Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 7 cited by

Dissipation in the Broadband and Ultrastrong Coupling Regimes of Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics: An Ab Initio Quantized Quasinormal Mode Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives, from first principles, the correct system-reservoir coupling for photon loss in arbitrary three-dimensional lossy cavities, valid in ultrastrong coupling, and shows it depends on the complex phase of the quasinormal…

desk verdict A serious ab initio derivation of the phase-dependent single-mode QNM master equation, with an honest but incompletely supported numerical validation; deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21408 v2 pith:COZCFYGC submitted 2025-07-29 quant-ph physics.optics

Chris Gustin , Juanjuan Ren , Sebastian Franke , Stephen Hughes This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords cavityquantumelectrodynamicsultrastrongcouplingquasinormalmodesbroadbanddissipationspectraldensitymacroscopicQEDopensystemsplasmonicnanoresonators
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

Most treatments of photon loss in cavity QED add dissipation by hand, as a flat decay rate acting on the cavity mode. The authors argue this phenomenological step fails as soon as the light-matter interaction is broadband, which includes ultrastrong coupling but also much weaker coupling in high-quality dielectric cavities. They derive from macroscopic QED and quantized quasinormal modes an ab initio single-mode master equation whose transition decay rates carry the complex phase of the cavity mode at the dipole location, recovering a recently reported spectral-density result and generalizing it to arbitrary three-dimensional resonators with dispersion and loss. If correct, the theory supplies parameter-free decay rates for realistic open cavities and predicts observable asymmetries in polariton linewidths that phenomenological models miss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quasinormal mode (QNM): a complex solution of the vector Helmholtz equation with outgoing radiation conditions, whose complex frequency $\tilde\omega_c=\omega_c-i\gamma_c$ encodes both the resonance frequency and its width. The derivation proceeds by projecting the continuum of medium-assisted polariton operators of macroscopic QED onto a discrete QNM subspace plus a residual reservoir, with a symmetrization matrix $S$ enforcing bosonic commutation relations between the discrete modes. The decisive step is the spatially specified representation: applying the Green-function identity $\int d^3r\,\epsilon_I(r)|\tilde f(r)|^2=\mathrm{Im}\{A_c e^{2i\phi_0}\}$ selects the phase $\phi_0$ of the QNM at the dipole and converts the spectral density from a Lorentzian into the phase-skewed form with $\zeta_c(\phi_0,\omega)$. This spatially dependent phase factor, not the bare linewidth $\kappa_c$, controls the frequency dependence of every dressed-state decay rate in the master equation.

What would settle it

Measure the spontaneous-emission rate of a dipole detuned several cavity linewidths from a high-quality dielectric cavity mode, without any fitted background subtraction, and compare with the predicted decay-rate ratio $\gamma(\omega_0)/L_c(\omega_0)=1-4Q_c\tan(2\phi_0)(\omega_0/\omega_c-1)$, where $L_c(\omega_0)$ is the Lorentzian normalization used in the paper. The claim is settled by whether the predicted asymmetric frequency dependence appears on its own, or only after an ad hoc background rate is subtracted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a lossy quantized cavity the correct system-reservoir coupling is fixed by the quantized quasinormal-mode expansion of the transverse vector potential, and in the single-mode limit the decay rate of each dressed-state transition $\alpha$ is $\Gamma_\alpha = \kappa_c |c^c_\alpha|^2 (\omega_c/\omega_\alpha)\,\zeta_c(\phi_0,\omega_\alpha)$, where $\kappa_c$ is the empty-cavity decay rate, $c^c_\alpha$ is the dressed-state matrix element of the cavity annihilation operator, and $\zeta_c(\phi_0,\omega_\alpha)=1-2Q_c\tan(2\phi_0)(\omega_\alpha/\omega_c-1)$ encodes the phase $\phi_0$ of the quasinormal mode at the dipole. An equivalent statement is that the spectral density of the cavity reservoir is $\Lambda_c(\omega_\alpha)=\sqrt{\gamma_c/\pi}\,\sqrt{\omega_c/\omega_\alpha}\,\zeta_c(\phi_0,\omega_\alpha)$, reproducing a recently reported result for a weakly coupled dipole and showing that a spatially specified quantization, which keeps the phase at the emitter, is necessary to get the frequency dependence right. Because the derivation starts from the full electromagnetic Hamiltonian of a dispersive and absorbing medium and never assumes a flat or Lorentzian bath, the authors claim this is the first time the cavity system-reservoir coupling has been obtained from an ab initio perspective for general three-dimensional resonators, and that it remains valid in broadband and ultrastrong coupling regimes. They support the claim by matching full Maxwell simulations for plasmonic dimers, dielectric bowties, photonic-crystal cavities, and microdisks, and by showing that the many-dipole thermodynamic limit reproduces the classical scattered-field spectrum once the negative-frequency quasinormal mode is included.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the cavity response is entirely captured by its discrete quasinormal modes, with non-resonant background radiation neglected, and the numerical validations only agree after subtracting a fitted background decay constant for each cavity; if background coupling is substantial in the broadband or ultrastrong regime, the predicted decay-rate corrections would be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For plasmonic dimers, the broadband dissipative regime coincides with ultrastrong coupling, so the single-mode quasinormal-mode master equation gives spectral predictions beyond phenomenological decay models in the ultrastrong regime.
  • For several dielectric cavities (a three-dimensional bowtie, a two-dimensional photonic crystal), the corrections become observable at coupling strengths orders of magnitude below the usual ultrastrong-coupling threshold, placing the effects within reach of existing emitter-cavity platforms.
  • The dimensionless criterion $\tilde\Omega_{\rm BB}=0.1\,\min\{1,|1-4Q_c\tan(2\phi_0)|^{-1}\}$ marks where phenomenological models break down, and the combination $Q_c\tan(2\phi_0)$ also bounds the validity of single-mode models.
  • In one-dimensional and quasi-one-dimensional designs such as whispering-gallery-mode microdisks, the quasi-harmonic distribution of longitudinal modes prevents accurate single-mode calculations, indicating that multimode extensions are needed in those structures.
  • In the many-dipole thermodynamic limit, the ab initio quantum spectrum agrees with the classical scattered-field spectrum only when the negative-frequency partner of the quasinormal mode is added to the classical Green function, showing how the single-mode approximation must be implemented differently in the two formalisms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the phase-controlled linewidth asymmetry $\Gamma_+ - \Gamma_- \propto \kappa_c|\eta_c|(1-4Q_c\tan(2\phi_0))$ could serve as a direct experimental signature of broadband dissipation, since it vanishes for flat phenomenological spectra and reverses sign as the emitter is displaced across the mode.
  • Inference: engineered inverse-designed cavities that place emitters at a controlled nonzero phase could amplify the effect at fixed coupling strength; a testable extension is to map the predicted decay-rate correction across dipole positions in a single resonator and compare with full Maxwell simulations.
  • Inference: because the validation required subtracting a fitted background rate for each cavity, a direct measurement of a dipole detuned far from the mode would quantify the non-resonant background contribution and show where the single-mode assumption starts to fail in realistic broadband experiments.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a derivation of a single-mode quantum master equation for a dipole coupled to a lossy, dispersive cavity, using a quantized quasinormal mode (QNM) approach combined with macroscopic QED. The central result is Eq. (78): polariton transition decay rates Gamma_alpha = kappa_c |c_alpha|^2 (omega_c/omega_alpha) zeta_c(phi_0, omega_alpha), where zeta_c contains the QNM phase at the dipole location. The authors show that this result recovers their earlier PRL spectral density, defines a 'broadband dissipative regime' via a dimensionless threshold Omega_BB, and demonstrates that phase-dependent corrections can be significant for dielectric cavities even below the USC threshold. The theory is validated in the weak-coupling regime by comparing QNM Purcell factors with full Maxwell simulations, after subtracting fitted background constants from the numerical decay rates. The authors also study USC dynamics in the quantum Rabi and Hopfield models, and show a classical-quantum correspondence once a negative-frequency QNM is added to the classical Green function.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is an important step toward ab initio dissipative cavity-QED in regimes where phenomenological Lindblad terms fail: the master equation is gauge-invariant, uses no free parameters for the spectral density (only QNM parameters from standard mode solvers), recovers a known PRL limit, and makes falsifiable predictions (linewidth asymmetry, broadband threshold, and collapse-operator dependence). The numerical work covers several realistic cavity designs, and the appendices give detailed technical derivations (local-boson approximation, electric-field expansion, perturbative linewidths). However, the validation is currently indirect: agreement with full Maxwell simulations is obtained only after per-cavity fitted background subtractions, so the quantitative support for the phase-dependent correction itself is weaker than the 'ab initio/parameter-free' framing suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V; Figs. 4(e), 5(e), 6(e), 12(e)] The numerical validation compares the QNM decay rate of Eq. (87) with the full Maxwell result only after subtracting per-cavity fitted background constants (1.77 gamma_0 for the bowtie, 0.05 gamma_0^{2D} for the 2D PC, 0.5 gamma_0^{2D} for the microdisk, and 1.78 gamma_0 for the PC beam). Since the non-modal background is not computed from the ab initio theory, this procedure can absorb any slowly varying or even frequency-dependent background contribution that overlaps the spectral window where zeta_c(phi_0, omega) is claimed to produce the observed deviations from the Lorentzian L_c(omega). The agreement shown in these fits therefore does not directly test the QNM-only expansion that underlies Eq. (77). To support the 'ab initio and parameter-free' claim, the authors should show the raw full-Maxwell decay rate together with the fitted background, and ideally obtain the background from the full Green function by subtracting the QNM projection, rather than using a fitted constant.
  2. [Sec. II B; Eq. (77)] The central rate formula is derived by inserting the single-mode QNM expansion of the transverse Green function, Eqs. (12) and (14), into the exact Green-function identity Eq. (41). The identity is exact for the full transverse Green function, so the derivation assumes that the QNM expansion is complete in the relevant spectral window and that non-modal background terms are negligible. The paper states these terms are neglected (Sec. II B) and asserts they are small in USC, but the only evidence presented is the background-subtracted comparison of the previous comment, which is not a direct test of QNM completeness for the specific resonators. The claim that Eq. (78) is 'the first time the correct form of the cavity system-reservoir coupling' has been derived for general 3D resonators requires either a decomposition of the full numerical Green function into QNM and background parts over the relevant bandwidth for at least one example, or an explicit quantitative estimate of the non-modal contribution to the transition decay rates.
  3. [Sec. II C 3; Eqs. (45)-(46), (79)] The key replacement S_c approximately equals cos(2 phi_0) is obtained under a pole approximation and is acknowledged to be valid only for small projected QNM phase, |phi_0| much less than 1, with potentially unphysical negative decay rates otherwise. Since this replacement is used to obtain the master equation rates in Eq. (78), the claimed validity 'for general 3D resonators' should be stated with this domain restriction prominently included: the derived rates apply to dipole positions where the projected QNM phase is small. The heuristic bound of Eq. (79) is an upper limit and is not sufficient to guarantee positivity or single-mode accuracy, as the paper itself shows in Sec. V (deviations occur well below |eta_c^(1)|). The paper should either restrict the generality claim or provide a systematic procedure for checking the phase condition in a given resonator.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. V] The fitted background values should be reported in the figure captions or in a table, since they are inputs to the validation and the paper does not state how they were determined (e.g., by a least-squares fit over which bandwidth).
  2. [Sec. II B] In the paragraph before Fig. 1, 'gaps less than 1-nm' should read 'gaps less than 1 nm'.
  3. [Sec. IV C] The phrase 'in the spatially unspecified form written' is awkward; consider 'in the spatially unspecified form as written'.
  4. [Eq. (22)] Equation (22a) omits the factor hbar in the definition of chi_mu nu, while Eq. (22c) and later Hamiltonians include hbar; the units of chi_mu nu should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
  5. [References] Reference list entries [19] and [20] are identical, and entry [84] duplicates entry [82]; these duplicates should be consolidated.
  6. [Sec. VI] The statement that the dropped bath counter-rotating terms 'do not notably modify the spectra' is not backed by any data; a brief appendix or figure showing this convergence check would strengthen the USC claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (78) is derived from the QNM quantization plus Green-function identity; the PRL spectral density is recovered as a consistency check, not assumed, and the fitted background subtraction is a validation limitation rather than a circular input.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (78), is obtained by a self-contained derivation: the quantized QNM system-reservoir coupling of Sec. III is fed into the Born-Markov master equation of Sec. IV, and the single-mode decay rate is simplified using the exact macroscopic-QED Green identity (41), the single-mode QNM expansion (12)/(17), and the pole-approximated value S_c ≈ cos(2φ0). The target spectral density of the authors' PRL [18], Eq. (76), is not inserted as an input; it is introduced only after Eq. (78) as a comparison, and the sentence "we see that the ab initio quantized QNM theory within the spatially specified representation fully recovers the correct form of the spectral density" is a consistency check, not a premise. The QNM completeness expansion and the neglect of non-modal background terms are explicit approximations (Sec. II B) and are acknowledged in the conclusions as limitations; the per-cavity fitted background subtracted in Figs. 4-6 and 12 is applied to the full-Maxwell benchmark to isolate the QNM contribution, not to the QNM prediction itself, so the prediction is not statistically forced by the fit. Although the paper cites the authors' own prior work for the QNM quantization machinery and for the benchmark spectral density, those citations are not load-bearing in the sense of substituting for the derivation: Eqs. (74)-(78) follow from the projected QNM Hamiltonian of Secs. II-III and the Green identity, with no step that reduces to the PRL result by definition. The self-citations provide background methods and a known result to reproduce, but the ab initio derivation in this manuscript has independent mathematical content. Therefore no circular step meeting the required evidentiary standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory rests on the QNM expansion and the spatially specified representation; the main ad hoc element is the pole approximation S_c approx cos(2 phi_0), which limits the theory to small phases. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Background subtraction scale factors (validation) = 1.77 for bowtie, 0.05 for 2D PC, 0.5 for microdisk, 1.78 for PC beam (multiples of free-space or 2D free-space decay…
    Used in Figs. 4e, 5e, 6e, 12e to subtract non-modal background from full Maxwell Purcell decay rates before comparison with QNM theory. Values are chosen per cavity to improve agreement and are not derived from the ab initio theory.
  • Incoherent excitation spectral density normalization = Lambda^2_inc(omega_alpha) = kappa_c omega_c / (2 pi omega_alpha)
    Chosen in Sec. VI (Eq. 94) to reproduce a classical heuristic excitation model; not derived from a microscopic drive Hamiltonian.
  • Threshold constant in Omega_BB definition = 0.1
    The factor 0.1 in Eq. (81) sets the broadband regime by analogy with the usual 0.1 USC threshold; it is a definition, not derived from data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The transverse Green function can be expanded in a complete set of QNMs with the coefficient A_mu(omega_m) = omega_m / [2(omega_tilde_mu - omega_m)] (Eqs. 12-14).
    Completeness of the QNM expansion and dominance of transverse QNMs is assumed inside and near the resonator; background contributions are neglected. Stated in Sec. II B and used in Sec. IV C.
  • domain assumption Non-modal background terms in the Green function and field operators are negligible (they vanish for A_perp_B by construction).
    Assumed small in USC and used throughout; the paper acknowledges this neglect in Sec. II C and the Conclusion.
  • domain assumption QNMs are purely transverse; longitudinal QNM components and G_parallel contributions are neglected in the master equation.
    Stated in Sec. II B; the longitudinal system term H^S_parallel is dropped in Sec. IV.
  • standard math Born-Markov approximation, RWA for bath coupling, and (for presentation) secular approximation are valid.
    Standard open quantum system approximations, stated in Sec. IV B; non-secular terms are kept in numerics.
  • ad hoc to paper The pole approximation gives S_c(n, r_1) approx cos(2 phi_0), valid for small QNM phase |phi_0| much less than 1.
    Derived in Sec. II C 3, Eqs. (45)-(46). The approximation restricts the theory to small QNM phases; the paper excludes regions where phi_1 approx pi/4 and requires |phi_0| much less than 1 for positive decay rates.
  • standard math Reservoir operators can be treated as locally bosonic in the Markov approximation.
    Justified in Appendix C via a residue theorem argument; used in deriving the master equation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dissipation in the Broadband and Ultrastrong Coupling Regimes of Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics: An Ab Initio Quantized Quasinormal Mode Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/COZCFYGC

@misc{pith2026250721408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dissipation in the Broadband and Ultrastrong Coupling Regimes of Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics: An Ab Initio Quantized Quasinormal Mode Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/COZCFYGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21408}
}
read the original abstract

Phenomenological approaches to photon loss have long been the workhorse of cavity-QED, but prove inadequate in the presence of sufficiently broadband light-matter interactions. We present a rigorous and ab initio derivation of a quantum master equation for a quantized optical cavity mode coupled to a dipole, using a quasinormal mode (QNM) quantization procedure for plasmonic and dielectric open-system cavity-QED, which is valid in broadband light-matter interaction regimes, including ultrastrong coupling (USC). The theory supports general three-dimensional resonators with arbitrary dispersion and loss, and thus can be applied to a wide range of open cavities. Our ab initio and gauge-invariant approach fully recovers the recent result of Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 123601 (2025) for the spectral density of a quantized cavity with a single dipole, exhibits a dissipative classical-quantum correspondence for bosonic Hopfield model systems, and reveals important departures from previous heuristic assumptions about system-bath coupling. We identify a new criterion for what we term the "broadband" dissipative regime of cavity-QED, where phenomenological models require corrections in accordance with the intrinsic and spatially-dependent complex phase of the QNM, and also shed light on fundamental limits to single-mode models in extreme coupling regimes. Using plasmonic and dielectric cavity examples, we show validity ranges of our QNM master equation and spectral USC calculations, and discuss prospects for near-term experimental observation of broadband dissipative effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21408 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of the field expansion in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of an arbitrary shaped scattering struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Schematic of gold ellipsoid dimer in free space ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Schematic of 3D dielectric bowtie resonator in free space ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Schematic of 2D PC cavity structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) 3D schematic of microdisk (however, note our simulation is in 2D for this structure). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized intracavity spectrum for a single cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized cavity spectrum for gold dimer-like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalized intracavity spectrum for the bosonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Schematic of gold cylinder dimer in free space ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Schematic of PC beam cavity in free space ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Floquet Quasienergy-Resolved Dissipation, Dynamics, and Spectroscopy in Ultrastrong Cavity-QED

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A nonsecular Floquet generalized master equation framework is developed for open ultrastrong cavity-QED, demonstrating that dissipation is governed by quasienergies rather than static dressed resonances.

  2. Quantum Optical Soliton Dynamics Beyond Linearization: An Open-System Approach

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Two open-system approaches using Lanczos supermode expansion and Markovian master equation are developed to capture quantum-induced phase shifts and photon loss in χ^(3) solitons without linearization.

  3. Quantum Optical Soliton Dynamics Beyond Linearization: An Open-System Approach

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Two new open-system approaches (Lanczos supermode expansion and Markovian master equation) model non-linear quantum soliton dynamics, capturing phase shifts and photon loss beyond linearization.

  4. Dissipative Channels Determine Open Electromagnetic Quantization

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A quantization scheme for open EM systems derives fluctuation channels from the dissipation geometry of the Maxwell operator, separating medium-assisted and boundary-assisted reservoirs to obtain general Green-functio...

  5. Correlation functions for quantum dynamics of coupled quasinormal modes and quantum emitters interacting via finite-delay propagating photons

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new theoretical framework describes retarded interactions between quasinormal modes of separated lossy cavities and quantum emitters via a bath of propagating photons using system-bath correlation functions.

  6. Correlation functions for quantum dynamics of coupled quasinormal modes and quantum emitters interacting via finite-delay propagating photons

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    QNM-QNM, QNM-emitter, and emitter-emitter correlation functions with finite photon delay are derived for spatially separated lossy cavities using a non-bosonic bath scattering expansion.

  7. Characterization of errors in photon-heralded quantum operations between non-interacting quantum emitters

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Develops a perturbative analytic framework extending ZPG to derive closed-form solutions for process matrices and Pauli error weights in photon-heralded gates between non-interacting emitters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Mabuchi and A

    H. Mabuchi and A. C. Doherty, Cavity Quantum Elec- trodynamics: Coherence in Context, Science 298, 1372 (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    Browne, S

    D. Browne, S. Bose, F. Mintert, and M. Kim, From quantum optics to quantum technologies, Prog. Quan- tum Electron. 54, 2 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Mandal, M

    A. Mandal, M. A. Taylor, B. M. Weight, E. R. Koessler, X. Li, and P. Huo, Theoretical Advances in Polariton Chemistry and Molecular Cavity Quantum Electrody- namics, Chem. Rev. 123, 9786 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    S. J. van Enk, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Quantum Information Processing in Cavity-QED, Quantum Inf. Process. 3, 75 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    Metelmann and A

    A. Metelmann and A. A. Clerk, Nonreciprocal Photon Transmission and Amplification via Reservoir Engineer- ing, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021025 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quan- tum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nat. Phys. 5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela, A

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, A. Reiserer, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and F. J. Garc ´ ıa-Vidal, Light–matter interactions in quantum nanophotonic devices, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 166 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

    2004

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    H. J. Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Op- tics 1: Master Equations and Fokker-Planck Equations (Springer Science & Business Media, 013)

  2. [10]

    H. J. Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Op- tics 2: Non-Classical Fields (Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press on De- mand, 2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    Larson and T

    J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos, The Jaynes–Cummings Model and its Descendants (Second Edition): Modern research directions (IOP Publishing, 2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in Spontaneous Radiation Pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  6. [14]

    Kirton, M

    P. Kirton, M. M. Roses, J. Keeling, and E. G. Dalla Torre, Introduction to the Dicke Model: From Equilibrium to Nonequilibrium, and Vice Versa, Adv. Quantum Technol. 2, 1800043 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differ- ential equations and the master equation, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  8. [16]

    Combes, K

    J. Combes, K. Joseph, and M. Sarovar, The SLH frame- work for modeling quantum input-output networks, Adv. Phys.: X 2, 784 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  10. [18]

    Gustin, J

    C. Gustin, J. Ren, and S. Hughes, What Is the Spectral Density of the Reservoir for a Lossy Quantized Cavity?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 123601 (2025)

    2025

  11. [20]

    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

  12. [21]

    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

  13. [22]

    Le Boit´ e, Theoretical Methods for Ultrastrong Light–Matter Interactions, Adv

    A. Le Boit´ e, Theoretical Methods for Ultrastrong Light–Matter Interactions, Adv. Quantum Technol. 3, 1900140 (2020)

    2020

  14. [23]

    E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V. Pound, Reso- nance Absorption by Nuclear Magnetic Moments in a Solid, Phys. Rev. 69, 37 (1946)

    1946

  15. [24]

    Ciuti, G

    C. Ciuti, G. Bastard, and I. Carusotto, Quantum vac- uum properties of the intersubband cavity polariton field, Phys. Rev. B 72, 115303 (2005)

    2005

  16. [25]

    A. A. Anappara, S. De Liberato, A. Tredicucci, C. Ciuti, G. Biasiol, L. Sorba, and F. Beltram, Signatures of the ultrastrong light-matter coupling regime, Phys. Rev. B 79, 201303(R) (2009)

    2009

  17. [26]

    B. Zaks, D. Stehr, T.-A. Truong, P. M. Petroff, S. Hughes, and M. S. Sherwin, THz-driven quantum wells: Coulomb interactions and Stark shifts in the ul- trastrong coupling regime, New J. Phys. 13, 083009 (2011)

    2011

  18. [27]

    Scarlino, J

    P. Scarlino, J. H. Ungerer, D. J. van Woerkom, M. Mancini, P. Stano, C. M¨ uller, A. J. Landig, J. V. Koski, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraff, In situ Tuning of the Electric-Dipole Strength of a Double-Dot Charge Qubit: Charge-Noise Protection and...

    2022

  19. [28]

    Scalari, C

    G. Scalari, C. Maissen, D. Turˇ cinkov´ a, D. Hagenm¨ uller, 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, Science 335, 1323 (2012)

    2012

  20. [29]

    Rajabali, S

    S. Rajabali, S. Markmann, E. J¨ ochl, M. Beck, C. A. Lehner, W. Wegscheider, J. Faist, and G. Scalari, An ultrastrongly coupled single terahertz meta-atom, Nat. Commun. 13, 2528 (2022)

    2022

  21. [30]

    F. Tay, A. Mojibpour, S. Sanders, S. Liang, H. Xu, G. C. Gardner, A. Baydin, M. J. Manfra, A. Alabastri, D. Hagenm¨ uller, and J. Kono, Multimode ultrastrong coupling in three-dimensional photonic-crystal cavities, Nat. Commun. 16, 3603 (2025)

    2025

  22. [31]

    X. Li, M. Bamba, Q. Zhang, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gard- ner, W. Gao, M. Lou, K. Yoshioka, M. J. Manfra, and J. Kono, Vacuum Bloch–Siegert shift in Landau polari- tons with ultra-high cooperativity, Nat. Photon.12, 324 (2018)

    2018

  23. [32]

    N. S. Mueller, Y. Okamura, B. G. M. Vieira, S. Juer- gensen, H. Lange, E. B. Barros, F. Schulz, and S. Re- ich, Deep strong light–matter coupling in plasmonic nanoparticle crystals, Nature 583, 780 (2020)

    2020

  24. [33]

    S. Hu, J. Huang, R. Arul, A. S´ anchez-Iglesias, Y. Xiong, L. M. Liz-Marz´ an, and J. J. Baumberg, Robust consis- tent single quantum dot strong coupling in plasmonic nanocavities, Nat. Commun. 15, 6835 (2024)

    2024

  25. [34]

    W. J. Chang, B. J. Roman, T. Paul, Z. Sakotic, P. Vora, K. Kim, L. E. Hurst, D. Wasserman, T. M. Truskett, 33 and D. J. Milliron, Ultrastrong Coupling by Assembling Plasmonic Metal Oxide Nanocrystals in Open Cavities, ACS Nano 19, 12332 (2025)

    2025

  26. [35]

    D. Yoo, F. de Le´ on-P´ erez, M. Pelton, I.-H. Lee, D. A. Mohr, M. B. Raschke, J. D. Caldwell, L. Mart ´ ın- Moreno, and S.-H. Oh, Ultrastrong plasmon–phonon coupling via epsilon-near-zero nanocavities, Nat. Pho- ton. 15, 125 (2021)

    2021

  27. [36]

    Di Stefano, A

    O. Di Stefano, A. Settineri, V. Macr ` ı, L. Garziano, R. Stassi, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Resolution of gauge ambiguities in ultrastrong-coupling cavity quan- tum electrodynamics, Nat. Phys. 15, 803 (2019)

    2019

  28. [37]

    Salmon, C

    W. Salmon, C. Gustin, A. Settineri, O. Di Stefano, D. Zueco, S. Savasta, F. Nori, and S. Hughes, Gauge- independent emission spectra and quantum correla- tions in the ultrastrong coupling regime of open system cavity-QED, Nanophotonics 11, 1573 (2022)

    2022

  29. [38]

    S. M. Dutra and G. Nienhuis, Derivation of a Hamilto- nian for photon decay in a, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semi- classical Opt. 2, 584 (2000)

    2000

  30. [39]

    M. G. Raymer and C. J. McKinstrie, Quantum input- output theory for optical cavities with arbitrary cou- pling strength: Application to two-photon wave-packet shaping, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043819 (2013)

    2013

  31. [40]

    Khanbekyan, L

    M. Khanbekyan, L. Kn¨ oll, D.-G. Welsch, A. A. Se- menov, and W. Vogel, QED of lossy cavities: Operator and quantum-state input-output relations, Phys. Rev. A 72, 053813 (2005)

    2005

  32. [41]

    Viviescas and G

    C. Viviescas and G. Hackenbroich, Field quantization for open optical cavities, Phys. Rev. A 67, 013805 (2003)

    2003

  33. [42]

    Lentrodt and J

    D. Lentrodt and J. Evers, Ab Initio Few-Mode Theory for Quantum Potential Scattering Problems, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011008 (2020)

    2020

  34. [43]

    Yuen and A

    B. Yuen and A. Demetriadou, Exact Quantum Electro- dynamics of Radiative Photonic Environments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 203604 (2024)

    2024

  35. [44]

    Hughes, C

    S. Hughes, C. Gustin, and F. Nori, Reconciling quantum and classical spectral theories of ultrastrong coupling: role of cavity bath coupling and gauge corrections, Opt. Quantum 2, 133 (2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    Lednev, F

    M. Lednev, F. J. Garc ´ ıa-Vidal, and J. Feist, Lindblad Master Equation Capable of Describing Hybrid Quan- tum Systems in the Ultrastrong Coupling Regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 106902 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    Lentrodt, K

    D. Lentrodt, K. P. Heeg, C. H. Keitel, and J. Evers, Ab initio quantum models for thin-film x-ray cavity QED, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023396 (2020)

    2020

  38. [47]

    E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, A. Maassen van den Brink, W. M. Suen, S. S. Tong, and K. Young, Quasinormal- mode expansion for waves in open systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1545 (1998)

    1998

  39. [48]

    P. T. Kristensen and S. Hughes, Modes and Mode Vol- umes of Leaky Optical Cavities and Plasmonic Nanores- onators, ACS Photonics 1, 2 (2014)

    2014

  40. [49]

    Lalanne, W

    P. Lalanne, W. Yan, K. Vynck, C. Sauvan, and J.- P. Hugonin, Light Interaction with Photonic and Plas- monic Resonances, Laser & Photonics Reviews 12, 1700113 (2018)

    2018

  41. [50]

    P. T. Kristensen, K. Herrmann, F. Intravaia, and K. Busch, Modeling electromagnetic resonators using quasinormal modes, Adv. Opt. Photon. 12, 612 (2020)

    2020

  42. [51]

    R.-C. Ge, P. T. Kristensen, J. F. Young, and S. Hughes, Quasinormal mode approach to modelling light-emission and propagation in nanoplasmonics, New J. Phys. 16, 113048 (2014)

    2014

  43. [52]

    Franke, S

    S. Franke, S. Hughes, M. K. Dezfouli, P. T. Kristensen, K. Busch, A. Knorr, and M. Richter, Quantization of Quasinormal Modes for Open Cavities and Plasmonic Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 213901 (2019)

    2019

  44. [53]

    Ge and S

    R.-C. Ge and S. Hughes, Quantum dynamics of two quantum dots coupled through localized plasmons: An intuitive and accurate quantum optics approach using quasinormal modes, Phys. Rev. B 92, 205420 (2015)

    2015

  45. [54]

    Meschede, D

    L. Meschede, D. D. A. Clarke, and O. Hess, Quantum quasinormal mode theory for dissipative nano-optics and magnetodielectric cavity quantum electrodynamics (2025), arXiv:2507.05233 [physics.optics]

    2025

  46. [55]

    Hughes, S

    S. Hughes, S. Franke, C. Gustin, M. Kamandar Dez- fouli, A. Knorr, and M. Richter, Theory and Limits of On-Demand Single-Photon Sources Using Plasmonic Resonators: A Quantized Quasinormal Mode Approach, ACS Photonics 6, 2168 (2019)

    2019

  47. [56]

    Franke, M

    S. Franke, M. Richter, J. Ren, A. Knorr, and S. Hughes, Quantized quasinormal-mode description of nonlinear cavity-QED effects from coupled resonators with a Fano-like resonance, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033456 (2020)

    2020

  48. [57]

    J. Ren, S. Franke, and S. Hughes, Connecting Classical and Quantum Mode Theories for Coupled Lossy Cavity Resonators Using Quasinormal Modes, ACS Photonics 9, 138 (2022)

    2022

  49. [58]

    J. Ren, S. Franke, and S. Hughes, Quasinormal Mode Theory of Chiral Power Flow from Linearly Polarized Dipole Emitters Coupled to Index-Modulated Microring Resonators Close to an Exceptional Point, ACS Photon- ics 9, 1315 (2022)

    2022

  50. [59]

    Franke, J

    S. Franke, J. Ren, M. Richter, A. Knorr, and S. Hughes, Fermi’s Golden Rule for Spontaneous Emission in Ab- sorptive and Amplifying Media, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 013602 (2021)

    2021

  51. [60]

    J. Ren, S. Franke, and S. Hughes, Quasinormal Modes, Local Density of States, and Classical Purcell Factors for Coupled Loss-Gain Resonators, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041020 (2021)

    2021

  52. [61]

    Franke, J

    S. Franke, J. Ren, and S. Hughes, Quantized quasinormal-mode theory of coupled lossy and ampli- fying resonators, Phys. Rev. A 105, 023702 (2022)

    2022

  53. [62]

    VanDrunen, J

    B. VanDrunen, J. Ren, S. Franke, and S. Hughes, Gain- compensated metal cavity modes and a million-fold improvement of Purcell factors, Opt. Quantum 2, 85 (2024)

    2024

  54. [63]

    VanDrunen, J

    B. VanDrunen, J. Ren, S. Franke, and S. Hughes, Gain- modified emission dynamics between two quantum emit- ters in a plasmonic gain cavity system, Phys. Rev. A 112, 013532 (2025)

    2025

  55. [64]

    Medina, F

    I. Medina, F. J. Garc ´ ıa-Vidal, A. I. Fern´ andez- Dom ´ ınguez, and J. Feist, Few-Mode Field Quantization of Arbitrary Electromagnetic Spectral Densities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 093601 (2021)

    2021

  56. [65]

    S´ anchez-Barquilla, F

    M. S´ anchez-Barquilla, F. J. Garc ´ ıa-Vidal, A. I. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, and J. Feist, Few-mode field quantization for multiple emitters, Nanophotonics 11, 4363 (2022)

    2022

  57. [66]

    Gustin, S

    C. Gustin, S. Franke, and S. Hughes, Gauge-invariant theory of truncated quantum light-matter interactions in arbitrary media, Phys. Rev. A 107, 013722 (2023)

    2023

  58. [67]

    H. T. Dung, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, Three- 34 dimensional quantization of the electromagnetic field in dispersive and absorbing inhomogeneous dielectrics, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3931 (1998)

    1998

  59. [68]

    Gruner and D.-G

    T. Gruner and D.-G. Welsch, Green-function approach to the radiation-field quantization for homogeneous and inhomogeneous Kramers-Kronig dielectrics, Phys. Rev. A 53, 1818 (1996)

    1996

  60. [69]

    L. G. Suttorp and A. J. van Wonderen, Fano diagonal- ization of a polariton model for an inhomogeneous ab- sorptive dielectric, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 67, 766 (2004)

    2004

  61. [70]

    Vogel and D.-G

    W. Vogel and D.-G. Welsch,Quantum Optics (John Wi- ley & Sons, 2006)

    2006

  62. [71]

    T. G. Philbin, Canonical quantization of macroscopic electromagnetism, New J. Phys. 12, 123008 (2010)

    2010

  63. [72]

    Franke, J

    S. Franke, J. Ren, S. Hughes, and M. Richter, Fluctuation-dissipation theorem and fundamental pho- ton commutation relations in lossy nanostructures using quasinormal modes, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033332 (2020)

    2020

  64. [73]

    M. K. Dezfouli, R. Gordon, and S. Hughes, Molec- ular Optomechanics in the Anharmonic Cavity-QED Regime Using Hybrid Metal–Dielectric Cavity Modes, ACS Photonics 6, 1400 (2019)

    2019

  65. [74]

    M. K. Dezfouli, C. Tserkezis, N. A. Mortensen, and S. Hughes, Nonlocal quasinormal modes for arbitrarily shaped three-dimensional plasmonic resonators, Optica 4, 1503 (2017)

    2017

  66. [75]

    Zschiedrich, F

    L. Zschiedrich, F. Binkowski, N. Nikolay, O. Benson, G. Kewes, and S. Burger, Riesz-projection-based theory of light-matter interaction in dispersive nanoresonators, Phys. Rev. A 98, 043806 (2018)

    2018

  67. [76]

    W. Li, Q. Zhou, P. Zhang, and X.-W. Chen, Bright Optical Eigenmode of 1 nm 3 Mode Volume, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 257401 (2021)

    2021

  68. [77]

    K. M. Lee, P. T. Leung, and K. M. Pang, Dyadic for- mulation of morphology-dependent resonances. i. com- pleteness relation, JOSA B 16, 1409 (1999)

    1999

  69. [78]

    P. T. Leung, S. Y. Liu, and K. Young, Completeness and orthogonality of quasinormal modes in leaky optical cavities, Phys. Rev. A 49, 3057 (1994)

    1994

  70. [80]

    Kamandar Dezfouli, R

    M. Kamandar Dezfouli, R. Gordon, and S. Hughes, Modal theory of modified spontaneous emission for a hybrid plasmonic photonic-crystal cavity system, Phys. Rev. A 95, 013846 (2017)

    2017

  71. [81]

    Carlson and S

    C. Carlson and S. Hughes, Dissipative modes, pur- cell factors, and directional beta factors in gold bowtie nanoantenna structures, Phys. Rev. B 102, 155301 (2020)

    2020

  72. [83]

    Franke, J

    S. Franke, J. Ren, and S. Hughes, Impact of mode regu- larization for quasinormal-mode perturbation theories, Phys. Rev. A 108, 043502 (2023)

    2023

  73. [84]

    J. Ren, S. Franke, A. Knorr, M. Richter, and S. Hughes, Near-field to far-field transformations of optical quasi- normal modes and efficient calculation of quantized quasinormal modes for open cavities and plasmonic res- onators, Phys. Rev. B 101, 205402 (2020)

    2020

  74. [85]

    Schelkunoff, Some equivalence theorems of electro- magnetics and their application to radiation problems, Bell Sys

    S. Schelkunoff, Some equivalence theorems of electro- magnetics and their application to radiation problems, Bell Sys. Tech. J 15, 92 (1936)

    1936

  75. [86]

    Scheel, L

    S. Scheel, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, Spontaneous de- cay of an excited atom in an absorbing dielectric, Phys. Rev. A 60, 4094 (1999)

    1999

  76. [87]

    V. S. C. Manga Rao and S. Hughes, Single quantum- dot Purcell factor and β factor in a photonic crystal waveguide, Phys. Rev. B 75, 205437 (2007)

    2007

  77. [88]

    Ge and S

    R.-C. Ge and S. Hughes, Design of an efficient single photon source from a metallic nanorod dimer: a quasi- normal mode finite-difference time-domain approach, Opt. Lett. 39, 4235 (2014)

    2014

  78. [89]

    Savasta, O

    S. Savasta, O. Di Stefano, A. Settineri, D. Zueco, S. Hughes, and F. Nori, Gauge principle and gauge in- variance in two-level systems, Phys. Rev. A103, 053703 (2021)

    2021

  79. [90]

    Settineri, O

    A. Settineri, O. Di Stefano, D. Zueco, S. Hughes, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Gauge freedom, quantum mea- surements, and time-dependent interactions in cavity qed, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023079 (2021)

    2021

  80. [91]

    W. E. Lamb, R. R. Schlicher, and M. O. Scully, Matter- field interaction in atomic physics and quantum optics, Phys. Rev. A 36, 2763 (1987)

    1987

  81. [92]

    P. W. Milonni, R. J. Cook, and J. R. Ackerhalt, Natural line shape, Phys. Rev. A 40, 3764 (1989)

    1989

  82. [93]

    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. A 98, 053819 (2018)

    2018

  83. [94]

    M. A. D. Taylor, A. Mandal, W. Zhou, and P. Huo, Resolution of Gauge Ambiguities in Molecular Cav- ity Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 123602 (2020)

    2020

  84. [95]

    M. A. D. Taylor, A. Mandal, P. Huo, and P. Huo, Re- solving ambiguities of the mode truncation in cavity quantum electrodynamics, Opt. Lett. 47, 1446 (2022)

    2022

  85. [96]

    M. Wubs, L. G. Suttorp, and A. Lagendijk, Multipole interaction between atoms and their photonic environ- ment, Phys. Rev. A 68, 013822 (2003)

    2003

  86. [97]

    Settineri, V

    A. Settineri, V. Macr ´ ı, A. Ridolfo, O. Di Stefano, A. F. Kockum, F. Nori, and S. Savasta, Dissipation and ther- mal noise in hybrid quantum systems in the ultrastrong- coupling regime, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053834 (2018)

    2018

  87. [98]

    Bamba and T

    M. Bamba and T. Ogawa, Recipe for the Hamilto- nian of system-environment coupling applicable to the ultrastrong-light-matter-interaction regime, Phys. Rev. A 89, 023817 (2014)

    2014

  88. [99]

    D. M. Toyli, A. W. Eddins, S. Boutin, S. Puri, D. Hover, V. Bolkhovsky, W. D. Oliver, A. Blais, and I. Sid- diqi, Resonance Fluorescence from an Artificial Atom in Squeezed Vacuum, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031004 (2016)

    2016

  89. [100]

    H. J. Carmichael, A. S. Lane, and D. F. Walls, Reso- nance Fluorescence from an Atom in a Squeezed Vac- uum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2539 (1987)

    1987

  90. [101]

    Mercurio, V

    A. Mercurio, V. Macr ` ı, C. Gustin, S. Hughes, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Regimes of cavity QED under incoherent excitation: From weak to deep strong coupling, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023048 (2022)

    2022

  91. [102]

    Gustin, Gauge invariance of the natural lineshape and dissipative dynamics of a two-level atom (2025), arXiv:2501.06594

    C. Gustin, Gauge invariance of the natural lineshape and dissipative dynamics of a two-level atom (2025), arXiv:2501.06594

    2025 arXiv

  92. [103]

    T. V. Shahbazyan, Interacting quantum plasmons in metal-dielectric structures, Phys. Rev. B 103, 045421 35 (2021)

    2021

  93. [104]

    T. V. Shahbazyan, Non-Markovian effects for hybrid plasmonic systems in the strong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. B 105, 245411 (2022)

    2022

  94. [105]

    Kountouris, J

    G. Kountouris, J. Mørk, E. V. Denning, and P. T. Kris- tensen, Modal properties of dielectric bowtie cavities with deep sub-wavelength confinement, Opt. Express 30, 40367 (2022)

    2022

  95. [106]

    Kountouris, Quantum optics of structures with ex- treme dielectric confinement , Ph.D

    G. Kountouris, Quantum optics of structures with ex- treme dielectric confinement , Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Denmark (2024)

    2024

  96. [107]

    Mercurio, S

    A. Mercurio, S. Abo, F. Mauceri, E. Russo, V. Macr ` ı, A. Miranowicz, S. Savasta, and O. Di Stefano, Pure De- phasing of Light-Matter Systems in the Ultrastrong and Deep-Strong Coupling Regimes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 123601 (2023)

    2023

  97. [108]

    D. E. Reiter, T. Kuhn, and V. M. Axt, Distinctive characteristics of carrier-phonon interactions in opti- cally driven semiconductor quantum dots, Adv. Phys.: X 4, 1655478 (2019)

    2019

  98. [109]

    Canales, T

    A. Canales, T. Karmstrand, D. G. Baranov, T. J. An- tosiewicz, and T. O. Shegai, Polaritonic linewidth asym- metry in the strong and ultrastrong coupling regime, Nanophotonics 12, 4073 (2023)

    2023

  99. [110]

    Garziano, A

    L. Garziano, A. Settineri, O. Di Stefano, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Gauge invariance of the Dicke and Hopfield models, Phys. Rev. A 102, 023718 (2020)

    2020

  100. [111]

    Rajabali, E

    S. Rajabali, E. Cortese, M. Beck, S. De Liberato, J. Faist, and G. Scalari, Polaritonic nonlocality in light–matter interaction, Nat. Photon. 15, 690 (2021)

    2021

  101. [112]

    D. G. Baranov, B. Munkhbat, E. Zhukova, A. Bisht, A. Canales, B. Rousseaux, G. Johansson, T. J. An- tosiewicz, and T. Shegai, Ultrastrong coupling between nanoparticle plasmons and cavity photons at ambient conditions, Nat. Commun. 11, 2715 (2020)

    2020

  102. [113]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Field Dependence of the Intrinsic Domain Magnetization of a Ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  103. [114]

    Ressayre and A

    E. Ressayre and A. Tallet, Holstein-Primakoff transfor- mation for the study of cooperative emission of radia- tion, Phys. Rev. A 11, 981 (1975)

    1975

  104. [115]

    Lambert, C

    N. Lambert, C. Emary, and T. Brandes, Entanglement and the Phase Transition in Single-Mode Superradiance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 073602 (2004)

    2004

  105. [116]

    Molesky, Z

    S. Molesky, Z. Lin, A. Y. Piggott, W. Jin, J. Vuckovi´ c, and A. W. Rodriguez, Inverse design in nanophotonics, Nat. Photon. 12, 659 (2018)

    2018

  106. [117]

    Albrechtsen, B

    M. Albrechtsen, B. V. Lahijani, R. E. Christiansen, V. T. H. Nguyen, L. N. Casses, S. E. Hansen, N. Stenger, O. Simgund, H. Jansen, J. Mork, and S. Sto- bbe, Nanometer-scale photon confinement in topology- optimized dielectric cavities, Nat. Commun. 13, 6281 (2022)

    2022

  107. [118]

    A. N. Babar, T. A. S. Weis, K. Tsoukalas, S. Kadkho- dazadeh, G. Arregui, B. Vosoughi Lahijani, and S. Sto- bbe, Self-assembled photonic cavities with atomic-scale confinement, Nature 624, 57 (2023)

    2023

  108. [119]

    Xiong, R

    M. Xiong, R. E. Christiansen, F. Schr¨ oder, Y. Yu, L. N. Casses, E. Semenova, K. Yvind, N. Stenger, O. Sigmund, and J. Mørk, Experimental realization of deep sub-wavelength confinement of light in a topology- optimized InP nanocavity, Opt. Mater. Express 14, 397 (2024)

    2024

  109. [120]

    Nussbaum, N

    E. Nussbaum, N. Rotenberg, and S. Hughes, Optimizing the chiral Purcell factor for unidirectional single-photon emitters in topological photonic crystal waveguides us- ing inverse design, Phys. Rev. A 106, 033514 (2022)

    2022

  110. [121]

    Chikkaraddy, B

    R. Chikkaraddy, B. De Nijs, F. Benz, S. J. Barrow, O. A. Scherman, E. Rosta, A. Demetriadou, P. Fox, O. Hess, and J. J. Baumberg, Single-molecule strong coupling at room temperature in plasmonic nanocavities, Nature 535, 127 (2016)

    2016

  111. [122]

    H. Choi, M. Heuck, and D. Englund, Self-Similar Nanocavity Design with Ultrasmall Mode Volume for Single-Photon Nonlinearities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 223605 (2017)

    2017

  112. [123]

    J.-Y. Li, W. Li, J. Liu, J. Zhong, R. Liu, H. Chen, and X.-H. Wang, Room-Temperature Strong Coupling Between a Single Quantum Dot and a Single Plasmonic Nanoparticle, Nano Lett. 22, 4686 (2022)

    2022

  113. [124]

    Kuisma, B

    M. Kuisma, B. Rousseaux, K. M. Czajkowski, T. P. Rossi, T. Shegai, P. Erhart, and T. J. Antosiewicz, Ul- trastrong Coupling of a Single Molecule to a Plasmonic Nanocavity: A First-Principles Study, ACS Photonics 9, 1065 (2022)

    2022

  114. [125]

    S´ aez-Bl´ azquez, D

    R. S´ aez-Bl´ azquez, D. de Bernardis, J. Feist, and P. Rabl, Can We Observe Nonperturbative Vacuum Shifts in Cavity QED?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 013602 (2023)

    2023

  115. [126]

    S. R. Franke, Quantization of quasinormal modes in dissipative media, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Berlin (2020)

    2020

  116. [127]

    Kamandar Dezfouli, R

    M. Kamandar Dezfouli, R. Gordon, and S. Hughes, Modal theory of modified spontaneous emission of a quantum emitter in a hybrid plasmonic photonic-crystal cavity system, Phys. Rev. A 95, 013846 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.