Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 106 references

Non-Hermitian Quantum Nonlinear Optics with Single Photons

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Perfect absorption in a reflection spectrum marks the operating point where a single photon can be down-converted into a correlated pair with near-unity efficiency.

desk verdict A careful theory paper that makes a genuinely new connection between perfect absorption and single-photon nonlinear conversion, with the caveat that the central equivalence is proven for the effective model, not the full USC Hamiltonian. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29313 v1 pith:EO4UPSPM submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph

Samuel Napoli , Andrea Zappalá , Franco Nori , Salvatore Savasta , Daniele Lamberto This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords perfectabsorptionnon-HermitianHamiltonianquantumnonlinearopticsultrastrongcouplingcircuitQEDsingle-photondown-conversionHermitiansubspacetwo-photonFockstate
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 argues that perfect absorption (PA) — the condition of exactly zero reflection from a cavity — can be used as a spectral design tool for quantum nonlinear optics, not just as a classical impedance-matching effect. In two circuit-QED systems operating in the ultrastrong-coupling regime, the nonlinear process that turns one input photon into (i) a pair of atom-like qubit excitations or (ii) a pair of photons is encoded in the linear reflection spectrum |S11|. Exploiting PA, the authors show, converts this process near-deterministically; tuning the detuning so that a Hermitian subspace of the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian emerges pushes conversion efficiency toward unity even when non-radiative losses are present. The exact coincidence between the PA detuning and the efficiency-maximum detuning holds if and only if the resonator has no non-radiative loss, regardless of how large or asymmetric the qubit losses are. The result matters because it converts loss — normally the enemy of quantum nonlinear devices — into a precisely engineerable resource.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H_PA = A - i/2 Γ_PA, built from the closed-system transition matrix A and a dissipation matrix Γ_PA in which the resonator's radiative decay rate γ_r is reversed in sign. Its eigenvalues' real parts locate the PA frequencies; a purely real eigenvalue signals a Hermitian subspace, where the effective loss of one hybrid mode vanishes and |S11|=0. The companion machinery is the Hopfield/mixing-angle parametrization of the hybrid modes, which lets detuning reshape the photonic and atomic fractions until the effective loss condition is met. The calculation is carried out in a low-excitation, two-state manifold described by an effe

What would settle it

Measure, in a single device, the detuning at which |S11|=0 and the detuning at which down-conversion efficiency peaks, while independently determining the resonator non-radiative loss rate. If γ_nr is known to be zero, the paper predicts the two detunings coincide exactly; a nonzero offset would falsify the central claim. Conversely, observing near-unity conversion efficiency at parameters where PA is absent would show that PA is not the enabling condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the zeros of |S11| are eigenvalues of an effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H_PA in which the resonator's radiative loss rate enters with reversed sign, acting as gain; when such an eigenvalue becomes purely real, the reflection vanishes and the input field is fully fed into the two-qubit (or two-photon) excitation channel. The real part of the eigenvalue gives the drive frequency for PA, and the condition for a real eigenvalue is that the effective loss γ̃_j = (-γ_r+γ_nr)|C_j1|^2 + (γ_qr+γ_qnr)|C_j2|^2 vanish. Detuning changes the Hopfield weights |C_jk|^2, i.e., the photonic versus atomic character of the hybrid mode, providing an experimentally accessible kn

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument rests on a truncated few-level model in which the ultrastrong-coupling physics is replaced by a constant effective coupling and simple Markovian loss rates; if higher excitation manifolds or dressed system-bath coupling become significant, the precise link between perfect absorption and maximum efficiency breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With no non-radiative resonator loss, PA gives unit conversion efficiency and saturates the maximal two-qubit output correlation bound.
  • When γ_nr ≠ 0, shifting the detuning to the Hermitian-subspace point restores about 90% conversion efficiency in both strong- and weak-coupling regimes, without requiring loss balance or PT symmetry.
  • The efficiency maximum coincides exactly with PA if and only if γ_nr = 0, regardless of qubit loss rates, a condition proven analytically.
  • For the purely photonic two-mode system, the same mechanism yields about 92% single-photon-to-two-photon down-conversion efficiency despite non-negligible resonator non-radiative losses.
  • PA persists below the strong-to-weak coupling threshold down to a minimum coupling g_min, so the optimization strategy remains available in near-term devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the exact offset between PA and the efficiency maximum could serve as a built-in meter for the resonator's non-radiative loss, since the analytic comparison shows the offset is governed solely by γ_nr.
  • Editorial inference: the same detuning/Hermitian-subspace logic should transfer to pulsed single-photon protocols, where the pulse spectrum could be placed on the PA resonance to achieve deterministic time-domain state transfer — going beyond the paper's continuous-wave analysis.
  • Editorial inference: any quantum nonlinear system whose nonlinear transition is spectroscopically visible in linear response — for instance χ^(2) microresonators or three-wave-mixing devices under a strong coherent pump — may inherit the same PA-based optimization criterion, making the result a general design rule rather than a circuit-QED curiosity.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a non-Hermitian scattering framework for two circuit-QED systems operating in the ultrastrong-coupling regime and uses perfect absorption (PA, |S11|=0) in the linear reflection spectrum as a design principle for few-photon nonlinear conversion. For setup (i), a single resonator coupled to two qubits, it derives the effective Hamiltonian H_eff (Eq. 2), constructs the non-Hermitian PA Hamiltonian H_PA (Eq. 12), and shows that PA conditions can be engineered either by PT-symmetric loss balance or, more generally, by tuning detuning so that a Hermitian subspace of H_PA emerges. The central quantitative claim is that the maximum single-qubit conversion efficiency η_j coincides exactly with the PA detuning if and only if the resonator non-radiative loss γ_nr=0 (App. D). In the presence of γ_nr, efficiency maxima shift away from PA; by relaxing loss balance, efficiencies around 0.9 are still obtained. For setup (ii), a single-photon to two-photon down-conversion system, the framework is applied to reach efficiencies ≈0.92. Phase diagrams map the maximum efficiency across coupling and loss parameters.

Significance. If the results hold for the actual physical devices, the paper provides a practical, experimentally accessible optimization strategy—detuning and loss engineering—for near-deterministic single-photon nonlinear conversion, extending non-Hermitian concepts (PT symmetry, Hermitian subspaces) into the quantum nonlinear domain. The analytical derivations in Apps. A–D are careful and explicit; the numerical master-equation results agree well with the analytics (Fig. 12). The sharp prediction that the efficiency maximum coincides with PA iff γ_nr=0 is falsifiable and gives clear experimental guidance. The phase diagrams in Fig. 8 and the proposed independently tunable photonic design in Sec. V are useful contributions. The paper is well structured, and the presentation of the effective-model framework is commendable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (B3), Eq. (C2), Sec. III A, App. D] The system-bath interaction in Eq. (B3) and the Lindblad dissipators in Eq. (C2) are written in terms of the bare operators a and σ_j^- in the rotating frame of H_eff. For a system genuinely in the USC regime (described by Eq. 1), the physical jump operators should be dressed-state operators; using bare operators is an assumption, not a derivation. Since H_PA (Eq. 12), the PA condition, and the exact coincidence result in App. D are all built from these rates, the 'iff γ_nr=0' theorem is established for the effective few-level model with the assumed dissipator structure, not for the microscopic USC Hamiltonian. The agreement between the analytical and numerical master equations (Fig. 12) checks internal consistency only, since both share the same dissipator choice. To make the central claim about physical circuit-QED devices load-bearing, the authors should either derive the effective di
  2. [App. D, Eq. (17), App. C] The proof that the efficiency maximum coincides with PA iff γ_nr=0 starts from Eq. (17), which is derived in App. C using a restricted normalization approximation (ρ_00+ρ_11+ρ_--=1) and neglecting coherence between the two hybrid modes (ρ_-+≈0). The full master equation is not used in the proof. The numerical results are consistent with the claimed behavior, but they do not constitute a general proof for the full effective model. The statement 'irrespective of how large or asymmetric the qubit losses are' is therefore a statement about the approximate analytical model, not a proven exact property of the full Liouvillian. The authors should either provide a derivation that does not rely on the restricted normalization, or soften the claim and state explicitly that the universal 'iff' is established within the controlled approximation of App. C, with numerical evidence for the parameters e
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (B12)] The notation ¯n(˜ωd) should be ¯n(ω_d); the tilde on the argument is inconsistent with the rest of the paper and could mislead the reader.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] In panels (a) and (b), the 'vertical cyan dashed line marks the resonator non-radiative loss' is unclear—specify whether it marks the value γ_nr/ω̃_r used in those panels, and similarly label the curved boundary as g_eff = g_min.
  3. [App. D] After introducing x=|C_j1|^2, it would be helpful to state explicitly that x is a monotonic function of the detuning Δω (via the mixing angle α∈[0,π]), so equality of x_PA and x_η indeed implies equality of the physical detunings. This is implicit but not stated.
  4. [Eq. (30)] The factor 2 multiplying (γ_r1+γ_nr1)|C_j1|^2 is stated without explanation. A brief note that it accounts for the two-photon nature of mode 1 (or a derivation in the text) would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PA/efficiency coincidence is a derived algebraic identity, not an input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the detuning maximizing conversion efficiency coincides with the perfect-absorption detuning iff the resonator non-radiative loss γ_nr vanishes—is derived in Appendix D by comparing two independently constructed expressions. The PA condition is obtained from the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H_PA, Eq. (12), as the vanishing of the effective loss ̃γ_j in Eq. (14), while the efficiency maximum is obtained from the master-equation-derived Lorentzian, Eq. (17), separately derived in Appendix C. The two optimized photonic fractions, x_PA in Eq. (D5) and x_η in Eq. (D6), differ algebraically and coincide only when γ_nr = 0; this coincidence is a theorem, not an assumption. The numerical master equation and the analytical formulas share the same effective few-level model, but this is internal consistency, not circularity. Model parameters (g_eff, decay rates) are physical inputs taken from experiments or perturbation theory rather than fitted to the efficiency target. Self-citations to Refs. [53,55,82] provide background effective-Hamiltonian and Hermitian-subspace frameworks, but the paper re-derives the relevant effective coupling in Appendix A and the Hermitian-subspace condition in Eqs. (13)-(14), and external experimental works [58,59,102] provide independent support. The skeptic's concern about bare Lindblad dissipators in the USC regime is a physical-validity caveat about whether the effective model faithfully describes the full USC system, not a circular reduction within the model. Thus no circular step is exhibited, and the score is 0.

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

The central claim does not introduce any fitted parameter; all parameters are physical and either taken from experiments or scanned. The derivation relies on standard Markovian input-output theory, low-excitation linearization, and a truncated few-level model. These are domain assumptions, not free parameters.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Markovian input-output theory with rotating-wave-approximated system-bath coupling (App B)
    Reflection spectrum and master equation are derived under this standard open-quantum-system assumption.
  • domain assumption Low-excitation linearization replaces ⟨a σz1σz2⟩ by −⟨a⟩ (App B)
    This linearization is the bridge that maps the nonlinear QLEs onto a linear bosonic system and yields the two-pole reflection formula.
  • domain assumption The generalized Dicke Hamiltonian Eq (1) with spin-spin term and the effective Hamiltonian Eq (2) accurately model the USC circuit-QED system (Sec II, App A)
    The whole analysis is built on this effective few-level model; geff is computed perturbatively.
  • domain assumption Truncation to the N_exc≤2 manifold with a restricted normalization condition (App C)
    Analytical efficiency and correlation formulas use a three-level truncation and ρ00+ρ11+ρ−−=1; validated only against the same model's numerics.
  • domain assumption Lindblad dissipators with bare σ^- jump operators (Eq C2)
    USC systems can have dressed-state dissipators; using bare operators is a common but not rigorously justified choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Hermitian Quantum Nonlinear Optics with Single Photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EO4UPSPM

@misc{pith2026260729313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Hermitian Quantum Nonlinear Optics with Single Photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EO4UPSPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29313}
}
abstract

Quantum nonlinear optics seeks to harness strong photon-photon interactions for scalable quantum technologies, although dissipative losses still pose a major barrier to near-unity conversion efficiency. Here, we bridge non-Hermitian physics with the quantum nonlinear domain by exploiting perfect absorption to identify and optimize few-photon nonlinear processes. We theoretically investigate two circuit QED systems, operating in the light-matter ultrastrong coupling regime. The first (i) enables simultaneous two-atom excitations by single photons, while the second (ii) realizes the strong coupling between a single-photon and a two-photon Fock states. We demonstrate that, since the strong optical nonlinearities cause quantum spectral features to emerge already at the level of linear response theory, the perfect absorption condition in $|S_{11}|$ enables near-deterministic single-photon down-conversion into (i) a qubit-qubit-correlated pair and (ii) a two-photon pair. We show that the conversion efficiency can be systematically optimized through experimentally accessible parameters, both linked to the emergence of Hermitian subspaces within the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. These findings position non-Hermitian engineering as a broadly applicable route to optimizing quantum devices at the single-photon level, even beyond circuit-QED platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29313 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of the circuit-QED setup hosting the quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy spectrum and schematic transitions diagrams [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Reflection and conversion efficiency with and without resonator intrinsic losses, for identical qubits and in the case of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Emission spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Two-qubit output correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a, c) Reflection coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a, c) Reflection coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Maximum efficiency max( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Single-photon to two-photon down-conversion in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Virtual transition pathways between the states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Effective coupling strength estimations with and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Analytical and numerical comparison of emission ef [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Spectral and emission properties for non-equal qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    3(c, d) (whereγ nr ̸= 0), as well as in the presence of Hermitian subspaces in Fig

    and Fig. 3(c, d) (whereγ nr ̸= 0), as well as in the presence of Hermitian subspaces in Fig. 6(a, b) (where γnr ̸= 0) and Fig. 6(c, d) (whereγ nr = 0). Appendix E: Non-equal qubit frequencies In this appendix, we examine how the spectral and emission properties discussed in Sec. III are modified when the two dressed qubit transition frequencies are nondeg...

  2. [2]

    P. A. Franken, A. E. Hill, C. W. Peters, and G. Weinre- ich, Generation of Optical Harmonics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 118 (1961)

    1961

  3. [3]

    J. A. Armstrong, N. Bloembergen, J. Ducuing, and P. S. Pershan, Interactions between Light Waves in a Nonlin- ear Dielectric, Phys. Rev.127, 1918 (1962)

    1918

  4. [4]

    H. M. Gibbs,Optical Bistability: Controlling Light with Light(Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1985)

    1985

  5. [5]

    V. R. Almeida, C. A. Barrios, R. R. Panepucci, and M. Lipson, All-optical control of light on a silicon chip, Nature431, 1081 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    C. Wang, M. Zhang, X. Chen, M. Bertrand, A. Shams- Ansari, S. Chandrasekhar, P. Winzer, and M. Lonˇ car, Integrated lithium niobate electro-optic modulators op- erating at CMOS-compatible voltages, Nature562, 101 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Minzioni, C

    P. Minzioni, C. Lacava, T. Tanabe, J. Dong, X. Hu, G. Csaba, W. Porod, G. Singh, A. E. Willner, A. Al- maiman, V. Torres-Company, J. Schr¨ oder, A. C. Pea- cock, M. J. Strain, F. Parmigiani, G. Contestabile, D. Marpaung, Z. Liu, J. E. Bowers, L. Chang, S. Fab- bri, M. Ramos V´ azquez, V. Bharadwaj, S. M. Eaton, P. Lodahl, X. Zhang, B. J. Eggleton, W. J. M...

    2019

  8. [8]

    Sinatkas, T

    G. Sinatkas, T. Christopoulos, O. Tsilipakos, and E. E. Kriezis, Electro-optic modulation in integrated photon- ics, J. Appl. Phys.130, 010901 (2021)

    2021

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    Y. R. Shen,The Principles of Nonlinear Optics(Wiley- Interscience, New York, 1984)

    1984

  2. [10]

    G. P. Agrawal,Nonlinear Fiber Optics, 5th ed. (Aca- demic Press, London, 2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    R. W. Boyd,Nonlinear Optics, 4th ed. (Academic Press, London, 2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

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

    2014

  5. [13]

    D. C. Burnham and D. L. Weinberg, Observation of Si- multaneity in Parametric Production of Optical Photon Pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 84 (1970)

    1970

  6. [14]

    L.-A. Wu, H. J. Kimble, J. L. Hall, and H. Wu, Gener- ation of Squeezed States by Parametric Down Conver- sion, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 2520 (1986)

    1986

  7. [15]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optics, 2nd ed. (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    J. Zhao, C. Ma, M. R¨ using, and S. Mookherjea, High Quality Entangled Photon Pair Generation in Period- ically Poled Thin-Film Lithium Niobate Waveguides, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 163603 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Zhang, Y.-F

    C. Zhang, Y.-F. Huang, B.-H. Liu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Spontaneous Parametric Down-Conversion Sources for Multiphoton Experiments, Adv. Quantum Technol.4, 2000132 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Nehra, R

    R. Nehra, R. Sekine, L. Ledezma, Q. Guo, R. M. Gray, A. Roy, and A. Marandi, Few-cycle vacuum squeezing in nanophotonics, Science377, 1333 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Quesada, L

    N. Quesada, L. G. Helt, M. Menotti, M. Liscidini, and J. E. Sipe, Beyond photon pairs—nonlinear quantum photonics in the high-gain regime: a tutorial, Adv. Opt. Photon.14, 291 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    W. Chen, K. M. Beck, R. B¨ ucker, M. Gullans, M. D. Lukin, H. Tanji-Suzuki, and V. Vuleti´ c, All-Optical Switch and Transistor Gated by One Stored Photon, Science341, 768 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    S. Sun, H. Kim, Z. Luo, G. S. Solomon, and E. Waks, A single-photon switch and transistor enabled by a solid- state quantum memory, Science361, 57 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Tsiamis, O

    I. Tsiamis, O. Kyriienko, and A. S. Sørensen, Continuous-wave all-optical single-photon transistor based on a Rydberg-atom ensemble, Phys. Rev. A113, L011701 (2026)

    2026

  15. [23]

    G. J. Milburn, Quantum optical Fredkin gate, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 2124 (1989)

    1989

  16. [24]

    H. J. Kimble, Strong Interactions of Single Atoms and Photons in Cavity QED, Phys. Scr.T76, 127 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Hacker, S

    B. Hacker, S. Welte, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, A photon–photon quantum gate based on a single atom in an optical resonator, Nature536, 193 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Stolz, H

    T. Stolz, H. Hegels, M. Winter, B. R¨ ohr, Y.-F. Hsiao, L. Husel, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, Quantum-Logic Gate between Two Optical Photons with an Average Effi- ciency above 40%, Phys. Rev. X12, 021035 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Reinhard, T

    A. Reinhard, T. Volz, M. Winger, A. Badolato, K. J. Hennessy, E. L. Hu, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Strongly corre- lated photons on a chip, Nat. Photonics6, 93 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Bloch, A

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

    2022

  21. [29]

    J. Q. You and F. Nori, Atomic physics and quantum optics using superconducting circuits, Nature474, 589 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Superconducting circuits for quantum information: An outlook, Science 339, 1169 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y.-X. Liu, and F. Nori, Microwave photonics with superconducting quantum circuits, Phys. Rep.718-719, 1 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Blais, S

    A. Blais, S. M. Girvin, and W. D. Oliver, Quantum information processing and quantum optics with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nat. Phys.16, 247 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    C. Lang, D. Bozyigit, C. Eichler, L. Steffen, J. M. Fink, A. A. Abdumalikov, M. Baur, S. Filipp, M. P. da Silva, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Observation of Resonant Pho- ton Blockade at Microwave Frequencies Using Corre- 24 lation Function Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 243...

    2011

  29. [37]

    Rebi´ c, J

    S. Rebi´ c, J. Twamley, and G. J. Milburn, Giant Kerr Nonlinearities in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 150503 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Kirchmair, B

    G. Kirchmair, B. Vlastakis, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, E. Ginossar, M. Mirrahimi, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Observation of quantum state collapse and revival due to the single-photon Kerr effect, Nature495, 205 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    B. Abdo, K. Sliwa, F. Schackert, N. Bergeal, M. Ha- tridge, L. Frunzio, A. D. Stone, and M. Devoret, Full Coherent Frequency Conversion between Two Propa- gating Microwave Modes, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 173902 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Z. H. Wang, C. P. Sun, and Y. Li, Microwave degenerate parametric down-conversion with a single cyclic three- level system in a circuit-QED setup, Phys. Rev. A91, 043801 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Svensson, A

    I.-M. Svensson, A. Bengtsson, P. Krantz, J. Bylan- der, V. Shumeiko, and P. Delsing, Period-tripling sub- harmonic oscillations in a driven superconducting res- onator, Phys. Rev. B96, 174503 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    C. W. S. Chang, C. Sab ´ ın, P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, F. Qui- jandr ´ ıa, A. M. Vadiraj, I. Nsanzineza, G. Johansson, and C. M. Wilson, Observation of Three-Photon Spon- taneous Parametric Down-Conversion in a Supercon- ducting Parametric Cavity, Phys. Rev. X10, 011011 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. M. Gambetta, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, L. Frunzio, J. Ma- jer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Generating single microwave photons in a circuit, Na- ture449, 328 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    Bozyigit, C

    D. Bozyigit, C. Lang, L. Steffen, J. M. Fink, C. Eichler, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, P. J. Leek, S. Filipp, M. P. da Silva, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Antibunching of microwave-frequency photons observed in correlation measurements using linear detectors, Nat. Phys.7, 154 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Pechal, L

    M. Pechal, L. Huthmacher, C. Eichler, S. Zeytino˘ glu, A. A. Abdumalikov, S. Berger, A. Wallraff, and S. Fil- ipp, Microwave-Controlled Generation of Shaped Sin- gle Photons in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. X4, 041010 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Rolland, A

    C. Rolland, A. Peugeot, S. Dambach, M. Westig, B. Kubala, Y. Mukharsky, C. Altimiras, H. le Sueur, P. Joyez, D. Vion, P. Roche, D. Esteve, J. Ankerhold, and F. Portier, Antibunched Photons Emitted by a dc-Biased Josephson Junction, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 186804 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Forn-D ´ ıaz, J

    P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, J. Lisenfeld, D. Marcos, J. J. Garc ´ ıa- Ripoll, E. Solano, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Observation of the Bloch-Siegert Shift in a Qubit- Oscillator System in the Ultrastrong Coupling Regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 237001 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Yoshihara, T

    F. Yoshihara, T. Fuse, S. Ashhab, K. Kakuyanagi, S. Saito, and K. Semba, Superconducting qubit– oscillator circuit beyond the ultrastrong-coupling regime, Nat. Phys.13, 44 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Z. Chen, Y. Wang, T. Li, L. Tian, Y. Qiu, K. In- omata, F. Yoshihara, S. Han, F. Nori, J. S. Tsai, and J. Q. You, Single-photon-driven high-order side- band transitions in an ultrastrongly coupled circuit- quantum-electrodynamics system, Phys. Rev. A96, 012325 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    Forn-D ´ ıaz, L

    P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Ultrastrong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025005 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    W. Qin, A. F. Kockum, C. S. Mu˜ noz, A. Miranow- icz, and F. Nori, Quantum amplification and simulation of strong and ultrastrong coupling of light and matter, Phys. Rep.1078, 1 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Torras-Coloma, L

    A. Torras-Coloma, L. Cozzolino, A. G´ omez-del Pulgar-Mart ´ ınez, E. Bertoldo, and P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, Superinductor-based ultrastrong coupling in a super- conducting circuit, Appl. Phys. Lett.127, 214002 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Garziano, V

    L. Garziano, V. Macr ` ı, R. Stassi, O. Di Stefano, F. Nori, and S. Savasta, One Photon Can Simultaneously Ex- cite Two or More Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 043601 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Stassi, V

    R. Stassi, V. Macr ` ı, A. F. Kockum, O. Di Stefano, A. Miranowicz, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Quantum non- linear optics without photons, Phys. Rev. A96, 023818 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, V. Macr ` ı, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Deterministic quantum nonlinear optics with single atoms and virtual photons, Phys. Rev. A 95, 063849 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    L. Cong, S. Felicetti, J. Casanova, L. Lamata, E. Solano, and I. Arrazola, Selective interactions in the quantum Rabi model, Phys. Rev. A101, 032350 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Koshino, T

    K. Koshino, T. Shitara, Z. Ao, and K. Semba, Determin- istic three-photon down-conversion by a passive ultra- strong cavity-QED system, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013013 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Tomonaga, R

    A. Tomonaga, R. Stassi, H. Mukai, F. Nori, F. Yoshi- hara, and J. S. Tsai, Spectral properties of two super- conducting artificial atoms coupled to a resonator in the ultrastrong coupling regime, Nat. Commun.16, 5294 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    S.-P. Wang, A. Mercurio, A. Ridolfo, Y. Wang, M. Chen, W. Wang, Y. Liu, H. Sun, T. Li, F. Nori, S. Savasta, and J. Q. You, Strong coupling between a single-photon and a two-photon Fock state, Nat. Com- mun.16, 8730 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    M. Cai, O. Painter, and K. J. Vahala, Observation of Critical Coupling in a Fiber Taper to a Silica- Microsphere Whispering-Gallery Mode System, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 74 (2000)

    2000

  54. [62]

    Guo, C.-L

    X. Guo, C.-L. Zou, H. Jung, and H. X. Tang, On-Chip Strong Coupling and Efficient Frequency Conversion be- tween Telecom and Visible Optical Modes, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 123902 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    A. W. Bruch, X. Liu, X. Guo, J. B. Surya, Z. Gong, L. Zhang, J. Wang, J. Yan, and H. X. Tang, 17 000%/W second-harmonic conversion efficiency in single-crystalline aluminum nitride microresonators, Appl. Phys. Lett.113, 131102 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Z.-Y. Wang, X. Wu, X. Xiong, C. Yang, Z. Hao, Q.-F. Yang, Y. Hu, F. Bo, Q.-T. Cao, and Y.-F. Xiao, Toward ultimate-efficiency frequency conversion in nonlinear op- tical microresonators, Sci. Adv.11, eadu7605 (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    Koshino, Down-conversion of a single photon with 25 unit efficiency, Phys

    K. Koshino, Down-conversion of a single photon with 25 unit efficiency, Phys. Rev. A79, 013804 (2009)

    2009

  58. [66]

    Inomata, K

    K. Inomata, K. Koshino, Z. R. Lin, W. D. Oliver, J. S. Tsai, Y. Nakamura, and T. Yamamoto, Microwave Down-Conversion with an Impedance-Matched Λ Sys- tem in Driven Circuit QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 063604 (2014)

    2014

  59. [67]

    S´ anchez-Burillo, L

    E. S´ anchez-Burillo, L. Mart ´ ın-Moreno, J. J. Garc ´ ıa- Ripoll, and D. Zueco, Full two-photon down-conversion of a single photon, Phys. Rev. A94, 053814 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Non- Hermitian physics and PT symmetry, Nat. Phys.14, 11 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian physics, Adv. Phys.69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    C. Wang, Z. Fu, W. Mao, J. Qie, A. D. Stone, and L. Yang, Non-Hermitian optics and photonics: from classical to quantum, Adv. Opt. Photon.15, 442 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    A. Guo, G. J. Salamo, D. Duchesne, R. Morandotti, M. Volatier-Ravat, V. Aimez, G. A. Siviloglou, and D. N. Christodoulides, Observation ofPT-Symmetry Breaking in Complex Optical Potentials, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 093902 (2009)

    2009

  64. [72]

    Z. Lin, H. Ramezani, T. Eichelkraut, T. Kottos, H. Cao, and D. N. Christodoulides, Unidirectional Invisibility Induced byPT-Symmetric Periodic Structures, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 213901 (2011)

    2011

  65. [73]

    Chen, S ¸

    W. Chen, S ¸. Kaya ¨Ozdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, and L. Yang, Exceptional points enhance sensing in an op- tical microcavity, Nature548, 192 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    Wiersig, Review of exceptional point-based sensors, Photon

    J. Wiersig, Review of exceptional point-based sensors, Photon. Res.8, 1457 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    W. Wan, Y. Chong, L. Ge, H. Noh, A. D. Stone, and H. Cao, Time-Reversed Lasing and Interferometric Con- trol of Absorption, Science331, 889 (2011)

    2011

  68. [76]

    Zanotto, F

    S. Zanotto, F. P. Mezzapesa, F. Bianco, G. Biasiol, L. Baldacci, M. S. Vitiello, L. Sorba, R. Colombelli, and A. Tredicucci, Perfect energy-feeding into strongly coupled systems and interferometric control of polariton absorption, Nat. Phys.10, 830 (2014)

    2014

  69. [77]

    Zhang, X.-Q

    D. Zhang, X.-Q. Luo, Y.-P. Wang, T.-F. Li, and J. Q. You, Observation of the exceptional point in cavity magnon-polaritons, Nat. Commun.8, 1368 (2017)

    2017

  70. [78]

    W. R. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, and A. D. Stone, Theory of reflectionless scattering modes, Phys. Rev. A102, 063511 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    M. F. Imani, D. R. Smith, and P. del Hougne, Per- fect Absorption in a Disordered Medium with Pro- grammable Meta-Atom Inclusions, Adv. Funct. Mater. 30, 2005310 (2020)

    2020

  72. [80]

    Z. Rao, C. Meng, Y. Han, L. Zhu, K. Ding, and Z. An, Braiding reflectionless states in non-Hermitian magnon- ics, Nat. Phys.20, 1904 (2024)

    1904

  73. [81]

    Jiang, S

    X. Jiang, S. Yin, H. Li, J. Quan, H. Goh, M. Cotrufo, J. Kullig, J. Wiersig, and A. Al` u, Coherent control of chaotic optical microcavity with reflectionless scattering modes, Nat. Phys.20, 109 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Y. Han, C. Meng, H. Pan, J. Qian, Z. Rao, L. Zhu, Y. Gui, C.-M. Hu, and Z. An, Bound chiral magnonic polariton states for ideal microwave isolation, Sci. Adv. 9, eadg4730 (2023)

    2023

  75. [83]

    Bonizzoni, D

    C. Bonizzoni, D. Lamberto, S. Napoli, S. G¨ unzler, D. Rieger, F. Santanni, A. Ghirri, W. Wernsdorfer, S. Savasta, and M. Affronte, Observation of perfect ab- sorption in hyperfine levels of molecular spins with her- mitian subspaces, Nat. Commun.17, 470 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    De Bernardis, P

    D. De Bernardis, P. Pilar, T. Jaako, S. De Liberato, and P. Rabl, Breakdown of gauge invariance in ultrastrong- coupling cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A98, 053819 (2018)

    2018

  77. [85]

    Garziano, A

    L. Garziano, A. Settineri, O. Di Stefano, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Gauge invariance of the Dicke and Hopfield models, Phys. Rev. A102, 023718 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    Lamberto, O

    D. Lamberto, O. Di Stefano, S. Hughes, F. Nori, and S. Savasta, Quantum phase transitions in many-dipole light-matter systems, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013271 (2025)

    2025

  79. [87]

    Zappal´ a, A

    A. Zappal´ a, A. Mercurio, D. Lamberto, S. Napoli, O. Di Stefano, and S. Savasta, Cavity QED from few to many emitters: Energy levels and emission spectra from weak to deep-strong coupling, Phys. Rev. A112, 063718 (2025)

    2025

  80. [88]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Op- tics(Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004)

    2004

  81. [89]

    S.-P. Wang, A. Ridolfo, T. Li, S. Savasta, F. Nori, Y. Nakamura, and J. Q. You, Probing the symmetry breaking of a light–matter system by an ancillary qubit, Nat. Commun.14, 4397 (2023)

    2023

  82. [90]

    Breuer, F

    H.-P. Breuer, F. Petruccione,et al.,The theory of open quantum systems(Oxford University Press on Demand, 2002)

    2002

  83. [91]

    D. A. Lidar, Lecture Notes on the Theory of Open Quantum Systems, arXiv.1902.00967 (2020)

    1902 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Mercurio, Y.-T

    A. Mercurio, Y.-T. Huang, L.-X. Cai, Y.-N. Chen, V. Savona, and F. Nori, QuantumToolbox.jl: An effi- cient Julia framework for simulating open quantum sys- tems, Quantum9, 1866 (2025)

    2025

  85. [93]

    Couteau, Spontaneous parametric down-conversion, Contemp

    C. Couteau, Spontaneous parametric down-conversion, Contemp. Phys.59, 291 (2018)

    2018

  86. [94]

    Couteau, S

    C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, T. Gerrits, J. Huwer, R. Prevedel, J. Rarity, A. Shields, and G. Weihs, Ap- plications of single photons in quantum metrology, biol- ogy and the foundations of quantum physics, Nat. Rev. Phys.5, 354 (2023)

    2023

  87. [95]

    Orlando, D

    G. Orlando, D. Lamberto, F. Nori, and S. Savasta, Quantum Vacuum Radiation Near a Critical Point, arXiv.2604.10406 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Gasparinetti, M

    S. Gasparinetti, M. Pechal, J.-C. Besse, M. Mondal, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Correlations and Entan- glement of Microwave Photons Emitted in a Cascade Decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 140504 (2017)

    2017

  89. [97]

    Bondani, A

    M. Bondani, A. Allevi, G. Zambra, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Andreoni, Sub-shot-noise photon-number correlation in a mesoscopic twin beam of light, Phys. Rev. A76, 013833 (2007)

    2007

  90. [98]

    Losero, I

    E. Losero, I. Ruo-Berchera, A. Meda, A. Avella, and M. Genovese, Unbiased estimation of an optical loss at the ultimate quantum limit with twin-beams, Sci. Rep. 8, 7431 (2018)

    2018

  91. [99]

    D. A. Kopylov, M. Stefszky, T. Meier, C. Silberhorn, and P. R. Sharapova, Spectral and temporal properties of type-II parametric down-conversion: The impact of losses during state generation, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033122 (2025)

    2025

  92. [100]

    Boyer, A

    V. Boyer, A. M. Marino, R. C. Pooser, and P. D. Lett, Entangled Images from Four-Wave Mixing, Science321, 544 (2008). 26

    2008

  93. [101]

    Brida, M

    G. Brida, M. Genovese, and I. Ruo Berchera, Experi- mental realization of sub-shot-noise quantum imaging, Nat. Photonics4, 227 (2010)

    2010

  94. [102]

    Pontula, Y

    S. Pontula, Y. Salamin, C. Roques-Carmes, and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, Shaping Quantum Noise through Cascaded Nonlinear Processes in a Dissipation-Engineered Multi- mode Cavity, PRX Quantum5, 040345 (2024)

    2024

  95. [103]

    Zanotto and A

    S. Zanotto and A. Tredicucci, Universal lineshapes at the crossover between weak and strong critical coupling in Fano-resonant coupled oscillators, Sci. Rep.6, 24592 (2016)

    2016

  96. [104]

    Z.-Y. Wang, X. Xiong, J.-Y. Liu, Q. Gong, Y.-F. Xiao, and Q.-T. Cao, Strong-coupling dynamics of frequency conversion in an optical microresonator, Phys. Rev. A 108, 033521 (2023)

    2023

  97. [105]

    T. P. McKenna, H. S. Stokowski, V. Ansari, J. Mishra, M. Jankowski, C. J. Sarabalis, J. F. Herrmann, C. Lan- grock, M. M. Fejer, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Ultra- low-power second-order nonlinear optics on a chip, Nat. Commun.13, 4532 (2022)

    2022

  98. [106]

    W. T. M. Irvine, K. Hennessy, and D. Bouwmeester, Strong Coupling between Single Photons in Semicon- ductor Microcavities, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 057405 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.