Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Revival of transport reciprocity via quantum interference in asymmetric nonlinear devices

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read One-photon interference can restore reciprocal two-photon transport even in structurally asymmetric nonlinear waveguide devices.

desk verdict Exact 2-photon analytics show that 1-photon interference can force reciprocity even in structurally asymmetric nonlinear WQED devices; the giant-atom case is always reciprocal and a tunnel path can switch the direct-coupled diode on and off. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26898 v1 pith:DICN7LHO submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics

Rupak Bag , Dibyendu Roy This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics PACS 42.50.Ct42.50.Nn03.65.Nk85.25.Cp
keywords waveguideQEDgiantatomtwo-photonscatteringtransportreciprocityquantuminterferenceopticaldiodenonreciprocalLippmann-Schwinger
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

It is widely assumed that structural asymmetry plus optical nonlinearity is enough to make light flow differently in the two directions through a passive device. This paper shows that assumption fails when single-photon interference paths force the artificial atom to be excited with equal probability from either side. In a giant-atom geometry (an atom side-coupled to a waveguide at two distant points) the equality is automatic, so the nonlinear two-photon current remains reciprocal no matter how unequal the two coupling strengths are. In a direct-coupled two-waveguide geometry the same equality can be restored by adding a tunable tunneling path between the waveguides; reciprocity then reappears even though the atom-waveguide couplings stay unequal. The result matters because it identifies a concrete interference condition that must be broken if one wants a magnetic-field-free optical diode at the few-photon level, and because it supplies an exact analytic map between the two geometries in the single-photon sector.

What carries the argument

The equality |φ_b^R(k)| = |φ_b^L(k)| of single-photon atomic excitation amplitudes. Both the cross-correlation and bound-state pieces of the two-photon current depend only on this modulus (and on quantities already symmetric under left-right exchange), so the equality is sufficient for reciprocal nonlinear transport.

What would settle it

Measure the two-photon transmission currents (or the inelastic S-matrix elements) through an asymmetrically coupled giant atom or a direct-coupled atom with tunable inter-waveguide tunnel; if the forward and reverse nonlinear currents differ once |φ^R| = |φ^L| is satisfied, the claimed sufficiency fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Whenever one-photon interference enforces equal atomic excitation probabilities for left- and right-incident photons, the nonlinear components of the two-photon transmission current become identical in both directions, reviving reciprocity despite broken structural symmetry. This holds robustly for an asymmetrically side-coupled giant atom and can be tuned on or off in a generalized direct-coupled setup by an extra inter-waveguide tunnel.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that equal single-photon excitation probabilities alone guarantee reciprocal nonlinear transport rests on idealizing the atom as a strict two-level system under the rotating-wave and linear-dispersion approximations; extra levels or counter-rotating terms could open direction-dependent nonlinear channels that break the result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Asymmetric giant-atom circuits cannot serve as passive few-photon diodes; the built-in interference must be deliberately broken.
  • A single tunable tunnel amplitude can switch a direct-coupled nonlinear device between reciprocal and nonreciprocal two-photon regimes.
  • Elastic two-photon scattering remains reciprocal; only the inelastic channel carries the nonreciprocity signature when the excitation amplitudes differ.
  • The same interference condition is expected to control reciprocity for weak coherent-state inputs that are common in waveguide-QED experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same modulus-equality criterion should decide reciprocity for three-or-more-photon Fock states and for multi-atom giant molecules, offering a design rule for larger nonlinear networks.
  • Because the mapping between giant-atom and direct-coupled geometries is exact only in the one-photon sector, residual non-Markovian two-photon correlations could be used as a diagnostic of non-Markovianity even when average currents match.
  • Engineering a controlled breakdown of |φ^R| = |φ^L| (for example by adding a third coupling point or a frequency-dependent tunnel) would give a purely quantum, magnetic-field-free isolator whose isolation ratio is set by interference rather than by saturation alone.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies two-photon transport in two asymmetric waveguide-QED setups and argues that one-photon interference can restore reciprocity even when structural asymmetry and saturable nonlinearity are both present. For a giant atom side-coupled at two points with g1 ≠ g2, exact Lippmann–Schwinger analytics show that the nonlinear current components δJc and δJs depend only on |φRb(k)| (and on quantities symmetric under g1 ↔ g2), so two-photon transport remains reciprocal. For a generalized direct-coupled atom with an extra tunnel amplitude 2J, the same equality |φ̃Rb| = |φ̃Lb| is recovered at special parameter sets (real J = ±1, or mapped complex couplings with J = −i), producing a tunable nonreciprocal-to-reciprocal transition that is also visible in the inelastic S-matrix elements N. The derivations are carried out in the two-level, RWA, linearized-dispersion idealization for product two-photon inputs.

Significance. The central result challenges the widespread working assumption that structural asymmetry plus few-photon nonlinearity is automatically sufficient for passive nonreciprocity. The paper supplies exact, term-by-term invariance proofs (Green’s-function root sums cross-checked against numerical integration) rather than numerical phenomenology, and it identifies concrete, experimentally tunable conditions (tunnel strength |J| = 1 and mapped complex couplings) under which reciprocity revives. These analytic controls and the explicit S-matrix diagnostics are genuine strengths and make the work useful both for interpreting existing giant-atom experiments and for designing interference-protected nonlinear devices.

major comments (1)
  1. [Conclusion] The sufficiency claim that |φRb(k)| = |φLb(k)| alone guarantees reciprocal nonlinear two-photon currents is demonstrated explicitly for the product-state input and the stated Hamiltonians (Eqs. 5–6 and 12–13, and the corresponding SM root-sum identities). The concluding paragraph, however, asserts without derivation that the same conclusion extends to weak coherent-state inputs. Because that extension is not load-bearing for the two-photon theorems actually proved, it should either be removed or supported by a short argument (or an explicit citation that already contains the multi-photon reduction) so that the scope of the claim is unambiguous.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 and §1 (2-photon paradigm)] Figure 2 caption and main-text discussion of the non-Markov window would be clearer if the truncated root window ℜ[pj], ℜ[qj] ∈ [Ω − 15Γk=0, Ω + 15Γk=0] were also stated once in the main text, not only in the SM and caption.
  2. [§2] Notation for the two setups is dense (tRk vs t̃Rk, φ vs φ̃, J vs 2J). A short symbol table or a consistent “tilde = direct-coupled” reminder early in §2 would help the reader.
  3. [Reciprocal transport regimes] In the mapping Eqs. (14)–(16), the free parameter θ is later set to k or Ω; a single sentence stating that the mapping is exact only in the one-photon sector (and only approximate for Markov nonlinear currents) already appears late—moving it next to the equations would prevent over-reading the correspondence.
  4. [SM §I.C.1] SM Fig. 1 panels (c–d) compare numerical integration with the restricted root sum; adding the number of retained roots (or a convergence inset) would make the cross-check fully self-contained.
  5. [Throughout / SM] Typos / style: “photo-detector” (Fig. 1 caption), occasional missing spaces around inline math, and “A TOM” / “W A VEGUIDE” spacing artifacts in SM headings should be cleaned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: reciprocity follows from explicit Lippmann–Schwinger currents that are invariant under g1↔g2 by construction of the amplitudes, not by fitting or self-definition.

full rationale

The paper starts from standard WQED Hamiltonians (Hg, Hd), solves the single-excitation sector exactly, and obtains 1-photon amplitudes whose moduli are equal under left/right incidence for the giant atom (and for special J, gL, gR in the direct-coupled model). The 2-photon currents δJc and δJs are then written via Lippmann–Schwinger in terms of those moduli, Γk, tRk, and ⟨b;b|G+o|b;b⟩; the SM shows the Green’s function and T(2k) are symmetric under g1↔g2 (roots of f+(p)=0 and residue sums). Reciprocity is therefore a derived invariance of the explicit expressions, not an input. The special reciprocal regimes (J=±1 real; or mapped complex couplings with J=−i) are obtained by imposing |φ̃Rb|=|φ̃Lb| on the closed-form amplitudes, not assumed a priori. Self-citations ([13], [35], [40], etc.) supply the diode setup, scattering formalism, and mapping technique; they do not assert the reciprocity result being proved. There is no data fitting, no uniqueness theorem imported to forbid alternatives, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern. Within the stated idealizations the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The work is standard few-photon WQED theory. Load-bearing inputs are the usual model idealizations (two-level atom, RWA, linear dispersion, Markov or controlled non-Markov coupling) plus the product two-photon initial state. No empirical free parameters are fitted; special values J = ±1, −i are chosen analytically to illustrate the interference condition.

free parameters (2)
  • Coupling amplitudes g1, g2 (or gL, gR) and separation d (or tunnel J)
    Hand-chosen real or complex numbers used to break parity and to scan Markov vs non-Markov and reciprocal vs nonreciprocal regimes; not fitted to external data.
  • Atomic frequency Ω and illustrative numerical values (e.g. g=0.2, Ω=2) = Ω=2, g~0.1–0.2 in figures
    Set the energy unit and produce the figures; results are stated for generic parameters within the model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation and linearized waveguide dispersion (vg constant) near the atomic resonance.
    Stated at the start of the giant-atom Hamiltonian; standard in WQED but excludes counter-rotating and band-structure effects.
  • domain assumption Two-level limit U→∞ of the Kerr site, so the impurity saturates after one excitation.
    Used to close the two-photon Lippmann–Schwinger equation on the |b;b⟩ subspace; higher levels would open extra nonlinear channels.
  • domain assumption Incident state is a product of two monochromatic photons (extendable to weak coherent states by citation).
    Defines the 2-photon currents and S-matrix; coherent-state claim is not re-derived.
  • standard math Lippmann–Schwinger scattering theory with retarded Green’s function of the non-interacting Hamiltonian yields the exact interacting two-photon state.
    Standard scattering formalism; contour integrals and root sums are carried out explicitly in the SM.
  • ad hoc to paper Equal single-photon excitation probabilities |φ^R_b| = |φ^L_b| are sufficient for reciprocal nonlinear two-photon currents in these models.
    Shown term-by-term for the currents derived here; treated as the mechanism that ‘revives’ reciprocity, but not proved for arbitrary multi-photon or multi-level inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revival of transport reciprocity via quantum interference in asymmetric nonlinear devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DICN7LHO

@misc{pith2026260726898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revival of transport reciprocity via quantum interference in asymmetric nonlinear devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DICN7LHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26898}
}
read the original abstract

Structural asymmetry combined with optical nonlinearity often leads to nonreciprocal light transport. We explore the mechanism by which 1-photon interference effects can revive reciprocity in such nonlinear models. To this end, we study correlated 2-photon scattering where an artificial atom is asymmetrically (a) side-coupled to an infinite waveguide at two spatially separated points, and (b) direct-coupled to two semi-infinite waveguides. The setup (a) gives robust reciprocal transport for the two photons. However, the setup (b) shows a transition from a nonreciprocal to a reciprocal regime by tuning the interference effect via an additional tunneling path for photons between the two waveguides.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26898 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Side-coupled giant atom-waveguide setup. Two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: A generalized direct-coupled atom-waveguide setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: We plot the absolute value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a-b) Graphical representation of the roots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    P. A. Mello and N. Kumar,Quantum Transport in Mesoscopic Systems: Complexity and Statistical Fluctuations. A Maximum- Entropy Viewpoint(Oxford University Press, 2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    D. Roy, C. M. Wilson, and O. Firstenberg, Colloquium: Strongly interacting photons in one-dimensional continuum, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 021001 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

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

    2014

  4. [4]

    Lalumi `ere, B

    K. Lalumi `ere, B. C. Sanders, A. F. van Loo, A. Fedorov, A. Wallraff, and A. Blais, Input-output theory for waveguide qed with an ensemble of inhomogeneous atoms, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043806 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    A. F. Van Loo, A. Fedorov, K. Lalumiere, B. C. Sanders, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Photon-mediated interactions be- tween distant artificial atoms, Science342, 1494 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V . Iorsh, A. V . Poshakinskiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Collec- tive radiance and photon-photon correlations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 015002 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Liu and A

    Y . Liu and A. A. Houck, Quantum electrodynamics near a pho- tonic bandgap, Nature Physics13, 48 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Zhang, E

    X. Zhang, E. Kim, D. K. Mark, S. Choi, and O. Painter, A su- perconducting quantum simulator based on a photonic-bandgap metamaterial, Science379, 278 (2023)

    2023

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    E. Kim, X. Zhang, V . S. Ferreira, J. Banker, J. K. Iver- son, A. Sipahigil, M. Bello, A. Gonz ´alez-Tudela, M. Mirhos- seini, and O. Painter, Quantum electrodynamics in a topological waveguide, Phys. Rev. X11, 011015 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Mirhosseini, E

    M. Mirhosseini, E. Kim, V . S. Ferreira, M. Kalaee, A. Sipahigil, A. J. Keller, and O. Painter, Superconducting metamaterials for 6 waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Nature communications 9, 3706 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Shen and S

    J.-T. Shen and S. Fan, Strongly correlated multiparticle trans- port in one dimension through a quantum impurity, Phys. Rev. A76, 062709 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Shen and S

    J.-T. Shen and S. Fan, Strongly correlated two-photon transport in a one-dimensional waveguide coupled to a two-level system, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 153003 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Roy, Few-photon optical diode, Phys

    D. Roy, Few-photon optical diode, Phys. Rev. B81, 155117 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Zheng, D

    H. Zheng, D. J. Gauthier, and H. U. Baranger, Waveguide- QED-Based Photonic Quantum Computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090502 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Astafiev, A

    O. Astafiev, A. M. Zagoskin, A. Abdumalikov, Y . A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, Y . Nakamura, and J. Tsai, Reso- nance fluorescence of a single artificial atom, Science327, 840 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    I.-C. Hoi, C. M. Wilson, G. Johansson, T. Palomaki, B. Per- opadre, and P. Delsing, Demonstration of a single-photon router in the microwave regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 073601 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    I.-C. Hoi, A. F. Kockum, T. Palomaki, T. M. Stace, B. Fan, L. Tornberg, S. R. Sathyamoorthy, G. Johansson, P. Delsing, and C. M. Wilson, Giant cross–kerr effect for propagating mi- crowaves induced by an artificial atom, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 053601 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Vrajitoarea, R

    A. Vrajitoarea, R. Belyansky, R. Lundgren, S. Whitsitt, A. V . Gorshkov, and A. A. Houck, Ultrastrong light-matter interaction in a multimode photonic crystal, arXiv preprint: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.14972 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Roy, Cascaded two-photon nonlinearity in a one- dimensional waveguide with multiple two-level emitters, Sci

    D. Roy, Cascaded two-photon nonlinearity in a one- dimensional waveguide with multiple two-level emitters, Sci. Rep.3, 2337 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Roy, Critical features of nonlinear optical isolators for im- proved nonreciprocity, Phys

    D. Roy, Critical features of nonlinear optical isolators for im- proved nonreciprocity, Phys. Rev. A96, 033838 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Fratini, E

    F. Fratini, E. Mascarenhas, L. Safari, J.-P. Poizat, D. Valente, A. Auff `eves, D. Gerace, and M. F. Santos, Fabry-perot inter- ferometer with quantum mirrors: Nonlinear light transport and rectification, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 243601 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    J. Dai, A. Roulet, H. N. Le, and V . Scarani, Rectification of light in the quantum regime, Phys. Rev. A92, 063848 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    M ¨uller, J

    C. M ¨uller, J. Combes, A. R. Hamann, A. Fedorov, and T. M. Stace, Nonreciprocal atomic scattering: A saturable, quantum yagi-uda antenna, Phys. Rev. A96, 053817 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Rosario Hamann, C

    A. Rosario Hamann, C. M ¨uller, M. Jerger, M. Zanner, J. Combes, M. Pletyukhov, M. Weides, T. M. Stace, and A. Fedorov, Nonreciprocity realized with quantum nonlinear- ity, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 123601 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Segal and A

    D. Segal and A. Nitzan, Spin-boson thermal rectifier, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 034301 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    Wu and D

    L.-A. Wu and D. Segal, Sufficient conditions for thermal rec- tification in hybrid quantum structures, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 095503 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Frisk Kockum, P

    A. Frisk Kockum, P. Delsing, and G. Johansson, Designing frequency-dependent relaxation rates and lamb shifts for a giant artificial atom, Phys. Rev. A90, 013837 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    A. F. Kockum, G. Johansson, and F. Nori, Decoherence-free interaction between giant atoms in waveguide quantum electro- dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 140404 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    X. Wang, T. Liu, A. F. Kockum, H.-R. Li, and F. Nori, Tun- able chiral bound states with giant atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 043602 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    L. Guo, A. Grimsmo, A. F. Kockum, M. Pletyukhov, and G. Jo- hansson, Giant acoustic atom: A single quantum system with a deterministic time delay, Phys. Rev. A95, 053821 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    W. Gu, T. Li, Y . Tian, Z. Yi, and G.-x. Li, Two-photon dynam- ics in non-markovian waveguide QED with a giant atom, Phys. Rev. A110, 033707 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Kannan, M

    B. Kannan, M. J. Ruckriegel, D. L. Campbell, A. Frisk Kockum, J. Braum ¨uller, D. K. Kim, M. Kjaer- gaard, P. Krantz, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski,et al., Waveguide quantum electrodynamics with superconducting artificial giant atoms, Nature583, 775 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    S. M. Girvin, Circuit QED: superconducting qubits coupled to microwave photons, Proceedings of the 2011 Les Houches Summer School (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Longo, P

    P. Longo, P. Schmitteckert, and K. Busch, Few-photon trans- port in low-dimensional systems: Interaction-induced radiation trapping, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 023602 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Roy, Correlated few-photon transport in one-dimensional waveguides: Linear and nonlinear dispersions, Phys

    D. Roy, Correlated few-photon transport in one-dimensional waveguides: Linear and nonlinear dispersions, Phys. Rev. A83, 043823 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Supplemental Material (SM)

  29. [37]

    D. Roy, A. Soori, D. Sen, and A. Dhar, Nonequilibrium charge transport in an interacting open system: Two-particle resonance and current asymmetry, Phys. Rev. B80, 075302 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Zheng and H

    H. Zheng and H. U. Baranger, Persistent quantum beats and long-distance entanglement from waveguide-mediated interac- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 113601 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    W. Gu, H. Huang, Z. Yi, L. Chen, L. Sun, and H. Tan, Cor- related two-photon scattering in a one-dimensional waveguide coupled to two- or three-level giant atoms, Phys. Rev. A108, 053718 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Bag and D

    R. Bag and D. Roy, Quantum light-matter interactions in struc- tured waveguides, Phys. Rev. A108, 053717 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Shen and S

    J.-T. Shen and S. Fan, Theory of single-photon transport in a single-mode waveguide. i. coupling to a cavity containing a two-level atom, Phys. Rev. A79, 023837 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Y . Shi, Z. Yu, and S. Fan, Limitations of nonlinear optical iso- lators due to dynamic reciprocity, Nat. Photon.9, 388 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Revival of transport reciprocity via quantum interference in asymmetric nonlinear devices

    A. Vinu and D. Roy, Single photons versus coherent-state input in waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Light scattering, kerr, and cross-kerr effect, Phys. Rev. A107, 023704 (2023). 1 Supplementary Material for “Revival of transport reciprocity via quantum interference in asymme...

    2023

  36. [44]

    In the two-level limit, we takeU→∞and get |Ψ2(R,k;R,k)⟩=|Φ 2(R,k;R,k)⟩ −ˆG+ o (2k)|b;b⟩ ⟨b;b|Φ 2(R,k;R,k)⟩ ⟨b;b| ˆG+o (2k)|b;b⟩ =|Φ 2(R,k;R,k)⟩+|S 2(R,k;R,k)⟩.(22) In the above sum, we separate the 2-photon scattering state into non-interacting|Φ 2(R,k;R,k)⟩and interacting bou...

  37. [45]

    We show that⟨b;b| ˆG+ o (E)|b;b⟩is symmetric ing 1 andg 2

    Green’s function⟨b;b| ˆG+o (E)|b;b⟩ In these calculations, we obtain an analytical series expression for the expectation of the 2-photon Green’s function in the state|b;b⟩. We show that⟨b;b| ˆG+ o (E)|b;b⟩is symmetric ing 1 andg 2. To this end, we establish a 2-photon identity...

  38. [46]

    +i0+ = 2 (2π)2 Z dk′ 1 Γk′ 1 f+(k′ 1)f −(k′ 1) Z dk′ 2 1 2k−(k ′ 1 +k ′

  39. [47]

    +i0+ Γk′ 2 f+(k′ 2)f −(k′

  40. [48]

    We use complex analysis and choose an integration contour that encloses the lower half of the complex plane

    (24) Let us first consider thek ′ 2 integration. We use complex analysis and choose an integration contour that encloses the lower half of the complex plane. For this purpose, we define the two complex-valued functions:f ±(p) =p−Ω−∆ p ±iΓ p/2=0. The poles lying in the lower ha...

  41. [49]

    27 is carried with the rootsp j,p k (wherej,k∈Z +) and Eq

    ∑ j 1 2k−(k ′ 1 +p j) +i0+ Γp j f ′+(p j)f −(p j) .(26) For thek ′ 1-integration, once again, we use an integration contour which encloses the lower half of the complex plane, and get ⇒ ⟨b;b|ˆG+ o (2k)|b;b⟩=− ∑ k,j Γpk f ′+(p k)f −(p k) 2 2k−(p k +p j) Γp j f ′+(p j)f −(p j) ....

  42. [50]

    Complex roots of the equations: f ±(p) =0. Here, we prove that the complex roots of the self-energy equationf +(p) = (p−Ω−∆ p) +iΓp/2=0, which determines the transition frequencies in the dressed-atom, cannot lie in the upper half of the complex plane. We cast this equation in...

  43. [51]

    2-photon transmission current In the manuscript, we define the 2-photon transmission current (from left to right) as:J L→R(2;k) =Jo L→R(2;k) +δJL→R(2;k). The transmission current for two non-interacting photons is defined by Jo L→R(2;k) =⟨Φ2(R,k;R,k)| ˆJL→R(x)|Φ2(R,k;R,k)⟩forx...

  44. [52]

    35, we have used the 2-photon identity in momentum space (see Eq

    +φL β (x,k ′ 1)φ L∗ b (k′ 1) 2k−(k ′ 1 +k ′) +i0+ forx>d/2.(36) 6 In order to derive Eq. 35, we have used the 2-photon identity in momentum space (see Eq. 23) and theδ-orthonormalization condition for 1-photon states given in Eq. 34. Using both, we simplify the following expre...

  45. [53]

    (a) Integration : I L(x,2k−k ′) = 1 2π Z dk′ 1 e−ik′ 1x 2k−(k ′ 1 +k ′) +i0+ (g2eik′ 1d/2 +g 1e−ik′ 1d/2) f−(k′

    +i0+ =4φ R∗ β (x,k)φ R∗ b (k)Iβ (x,k).(37) Next, we evaluate the integrals inI L(x,2k−k ′)andI R(x,2k−k ′), forx>d/2, without any approximations. (a) Integration : I L(x,2k−k ′) = 1 2π Z dk′ 1 e−ik′ 1x 2k−(k ′ 1 +k ′) +i0+ (g2eik′ 1d/2 +g 1e−ik′ 1d/2) f−(k′

  46. [54]

    tR∗ k Γk (k−Ω−∆ k +iΓ k/2)2 1 ⟨b;b| ˆG+o (2k)|b;b⟩ # ≈

    =0,(38) where we take an integration contour which encloses the lower half of the complex plane. (b) Integration : I R(x,2k−k ′) = 1 2π Z dk′ 1 eik′ 1x 2k−(k ′ 1 +k ′) +i0+ (g1eik′ 1d/2 +g 2e−ik′ 1d/2) f+(k′ 1) =−ie i(2k−k′)x g1ei(2k−k′)d/2 +g 2e−i(2k−k′)d/2 f+(2k−k ′) .(39) I...

  47. [55]

    Hence, the current in Eq

    +i0+ φ α ′ 1 b (k′ 1)φ α ′ 2 b (k′ 2) ∗.(43) Using the above expression, we can derive ⟨b;b| ˆG− o (2k)ˆa† β (x)ˆaβ (x) ˆG+ o (2k)|b;b⟩=8 ∑ α ′ Z dk′|φ α ′ b (k′)Iβ (x,2k−k ′)|2.(44) Consideringx>d/2, we finally have δJ c L→R(2;k) =32π |φ R b (k)|4 |⟨b;b| ˆG+o (2k)|b;b⟩| 2 Z d...

  48. [56]

    They will be later utilized in the 2-photon current and the scattering matrix calculations

    2-photon Green’s functions In this subsection, we obtain analytical expressions for the 2-photon Green’s functions. They will be later utilized in the 2-photon current and the scattering matrix calculations. To proceed, we establish a 2-photon identity ˜I2 in the momentum spac...

  49. [57]

    n ˜φ R∗ 2 (x,k) ˜I2(x,k)− ˜φ R∗ 2 (−x,k) ˜I2(−x,k) o ˜φ R b (k)| ˜φ R b (k)|2 ⟨b;b| ˆ˜G+o (2k)|b;b⟩ # forx>0,(81) δ ˜Jc R→L(2;k) =−8ℜ

    2-photon transmission current As mentioned in the manuscript, our goal is to obtain 2-photon transmission current in this generalized direct-coupled setup to demonstrate a transition from nonreciprocal to reciprocal regimes in the parity-broken configuration|gL| ̸=|gR|. Simila...

  50. [58]

    ˜tR∗ k (gR −ig LJ∗)(g∗ L −iJ ∗g∗ R) (k−Ω−∆+iΓ/2)(|J| 2 +1) 2 | ˜φ R b (k)|2 # ,(88) δ ˜Jc R→L(2;k) = 4 π ℑ

    ˜φ L∗ b (k′ 1) 2k−(k ′ 1 +k ′) +i0+ wherex>0,(83) and for channelsl=1,2. We evaluate the integrations in ˜I2(±x,2k−k ′)and ˜I1(±x,2k−k ′)forx>0 as follows: (a) Integration : ˜I2(−x,2k−k ′) = 1 2π Z dk′ 1 e−ik′ 1x 2k−(k ′ 1 +k ′) +i0+ (gR +iJ ∗gL)/(|J|2 +1) (k′ 1 −Ω−∆)−iΓ/2 =0,...

  51. [59]

    We evaluate the non- vanishing integrals as follows

    ˜φ α ′ 2 b (k′ 2) ∗.(93) This gives us⟨b;b| ˆ˜G− o (2k)ˆa† l (x)ˆal(x) ˆ˜G+ o (2k)|b;b⟩=8 ∑α ′ R dk′| ˜φ α ′ b (k′)˜Il(x,2k−k ′)|2 whereα ′ =R,L. We evaluate the non- vanishing integrals as follows. (a) Integration : ∑ α ′ Z dk′| ˜φ α ′ b (k′)˜I2(x,2k−k ′)|2 = 1 2π Z dk′ |g∗ L...

  52. [60]

    One of the incident photons is moving towardsαwith momentumk 1, and the other one is moving towardsβwith momentumk 2

    Outgoing states As before, the scattered 2-photon state is denoted by | ˜Ψ2(α,k 1;β,k 2)⟩=| ˜Φ2(α,k 1;β,k 2)⟩ − ˆ˜G+ o (Ek)|b;b⟩ ⟨b;b| ˆ˜G+o (Ek)|b;b⟩ ⟨b;b| ˜Φ2(α,k 1;β,k 2)⟩.(99) whereα,β=R,R;α,β=R,L; andα,β=L,L. One of the incident photons is moving towardsαwith momentumk 1,...

  53. [61]

    Elastic and inelastic components In the manuscript, we mention that the scatteringS-matrix generates a mapping between two plane-wave states. In the 2- photon sector, such a mapping captures the essence of elastic and inelastic scattering as follows [12]: ⟨Sq1,q2(m,m ′)|ˆS|Sk1...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.