Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

High-order quantum correlations in nonlinear waveguide quantum electrodynamics

T0 review · 4 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 Interparticle spacing in a squeezed waveguide decides whether bulk or boundary atom pairs develop the strongest connected correlations.

desk verdict Solid small-array numerics on connected correlations in nonlinear wQED; the 'many-emitter' switching claim needs scaling evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24106 v1 pith:TWQC4ENC submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph

I Gusti Ngurah Yudi Handayana , Ya-Tang Yu , C.-Y. Lee , K.-T. Lin , G.-D. Lin , H. H. Jen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords waveguidequantumelectrodynamicsnonlinearsqueezedreservoirconnectedcorrelationscumulantsemitterarraysparametricgainboundary–bulkcontrast
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

An array of two-level emitters coupled to a parametrically pumped waveguide experiences a reservoir whose squeezing accumulates with propagation distance. This paper argues that the resulting distance-dependent gain turns the interparticle distance into a direct control of quantum correlations: at one spacing the strongest connected two-emitter correlation sits in the bulk, at another it sits near the boundary. It also finds that genuine three-atom connected correlations grow more strongly with the squeezing parameter, while two-atom correlations peak at intermediate squeezing and change sign in the steady state. The boundary–bulk contrast persists after relaxation and for both odd and even array sizes. If these claims hold, nonlinear waveguide QED provides a platform for placing multipartite quantum correlations at chosen locations without site-resolved driving.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective Lindblad master equation for the emitter array, obtained by mapping the nonlinear waveguide's output field at each emitter to a Bogoliubov-transformed retarded input. Two ingredients do the work: the interparticle phase φ = k0 Δx, which sets the interference between the excitation-exchange Hamiltonian (cosh-weighted) and the squeezing-induced pair-creation/annihilation Hamiltonian (sinh-weighted); and the uniform per-segment squeezing increment Δr = r/(N-1), which makes the gain explicitly distance- and position-dependent. The observables are connected (cumulant) correlations, G^{(2)}_{i,j} and G^{(3)}_{i,j,k}, which subtract factorized lower-order expecta

What would settle it

Simulate the microscopic emitter–field dynamics for a few emitters without relying on the effective-master-equation reduction, or measure site-resolved excitation correlations in a nanofiber or photonic-crystal waveguide with a parametric pump, and compare the sign of G^{(2)}_{bulk} – G^{(2)}_{boundary} at φ = π/6 versus φ = π/4 for r around 0.5; if the bulk/boundary ordering does not reverse with spacing, the predicted switching is an artifact of the effective master equation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using an effective master equation in which the pumped waveguide acts as a Markovian squeezed reservoir, the authors show that the connected second-order correlation of local nearest-neighbor pairs is governed by interference between squeezing-dressed excitation exchange and squeezing-induced pair creation. This interference is controlled by the interparticle phase φ = k0 Δx: for φ = π/6 the bulk nearest-neighbor pair dominates, while for φ = π/4 the boundary pair dominates. The same spacing dependence appears in third-order connected correlations, and in the steady state the averaged second-order correlation changes sign and is nonmonotonic in the squeezing parameter r, whereas the third-or

Load-bearing premise

The results stand or fall with the imported effective master equation's assumption that the pumped waveguide behaves as a memoryless squeezed reservoir with a uniform per-emitter squeezing increment Δr = r/(N-1), no injected squeezed field, no pump depletion, and no nonguided losses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tuning the interparticle phase from φ = π/6 to φ = π/4 in a five-emitter array switches the dominant local second-order correlation from bulk to boundary.
  • The same spacing control appears in third-order connected correlations: at φ = π/6 the bulk triple is slightly stronger, at φ = π/4 the boundary triple clearly dominates.
  • Steady-state averaged second-order correlations are sign-changing and nonmonotonic in the squeezing–spacing plane, so the waveguide can favor either correlated or anticorrelated pair fluctuations depending on spacing.
  • Steady-state averaged third-order connected correlations stay positive and grow strongly with squeezing, providing a squeezing-controlled source of genuine three-atom correlations.
  • The local boundary–bulk contrast survives for even arrays (N = 6), with the central-bond bulk pair covering a broader region of parameter space than in the odd array (N = 5).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the switching is driven by the global pump and the lattice spacing alone, a single experimental setup could survey both regimes by varying one geometric parameter, without site-resolved driving.
  • A complementary probe is the transmitted guided-field photon statistics: the same reservoir that imprints emitter correlations should leave signatures in the output light, allowing non-demolition detection of the boundary–bulk shift.
  • The opposite r-dependence of G^{(2)} and G^{(3)} suggests a two-step strategy: use moderate squeezing to optimize pair correlations and stronger squeezing to generate tripartite correlations, if additional decoherence remains manageable.
  • The paper notes that the bulk third-order triplet shifts in the opposite parity direction from the bulk second-order pair; a numerical odd–even map of the G^{(3)} contrast, analogous to the G^{(2)} heatmaps, would test whether that parity effect is as systematic.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies connected second- and third-order correlations of an array of two-level emitters coupled to a parametrically pumped nonlinear waveguide. Using an effective master equation imported from Ref. [44], it analyzes the two-emitter limit, transient dynamics of nearest-neighbor boundary and bulk correlations for N=5 (and N=6 for parity), steady-state correlation heatmaps, and odd–even parity effects. The central claims are that the interparticle phase phi switches the dominant local second-order correlation between bulk and boundary regimes, and that third-order connected correlations grow more strongly with the squeezing parameter r. The cumulant definitions are standard, the mirror-symmetry derivation in Appendix A is careful, and the reported curves are internally consistent with the plotted data. However, the evidence for the 'many-emitter array' claim is limited to N=5 and N=6, and the underlying master equation is not re-derived or its validity region critically discussed.

Significance. If the effective model is valid, the predicted boundary–bulk switching and the distinct r-dependence of G^(2) and G^(3) provide a concrete, observable signature in nonlinear waveguide QED. The paper introduces no fitted parameters and uses standard kth-order cumulants, and the mirror-symmetry condition in Appendix A is a clean, useful technical contribution. The parity comparison (N=5 vs N=6) is a thoughtful addition. However, the scope of the central claim is currently unsupported beyond small arrays, and the entire analysis is conditional on an imported master equation whose assumptions are stated but not validated. The significance would be substantially strengthened by scaling data for larger N and by a clear statement of the regime of validity of Eqs. (3)–(10).

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Figs. 3–6] The abstract and Sec. IV state that in 'many-emitter arrays' tuning phi switches the dominant local second-order correlation between bulk and boundary. The numerical support is limited to N=5 (Figs. 3–5) and N=6 (Fig. 6). With Delta r = r/(N-1) in Eq. (5), the accumulated squeezing at the central bulk pair grows as O(r) while the near-boundary pair sees O(r/N); hence the cosh/sinh coefficients in Eqs. (7)–(10) become exponentially separated as N increases, potentially overwhelming the interference effect that produces the switch at N=5,6. Please provide scaling data for N>6 (e.g., several N at fixed r, phi) or prove that the switching condition is N-independent; otherwise the claim should be restricted to small arrays.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (3)–(10)] The entire analysis relies on the effective master equation imported from Ref. [44]. This equation assumes a Markovian reservoir, a uniform per-segment increment Delta r = r/(N-1), no nonguided losses, no injected squeezing, and no pump depletion. These assumptions are stated but not validated or discussed. Since the boundary–bulk contrast is controlled by the spatial dependence of the gain profile, the validity region of this master equation is load-bearing. Please state explicitly the conditions under which Eqs. (7)–(10) hold (e.g., short lossless waveguide, weak parametric gain, negligible retardation) and, if possible, provide a brief derivation sketch or an independent consistency check for small N. Without this, the quantitative predictions are conditional on an external model.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (19)] The 'bulk' third-order correlation G^(3)_{2,3,4} and 'boundary' G^(3)_{1,2,3} share two sites. The difference between these cumulants therefore also contains single-site and two-site connected contributions from the non-overlapping emitters, and is not a clean measure of the spatial shift of the purely third-order connected correlation. The text acknowledges the overlap, but the abstract claims 'analogous spatial control of genuine third-order connected correlations.' Please quantify the relative weight of the third-order cumulant versus lower-order terms in this comparison, or use a non-overlapping triple comparison where feasible.
  4. [Sec. IV, Figs. 3(c)–(f)] The transient switching claim is supported by only two values of phi (pi/6 and pi/4) at N=5. Since the sign of Delta G^(2) in Eq. (18) is the central observable, please show Delta G^(2) as a function of phi at a representative time and r, or provide at least a scan over phi for the transient regime. The steady-state heatmaps in Fig. 5 are not a substitute because the transient and steady-state phi-dependence can differ.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (12); figure captions] The parameters specify theta_left = pi/2 but not theta_right. For phi=pi/4 and N=5, Eq. (12) gives theta_right = theta_left + 3pi; please list the chosen theta_right values for each phi, or state that Eq. (12) is used to fix them, so the calculations are reproducible.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A16)] The equal-phase condition phi = m pi/(N+1) is satisfied by phi=pi/6 for N=5 but not by phi=pi/4. The latter therefore requires a phase imbalance; making this explicit in the main text would help the reader.
  3. [Sec. IV, text near Fig. 3] The sentence 'The green, and blue curves correspond to 0.5, and 1, respectively' appears to be missing the red curve for r=0.1; if r=0.1 is not plotted, please clarify which r values are shown in Figs. 3(c)–(f).
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The rescaled time is written as tau = gamma r t; it would be clearer to write tau = gamma r t (or define gamma_r) to avoid confusion between the guided-decay rate gamma and a subscript.
  5. [General] Ref. [44] is a rapid-communication letter; if the derivation of the master equation is in its supplementary material, please cite that source explicitly so readers can verify Eqs. (7)–(10).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: central predictions are computed outputs of an externally cited master equation and standard cumulants, not fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The effective master equation, Eqs. (3)-(10), is imported from the independent, non-overlapping citation [44], and the paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem or ansatz from the authors' own work to force its conclusions. The correlation measures G^(2) and G^(3), Eqs. (15) and (16), are standard cumulants from Ref. [54]; their signs and magnitudes are not fixed by the definitions, so the reported sign-changing, nonmonotonic, and boundary-bulk behaviors are computed properties of the model rather than identities. The parameters r and phi are scanned control parameters, not fitted to data, so no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction. The self-citations [10]-[13] appear only as contextual references to earlier work on excitation trapping, transport, and correlation suppression; none is load-bearing for the central boundary-bulk switching or the third-order squeezing-dependence claims. The paper itself labels its third-order boundary-bulk comparison as 'preliminary explorations' in Sec. IV, which is a scope caveat rather than evidence of circularity. The main weakness is that the 'many-emitter' claim is demonstrated only for N=5 and N=6; that is a generality/validity limitation, not a circular-derivation issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, mediators, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The model ingredients (squeezed guided field, Bogoliubov-transformed jump operators, accumulated squeezing r) are all taken from prior literature. The only hand-chosen quantities are the physical control parameters r, phi, and the squeezing phase, which are scanned rather than fitted to data. The central claims therefore rest almost entirely on the validity of the imported master equation and the mirror-symmetric setup.

free parameters (3)
  • r (total accumulated squeezing) = scanned over 0-1; representative values 0.1, 0.5, 1
    Chosen by hand as the control parameter. All correlation results are presented as functions of r.
  • phi = k0 * Delta x (interparticle phase) = pi/6 and pi/4 for transient; continuous scan in steady-state heatmaps
    Chosen by hand to demonstrate the bulk- vs boundary-dominated switching; the key spatial control parameter.
  • theta_left (squeezing phase of left-propagating field) = pi/2
    Sets the mirror-symmetric phase condition through Eq. (12). An arbitrary global phase choice in the numerical examples.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The effective master equation Eqs. (3)-(10), imported from Ref. [44], correctly describes emitters in a pumped nonlinear waveguide.
    The entire calculation uses this model without re-deriving it; all numerical predictions inherit its validity.
  • domain assumption Markov approximation and ideal guided-mode limit; nonguided losses are neglected.
    Stated in Sec. II and required for the local-in-time Lindblad form and for the simple gamma = 2 pi g^2/v_g decay rate.
  • domain assumption Pure squeezing-accumulation regime: no injected squeezed reservoir, initial squeezing zero, total squeezing r uniformly distributed as Delta r = r/(N-1).
    Introduced in Sec. II before Eq. (5); the linear-in-distance accumulation of gain is load-bearing for all separation-dependent results.
  • domain assumption Mirror-symmetric phase condition theta_right - theta_left = 2(N+1)phi + 2 m pi is imposed, and the initial state is mirror symmetric.
    Derived in Appendix A and used throughout to identify representative boundary and bulk pairs/triples.
  • standard math The Kubo cumulant definitions in Eqs. (13)-(16) correctly isolate statistically connected correlation content.
    Standard connected-correlation formalism; used without further justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-order quantum correlations in nonlinear waveguide quantum electrodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TWQC4ENC

@misc{pith2026260724106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-order quantum correlations in nonlinear waveguide quantum electrodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TWQC4ENC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24106}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum emitters coupled to nonlinear one-dimensional waveguides provide a route for quantum-state engineering by utilizing parametric gain accumulation along with modified waveguide-mediated interactions. Since the accumulated squeezing depends on propagation distance, different emitter separations can experience different effective gain, making the spatial structure of connected quantum correlations a central feature of the dynamics. Here we investigate the transient and steady-state connected correlations of emitter arrays coupled to a parametrically driven waveguide. Using an effective master equation for nonlinear waveguide QED, we analyze second- and third-order connected correlations as functions of the squeezing parameter and interparticle distance. In the two-emitter limit, accumulated squeezing drives excitation buildup and generates a nonzero connected second-order correlation. For many-emitter arrays, tuning the interparticle distance switches the dominant local second-order correlation between the bulk and boundary regions, and enables an analogous spatial control of genuine third-order connected correlations. In the steady state, the averaged second-order correlation exhibits sign-changing and nonmonotonic behavior in the squeezing--interparticle distance parameter space, whereas the third-order connected correlation is strongly enhanced by increasing the squeezing parameter. These results identify nonlinear waveguide QED as a tunable platform for spatially controlling connected quantum correlations and provide insights into correlation engineering in open quantum optical arrays. We further show that this local contrast remains visible in both odd and even number of atomic arrays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of an array of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dynamics of a two-emitter system coupled to a nonlin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dynamics of the connected second-order correlations for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dynamics of the connected third-order correlations. (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Steady-state connected correlations for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Odd–even comparison of the steady-state local boundary– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [44]

    Karnieli, O

    A. Karnieli, O. Tziperman, C. Roques-Carmes, and S. Fan, Decoherence-free many-body Hamiltonians in nonlin- ear waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L012014 (2025)

    2025

  2. [1]

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

    2023

  3. [2]

    Zhang and and K

    Y .-X. Zhang and and K. Mølmer, Theory of Subradiant States of a One-Dimensional Two-Level Atom Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 203605 (2019)

    2019

  4. [3]

    Y . Ke, A. V . Poshakinskiy, C. Lee, Y . S. Kivshar, and A. N. Poddubny, Inelastic Scattering of Photon Pairs in Qubit Arrays with Subradiant States, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 253601 (2019)

    2019

  5. [4]

    Albrecht, L

    A. Albrecht, L. Henriet, A. Asenjo-Garcia, P. B Dieterle, O. Painter, and D. E. Chang, Subradiant states of quantum bits cou- pled to a one-dimensional waveguide, New J. Phys.21, 025003 (2019)

    2019

  6. [5]

    J. A. Needham, I. Lesanovsky, and B. Olmos, Subradiance- protected excitation transport, New J. Phys.21, 073061 (2019)

    2019

  7. [6]

    Mahmoodian, G

    S. Mahmoodian, G. Calaj ´o, D. E. Chang, K. Hammerer, and A. S. Sørensen, Dynamics of Many-Body Photon Bound States in Chiral Waveguide QED, Phys. Rev. X10, 031011 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Atomic-waveguide quan- tum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043213 (2020)

    2020

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    Pennetta, M

    R. Pennetta, M. Blaha, A. Johnson, D. Lechner, P. Schneeweiss, J. V olz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Collective Radiative Dynamics of an Ensemble of Cold Atoms Coupled to an Optical Waveg- uide, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 073601 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Pennetta, D

    R. Pennetta, D. Lechner, M. Blaha , A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Schneeweiss, and J. V olz, Observation of Coherent Coupling between Super- and Subradiant States of an Ensemble of Cold Atoms Collectively Coupled to a Single Propagating Optical Mode, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 203601 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    I G. N. Y . Handayana, C.-C. Wu, S. Goswami, Y .-C. Chen, and H. H. Jen, Atomic excitation trapping in dissimilar chirally cou- pled atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013320 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    I G. N. Y . Handayana, Y .-T. Yu, W.-H. Chung, and H. H. Jen, Manipulating excitation dynamics in structured waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A113, 043709 (2026). 11

    2026

  5. [12]

    Y .-T. Yu, I G. N. Y . Handayana, W. Chen, and H. H. Jen, Fast and high excitation transport in waveguide quantum electrody- namics, New J. Phys.28, 034501 (2026)

    2026

  6. [13]

    I G. N. Y . Handayana, Y .-L. Tsao, and H. H. Jen, Suppression of quantum correlations in a clean-disordered atom-nanophotonic interface, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023303 (2025)

    2025

  7. [14]

    M. J. Morrissey, K. Deasy, Y . Wu, S. Chakrabarti, and S. Nic Chormaic, Tapered optical fibers as tools for probing magneto- optical trap characteristics, Rev. Sci. Instrum.80, 053102 (2009)

    2009

  8. [15]

    Vetsch, D

    E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagu ´e, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Optical Interface Created by Laser-Cooled Atoms Trapped in the Evanescent Field Surrounding an Optical Nanofiber, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 203603 (2010)

    2010

  9. [16]

    Solano, P

    P. Solano, P. Barberis-Blostein, F. K. Fatemi, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, Super-radiance reveals infinite-range dipole in- teractions through a nanofiber, Nat. commun.8, 1857 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    J. S. Douglas, H. Habibian, C.-L. Hung, A. V . Gorshkov, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Quantum many-body models with cold atoms coupled to photonic crystals, Nat. Photon.9, 326 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    Goban, C.-L

    A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, J. D. Hood, S.-P. Yu, J. A. Muniz, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimble, Superradiance for Atoms Trapped along a Photonic Crystal Waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 063601 (2015)

    2015

  12. [19]

    I. J. Luxmoore, N. A. Wasley, A. J. Ramsay, A. C. T. Thijssen, R. Oulton, M. Hugues, S. Kasture, V . G. Achanta, A. M. Fox, and M. S. Skolnick, Interfacing Spins in an InGaAs Quantum Dot to a Semiconductor Waveguide Circuit Using Emitted Pho- tons, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 037402 (2013)

    2013

  13. [20]

    Arcari, I

    M. Arcari, I. S ¨ollner, A. Javadi, S. Lindskov Hansen, S. Mah- moodian, J. Liu, H. Thyrrestrup, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, S. Sto- bbe, and P. Lodahl, Near-Unity Coupling Efficiency of a Quan- tum Emitter to a Photonic Crystal Waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 093603 (2014)

    2014

  14. [21]

    Yalla, M

    R. Yalla, M. Sadgrove, K. P. Nayak, and K. Hakuta, Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics on a Nanofiber Using a Composite Photonic Crystal Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 143601 (2014)

    2014

  15. [22]

    S ¨ollner, S

    I. S ¨ollner, S. Mahmoodian, S. L. Hansen, L. Midolo, A. Javadi, G. Kirˇsansk˙e, T. Pregnolato, H. El-Ella, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, et. al., Deterministic photon–emitter coupling in chiral photonic circuits, Nat. Nanotechnol.10, 775 (2015)

    2015

  16. [23]

    Roushan, C

    P. Roushan, C. Neill, A. Megrant, Y . Chen, R. Babbush, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth,et. al., Chiral ground-state currents of interacting photons in a syn- thetic magnetic field, Nat. Phys.13, 146 (2017)

    2017

  17. [24]

    D.-W. Wang, C. Song, W. Feng, H. Cai, D. Xu, H. Deng, H. Li, D. Zheng, X. Zhu, H. Wang,et. al., Synthesis of antisymmetric spin exchange interaction and chiral spin clusters in supercon- ducting circuits, Nat. Phys.15, 382 (2019)

    2019

  18. [25]

    Riedel, T

    D. Riedel, T. Graziosi, Z. Wang, C. De-Eknamkul, A. Abul- naga, J. Dietz, A. Mucchietto, M. Haas, M. Sutula,et. al., Scal- able Photonic Quantum Interconnect Platform, Phys. Rev. X16, 011063 (2026)

    2026

  19. [26]

    D. E. Chang, J. S. Douglas, A. Gonz ´alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Colloquium: Quantum matter built from nanoscopic lattices of atoms and photons, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031002 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    H. H. Jen, Photon-mediated dipole–dipole interactions as a resource for quantum science and technology in cold atoms, Quantum Sci. Technol.10023001 (2025)

    2025

  21. [28]

    M. J. Collett and C. W. Gardiner, Squeezing of intracavity and traveling-wave light fields produced in parametric amplifica- tion, Phys. Rev. A30, 1386 (1984)

    1984

  22. [29]

    L. G. Helt and N. Quesada, Degenerate squeezing in waveg- uides: a unified theoretical approach, J. Phys. Photon.2, 035001 (2020)

    2020

  23. [30]

    Quesada, G

    N. Quesada, G. Triginer, M. D. Vidrighin, and J. E. Sipe, The- ory of high-gain twin-beam generation in waveguides: From Maxwell’s equations to efficient simulation, Phys. Rev. A102, 033519 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    D. F. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature306, 141 (1983)

    1983

  25. [32]

    C. W. Gardiner, Inhibition of atomic phase decays by squeezed light: A direct effect of squeezing, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 1917 (1986)

    1917

  26. [33]

    B. J. Dalton, Z. Ficek, and S. Swain, Atoms in squeezed light fields, J. Mod. Opt.46, 379 (1999)

    1999

  27. [34]

    K. W. Murch, S. J. Weber, K. M. Beck, E. Ginossar, and I. Siddiqi, Reduction of the radiative decay of atomic coherence in squeezed vacuum, Nature499, 62 (2013)

    2013

  28. [35]

    A. Dutt, A. Mohanty, A. L. Gaeta, and M. Lipson, Nonlinear and quantum photonics using integrated optical materials, Nat. Rev. Mater.9, 321 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    T. F. Weiss, A. Youssry, and Alberto Peruzzo, Quantum non- linear parametric interaction in realistic waveguides: a compre- hensive study, Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 025041 (2026)

    2026

  30. [37]

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

    D. Roy, Correlated few-photon transport in one-dimensional waveguides: Linear and nonlinear dispersions, Phys. Rev. A 83, 043823 (2011)

    2011

  31. [38]

    Mahmoodian, M

    S. Mahmoodian, M. ˇCepulkovskis, S. Das, P. Lodahl, K. Ham- merer, and A. S. Sørensen, Strongly Correlated Photon Trans- port in Waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics with Weakly Coupled Emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 143601 (2018)

    2018

  32. [39]

    Le Jeannic, T

    H. Le Jeannic, T. Ramos, S. F. Simonsen, T. Pregnolato, Z. Liu, R. Schott, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, N. Rotenberg,et al., Exper- imental Reconstruction of the Few-Photon Nonlinear Scattering Matrix from a Single Quantum Dot in a Nanophotonic Waveg- uide, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 023...

    2021

  33. [40]

    Hafezi, D

    M. Hafezi, D. E. Chang, V . Gritsev, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum transport of strongly interacting photons in a one-dimensional nonlinear waveguide, Phys. Rev. A85, 013822 (2012)

    2012

  34. [41]

    Firstenberg, T

    O. Firstenberg, T. Peyronel, Q.-Y . Liang, A. V . Gorshkov, M. D. Lukin, and V . Vuleti´c, Attractive photons in a quantum non- linear medium, Nature502, 71 (2013)

    2013

  35. [42]

    K. H. Nielsen, Y . Wang, E. C. R. Deacon, P. I. Sund, Z. Liu, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, A. S. Sørensen, S. Paesani, and P. Lodahl, Programmable nonlinear quantum photonic circuits, Nat. commun.16, 1397 (2025)

    2025

  36. [43]

    W. Tong, S. J Walsh, H. Alaeian, and F. Robicheaux, Nonlin- ear Optics Mediated by Chiral Waveguide QED: Generation of Momentum-anticorrelated Photon Pairs, arXiv:2607.18562 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  37. [45]

    H. H. Jen, Quantum correlations of localized atomic excitations in a disordered atomic chain, Phys. Rev. A105, 023717 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Osterloh, Luigi Amico, G

    A. Osterloh, Luigi Amico, G. Falci & Rosario Fazio, Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition, Nature (London)416, 608 (2002)

    2002

  39. [47]

    Mishra, H

    U. Mishra, H. Cheraghi, S. Mahdavifar, R. Jafari, and A. Ak- bari, Dynamical quantum correlations after sudden quenches, Phys. Rev. A98, 052338 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Polkovnikov, Universal adiabatic dynamics in the vicinity of a quantum critical point, Phys

    A. Polkovnikov, Universal adiabatic dynamics in the vicinity of a quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B 72, 161201 (2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

    W. H. Zurek, U. Dorner, and P. Zoller, Dynamics of a Quantum 12 Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 105701 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    Keesling, A

    A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, and P. Silviet al., Quantum Kibble–Zurek mechanism and critical dynamics on a programmable Rydberg simulator, Nature (London)568, 207 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    L ´eonard, S

    J. L ´eonard, S. Kim, M. Rispoli, A. Lukin, R. Schittko, J. Kwan, E. Demler, D. Sels, and M. Greiner, Probing the onset of quan- tum avalanches in a many-body localized system, Nat. Phys. 19, 481 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Combes, J

    J. Combes, J. Kerckhoff, and M. Sarovar, The SLH frame- work for modeling quantum input-output networks, Advances in Physics: X2, 784 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Pichler, T

    H. Pichler, T. Ramos, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Quantum optics of chiral spin networks, Phys. Rev. A91, 042116 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Kubo, Generalized Cumulant Expansion Method, J

    R. Kubo, Generalized Cumulant Expansion Method, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn17, 1100-1120 (1962)

    1962

  47. [55]

    R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field, Phys. Rev.131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  48. [56]

    J. You, Z. Liao, S.-W. Li, and M. S. Zubairy, Waveguide quan- tum electrodynamics in squeezed vacuum, Phys. Rev. A97, 023810 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Nadel, A

    S. Nadel, A. Sivan, and A. Karnieli, Dark state spec- troscopy in nonlinear waveguide quantum electrodynamics, arXiv:2606.11997 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Zhu and H

    M. Zhu and H. Pu, Dissipative phase transition in a paramet- rically amplified quantum Rabi model with two-photon decay, arXiv:2603.18188 (2026)

    2026

  51. [59]

    Goswami, C.-H

    S. Goswami, C.-H. Chien, N. Sinclair, B. Grinkemeyer, S. Bennetts, Y .-C. Chen, and H. H. Jen, Efficient and High- Fidelity Entanglement in Cavity QED without High Coopera- tivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 050802 (2026)

    2026

  52. [60]

    Chien, S

    C.-H. Chien, S. Goswami, C.-C. Wu, W.-S. Hiew, Y .-C. Chen, and H. H. Jen, Generating scalable graph states in an atom- nanophotonic interface, Quantum Sci. Technol.9, 025020 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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