Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Enhanced two-photon sources in a cavity-coupled two-atom system

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Two atoms beat one for making photon pairs on demand

desk verdict Two-atom cavity-QED two-photon blockade optimization via asymmetric detunings and phase control — solid theory, but main results only at weak dissipation read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06932 v1 pith:FJJB42LS submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph

Zhicai Chen , Jun Xu , Deyi Kong , Xiangming Hu , Fei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords two-photonsourcessystematomsblockadecavitycavity-coupledcomponent
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 proposes a method to improve two-photon light sources using a cavity containing two atoms. The core idea is that by deliberately making the two atoms asymmetric (different detunings) and driving them out of phase, one can engineer the quantum state in the two-excitation manifold so that the two-photon component is enhanced while both the single-photon background and three-photon leakage are simultaneously suppressed. This goes beyond merely achieving photon blockade; it optimizes the quality of the two-photon output. The same two-excitation manifold, with different parameter choices, can also be used to produce correlated fluorescence photon pairs from the two atoms.

What carries the argument

The two-excitation manifold Hamiltonian H_2 (Eq. 18) in the basis {|2,gg>, |1,eg>, |1,ge>, |0,ee>}; the resonance condition det(H_2) = 0 (Eq. 19); the static screening indicator Q_2 = |c_{2gg}|^2 * W_single (Eq. 24) combining two-photon weight with atom-cavity admixture; out-of-phase driving (phi = pi) for destructive interference of single-photon excitation pathways; the matched-P_2 figure of merit S_ME = P_2/(P_1 + P_3) (Eq. 26) for comparing candidates at equal two-photon brightness.

What would settle it

If the Q_2 screening indicator systematically fails to identify the best detuning candidates (i.e., the highest-S_ME points from full master-equation calculations fall outside the high-Q_2 region), or if the optimized two-atom configuration does not simultaneously suppress P_1 and P_3 below single-atom levels at comparable P_2 when tested with realistic dissipation (kappa = gamma = 0.1g), the central claim of improved two-photon source quality would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central mechanism is a component-selective engineering of the two-excitation dressed state. The two-excitation manifold of the cavity-coupled two-atom system contains four basis states: two cavity photons, two atomic excitations, and two mixed atom-cavity-photon states. By solving the resonance condition det(H_2) = 0 for the undriven Hamiltonian and selecting detunings that maximize a screening indicator Q_2 = |c_{2gg}|^2 * (|c_{1eg}|^2 + |c_{1ge}|^2), the authors identify parameter regions where the resonant eigenstate has both a large two-photon weight and sufficient hybridization for population transfer. Combined with out-of-phase driving (phi = pi) to suppress the single-photon exc通路

Load-bearing premise

The static screening indicator Q_2, which is a product of undriven eigenstate weights, is assumed to reliably identify detuning combinations that will produce efficient two-photon population transfer in the full driven-dissipative dynamics. It does not account for transition matrix elements, drive-induced mixing, or dissipation, yet the entire parameter-search procedure depends on it selecting good candidates before the expensive master-equation calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the optimized two-photon blockade is experimentally realized in superconducting circuit QED, it would provide a higher-fidelity two-photon source than single-atom cavity QED at comparable brightness, directly useful for photonic quantum gates and cluster-state generation.
  • The dual-mode operation (cavity two-photon blockade vs. correlated fluorescence pairs) from the same physical platform suggests a versatile quantum light source that could be reconfigured between cavity-output and atomic-emission modes by tuning detunings alone.
  • The parameter-selection procedure (static screening with Q_2 followed by full master-equation validation) offers a transferable methodology for optimizing higher-order photon blockade (three-photon, n-photon) in other multi-emitter cavity-QED systems.
  • The demonstration that asymmetric detunings outperform symmetric coupling challenges the default assumption that symmetric configurations are optimal in collective cavity QED, potentially influencing design choices in multi-emitter quantum photonic devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The static screening indicator Q_2 could be generalized to higher excitation manifolds (N >= 3) by defining Q_N = |c_{N,gg...g}>|^2 * W_{single} to pre-screen candidates for N-photon blockade, though the combinatorial growth of basis states may require additional constraints.
  • The phase-control mechanism (phi = pi) for suppressing single-photon background via destructive interference between two atomic excitation pathways suggests a scalable principle: in a chain of N atoms, specific phase patterns could suppress unwanted lower-order backgrounds while selectively enhancing a target N-photon component.
  • The observation that the maximum of the normalized cross-correlation g_{12}^{(2)}(0) does not coincide with the maximum double-excitation probability P_ee implies that optimization of photon-pair sources should use a combined figure of merit rather than correlation functions alone, a principle that may apply broadly to correlated photon-source design.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript proposes a component-selective scheme for improving two-photon sources in a cavity-coupled two-atom system. A single cavity mode interacts with two two-level atoms, each driven by a phase-controlled classical field of the same frequency. By tuning individual atomic detunings and the relative driving phase, the authors engineer the two-excitation manifold to either enhance the |2,gg⟩ component (optimized cavity-field two-photon blockade) or the |0,ee⟩ component (strongly correlated fluorescence photon pairs). The work compares single-atom, symmetric two-atom, and optimized asymmetric two-atom configurations, showing that the latter simultaneously suppresses the single-photon background P1 and three-photon leakage P3 at comparable two-photon population P2. The master-equation treatment is standard, the dressed-state analysis in the symmetric limit is analytically clean (Eqs. 9–12), and the two-excitation resonance condition det(H2)=0 (Eq. 19) is correctly derived. The parameter-selection procedure (Fig. 4) is heuristic but is validated post hoc by full driven-dissipative calculations.

Significance. The paper addresses a relevant problem: two-photon blockade requires not only suppressing higher-photon excitations but also minimizing the single-photon background, and the simultaneous suppression of both is nontrivial. The idea of using asymmetric atomic detunings to tailor the two-excitation eigenstate, combined with out-of-phase driving to suppress the one-photon background via destructive interference, is a reasonable and potentially useful extension of collective photon blockade work (Ref. 39). The dual-mode capability (cavity-field blockade vs. fluorescence photon pairs) from the same two-excitation manifold adds versatility. The proposed parameters are connected to experimentally realistic circuit-QED scales (g/2π=50 MHz, κ/2π=5 MHz). The work provides falsifiable, parameter-specific predictions that can be tested in superconducting circuit-QED platforms.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. III, Fig. 5: The central claim — that the optimized two-atom configuration (Δa=0.79g, Δ1=2.09g, Δ2=2.30g, φ=π) simultaneously suppresses P1 and P3 below both the single-atom and symmetric two-atom levels at comparable P2 — is established only at κ=γ=0.01g. The paper acknowledges that weak dissipation is chosen 'to resolve the narrow dressed-state resonances' and shows in the Fig. 2(a) inset that the blockade criterion survives at κ=γ=0.1g for the symmetric case. However, the optimized configuration relies on spectrally fine-tuned interference (out-of-phase driving suppressing the one-photon background) and a specific two-excitation eigenstate engineered via asymmetric detunings. The simultaneous P1 and P3 suppression shown in Fig. 5 could degrade at larger dissipation, where linewidths broaden and spectral selectivity is reduced. The paper does not re-examine the Fig. 5 comparison (
  2. Sec. IV, Figs. 6–7: The fluorescence photon-pair results are also presented only at κ=γ=0.01g. The cross-correlation g12^(2)(0) values shown in Fig. 6(a) reach ~10^4, which is characteristic of a very weak-emission regime. While the authors correctly note that large normalized correlations can arise in weak-emission regimes and introduce Pee as a complementary metric, the absolute magnitude of Pee at the selected operating point (Δa=0.5g, Δ1=−0.5g, Δ2=0) is not stated explicitly in the text. Since the practical utility of the photon-pair source depends on both the correlation strength and the pair emission rate, reporting the absolute Pee value (or the corresponding emission rate) at the working point would strengthen the claim. A brief comment on whether the photon-pair correlations survive at κ=γ=0.1g would also help, even if the main results are at weak dissipation.
minor comments (5)
  1. Eq. (3): The parametrization keeps |Ω1|²+|Ω2|²=|Ω|² fixed, which is a convenient normalization, but the physical motivation for this choice (as opposed to fixing the per-atom drive strength) is not stated. A brief comment would help readers understand the comparison framework.
  2. Fig. 2(c): The relative deviation (Pn−P̄n)/P̄n is plotted at 'analytical two-photon resonance points,' but it is unclear whether this is evaluated at a single detuning value or averaged over a range. Clarifying this would aid interpretation, especially regarding how narrow the resonance region is.
  3. Sec. III, paragraph after Eq. (25): The static screening indicator Q2 uses thresholds |c_2gg|²>0.50 and Q2>0.215. These cutoffs appear somewhat arbitrary; a brief justification for why these particular values are chosen, or how sensitive the final results are to them, would improve reproducibility.
  4. Fig. 4(c): The figure caption states that SME is 'evaluated over the fixed two-photon population window 0.005≤P2≤0.015,' but it is unclear from the caption alone how many candidate points survive all criteria and whether the chosen working point (Δa=0.79g, Δ1=2.09g) is at the center or near the edge of this window.
  5. The reference list is extensive but the paper does not discuss how the present scheme relates quantitatively to unconventional (interference-based) two-photon blockade approaches (Refs. 24–30, 44–48). Since the out-of-phase driving mechanism has an interference character, a brief comparison to distinguish the present approach from unconventional blockade would clarify the novelty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation chain is self-contained with one minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are established through a derivation chain that does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The two-photon resonance conditions (Eqs. 15-16) are derived analytically from the undriven Hamiltonian (Eq. 9) and then independently verified by full master-equation simulations (Fig. 2). The optimized detunings (Δa=0.79g, Δ1=2.09g, Δ2=2.30g) are selected via a static screening indicator Q2 (Eq. 24) and then validated dynamically via the Lindblad master equation (Eq. 5), not fitted to the output. The figure of merit S_ME (Eq. 26) is defined in terms of steady-state populations P_n obtained from the master equation, providing an independent benchmark. The fluorescence photon-pair results (Sec. IV) similarly derive from the same two-excitation Hamiltonian (Eq. 18) and are verified by delayed correlation functions (Eq. 27) computed from the master equation. The only self-citation is to Zhu, Yang, and Agarwal (Ref. [39]) for prior work on collective multiphoton blockade in a related system; the paper explicitly distinguishes its contribution (externally controllable detunings and driving phase) from that prior work. This citation is contextual, not load-bearing for the mathematical derivation. No prediction is fitted to data and renamed as a result. No uniqueness theorem is invoked. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks (master-equation simulations). The score of 2 reflects the minor self-citation context, which does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. All free parameters are standard cavity-QED quantities (detunings, couplings, decay rates, drive amplitudes). The Q2 indicator is a methodological construct, not a physical entity. The main concern is the ad hoc nature of the Q2 screening thresholds.

free parameters (7)
  • Δa = 0.79g
    Cavity detuning selected by the Q2 screening procedure and master-equation validation; not derived from first principles.
  • Δ1 = 2.09g
    Atom-1 detuning selected by the same screening procedure.
  • Δ2 = 2.30g
    Atom-2 detuning determined from the resonance condition det(H2)=0 given Δa and Δ1.
  • r = 1
    Relative driving amplitude, set to balanced driving by choice.
  • φ = π
    Relative driving phase, chosen to exploit destructive interference for one-photon suppression.
  • κ, γ1, γ2 = 0.01g (main figures), 0.1g (inset)
    Dissipation rates chosen to resolve dressed-state resonances; not fitted but selected for spectral clarity.
  • Ω = 0.04g (main), 0.1g (inset)
    Driving strength, scanned over a range; representative values chosen for figures.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Lindblad master equation adequately describes the open-system dynamics
    Standard quantum optics assumption; invoked in Eq. 5 and used throughout.
  • domain assumption Two-excitation manifold resonance condition det(H2)=0 correctly identifies the relevant two-photon transition
    Valid in the weak-drive limit where higher manifolds are perturbative; used in Eqs. 19-22 and Fig. 4.
  • ad hoc to paper Static indicator Q2 correlates with dynamical two-photon population efficiency
    Introduced in Eq. 24 as a screening tool; validated only post hoc by master-equation scans on selected candidates, not proven generally.
  • domain assumption Fock-space truncation at some unspecified N_max captures all relevant photon-number components
    Implicit in all master-equation calculations; the truncation level is not stated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced two-photon sources in a cavity-coupled two-atom system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJJB42LS

@misc{pith2026260706932,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced two-photon sources in a cavity-coupled two-atom system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJJB42LS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06932}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a component-selective scheme for improving two-photon sources in a cavity-coupled two-atom system, where a single cavity mode interacts with two two-level atoms driven by phase-controlled classical fields of the same frequency. By controlling the atomic detunings and driving phase, the system can be tailored toward optimized cavity-field two-photon blockade or strongly correlated fluorescence photon-pair emission. When the two-cavity-photon component is enhanced, the cavity field exhibits optimized two-photon blockade with simultaneous suppression of unwanted one- and three-photon components at a comparable two-photon population. In another parameter regime, strongly correlated fluorescence photon pairs can also be generated from the two atoms by selecting the double-atomic-excitation component in the same two-excitation manifold. This approach provides a route toward high-quality and versatile two-photon sources, with potential applications in few-photon quantum optics and quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06932 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Schematic of the cavity-coupled two-atom sys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Equal-time correlation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Third-order correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Parameter-selection procedure for the optimized two-photon blockade. For each point in the (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Single-photon probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Detuning selection for strongly correlated fluo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) Equal-time fluorescence cross correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For all relevant excita- tion manifolds, ∆E (2) N >∆E (1) N , showing that the collec- tive coupling of two atoms produces a larger dressed-state splitting than the single-atom case. Figure 1(b) schemat- ically compares the single-atom Jaynes–Cummings lad- der with the symmetric two-atom bright-state ladder, where|Ψ N,±⟩denote the upper and lower dressed ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Other parameters areκ=γ 1 =γ 2 = 0.01g. For the two-photon blockade considered here, the rele- vant criterion is g(2) cav(0)>1, g (3) cav(0)<1.(14) The first condition indicates the enhanced two-photon correlation, while the second one indicates the suppres- sion of three-photon excitation. We first identify the two-photon resonance frequency from the dre...

    work page

  3. [3]

    H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, Photon anti- bunching in resonance fluorescence, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 691 (1977)

    work page 1977

  4. [4]

    Leonski and R

    W. Leonski and R. Tanas, Possibility of producing the one-photon state in a kicked cavity with a nonlinear Kerr medium, Phys. Rev. A49, R20 (1994)

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    H. J. Carmichael, R. J. Brecha, and P. R. Rice, Quantum interference and collapse of the wavefunction in cavity QED, Opt. Commun.82, 73 (1991)

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature (London) 453, 1023 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nat. Photonics1, 165 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, Quantum computers, Nature (London)464, 45 (2010). 10

    work page 2010

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photonics5, 222 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Tian and H

    L. Tian and H. J. Carmichael, Quantum trajectory sim- ulations of two-state behavior in an optical cavity con- taining one atom, Phys. Rev. A46, R6801 (1992)

    1992

  3. [11]

    Imamoglu, H

    A. Imamoglu, H. Schmidt, G. Woods, and M. Deutsch, Strongly interacting photons in a nonlinear cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1467 (1997)

    1997

  4. [12]

    M. J. Werner and A. Imamoglu, Photon-photon interac- tions in cavity electromagnetically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. A61, 011801(R) (1999)

    1999

  5. [13]

    Rebic, S

    S. Rebic, S. M. Tan, A. S. Parkins, and D. F. Walls, Large Kerr nonlinearity with a single atom, J. Opt. B1, 490 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Rebic, A

    S. Rebic, A. S. Parkins, and S. M. Tan, Photon statistics of a single-atom intracavity system involving electromag- netically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. A65, 063804 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    K. M. Birnbaum, A. Boca, R. Miller, A. D. Boozer, T. E. Northup, and H. J. Kimble, Photon blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom, Nature (London) 436, 87 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Schuster, A

    I. Schuster, A. Kubanek, A. Fuhrmanek, T. Puppe, P. W. H. Pinkse, K. Murr, and G. Rempe, Nonlinear spec- troscopy of photons bound to one atom, Nat. Phys.4, 382 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Faraon, I

    A. Faraon, I. Fushman, D. Englund, N. Stoltz, P. Petroff, and J. Vuckovic, Coherent generation of nonclassical light on a chip via photon-induced tunneling and blockade, Nat. Phys.4, 859 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Reinhard, T

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

    2012

  11. [19]

    Kyriienko, D

    O. Kyriienko, D. N. Krizhanovskii, and I. A. Shelykh, Nonlinear quantum optics with trion polaritons in 2D monolayers: Conventional and unconventional photon blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 197402 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    C. Lang, D. Bozyigit, C. Eichler, L. Steffen, J. M. Fink, A. A. Abdumalikov Jr., M. Baur, S. Filipp, M. P. da Silva, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Observation of reso- nant photon blockade at microwave frequencies using cor- relation function measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 24...

    2011

  13. [21]

    A. J. Hoffman, S. J. Srinivasan, S. Schmidt, L. Spietz, J. Aumentado, H. E. Tureci, and A. A. Houck, Dispersive photon blockade in a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 053602 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Bozyigit, C

    D. Bozyigit, C. Lang, L. Steffen, J. M. Fink, C. Eich- ler, 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

  15. [23]

    Chakram, K

    S. Chakram, K. He, A. V. Dixit, A. E. Oriani, R. K. Naik, N. Leung, H. Kwon, W.-L. Ma, L. Jiang, and D. I. Schuster, Multimode photon blockade, Nat. Phys.18, 879 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Trivedi, M

    R. Trivedi, M. Radulaski, K. A. Fischer, S. Fan, and J. Vuckovic, Photon blockade in weakly driven cavity quan- tum electrodynamics systems with many emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 243602 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    M. Chen, J. Tang, L. Tang, H. Wu, and K. Xia, Pho- ton blockade and single-photon generation with multiple quantum emitters, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033083 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    T. C. H. Liew and V. Savona, Single photons from coupled quantum modes, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 183601 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Bamba, A

    M. Bamba, A. Imamoglu, I. Carusotto, and C. Ciuti, Origin of strong photon antibunching in weakly nonlinear photonic molecules, Phys. Rev. A83, 021802(R) (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Flayac and V

    H. Flayac and V. Savona, Unconventional photon block- ade, Phys. Rev. A96, 053810 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    H. J. Snijders, J. A. Frey, J. Norman, H. Flayac, V. Savona, A. C. Gossard, J. E. Bowers, M. P. van Exter, D. Bouwmeester, and W. Loffler, Observation of the uncon- ventional photon blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 043601 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Vaneph, A

    C. Vaneph, A. Morvan, G. Aiello, M. Fechant, M. Aprili, J. Gabelli, and J. Esteve, Observation of the unconven- tional photon blockade in the microwave domain, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 043602 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Zubizarreta Casalengua, J

    E. Zubizarreta Casalengua, J. C. Lopez Carreno, F. P. Laussy, and E. del Valle, Conventional and uncon- ventional photon statistics, Laser Photonics Rev.14, 1900279 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    K. Hou, C. J. Zhu, Y. P. Yang, and G. S. Agarwal, Inter- fering pathways for photon blockade in cavity QED with one and two qubits, Phys. Rev. A100, 063817 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Miranowicz, M

    A. Miranowicz, M. Paprzycka, Y.-X. Liu, J. Bajer, and F. Nori, Two-photon and three-photon blockades in driven nonlinear systems, Phys. Rev. A87, 023809 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    G. H. Hovsepyan, A. R. Shahinyan, and G. Y. Kryuchkyan, Multiphoton blockades in pulsed regimes beyond stationary limits, Phys. Rev. A90, 013839 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Deng, G.-X

    W.-W. Deng, G.-X. Li, and H. Qin, Enhancement of the two-photon blockade in a strong-coupling qubit-cavity system, Phys. Rev. A91, 043831 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Hamsen, K

    C. Hamsen, K. N. Tolazzi, T. Wilk, and G. Rempe, Two- photon blockade in an atom-driven cavity QED system, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 133604 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Felicetti, D

    S. Felicetti, D. Z. Rossatto, E. Rico, E. Solano, and P. Forn-Diaz, Two-photon quantum Rabi model with su- perconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. A97, 013851 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    C. J. Villas-Boas and D. Z. Rossatto, Multiphoton Jaynes-Cummings model: Arbitrary rotations in Fock space and quantum filters, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 123604 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Zou, X.-Y

    F. Zou, X.-Y. Zhang, X.-W. Xu, J.-F. Huang, and J.-Q. Liao, Multiphoton blockade in the two-photon Jaynes- Cummings model, Phys. Rev. A102, 053710 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Li, L.-B

    H.-J. Li, L.-B. Fan, S. Ma, J.-Q. Liao, and C.-C. Shu, Exploring photon blockade in a two-photon Jaynes- Cummings model with atom and cavity drivings, Phys. Rev. A110, 043707 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    C. J. Zhu, Y. P. Yang, and G. S. Agarwal, Collective multiphoton blockade in cavity quantum electrodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. A95, 063842 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Bin, X.-Y

    Q. Bin, X.-Y. Lu, S.-W. Bin, and Y. Wu, Two-photon blockade in a cascaded cavity-quantum-electrodynamics system, Phys. Rev. A98, 043858 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    J. Z. Lin, K. Hou, C. J. Zhu, and Y. P. Yang, Manip- ulation and improvement of multiphoton blockade in a cavity-QED system with two cascade three-level atoms, Phys. Rev. A99, 053850 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Tang and Y

    J. Tang and Y. Deng, Tunable multiphoton bundles emis- sion in a Kerr-type two-photon Jaynes-Cummings model, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033247 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Zhang, Z.-H

    G.-Y. Zhang, Z.-H. Liu, J.-Q. Liao, and X.-W. Xu, Mul- tiphoton blockade by frequency-matched multitone drive, Phys. Rev. A112, 053703 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    X. Qiao, Z. Yao, and H. Yang, Strongly enhanced photon- pair blockade with three-wave mixing by quantum inter- ference, Phys. Rev. A110, 053702 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Kowalewska-Kudlaszyk, S

    A. Kowalewska-Kudlaszyk, S. I. Abo, G. Chimczak, J. Perina Jr., F. Nori, and A. Miranowicz, Two-photon blockade and photon-induced tunneling generated by squeezing, Phys. Rev. A100, 053857 (2019). 11

    2019

  40. [48]

    Feng and S.-Q

    L.-J. Feng and S.-Q. Gong, Two-photon blockade gener- ated and enhanced by mechanical squeezing, Phys. Rev. A103, 043509 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Y. Li, Z. Yao, and H. Yang, One-photon and two-photon blockades in a four-wave-mixing system embedded with an atom, Phys. Rev. A109, 043702 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    H. Lin, X. Luo, X. Wang, F. Gao, Y. Zhou, and Z. Yao, Inducing tunable conventional photon blockade and two- photon blockade in a second-order nonlinear system with two-level atoms, Opt. Express32, 23056 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Rabl, Photon blockade effect in optomechanical sys- tems, Phys

    P. Rabl, Photon blockade effect in optomechanical sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 063601 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Nunnenkamp, K

    A. Nunnenkamp, K. Borkje, and S. M. Girvin, Single- photon optomechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 063602 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Xu, Y.-J

    X.-W. Xu, Y.-J. Li, and Y.-X. Liu, Photon-induced tun- neling in optomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. A87, 025803 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    Liao and F

    J.-Q. Liao and F. Nori, Photon blockade in quadrati- cally coupled optomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. A88, 023853 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Komar, S

    P. Komar, S. D. Bennett, K. Stannigel, S. J. M. Habraken, P. Rabl, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, Single- photon nonlinearities in two-mode optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A87, 013839 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    H. Xie, G. W. Lin, X. Chen, Z. H. Chen, and X. M. Lin, Single-photon nonlinearities in a strongly driven optome- chanical system with quadratic coupling, Phys. Rev. A 93, 063860 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Solki, A

    H. Solki, A. Motazedifard, and M. H. Naderi, Improv- ing photon blockade, entanglement, and mechanical-cat- state generation in a generalized cross-Kerr optomechan- ical circuit, Phys. Rev. A108, 063505 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Tian, L.-L

    G. Tian, L.-L. Zheng, Z.-M. Zhan, F. Nori, and X.-Y. L¨ u, Disorder-induced strongly correlated photons in waveg- uide QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 153604 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Huang, A

    R. Huang, A. Miranowicz, J.-Q. Liao, F. Nori, and H. Jing, Nonreciprocal photon blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 153601 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    B. Li, R. Huang, X. Xu, A. Miranowicz, and H. Jing, Nonreciprocal unconventional photon blockade in a spin- ning optomechanical system, Photonics Res.7, 630 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Gou and X

    C. Gou and X. Hu, Simultaneous nonreciprocal photon blockade in two coupled spinning resonators via Sagnac- Fizeau shift and parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. A 108, 043723 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Z.-G. Lu, Y. Wu, and X.-Y. L¨ u, Chiral interaction in- duced near-perfect photon blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 013602 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Xu, Y.-J

    X.-W. Xu, Y.-J. Zhao, H. Wang, H. Jing, and A.-X. Chen, Nonreciprocal photon blockade via quadratic op- tomechanical coupling, Photon. Res.8, 143 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    X.-W. Xu, Y. Li, B. Li, H. Jing, and A.-X. Chen, Non- reciprocity via nonlinearity and synthetic magnetism, Phys. Rev. Applied13, 044070 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    B. Li, Y. Zuo, L.-M. Kuang, H. Jing, and C. Lee, Loss- induced quantum nonreciprocity, npj Quantum Inf.10, 75 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    J. Y. Sun and H. Z. Shen, Photon blockade in non- Hermitian optomechanical systems with nonreciprocal couplings, Phys. Rev. A107, 043715 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Huang, S

    R. Huang, S. K. ¨Ozdemir, J.-Q. Liao, F. Minganti, L.-M. Kuang, F. Nori, and H. Jing, Exceptional photon block- ade: Engineering photon blockade with chiral exceptional points, Laser Photonics Rev.16, 2100430 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Z. Geng, Y. Chen, Y. Jiang, Y. Xia, and J. Song, Engi- neering dynamical photon blockade with Liouville excep- tional points, Opt. Lett.49, 3026 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    Ghosh and T

    S. Ghosh and T. C. H. Liew, Dynamical blockade in a single-mode bosonic system, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 013602 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Li, Y.-L

    M. Li, Y.-L. Zhang, S.-H. Wu, C.-H. Dong, X.-B. Zou, G.-C. Guo, and C.-L. Zou, Single-mode photon blockade enhanced by bi-tone drive, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 043601 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Zhang, Z.-H

    G.-Y. Zhang, Z.-H. Liu, and X.-W. Xu, Optimizing dy- namical blockade via a particle-swarm-optimization algo- rithm, Phys. Rev. A110, 023718 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R. - S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Strong coupling of a single photon to a super- conducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature431, 162 (2004)

    2004

  65. [73]

    Blais, A

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

    2021

  66. [74]

    Gasparinetti, M

    S. Gasparinetti, M. Pechal, J.-C. Besse, M. Mondal, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Correlations and entanglement of microwave photons emitted in a cascade decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 140504 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.