairing in a Driven Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 053602 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Quan- tum State Transfer and Entanglement Distribution among Dis- tant Nodes in a Quantum Network, Physical Review Letters78, 3221 (1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    Yao, R.-B

    W. Yao, R.-B. Liu, and L. J. Sham, Theory of Control of the Spin-Photon Interface for Quantum Networks, Physical Review Letters95, 030504 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Long- distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics, Nature414, 413 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Forn-Díaz, L

    P. Forn-Díaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Ultra- strong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025005 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Frisk Kockum, A

    A. Frisk Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter, Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 19 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Bloch, A

    J. Bloch, A. Cavalleri, V . Galitski, M. Hafezi, and A. Rubio, Strongly correlated electron–photon systems, Nature606, 41 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    F. J. Garcia-Vidal, C. Ciuti, and T. W. Ebbesen, Manipulat- ing matter by strong coupling to vacuum fields, Science373, eabd0336 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    I.-T. Lu, D. Shin, M. Kamper Svendsen, S. Latini, H. Hübener, M. Ruggenthaler, and A. Rubio, Cavity engineering of solid- state materials without external driving, Adv. Opt. Photonics 17, 441 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    G. L. Paravicini-Bagliani, F. Appugliese, E. Richter, F. Val- morra, J. Keller, M. Beck, N. Bartolo, C. Rössler, T. Ihn, K. En- sslin, C. Ciuti, G. Scalari, and J. Faist, Magneto-transport con- trolled by Landau polariton states, Nature Phys15, 186 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Keller, G

    J. Keller, G. Scalari, S. Cibella, C. Maissen, F. Appugliese, E. Giovine, R. Leoni, M. Beck, and J. Faist, Few-Electron Ul- trastrong Light-Matter Coupling at 300 GHz with Nanogap Hy- brid LC Microcavities, Nano Lett.17, 7410 (2017), publisher: American Chemical Society

    2017

  14. [22]

    Scalari, C

    G. Scalari, C. Maissen, D. Tur ˇcinková, D. Hagenmüller, S. De Liberato, C. Ciuti, C. Reichl, D. Schuh, W. Wegscheider, M. Beck, and J. Faist, Ultrastrong Coupling of the Cyclotron Transition of a 2D Electron Gas to a THz Metamaterial, Sci- ence335, 1323 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    H.-T. Chen, A. J. Taylor, and N. Yu, A review of metasurfaces: physics and applications, Rep. Prog. Phys.79, 076401 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    G. L. Paravicini-Bagliani, G. Scalari, F. Valmorra, J. Keller, C. Maissen, M. Beck, and J. Faist, Gate and magnetic field tun- able ultrastrong coupling between a magnetoplasmon and the optical mode of an LC cavity, Phys. Rev. B95, 205304 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Jeannin, G

    M. Jeannin, G. Mariotti Nesurini, S. Suffit, D. Gacemi, A. Vasanelli, L. Li, A. G. Davies, E. Linfield, C. Sirtori, and Y . Todorov, Ultrastrong Light–Matter Coupling in Deeply Subwavelength THz LC Resonators, ACS Photonics6, 1207 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    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 cavity vacuum fields in the integer quantum Hall effect, Science375, 1030 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Enkner, L

    J. Enkner, L. Graziotto, D. Boriçi, F. Appugliese, C. Reichl, 7 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

  20. [28]

    Thomas, L

    A. Thomas, L. Lethuillier-Karl, K. Nagarajan, R. M. A. Vergauwe, J. George, T. Chervy, A. Shalabney, E. Devaux, C. Genet, J. Moran, and T. W. Ebbesen, Tilting a ground-state reactivity landscape by vibrational strong coupling, Science 363, 615 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    G. Jarc, S. Y . Mathengattil, A. Montanaro, F. Giusti, E. M. Rigoni, R. Sergo, F. Fassioli, S. Winnerl, S. Dal Zilio, D. Mi- hailovic, P. Prelovšek, M. Eckstein, and D. Fausti, Cavity- mediated thermal control of metal-to-insulator transition in 1T- TaS2, Nature622, 487 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Thomas, E

    A. Thomas, E. Devaux, K. Nagarajan, T. Chervy, M. Sei- del, G. Rogez, J. Robert, M. Drillon, T. T. Ruan, S. Schlit- tenhardt, M. Ruben, D. Hagenmüller, S. Schütz, J. Schachen- mayer, C. Genet, G. Pupillo, and T. W. Ebbesen, Exploring su- perconductivity under strong coupling w...

    2025

  23. [31]

    Li and M

    J. Li and M. Eckstein, Manipulating intertwined orders in solids with quantum light, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 217402 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Ashida, A

    Y . Ashida, A. ˙Imamo˘glu, J. Faist, D. Jaksch, A. Cavalleri, and E. Demler, Quantum Electrodynamic Control of Matter: Cavity-Enhanced Ferroelectric Phase Transition, Physical Re- view X10, 041027 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Z. Lin, C. Xiao, D.-P. Nguyen, G. Arwas, C. Ciuti, and W. Yao, Remote gate control of topological transitions in moiré super- lattices via cavity vacuum fields, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120, e2306584120 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    C. Wei, L. Yang, and Q.-D. Jiang, Cavity-Vacuum-Induced Chi- ral Spin Liquids in Kagome Lattices: Tuning and Probing Topo- logical Quantum Phases via Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 236901 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Jiang and F

    Q.-D. Jiang and F. Wilczek, Quantum atmospherics for materi- als diagnosis, Phys. Rev. B99, 201104 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Hübener, U

    H. Hübener, U. De Giovannini, C. Schäfer, J. Andberger, M. Ruggenthaler, J. Faist, and A. Rubio, Engineering quantum materials with chiral optical cavities, Nature Materials20, 438 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Y . Ke, Z. Song, and Q.-D. Jiang, Vacuum-Induced Symmetry Breaking of Chiral Enantiomer Formation in Chemical Reac- tions, Physical Review Letters131, 223601 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Lin, H.-C

    Z. Lin, H.-C. Chan, W. Yang, Y . Sha, C. Xiao, S. Zhang, and W. Yao, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking of Cavity Vacuum and Emergent Gyrotropic Effects in Embedded Moir\’e Super- lattices, Physical Review Letters136, 046903 (2026)

    2026

  31. [39]

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

    2018

  32. [40]

    I.-T. Lu, D. Shin, M. K. Svendsen, H. Hübener, U. De Gio- vannini, S. Latini, M. Ruggenthaler, and A. Rubio, Cavity- enhanced superconductivity in MgB 2 from first-principles quantum electrodynamics (QEDFT), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.121, e2415061121 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    V . K. Kozin, E. Thingstad, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Cavity- enhanced superconductivity via band engineering, Phys. Rev. B 111, 035410 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    J. B. Curtis, Z. M. Raines, A. A. Allocca, M. Hafezi, and V . M. Galitski, Cavity Quantum Eliashberg Enhancement of Super- conductivity, Physical Review Letters122, 167002 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Schlawin, A

    F. Schlawin, A. Cavalleri, and D. Jaksch, Cavity-Mediated Electron-Photon Superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 133602 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    G. M. Andolina, A. De Pasquale, F. M. D. Pellegrino, I. Torre, F. H. L. Koppens, and M. Polini, Amperean superconductivity cannot be induced by deep subwavelength cavities in a two- dimensional material, Phys. Rev. B109, 104513 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Bayer, M

    A. Bayer, M. Pozimski, S. Schambeck, D. Schuh, R. Huber, D. Bougeard, and C. Lange, Terahertz Light–Matter Interaction beyond Unity Coupling Strength, Nano Letters17, 6340 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Halbhuber, J

    M. Halbhuber, J. Mornhinweg, V . Zeller, C. Ciuti, D. Bougeard, R. Huber, and C. Lange, Non-adiabatic stripping of a cavity field from electrons in the deep-strong coupling regime, Nature Photonics14, 675 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Pendry, A

    J. Pendry, A. Holden, D. Robbins, and W. Stewart, Magnetism from conductors and enhanced nonlinear phenomena, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques47, 2075 (1999)

  40. [48]

    R. S. Penciu, K. Aydin, M. Kafesaki, T. Koschny, E. Ozbay, E. N. Economou, and C. M. Soukoulis, Multi-gap individual and coupled split-ring resonator structures, Optics Express16, 18131 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Relation between the Anderson and Kondo Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev.149, 491 (1966)

    1966

  42. [50]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Processes and Applications (John Wiley & Sons, 1998)

    1998

  43. [51]

    P. W. Anderson, Theory of dirty superconductors, J. Phys. Chem. Solids11, 26 (1959)

    1959

  44. [52]

    von Delft, A

    J. von Delft, A. D. Zaikin, D. S. Golubev, and W. Tichy, Parity- Affected Superconductivity in Ultrasmall Metallic Grains, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3189 (1996)

    1996

  45. [53]

    Braun and J

    F. Braun and J. von Delft, Superconductivity in ultrasmall metallic grains, Phys. Rev. B59, 9527 (1999)

    1999

  46. [54]

    von Delft, Superconductivity in ultrasmall metallic grains, Ann

    J. von Delft, Superconductivity in ultrasmall metallic grains, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)10, 219 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    A. M. García-García, J. D. Urbina, E. A. Yuzbashyan, K. Richter, and B. L. Altshuler, BCS superconductivity in metallic nanograins: Finite-size corrections, low-energy excita- tions, and robustness of shell effects, Phys. Rev. B83, 014510 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    Ando, Quantum point contacts in magnetic fields, Phys

    T. Ando, Quantum point contacts in magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B44, 8017 (1991)

    1991

  49. [57]

    P. A. Khomyakov, G. Brocks, V . Karpan, M. Zwierzycki, and P. J. Kelly, Conductance calculations for quantum wires and in- terfaces: Mode matching and green’s functions, Phys. Rev. B 72, 035450 (2005)

    2005

  50. [58]

    Caroli, R

    C. Caroli, R. Combescot, P. Nozieres, and D. Saint-James, Di- rect calculation of the tunneling current, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics4, 916 (1971)

    1971

  51. [59]

    S. Datta, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems, Cam- bridge Studies in Semiconductor Physics and Microelectronic Engineering (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 1995)

    1995

  52. [60]

    J. Feng, H. F. Legg, M. Bagchi, D. Loss, J. Klinovaja, and Y . Ando, Long-range crossed Andreev reflection in a topolog- ical insulator nanowire proximitized by a superconductor, Na- ture Physics21, 708 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Hofstetter, S

    L. Hofstetter, S. Csonka, J. Nygård, and C. Schönenberger, Cooper pair splitter realized in a two-quantum-dot Y-junction, Nature461, 960 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    Xue, H.-C

    H. Xue, H.-C. Chan, Z. Lin, D. Boriçi, S. Zhou, Y . Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Ciuti, W. Yao, D.-K. Ki, and S. Zhang, Observation of Cavity-Mediated Nonlinear Lan- dau Fan and Modified Landau Level Degeneracy in Graphene Quantum Transport (2025), arXiv:2506.21409

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.