Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Thermal motion, not chiral design, gives collective superradiant emission a strong preferred direction.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:13 UTC pith:UJLKY3AS

load-bearing objection A promising, clearly-reported experiment showing motion-induced directional collective emission, but the headline mechanism is not quantitatively established — the peak κ is amplified by a threshold asymmetry absent from the supporting simulation. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.03028 v2 pith:UJLKY3AS submitted 2026-03-03 quant-ph

Motion-induced directionality of collective emission in a non-chiral waveguide

Yoan Spahn , Jens Hartmann , Benedikt Saalfrank , Michael Fleischhauer , Thomas Halfmann , Thorsten Peters This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords superradiancedirectionalitychiralwaveguide QEDcollective emissionRaman phase imprintingmotional dephasingtruncated Wigner approximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports the first experimental observation of controllable directionality in collective (superfluorescent) emission from a disordered ensemble in a non-chiral hollow-core waveguide. The central claim is that directional light emission does not require any single-emitter asymmetry or ordered arrangement: it emerges purely from collective phase engineering. Here the phase is a spatially oscillating dipole phase imprinted by the Raman pump, and the asymmetry is provided by atomic thermal motion. The authors argue that motion-induced dephasing suppresses collective emission into the backward mode while leaving the forward mode largely intact, yielding directionality up to 0.89(1). If correct, this establishes a new mechanism for directional interactions in systems with fully isotropic constituents.

Core claim

The central discovery is that in a one-dimensional waveguide where forward and backward coupling strengths are exactly equal (β+ = β-), superfluorescent bursts can nonetheless be strongly directional. The emitters are Raman-created effective two-level atoms whose transition dipole carries a spatial phase factor ~ e^{ik_p z}; thermal motion during the collective emission time blurs this phase. Averaging the collective coupling over the resulting position uncertainty suppresses the backward collective coupling by a factor exp[-(4π v̄τ/λ0)^2] while leaving the forward coupling nearly unchanged. The resulting directionality κ = (R+ - R-)/(R+ + R-) peaks near the superfluorescence threshold and i

What carries the argument

The central object is the spatially oscillating transition-dipole phase e^{ik_p z} carried by each effective two-level emitter, created by the Raman pump. In the waveguide spin model, this phase enters the collective coupling matrices Γ_lm and J_lm together with the waveguide phase e^{±ik0 z}; atomic motion is implemented by updating positions z_n(t) per timestep (or, in the static toy model, by replacing the velocity distribution with a position uncertainty σ_z = v̄τ). When averaged, the backward coupling acquires the suppression factor β_- = exp[-(4π v̄τ/λ0)^2], which is the mechanism that breaks forward-backward symmetry. This position-blur-to-directionality mapping carries the argument a

Load-bearing premise

The attribution of the observed directionality to motion-induced phase dephasing rests on a reduced truncated-Wigner simulation that omits Stokes gain (estimated at up to 7% of κ) and the forward/backward threshold difference; if those unmodeled asymmetries actually generate most of the effect, the central claim would not be established.

What would settle it

Measure the directionality κ in a nearly stationary ensemble (σ_v → 0, e.g., by cooling below recoil or using a different trap) while keeping N_mc and the Raman phase imprint fixed; if κ remains significantly above zero, motion-induced dephasing is not the dominant cause. Alternatively, run a TWA simulation that adds Stokes gain and the threshold difference but freezes atomic positions; if it reproduces κ ≈ 0.89, the mechanism is disproven.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Directionality is tunable in situ: increasing atomic temperature (velocity spread σ_v) or decreasing the cooperation number N_mc near threshold drives κ up, while deep in the collective regime the emission becomes bidirectional again.
  • Correlations of the bursts confirm the collective mechanism: thermal statistics (g^(2) ≈ 2) below threshold and a dip toward coherence (g^(2) = 1.31(5)) above threshold, consistent with Dicke superradiance.
  • A simple static position-uncertainty model reproduces the measured κ curves, suggesting the mechanism can be captured analytically and does not require full motional dynamics.
  • The result offers a practical route to directional photonic structures and waveguide-QED devices built from isotropic, non-chiral building blocks, with the preferred direction chosen by the excitation geometry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism is general, any ensemble of emitters with an imprinted linear phase gradient and sufficient thermal motion should show directional collective emission; a direct test would be a thermal ensemble of inverted two-level atoms without a pump, as the authors note.
  • The model predicts κ should vanish when the pump propagates perpendicular to the waveguide axis, since no phase gradient is then imprinted along z; this is a clean control experiment.
  • One could push the same principle toward nonreciprocal light transport or unidirectional photon routing in hot atomic vapours, where chirality is currently assumed necessary; the threshold-enhanced directionality might also be exploited as a sensitive thermometer for atomic motion.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of collective emission from a laser-cooled rubidium ensemble inside a hollow-core fiber. A Raman pump imprints a spatially oscillating dipole phase on an effective two-level transition; despite fully isotropic single-emitter coupling and no ordered spatial arrangement, the emitted superfluorescence is observed to be directional, with a forward/backward asymmetry κ that depends on the maximum cooperation number N_mc and the thermal velocity spread σ_v, reaching κ=0.89(1). The authors characterize the burst statistics (thermal below threshold, coherence buildup above), measure burst widths scaling roughly as 6.0(2)/(N_mc Γ), and attribute the directionality to the interplay of atomic motion with the Raman-imprinted phase. Supporting evidence consists of truncated-Wigner spin simulations with ballistic motion, a no-motion control giving κ=0, and a static position-uncertainty model yielding asymmetric effective couplings β_+=1/2, β_-=1/2 exp(-(4π v̄ τ/λ_0)^2).

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper establishes a genuinely new mechanism: directionality of collective emission can arise from collective phase engineering plus thermal motion in a non-chiral system, without single-emitter or geometric asymmetry. The experiment is internally consistent and the main control—κ=0 without motion in the simulation—is valuable. The correlation measurements and the pulse-width scaling provide useful characterization of the superfluorescence regime. However, the attribution of the observed directionality to the proposed motion-induced collective phase dephasing is not quantitatively established: the paper itself concedes that the maximum is amplified by an unmodeled threshold difference and that the simulations are only in qualitative agreement. As it stands, the evidence supports a plausible mechanism, not the strong abstract claim of a demonstrated general principle.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Fig. 4, App. C1/C2] The central mechanistic attribution is underdetermined by the simulations. The main text states that the maximum directionality is “amplified by the difference in SF thresholds, an effect not correctly represented in the full simulations,” and App. C2 explicitly says “no quantitative agreement can be observed or expected.” Since the measured κ peak occurs near threshold, the threshold asymmetry—a known, unmodeled effect—can plausibly account for much of the peak, and Stokes gain contributes an additional unmodeled 7% (App. C1). The κ=0 no-motion control shows that motion is necessary in the TWA model, but it does not show that the modeled phase-dephasing mechanism dominates the experimental signal. The paper should either include simulations that incorporate the Doppler-broadened threshold asymmetry and Stokes gain, provide a control that isolates the phase-dephasing contribution, or sub
  2. [App. A2, Eq. (A14), Fig. A1] The static position-uncertainty model is presented as a second explanatory pillar, but its key parameter τ is not predicted from first principles. The text explains that τ may be fitted pointwise as τ*(N_mc) “such that the static and dynamic model agree,” and Fig. A1 shows that τ* differs substantially from the superradiant time (N_mc Γ/2)^{-1}, varying nontrivially with N_mc. This makes the static model a fitting construction rather than a derivation of κ(N_mc,σ_v). If the model is intended only as a heuristic, that should be stated clearly and it should not be used as independent evidence for the mechanism; if it is intended to be quantitative, a first-principles prescription for τ is required.
  3. [Abstract and §4] The abstract claims that “numerical simulations based on the Truncated Wigner Approximation for spins yield good agreement,” while App. C2 says that “no quantitative agreement can be observed or expected.” These statements cannot both stand. The main text itself uses only “qualitative accordance” and “fair qualitative agreement.” This discrepancy should be corrected, since it bears directly on how a reader weighs the simulation evidence for the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3(b)] The fit τ_FWHM = 6.0(2)/(N_mc Γ) is shown only over a limited range. Please state the fit range and whether the 6.0(2) is robust to excluding the lowest/highest N_mc points.
  2. [Eqs. (1)-(2) and App. A] The symbol Γ is used both for the single-atom spontaneous Raman decay rate and for the collective decay matrix Γ_lm. In the SDEs (A4)-(A5) the distinction is not always explicit; a notation change would improve readability.
  3. [App. A1, step 2] The initial condition θ_i = arccos(1/√3) deserves a one-sentence justification in terms of the TWA vacuum/coherent-state mapping, especially because the excitation process (Raman inversion) is not modeled as a dynamical step.
  4. [Footnote [43]/[44]] The distinction from the related preprint [44] is only a footnote. Since emergent unidirectionality in a similar setting has been discussed, the novelty of the present mechanism relative to [44] should be expanded in the main text or appendix.
  5. [App. B.2, Protocol B] Protocol B uses the mean burst delay to match pump power between forward/backward measurements. Please specify how this calibration was validated and estimate the resulting systematic uncertainty in κ, since the directionality is the central observable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central mechanism is supported by a forward TWA simulation with a genuine no-motion control; the static model is an explicitly fitted toy model and no load-bearing prediction reduces to its input.

full rationale

The central claim—motion-induced directionality in a non-chiral waveguide—is not circular. The experiment directly measures the directionality κ, and the main supporting evidence is a forward Truncated Wigner Approximation simulation (App. A1): atomic velocities are sampled from the independently measured Gaussian width σ_v, positions are advanced ballistically, and the coupling matrices are recomputed from the displaced positions. There is no chiral parameter or fitted asymmetry in this simulation, and the explicit no-motion control yields κ=0 (Fig. 4b), which is a genuine control showing that motion is necessary. The mechanism is stated in Eqs. A10–A11: because k_p≈k_0, the forward field has a nearly stationary phase while the backward field has a rapidly varying 2k_0 z_n phase, so motion dephases the backward channel more strongly. This is a derived physical mechanism, not a restatement of the measured output. The static model of App. A2 contains the suppression factor β_- = exp(-(4π v̄ τ/λ_0)^2) with τ a freely adjustable parameter, and Fig. A1 shows τ*(N_mc) is fitted so that the static and dynamic models agree. However, the paper explicitly labels this model as an instructive toy model and does not present it as a predictive derivation; fitting a free parameter in an illustrative model is not a circular proof of the central claim. The self-citations [8,35,41,42] provide the TWA method and the N_mc calibration procedure; these are external, published methods and are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as proof of the directionality claim itself. The paper's admissions that the maximum κ=0.89(1) is amplified by the SF threshold difference and that Stokes gain contributes up to 7% (App. C1, C2) are honesty about unmodeled effects; they weaken quantitative agreement and support a correctness-risk critique, but they do not make any derived quantity equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities; the 'Raman-induced effective two-level emitter' is a dressed-state description of a known 87Rb Lambda system, and beta- is an averaged coupling, not a new entity. The load-bearing inputs are: the non-chiral 1D spin model (background, refs [36-39]), the TWA machinery (self-authored refs [35,41,42]), the Raman-dressed two-level picture with e^{ikp z} dipole phase (self-authored ref [8]), the ballistic-motion implementation, and the fitted static-model timescale tau. Measured quantities (T = 1.1(1) mK, sigma_v, atom number) are experimental inputs rather than fitted parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • tau (static-model dephasing timescale) = tau*(N_mc) about 0.0075-0.02 Gamma^-1, matched per N_mc (Fig. A1)
    Introduced ad hoc to map the velocity spread into a position blur sigma_z = v_bar tau. The paper admits there is no precise theoretical prediction and fits tau per N_mc so the static model reproduces the TWA kappa curve (App. A2).
  • Gamma'_1D = Gamma (effective waveguide coupling in reduced simulation) = Gamma'_1D = Gamma (single-atom Raman decay); N_mc reduced to about 300
    Modeling choice that keeps N_mc Gamma'_1D = N Gamma_1D fixed. The paper states this 'clearly underestimates the effect of spontaneous emission events into non-waveguide modes' and prevents accurate description near or below threshold.
  • SF threshold from two-slope fit = intersection of two fitted log-log slopes (about 2 collective, about 0.69 non-collective for shown data)
    Determines the vertical threshold lines in Fig. 4(a) that set where kappa rises. The paper states that below threshold the N_mc scaling 'should not be interpreted physically' (App. B5).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Waveguide-QED spin model (Eqs. 1-2) with Gamma_lm = Gamma_1D (beta+ e^{ik0 z_lm} + beta- e^{-ik0 z_lm}) and J_lm as given; beta+ = beta- = 1/2 (isotropic coupling).
    Standard 1D waveguide spin master equation taken from refs [36-39]; not re-derived here. The isotropy beta+ = beta- is asserted from the non-chiral fiber design rather than measured in situ.
  • domain assumption TWA for spins with collective correspondence rules is quantitatively reliable for superradiance in waveguides.
    The stochastic method is borrowed from refs [35, 41, 42], co-authored by co-author Fleischhauer; prior validation is cited, but its accuracy in the present reduced-parameter regime (N_mc about 300, Gamma'_1D = Gamma) is not independently benchmarked.
  • domain assumption Raman pumping creates an effective inverted two-level system with spatially oscillating dipole phase about e^{ikp z} and single-atom decay Gamma = Gamma_R = 1/2 Gamma' Omega_p^2 / (Delta_p^2 + 2S).
    Inherited from the same group's ref [8]. The inversion 'arises naturally from the Raman process itself'; this is the foundational input that makes the collective phases spatial.
  • ad hoc to paper Motion enters only as ballistic phase displacement (z_n -> z_n + nu_n dt) with Maxwell-Boltzmann nu_n of width sigma_v; no Doppler shifts, no velocity-dependent Gamma, no motional narrowing of the coupling phases.
    Simulation implementation in App. A1. Unmodeled effects (Stokes gain, two-photon Doppler broadening about 0.2 Gamma', threshold differences) are separately estimated and are the reason the paper concedes only qualitative agreement (App. C2).
  • ad hoc to paper Static position-uncertainty equivalence: a moving ensemble is equivalent to a static ensemble with Gaussian position blur sigma_z = v_bar tau, giving beta+ = 1/2 and beta- = 1/2 exp(-(4 pi v_bar tau / lambda_0)^2).
    The paper's toy model (Eqs. A12-A14). The authors note it strictly applies only when the spatial phase factor changes substantially during tau, and it uses a fitted tau.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14750 in / 28636 out tokens · 257607 ms · 2026-08-02T19:13:02.561770+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Motion-induced directionality of collective emission in a non-chiral waveguide." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJLKY3AS

@misc{pith2026260303028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Motion-induced directionality of collective emission in a non-chiral waveguide},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJLKY3AS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.03028}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We report the experimental observation of motion-induced directionality in collective atomic emission within a hollow-core waveguide, establishing a general principle: directional interactions can emerge from collective phase engineering alone. Remarkably, neither single-emitter asymmetry nor any asymmetry in the geometric arrangement of the system is required - both the atom-field coupling and the spontaneous emission are fully isotropic in our system. Instead, Raman-induced effective two-level emitters with spatially oscillating transition dipole phases and atomic motion give rise to controllable directionality, reaching values up to 0.89(1). We study the correlations of the superfluorescent bursts close to and well above the threshold to collective emission; we find thermal statistics below and a buildup of coherence above it. Numerical simulations based on the Truncated Wigner Approximation for spins yield good agreement. Additionally we present a simple model based on position uncertainty capable of reproducing the observed directionality. Our results open a new route to directional interactions in non-chiral systems, with direct implications for the design of directional metamaterials and photonic structures built from isotropic constituents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03028 by Benedikt Saalfrank, Jens Hartmann, Michael Fleischhauer, Thomas Halfmann, Thorsten Peters, Yoan Spahn.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Simplified three level system of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Temporal evolution of the pulse power and cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Emitted optical power vs time (blue) and equal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Measured directionality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Truncated Wigner approximation for spins in continuous phase space

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    The truncated Wigner approximation for spins is systematically derived, extended to spectra and thermal states, and shown to be equivalent to a consistent path-integral treatment when dissipative operator products are...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    General approach The Truncated Wigner Approximation (TW A) for spins is a semiclassical method to calculate the time evo- lution of the density matrixρof a large ensemble of spins [35, 42]. The idea is to shift the description from Hilbert space into phase space and truncate the result- ing equation of motion of the phase space representation ofρ, the Wig...

  2. [2]

    Sample the position of each spin uniformly along thez-axis

  3. [3]

    There- fore,θis fixed atθ i = arccos 1√ 3 whileϕ i is ran- domly sampled for each spin between 0 and 2π

    Att= 0 the spins start in the excited state. There- fore,θis fixed atθ i = arccos 1√ 3 whileϕ i is ran- domly sampled for each spin between 0 and 2π

  4. [4]

    Calculate the coupling matrices and use the SDEs to determine the time evolution and Weyl symbols of the spin operators

  5. [5]

    Repeat steps 1−3 for∼10 5 independent trajecto- ries

  6. [6]

    Calculate the system’s observables by averaging over the trajectories of the Weyl symbols. For every numerical computation we used the Julia pro- gramming language v1.11 with theDifferentialEquations package because of its optimized performance and high stability for a large collection of SDE solvers while at the same time it is easily possible to handle ...

  7. [7]

    Static model In the static model the atoms have a fixed position for each trajectory but a positional blur as explained in the main text. Averaging then leads to the following coupling matrices Γlm = Γ1D 2 eik0zlm +β − e−ik0zlm ,(A12) J lm = sgn(z lm) Γ1D 4i eik0zlm −β − e−ik0zlm ,(A13) with the suppression factor β− = exp ( − 4π¯vτ λ0 2) .(A14) As before...

  8. [8]

    Measurement Sequence We load the HCF every 1.25 s from the magneto- optical trap (MOT) as described in [31], aiming to maxi- mize the number of atoms loaded into the HCF. Tim- ing of the laser pulses and positioning of the MOT cloud (magnetic fields) are controlled by a 24-channel FPGA-based programmable pulse generator (SpinCore, PulseBlaster PB24-100-4k...

  9. [9]

    Protocol A aims at simultaneously de- tecting light emitted into opposite directions along the HCF axis for a pump beam of fixed direction and power

    Measurement protocols During our measurements we employed two measure- ment protocols A and B, where A mainly served to ensure the validity of B. Protocol A aims at simultaneously de- tecting light emitted into opposite directions along the HCF axis for a pump beam of fixed direction and power. In particular, this requires detecting signals both co- and c...

  10. [10]

    Here, the single-atom decay rate is given by the spontaneous Raman scattering rate ΓR = 1/2Γ′Ω2 p/(∆2 p + 2S), with the AC Stark shiftSof the transition frequency

    T unable decay rate One of the main differences to other experiments studying collective scattering is the ability to control the decay rate in our effective two-level system by varying the pump power and detuning. Here, the single-atom decay rate is given by the spontaneous Raman scattering rate ΓR = 1/2Γ′Ω2 p/(∆2 p + 2S), with the AC Stark shiftSof the ...

  11. [11]

    It depends on the total atom numberN, as well as the pump power Pp and the detuning ∆ p as shown in [8]

    Determination of the maximum cooperation number The maximal cooperation numberN mc, i.e., the effec- tive number of collective emitters, is a key parameter to determine the collective decay rate. It depends on the total atom numberN, as well as the pump power Pp and the detuning ∆ p as shown in [8]. Here it was shown that usingN (±) mc instead ofNrecovers...

  12. [12]

    This requires the collective scattering rateN mcΓ being larger than the decoherence rateγ

    Determination of the SF threshold Collective decay only occurs if the atomic dipoles can synchronize with each other. This requires the collective scattering rateN mcΓ being larger than the decoherence rateγ. Hence, there is a threshold atom number. Far be- low this threshold we expect purely spontaneous single- atom emission. Well above threshold, collec...

  13. [13]

    The Stokes gain can be estimated asG s ≈ ⟨(2α0ΓR)/γ⟩⟩r

    Impact of Stokes Gain The additional dephasing in backward direction results in a smaller Stokes compared to the forward direction. The Stokes gain can be estimated asG s ≈ ⟨(2α0ΓR)/γ⟩⟩r

  14. [14]

    Hereα 0 is the peak optical density at a givenNandγthe total effective decoherence rate of the ensemble

    where⟨...⟩ r denotes a radial average. Hereα 0 is the peak optical density at a givenNandγthe total effective decoherence rate of the ensemble. However the total de- phasing is still dominated by the spatial inhomogeneities described in [8] resulting in a relatively small impact of Doppler broadening. The resulting difference in Stokes gain of up to 15% y...

  15. [15]

    Comparison of Directionality for TW A Simulations and Experiment Even though we do not claim quantitative agreement between our simple models and the experiment we would like to provide a direct comparison of the dynamic TW A and experimental results for the interested reader (see Fig. A4). As pointed out in the manuscript, no quanti- tative agreement can...

  16. [16]

    These measurements were obtained using proto- col A to verify the simultaneous occurrence of bursts in both directions (see section II B)

    Cross-Correlation Between F orward and Backward Modes In addition to the auto-correlation measurements pre- sented in the main text, we here briefly discuss the cross-corelation between the (+) and (-) emission chan- nels. These measurements were obtained using proto- col A to verify the simultaneous occurrence of bursts in both directions (see section II...

  17. [17]

    R. H. Dicke, Physical Review93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  18. [18]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Physics Reports93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  19. [19]

    N. E. Rehler and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. A3, 1735 (1971)

    1971

  20. [20]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, F. Robicheaux, R. T. Suther- land, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, Physical Re- view Letters127, 243602 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Solano, J

    P. Solano, J. A. Grover, J. E. Hoffman, S. Ravets, F. K. Fatemi, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, in Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 66 (Elsevier, 2017) pp. 439–505

    2017

  22. [22]

    Pennetta, M

    R. Pennetta, M. Blaha, A. Johnson, D. Lechner, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Phys- ical Review Letters128, 073601 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    Liedl, F

    C. Liedl, F. Tebbenjohanns, C. Bach, S. Pucher, A. Rauschenbeutel, and P. Schneeweiss, Physical Review X14, 011020 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Stryzhenko, A

    S. Stryzhenko, A. Bruns, and T. Peters, Physical Review Research6, 013091 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Nature541, 473 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    Su´ arez-Forero, M

    D. Su´ arez-Forero, M. Jalali Mehrabad, C. Vega, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and M. Hafezi, PRX Quantum6, 020101 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Petersen, J

    J. Petersen, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Science346, 67 (2014),

    2014

  28. [28]

    O. A. Iversen and T. Pohl, Physical Review Letters126, 083605 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Miao and G

    Q. Miao and G. S. Agarwal, Physical Review Research 7, 013138 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    J. S. Peter, S. Ostermann, and S. F. Yelin, Physical Re- view Research6, 023200 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    M. L. Xavier, F. A. Pinheiro, and R. Bachelard, Strong Collective Chiroptical Response from Electric-Dipole In- teractions in Atomic Systems (2026), arXiv:2602.15231 [physics]

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Fruchart, R

    M. Fruchart, R. Hanai, P. B. Littlewood, and V. Vitelli, Nature592, 363 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    Caloz, A

    C. Caloz, A. Al` u, S. Tretyakov, D. Sounas, K. Achouri, and Z.-L. Deck-L´ eger, Physical Review Applied10, 047001 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    S. V. Kutsaev, A. Krasnok, S. N. Romanenko, A. Y. Smirnov, K. Taletski, and V. P. Yakovlev, Advanced Pho- tonics Research2, 2000104 (2021). 11

    2021

  35. [35]

    Nefedkin, M

    N. Nefedkin, M. Cotrufo, A. Krasnok, and A. Al` u, Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies5, 2100112 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Nadolny, C

    T. Nadolny, C. Bruder, and M. Brunelli, Physical Review X15, 011010 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Galiffi, R

    E. Galiffi, R. Tirole, S. Yin, H. Li, S. Vezzoli, P. A. Huido- bro, M. G. Silveirinha, R. Sapienza, A. Al` u, and J. B. Pendry, Advanced Photonics4, 10.1117/1.AP.4.1.014002 (2022)

    doi:10.1117/1.ap.4.1.014002 2022

  38. [38]

    Sheikh Ansari, A

    A. Sheikh Ansari, A. K. Iyer, and B. Gholipour, Nanophotonics12, 2639 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    T. Liu, C. Guo, W. Li, and S. Fan, eLight2, 25 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    S. Yang, M. Liu, C. Zhao, S. Fan, and C.-W. Qiu, Nature photonics18, 412 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Ren, S.-l

    Y.-l. Ren, S.-l. Ma, J.-k. Xie, X.-k. Li, M.-t. Cao, and F.-l. Li, Physical Review A105, 013711 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    J. Chen, H. Yu, and G. Gubbiotti, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics55, 123001 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Biehs, R

    S.-A. Biehs, R. Messina, P. S. Venkataram, A. W. Ro- driguez, J. C. Cuevas, and P. Ben-Abdallah, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025009 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Cardenas-Lopez, S

    S. Cardenas-Lopez, S. J. Masson, Z. Zager, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Physical Review Letters131, 033605 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    Pucher, C

    S. Pucher, C. Liedl, S. Jin, A. Rauschenbeutel, and P. Schneeweiss, Nature Photonics16, 380 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    Lawrence and J

    M. Lawrence and J. A. Dionne, Nature Communications 10, 3297 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    Peters, L

    T. Peters, L. P. Yatsenko, and T. Halfmann, Physical Review A103, 063302 (2021), arXiv:2101.04982

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Ferioli, I

    G. Ferioli, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, Physical Review Letters134, 153602 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    C. Bach, F. Tebbenjohanns, C. Liedl, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Physical Review Letters136, 063402 (2026)

    2026

  50. [50]

    M. S. Malcuit, J. J. Maki, D. J. Simkin, and R. W. Boyd, Physical Review Letters59, 1189 (1987)

    1987

  51. [51]

    C. D. Mink and M. Fleischhauer, SciPost Physics15, 233 (2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    H. T. Dung, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, Physical Review A66, 063810 (2002)

    2002

  53. [53]

    Dzsotjan, J

    D. Dzsotjan, J. K¨ astel, and M. Fleischhauer, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics84, 075419 (2011)

    2011

  54. [54]

    Caneva, M

    T. Caneva, M. T. Manzoni, T. Shi, J. S. Douglas, J. I. Cirac, and D. E. Chang, New Journal of Physics17, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  55. [55]

    Asenjo-Garcia, J

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, J. Hood, D. Chang, and H. Kimble, Physical Review A95, 033818 (2017)

    2017

  56. [56]

    Pichler, T

    H. Pichler, T. Ramos, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Physical Review A91, 042116 (2015)

    2015

  57. [57]

    Tebbenjohanns, C

    F. Tebbenjohanns, C. D. Mink, C. Bach, A. Rauschen- beutel, and M. Fleischhauer, Physical Review A110, 043713 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    C. D. Mink, D. Petrosyan, and M. Fleischhauer, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043136 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    Note that different from [44] which discusses a related mechanism for emergent unidirectionality, the spatial separation between all emitters has the same uncertainty σz and does not accumulate

  60. [60]

    K. J. Kusmierek, M. Schemmer, S. Mahmoodian, and K. Hammerer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14930 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    S. A. R. Horsley, J.-H. Wu, M. Artoni, and G. C. La Rocca, Physical Review Letters110, 223602 (2013)

    2013

  62. [62]

    Wang, H.-T

    D.-W. Wang, H.-T. Zhou, M.-J. Guo, J.-X. Zhang, J. Ev- ers, and S.-Y. Zhu, Physical Review Letters110, 093901 (2013)

    2013

  63. [63]

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V. Iorsh, A. V. Poshakin- skiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 015002 (2023)

    2023

  64. [64]

    Calaj´ o and D

    G. Calaj´ o and D. E. Chang, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023026 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    P. T. Starkey, Ph.D. thesis, Monash University, Mel- bourne (2019)

    2019

  66. [66]

    Polder, M

    D. Polder, M. F. H. Schuurmans, and Q. H. F. Vrehen, Physical Review A19, 1192 (1979)

    1979