Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Beating the Bad-Cavity Limit via Auxiliary-Emitter Linewidth Squeezing

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that two auxiliary emitters with equal couplings but opposite detunings can squeeze the effective linewidth of a bad cavity enough to make a weakly coupled target emitter show strong-coupling signatures.

desk verdict The linewidth-squeezing mechanism is real and the derivations are clean, but the paper demonstrates it only when the auxiliary emitters are already above the strong-coupling threshold, so the title oversells the regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27878 v1 pith:EXRSEK5A submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph

Youke Xu , Zeyang Liao , Xue-hua Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords cavityQEDstrongcouplingbadlinewidthnarrowingsubradiantmodevacuumRabisplittingspontaneousemissionspectrumdarkstate
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 tries to establish that the usual trade-off between cavity quality factor and mode volume is not the only route to strong coupling. It argues that placing two auxiliary emitters with equal couplings but opposite detunings in a bad cavity creates a subradiant mode—a collective excitation that radiates far more slowly than the bare cavity—thereby opening an ultra-narrow transmission window. A target emitter with coupling g=0.25κ, below the bare-cavity strong-coupling threshold, then shows prolonged vacuum Rabi oscillations and split spontaneous emission. If correct, this would let practical low-Q cavities behave like high-Q platforms without shrinking the mode volume or raising the finesse.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the subradiant polariton of the auxiliary-emitter–cavity system: the eigenstate of the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian whose energy is purely imaginary with small magnitude, and whose wavefunction is mostly the dark state |D⟩=(|eg0⟩−|ge0⟩)/√2 with a small bright component. The quantitative argument is carried by the transmission coefficient T_CA(Δ) and its near-resonance approximation, Eq. (7), with effective linewidth κ_eff = η(κ + 2G²γ/Ω²). This formula shows how opposite detunings cancel the imaginary part of the denominator, opening a transparency window and explaining why the ultra-narrow central peak appears only for nonidentical auxiliary emitters.

What would settle it

Measure the spontaneous emission spectrum of a target emitter with g=0.25κ in a bad cavity containing two auxiliaries with G=0.5κ, δ=0.1κ, γ=0.001κ: the paper predicts two clearly resolved peaks around the cavity frequency; a single unsplit peak there would falsify the claimed strong coupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a bad cavity (linewidth κ) plus two auxiliary emitters with opposite detunings δ₁=-δ₂=δ and identical coupling G supports a subradiant polariton whose effective linewidth is approximately κ/(1+2G²/δ²) when the auxiliary free-space decay γ is much smaller than κ, δ, and G. This subradiant mode produces a sharp central transmission peak at the cavity frequency, arising from destructive interference between two reflection channels; the effect vanishes when the two auxiliary emitters are identical (δ=0). With this narrow mode in place, a target emitter with g=0.25κ—below the bare-cavity strong-coupling threshold—exhibits prolonged vacuum Rabi oscillations and resolved s

Load-bearing premise

The two auxiliary emitters must have equal couplings to the cavity, exactly opposite detunings, and free-space decay γ well below the cavity linewidth; in the demonstrated regime each auxiliary emitter is itself already strongly coupled, so the scheme presupposes much of what it is supposed to provide.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A target emitter with g=0.25κ, which is below the bare-cavity strong-coupling threshold, shows resolved spectral splitting and Rabi oscillations when the auxiliary emitters are present.
  • The effective cavity linewidth can be tuned by choosing G, δ, and γ: it decreases with larger auxiliary coupling G, smaller detuning δ, and smaller free-space decay γ.
  • Identical auxiliary emitters (δ=0) give no narrow central transmission peak, so the sign pattern of the detunings is essential.
  • Strong-coupling signatures can be obtained in a bad cavity without requiring a high quality factor or an ultrasmall mode volume.
  • The scheme points toward quantum computation and sensing platforms where low-Q cavities can still provide strong light-matter coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The scheme effectively transfers the strong-coupling requirement from the cavity to the auxiliary emitters: an experiment would need two auxiliary emitters with near-negligible decay and precisely controlled opposite detunings, so the practical gain depends on how cleanly those auxiliaries can be prepared.
  • The same destructive-interference mechanism could plausibly be generalized to more than two auxiliary emitters with a symmetric detuning distribution, potentially narrowing the effective linewidth further—an extension the paper does not explicitly explore.
  • The narrowed linewidth belongs to a dressed subradiant mode, not to the bare cavity, so the enhancement is limited by auxiliary-emitter coherence; environmental noise or extra decay channels on the auxiliaries would be expected to erode the effect.
  • A direct experimental discriminator is transmission spectroscopy: the central peak's linewidth and height versus γ should follow Eqs. (6)–(8), offering a quantitative test beyond the strong-coupling spectral splitting.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scheme for achieving strong coupling in a bad cavity by coupling two auxiliary emitters with opposite detunings to the cavity mode. The authors show that this hybrid system supports a subradiant polariton mode with a strongly suppressed effective linewidth, creating an ultra-narrow transmission window. They derive an approximate Lorentzian expression for the central transmission peak and an effective linewidth formula (Eqs. 7-8), verify it against the exact transmission coefficient (Eq. 6), and analyze the subradiant eigenstate. They then place a target emitter with coupling g=0.25κ — below the bare-cavity strong-coupling threshold — into this engineered environment and show, through transmission spectra, population dynamics, and spontaneous emission spectra, that the target exhibits vacuum Rabi oscillations and spectral splitting. The central claim is that the auxiliary emitters convert a bad cavity into an effective strong-coupling platform for the target emitter.

Significance. If the claims hold, the scheme offers a passive, emitter-based route to circumvent the Q/V tradeoff in cavity QED, without parametric driving or inverse-designed structures. The derivations are transparent and internally consistent: the transmission coefficient follows from standard Langevin/input-output theory, the effective linewidth expansion is controlled, the eigenvalue analysis confirms a subradiant mode, and the time-domain and spectral signatures are computed from the same model. The paper also carefully notes that transmission splitting alone is not proof of strong coupling, a methodologically sound point. The mechanism is conceptually interesting and potentially applicable to quantum sensing and quantum information processing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Effective cavity linewidth reduction; Figs. 2-4; Eq. (8)] The headline claim that the scheme 'beats the bad-cavity limit' is not demonstrated in the regime where the cavity is bad for all emitters. All displayed demonstrations use G=0.5κ (or 0.3κ in the supplement) with δ=0.1κ and γ≤0.1κ, so each auxiliary emitter lies well above the bare-cavity strong-coupling threshold (κ+γ)/4≈0.25κ, while the target at g=0.25κ is only marginally below it (by 0.00025κ for γ=0.001κ). The paper does not show strong coupling or linewidth squeezing when G< (κ+γ)/4 as well, nor when g is significantly below threshold (e.g., g=0.1κ). Since Eq. (8) and Fig. 2 suggest the mechanism can in principle work with G=0.1κ provided δ is sufficiently small (δ≪G), the omission is not a fundamental flaw but is nonetheless load-bearing for the stated generality. The authors should either add explicit results for a genuinely bad-cavity scenario (e.g., G=0.1κ, δ=0.01κ, γ=0.001κ, g
  2. [Fig. 4(c) and Eq. (11)] The population dynamics in Fig. 4(c) are presented as coming from a master-equation simulation, but the supplementary material only provides derivations based on the low-excitation (classical-amplitude) equations (S31-S33). While the low-excitation approximation is exact in the single-excitation subspace, the manuscript should state explicitly that the numerical results in Fig. 4 were obtained by solving the master equation (Eq. 11) or the equivalent linear equations, and that the two methods agree. This would clarify any ambiguity about the validation procedure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary Fig. S1 caption] The caption states 'δ1=δ2=δ', but the paper uses δ1=-δ2=δ throughout; this is likely a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Supplementary Eqs. (S5)] The three expressions for d/dt a_c(t) appear with inconsistent signs for (κ1-κ2)/2 and for the input fields. These are presentation errors that should be fixed for clarity.
  3. [References [47] and [65]] Reference [65] is a duplicate of Reference [47] (both are Agarwal, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L012050). One should be removed or replaced with the intended citation.
  4. [Fig. 2(c) and text near Eq. (8)] The text states the approximation requires G<κ, but Fig. 2(c) plots G/κ up to 10. The figure should either be restricted to the claimed validity range or accompanied by a statement that the approximate formula is shown beyond its nominal validity for illustration.
  5. [Eq. (8) and abstract] The phrase 'significantly squeeze' in the abstract is grammatically awkward; also, Eq. (8) is labeled as the effective linewidth, while the symbol κ_eff is used but not explicitly defined in the text preceding the equation. Please define all symbols.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: the linewidth reduction is derived algebraically and the target-emitter dynamics are independent model checks; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation appears.

  1. other [Effective cavity linewidth reduction, final sentence]
    "Consequently, the ultra-narrow transmission window arises from destructive interference between two reflection channels, which occurs only when the two auxiliary emitters possess detunings of opposite signs [61, 62]."

    Ref. [61] is prior work by co-author Z. Liao, so this is a self-citation. However, it is not load-bearing: Eq. (6) in the same section already shows T_CA(0) -> -1 for delta_1 = -delta_2 = delta with |delta| >> gamma, so the opposite-sign condition is derived in the paper itself rather than imported. Ref. [62] is an independent experimental group. This self-citation therefore does not make the central claim reduce to the cited result.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The effective linewidth (Eqs. 7-8) is obtained by expanding the quantum-Langevin transmission coefficient (Eq. 6) around Delta_c = 0, not by fitting any data. The eigenvalue analysis and the time-domain/spectral results for the target emitter are independent observables computed from the same Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) and master equation (Eq. 11), so they serve as consistency checks rather than predictions forced by construction. The only noticeable self-citation is Ref. [61] for the opposite-sign interference condition, but Eq. (6) itself exhibits the cancellation and Ref. [62] provides independent experimental support, so the citation is not load-bearing. The skeptic's concern that the auxiliary emitters (G = 0.5 kappa) are individually above the strong-coupling threshold is a parameter-scope/correctness issue about whether the scheme extends to the fully 'bad-cavity' regime for all emitters; it is not a circularity, because no fitted parameter or self-defined quantity is being renamed as the predicted outcome.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; G, delta, gamma and g are physical Hamiltonian inputs. The scheme's central design assumption is the symmetric opposite-detuning configuration and the low auxiliary decay rate, listed as ad hoc axioms.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Input-output formalism with two-sided cavity leakage and Markovian reservoirs for the emitters (Eqs. 2-5, S3-S6).
    Standard quantum-optics tool used to derive the transmission coefficient Eq. (6).
  • domain assumption Weak-excitation approximation sigma_z ~ -1, restricting the dynamics to the single-excitation sector (Supplementary S5, S31-S33).
    Valid for the single-photon probe and the single-excitation initial state; central to both transmission and population calculations.
  • standard math Born-Markov master equation and quantum regression theorem for two-time correlation functions (Eq. 11, S41-S42).
    Standard tools for open quantum systems; used for population dynamics and the spontaneous emission spectrum.
  • ad hoc to paper The two auxiliary emitters have identical coupling G and exactly opposite detunings delta1=-delta2=delta, with gamma << |delta| and G < kappa (Eq. 1, Eq. 8, Fig. 2).
    This symmetry is the design condition that produces the transparency window; if relaxed, the narrow central peak degrades.
  • ad hoc to paper All emitters (auxiliary and target) are assigned the same decay rate gamma, and the target is resonant with the cavity (delta_T=0, gamma_T=gamma) (Fig. 4 caption).
    Simplifies the demonstration; not required for the mechanism but used throughout the figures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beating the Bad-Cavity Limit via Auxiliary-Emitter Linewidth Squeezing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EXRSEK5A

@misc{pith2026260727878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beating the Bad-Cavity Limit via Auxiliary-Emitter Linewidth Squeezing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EXRSEK5A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27878}
}
read the original abstract

Strong coupling in cavity QED is conventionally achieved at the expense of either high cavity quality factors or ultrasmall mode volumes, a trade-off that fundamentally constrains practical implementations. Here, we circumvent this limitation by introducing two nonidentical auxiliary emitters with opposite detunings into a bad cavity. This hybrid system supports a subradiant mode that significantly squeeze the effective cavity linewidth, creating an ultra-narrow transmission window at the cavity frequency. As a result, a target emitter placed in this engineered environment exhibits prolonged vacuum Rabi oscillations and resolved spontaneous emission splitting, which are clear signatures of strong coupling, even though the bare cavity remains in the weak-coupling regime. Our scheme thus transforms a bad cavity into an effective platform for strong-coupling physics, with potential applications in quantum computation and quantum sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27878 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of linewidth reduction and strong cou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Central transmission peaks for a cavity with two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The real (a,b) and imaginary (c,d) parts of the eigen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Transmission spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Reagor, W

    M. Reagor, W. Pfaff, C. Axline, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek, K. Sliwa, E. Holland, C. Wang, J. Blumoff, K. Chou, M. J. Hatridge, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Quantum memory with millisecond coher- ence in circuit qed, Phys. Rev. B94, 014506 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Zhang, W

    H. Zhang, W. Zheng, Y. Zhang, T. Liu, S. Li, and Y. Yu, One-step implementation of a hybrid discrete- variablecontinuous-variable phase gate with multiple photonic qubits in circuit qed, Appl. Phys. Lett.128, 021103 (2026)

    2026

  3. [3]

    C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. Assump- cao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, N. Sinclair, C. De-Eknamkul, D. S. Levonian, M. K. Bhaskar, H. Park, M. Lonar, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network, Nature629, 573 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    E. S. Redchenko, M. Zens, M. ˇZemliˇcka, M. Peruzzo, F. Hassani, R. Sett, P. Zieli ´nski, H. S. Dhar, D. O. Krimer, S. Rotter, and J. M. Fink, Observation of collapse and re- vival in a superconducting atomic frequency comb, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 063601 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    H. Wang, K. L. Tiwari, K. Jacobs, M. Judy , X. Zhang, D. R. Englund, and M. E. Trusheim, A spin-refrigerated cav- ity quantum electrodynamic sensor, Nat. Commun.15, 10320 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    H. Wang, K. Jacobs, D. Fahey , Y. Hu, D. R. Englund, and M. E. Trusheim, Exceptional sensitivity near the bistable transition point of a hybrid quantum system, Nat. Phys. 22, 577 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    M. Li, J. Luo, G. Platero, and G. Engelhardt, Full-counting statistics and quantum information of dispersive read- out with a squeezed environment, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 143601 (2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    Liao, Y.-W

    Z. Liao, Y.-W. Lu, W. Li, and X.-H. Wang, Optical scattering imaging with sub-nanometer precision based on position- ultra-sensitive giant lamb shift, Sci. China: Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 264212 (2024)

    2024

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    J. Xu, Y. Mao, Z. Li, Y. Zuo, J. Zhang, B. Yang, W. Xu, N. Liu, Z. J. Deng, W. Chen, K. Xia, C.-W. Qiu, Z. Zhu, H. Jing, and K. Liu, Single-cavity loss-enabled nanometrology , Nature Nanotechnology19, 1472 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Castells-Graells, J

    D. Castells-Graells, J. I. Cirac, and D. S. Wild, Cavity quan- tum electrodynamics with atom arrays in free space, Phys. Rev. A111, 053712 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Y. Wei, Z. Liao, F. Xing, Y.-w. Lu, and X.-H. Wang, Cavity- assisted efficient interaction between two nonidentical emitters via a dressed resonance, Phys. Rev. B111, 165303 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    X. Yu, Y. Yuan, J. Xu, K. Yong, J. Qu, and J. Song, Strong coupling in microcavity structures: Principle, design, and practical application, Laser Photon. Rev.13, 1800219 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    F. Ge, X. Han, and J. Xu, Strongly coupled systems for nonlinear optics, Laser Photon. Rev.15, 2000514 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    McKeever, A

    J. McKeever, A. Boca, A. D. Boozer, J. R. Buck, and H. J. Kimble, Experimental realization of a one-atom laser in 6 the regime of strong coupling, Nature425, 268 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    R. Ohta, Y. Ota, M. Nomura, N. Kumagai, S. Ishida, S. Iwamoto, and Y. Arakawa, Strong coupling between a photonic crystal nanobeam cavity and a single quantum dot, Appl. Phys. Lett.98, 173104 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    M. Li, J. J. Garc ´ıa-Ripoll, and T. Ramos, Scalable multiphoton generation from cavity-synchronized single- photon sources, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033295 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Muniain, J

    U. Muniain, J. Aizpurua, R. Hillenbrand, L. MartnMoreno, and R. Esteban, Description of ultrastrong lightmatter interaction through coupled harmonic oscillator mod- els and their connection with cavityqed hamiltonians, Nanophotonics14, 20312052 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    F. Xing, Y. Wei, and Z. Liao, Quantum search in many- body interacting systems with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. A109, 052435 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ashida, A

    Y. Ashida, A. m. c.˙Imamo˘glu, and E. Demler, Cavity quan- tum electrodynamics with hyperbolic van der waals ma- terials, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 216901 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    M. K. Svendsen, Y. Kurman, P. Schmidt, F. Koppens, I. Kaminer, and K. S. Thygesen, Combining density func- tional theory with macroscopic qed for quantum light- matter interactions in 2d materials, Nat. Commun.12, 2778 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Arwas and C

    G. Arwas and C. Ciuti, Quantum electron transport con- trolled by cavity vacuum fields, Phys. Rev. B107, 045425 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Y. Wei, Z. Liao, and X.-h. Wang, Emission spectrum and photon statistics in cavity-qed system under incoherent pumping, Phys. Lett. A526, 129965 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Santhosh, O

    K. Santhosh, O. Bitton, L. Chuntonov, and G. Haran, Vac- uum rabi splitting in a plasmonic cavity at the single quantum emitter limit, Nat. Commun.7, ncomms11823 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Khitrova, H

    G. Khitrova, H. M. Gibbs, M. Kira, S. W. Koch, and A. Scherer, Vacuum rabi splitting in semiconductors, Nat. Phys.2, 81 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Trm and W

    P. Trm and W. L. Barnes, Strong coupling between sur- face plasmon polaritons and emitters: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.78, 013901 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Is ¸iklar, P

    G. Is ¸iklar, P. T. Kristensen, J. Mørk, O. Sigmund, and R. E. Christiansen, On the trade-off between mode vol- ume and quality factor in dielectric nanocavities opti- mized for purcell enhancement,Optics Express, Optics Ex- press30, 47304 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    D. G. Matei, T. Legero, S. H¨afner, C. Grebing, R. Weyrich, W. Zhang, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, F. Riehle, and U. Sterr,1.5µmlasers with sub-10 mhz linewidth, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 263202 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Hunger, T

    D. Hunger, T. Steinmetz, Y. Colombe, C. Deutsch, T. W. Hnsch, and J. Reichel, A fiber fabryperot cavity with high finesse, New J. Phys.12, 065038 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Corato-Zanarella, A

    M. Corato-Zanarella, A. Gil-Molina, X. Ji, M. C. Shin, A. Mohanty , and M. Lipson, Widely tunable and narrow- linewidth chip-scale lasers from near-ultraviolet to near- infrared wavelengths, Nat. Photonics17, 157 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Toropov, G

    N. Toropov, G. Cabello, M. P. Serrano, R. R. Gutha, M. Rafti, and F. Vollmer, Review of biosensing with whispering-gallery mode lasers, Light Sci. Appl.10, 42 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Zhang, R

    Q. Zhang, R. Su, X. Liu, J. Xing, T. C. Sum, and Q. Xiong, Highquality whisperinggallerymode lasing from cesium lead halide perovskite nanoplatelets, Adv. Funct. Mater. 26, 6238 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    R. Bose, D. Sridharan, H. Kim, G. S. Solomon, and E. Waks, Low-photon-number optical switching with a single quantum dot coupled to a photonic crystal cavity , Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 227402 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    F. S. F. Brossard, X. L. Xu, D. A. Williams, M. Hadjipanayi, M. Hugues, M. Hopkinson, X. Wang, and R. A. Taylor, Strongly coupled single quantum dot in a photonic crystal waveguide cavity , Appl. Phys. Lett.97, 111101 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Y. Ota, D. Takamiya, R. Ohta, H. Takagi, N. Kumagai, S. Iwamoto, and Y. Arakawa, Large vacuum rabi splitting between a single quantum dot and an h0 photonic crystal nanocavity , Appl. Phys. Lett.112, 093101 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Kawata, A

    R. Kawata, A. Fujita, N. Pholsen, S. Iwamoto, and Y. Ota, High-q two-dimensional photonic crystal nanocavity on glass with an upper glass thin film, Opt. Lett.49, 2345 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Xiao, Y.-C

    Y.-F. Xiao, Y.-C. Liu, B.-B. Li, Y.-L. Chen, Y. Li, and Q. Gong, Strongly enhanced light-matter interaction in a hybrid photonic-plasmonic resonator, Phys. Rev. A85, 031805(R) (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Y. Yin, S. Li, S. B ¨ottner, F. Yuan, S. Giudicatti, E. Saei Ghareh Naz, L. Ma, and O. G. Schmidt, Localized surface plasmons selectively coupled to resonant light in tubular microcavities, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 253904 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Zhang, Y.-C

    H. Zhang, Y.-C. Liu, C. Wang, N. Zhang, and C. Lu, Hybrid photonic-plasmonic nano-cavity with ultra-high q/v, Opt. Lett.45, 4794 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Barreda, L

    A. Barreda, L. Mercad ´e, M. Zapata-Herrera, J. Aizpurua, and A. Mart ´ınez, Hybrid photonic-plasmonic cavity de- sign for very large purcell factors at telecommunication wavelengths, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 044066 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, M. O. Scully , and V. L. Velichansky , Intracavity electromagnetically induced transparency , Opt. Lett.23, 295 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    Hernandez, J

    G. Hernandez, J. Zhang, and Y. Zhu, Vacuum rabi splitting and intracavity dark state in a cavity-atom system, Phys. Rev. A76, 053814 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    H. Wu, J. Gea-Banacloche, and M. Xiao, Observation of intracavity electromagnetically induced transparency and polariton resonances in a doppler-broadened medium, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 173602 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    M ¨ucke, E

    M. M ¨ucke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, C. Hahn, K. Murr, S. Ritter, C. J. Villas-Boas, and G. Rempe, Electromagnet- ically induced transparency with single atoms in a cavity , Nature465, 755 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    G.-W. Lin, J. Yang, Y.-P. Niu, and S.-Q. Gong, Cavity linewidth narrowing with dark-state polaritons, Chin. Phys. B25, 014201 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Lu, J.-F

    Y.-W. Lu, J.-F. Liu, H. Jiang, and Z. Liao, Topologically protected subradiant cavity polaritons through linewidth narrowing enabled by dissipationless edge states, Quan- tum Sci. Technol.9, 035019 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Y. Lu, H. Tan, and Z. Liao, Dressed bound states at chiral exceptional points, Phys. Rev. A107, 043714 (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    Peng, Y.-C

    P. Peng, Y.-C. Liu, D. Xu, Q.-T. Cao, G. Lu, Q. Gong, and Y.-F. Xiao, Enhancing coherent light-matter inter- actions through microcavity-engineered plasmonic reso- nances, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 233901 (2017)

    2017

  40. [49]

    Bitton, S

    O. Bitton, S. N. Gupta, Y. Cao, A. Vaskevich, L. Houben, T. Yelin, and G. Haran, Improving the quality factors of plasmonic silver cavities for strong coupling with quan- 7 tum emitters, J. Chem. Phys.154, 014703 (2021)

    2021

  41. [50]

    Lu, J.-F

    Y.-W. Lu, J.-F. Liu, Z. Liao, and X.-H. Wang, Plasmonic- photonic cavity for high-efficiency single-photon block- ade, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy64, 274212 (2021)

    2021

  42. [51]

    W. Li, R. Liu, J. Li, J. Zhong, Y.-W. Lu, H. Chen, and X.-H. Wang, Highly efficient single-exciton strong coupling with plasmons by lowering critical interaction strength at an exceptional point, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 143601 (2023)

    2023

  43. [52]

    Rathi and S

    S. Rathi and S. Nath Gupta, Narrowing the linewidth of the plasmonic cavities for strong light-matter coupling, Plasmonics20, 6279 (2025)

    2025

  44. [53]

    F. Wang, R. E. Christiansen, Y. Yu, J. Mrk, and O. Sig- mund, Maximizing the quality factor to mode volume ra- tio for ultra-small photonic crystal cavities, Appl. Phys. Lett.113, 241101 (2018)

    2018

  45. [54]

    Q. Bin, Y. Wu, J.-H. Gao, A. Chen, F. Nori, and X.-Y. L ¨u, Cavity qed based on strongly localized modes: Exponen- tially enhancing single-atom cooperativity , Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 103602 (2025)

    2025

  46. [55]

    S. Hu, M. Khater, R. Salas-Montiel, E. Kratschmer, S. En- gelmann, W. M. J. Green, and S. M. Weiss, Experimental realization of deep-subwavelength confinement in dielec- tric optical resonators, Sci. Adv.4, eaat2355 (2018)

    2018

  47. [56]

    G. Dong, A. N. Babar, R. E. Christiansen, S. E. Hansen, S. Stobbe, Y. Yu, and J. Mrk, Enhancement and speedup of carrier dynamics in a dielectric nanocavity with deep subwavelength confinement, Laser Photonics Rev.20, e00895 (2025)

    2025

  48. [57]

    S. Yan, H. Li, J. Yang, X. Chen, H. Liu, D. Dai, R. Zhu, Z. Ma, S. Shi, L. Yang, Y. Yuan, W. Dai, D. Dai, B. Fu, Z. Zuo, H. Ni, Z. Niu, C. Wang, K. Jin, Q. Gong, and X. Xu, Cavity quantum electrodynamics with moir ´ephotonic crystal nanocavity , Nature Commu- nications16, 4634 (2025)

    2025

  49. [58]

    Wang, Q.-H

    Y.-T. Wang, Q.-H. Ye, J.-Y. Yan, Y. Qiao, Y.-X. Liu, Y.-Z. Ye, C. Chen, X.-T. Cheng, C.-H. Li, Z.-J. Zhang, C.-N. Huang, Y. Meng, K. Zou, W.-K. Zhan, C. Zhao, X. Hu, C. A. T. H. Tee, W. E. I. Sha, Z. Huang, H. Liu, C.-Y. Jin, L. Ying, and F. Liu, Moir´ecavity quantum electrody...

    2026

  50. [59]

    Leroux, L

    C. Leroux, L. C. G. Govia, and A. A. Clerk, Enhancing cavity quantum electrodynamics via antisqueezing: Syn- thetic ultrastrong coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 093602 (2018)

    2018

  51. [60]

    T. K. L ˆe, D. M. Lukin, C. Roques-Carmes, A. Karnieli, E. Lustig, M. A. Guidry , S. Fan, and J. Vu ˇckovi´c, Cavity quantum electrodynamics in a finite-bandwidth squeezed reservoir, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 034053 (2025)

    2025

  52. [61]

    Z. Liao, H. Nha, and M. S. Zubairy , Dynamical theory of single-photon transport in a one-dimensional waveguide coupled to identical and nonidentical emitters, Phys. Rev. A94, 053842 (2016)

    2016

  53. [62]

    M. Lei, R. Fukumori, J. Rochman, B. Zhu, M. Endres, J. Choi, and A. Faraon, Many-body cavity quantum elec- trodynamics with driven inhomogeneous emitters, Nature 617, 271 (2023)

    2023

  54. [63]

    R. Liu, Z. Liao, Y.-C. Yu, and X.-H. Wang, Relativity and diversity of strong coupling in coupled plasmon-exciton systems, Phys. Rev. B103, 235430 (2021)

    2021

  55. [64]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy ,Quantum Optics(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    1997

  56. [65]

    G. S. Agarwal, Control of the purcell effect via unexcited atoms and exceptional points, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L012050 (2024)

    2024

  57. [66]

    Pelton, S

    M. Pelton, S. D. Storm, and H. Leng, Strong coupling of emitters to single plasmonic nanoparticles: exciton- induced transparency and rabi splitting, Nanoscale11, 14540 (2019)

    2019

  58. [67]

    Huang, Y

    Y. Huang, Y. Wang, K. Liang, and L. Yu, Quantum theory of nonradiative decay dependent on the coupling strength in a plexcitonic system, Opt. Express29, 43292 (2021)

    2021

  59. [68]

    Z. Liao, M. Al-Amri, and M. S. Zubairy , Resonance- fluorescence-localization microscopy with subwavelength resolution, Phys. Rev. A85, 023810 (2012)

    2012

  60. [69]

    Beating the Bad-Cavity Limit via Auxiliary-Emitter Linewidth Squeezing

    A. Auff`eves, B. Besga, J.-M. G´erard, and J.-P. Poizat, Spon- taneous emission spectrum of a two-level atom in a very- high-qcavity , Phys. Rev. A77, 063833 (2008). 1 Supplementary material for “Beating the Bad-Cavity Limit via Auxiliary-Emitter Linewidth Squeezing” DERIVA TI...

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.