Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics in Finite-Bandwidth Squeezed Reservoir

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that finite-bandwidth squeezed vacuum reproduces the ideal exponential enhancement of cavity QED only when the source bandwidth is about three orders of magnitude larger than the cavity linewidth, and that comparable…

desk verdict Useful SLH cascade for finite-bandwidth squeezed reservoirs in cavity QED, with concrete bandwidth and loss budgets; the headline threshold is solid for a Lorentzian source but transfers to waveguide and TWPA sources less cleanly than the conclusion implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15068 v1 pith:ULS66AAH submitted 2024-12-19 quant-ph physics.optics

Trung Kiên Lê , Daniil M. Lukin , Charles Roques-Carmes , Aviv Karnieli , Eran Lustig , Melissa A. Guidry , Shanhui Fan , Jelena Vučković This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics MSC 81V80 PACS 42.50.Pq42.50.Ct
keywords cavityquantumelectrodynamicssqueezedvacuumfinite-bandwidthreservoirSLHmasterequationBogoliubovmodecooperativityenhancementintrinsiclossRabisplitting
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 asks whether the exponential enhancement of light–matter coupling promised by squeezed-vacuum cavity QED survives when the squeezed reservoir has finite bandwidth. The authors model a squeezed source as a second cavity cascaded through a common waveguide into the QED cavity, and solve the resulting master equation. They find the ideal enhancement is recovered only when the source bandwidth is about $10^3$ times the cavity outcoupling rate for 20 dB squeezing; at smaller ratios the spectrum is dominated by effective thermal noise. They also find that intrinsic photon loss comparable to the outcoupling rate destroys the enhancement. These results set concrete requirements for experiments seeking in situ control of light–matter interaction with squeezed light.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cascaded SLH model: two cavities, a source mode $\hat{a}$ and a target mode $\hat{b}$, both coupled to a shared Markovian waveguide, giving the jump operator $\sqrt{\kappa_a}\hat{a} + \sqrt{\kappa_b}\hat{b}$ and a waveguide-mediated interaction. The source outcoupling rate $\kappa_a$ relative to the target outcoupling rate $\kappa_b$ sets the effective squeezed-reservoir bandwidth, and adiabatic elimination of mode $\hat{a}$ in the limit $\kappa_a \to \infty$ recovers the ideal broadband squeezed bath. A Bogoliubov transformation on the target mode defines the mode $\hat{\beta}$ whose coupling to the atom is exponentially enhanced as $g e^r/2$, while the same transformation amplifies decoherence channels; the central question is whether the injected squeezed light cancels that amplified decoherence. The master equation (Eq. 14) tracks this balance and predicts when vacuum Rabi splitting survives.

What would settle it

Measure the qubit absorption spectrum of a cavity-QED system at 20 dB squeezing with $\kappa_a/\kappa_b \approx 1000$ and $\kappa_i/\kappa_b \lesssim 0.1$; if the two-peak vacuum Rabi splitting predicted by Eq. 14 does not appear, or if it already appears near $\kappa_a/\kappa_b \approx 300$, the central claim is falsified. A direct numerical comparison against a non-Markovian finite-bandwidth master equation on the same parameters would settle whether the Markovian cascade is the correct model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a two-cavity SLH master equation (Eq. 14) that represents a finite-bandwidth squeezed reservoir by a parametrically driven source cavity coupled unidirectionally to a target cavity through a Markovian waveguide, the paper shows that the ideal infinite-bandwidth squeezed-bath picture is a limiting case. At 20 dB squeezing, convergence to the ideal exponentially enhanced vacuum Rabi splitting requires $\kappa_a/\kappa_b \gtrsim 1000$; for $\kappa_a/\kappa_b \approx 300$ the spectrum is broadened by squeezing-induced effective thermal noise and higher-rung thermal transitions. At 12 dB squeezing convergence is faster, with the squeezed-bath limit reached around $\kappa_a/\kappa_b \gtrsim 400$, so the validity of the squeezed-bath approximation depends on squeezing strength as well as bandwidth. When intrinsic loss $\kappa_i$ is included, losses of order $\kappa_i \gtrsim 0.5\kappa_b$ prevent the enhancement, because the anti-squeezing amplification turns the loss channel into effective thermal noise scaling as $\eta \sinh^2 r$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis rests on assuming the squeezed source can be described as a simple two-cavity chain with a single-linewidth spectrum and no memory beyond the source cavity's own linewidth; if a real source has a differently shaped spectrum or longer-lived correlations, the paper's bandwidth thresholds need not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • To observe synthetic strong coupling from a weakly coupled atom–cavity system at 20 dB squeezing, the squeezed-source bandwidth must exceed the cavity outcoupling rate by roughly three orders of magnitude, which is beyond cavity-based OPO sources but within reach of waveguide and travelling-wave sources.
  • The required bandwidth shrinks at lower squeezing, reaching the ideal squeezed-bath limit near $\kappa_a/\kappa_b \approx 400$ at 12 dB, so squeezing strength and bandwidth can be traded against each other in experiments.
  • Intrinsic loss of order half the outcoupling rate washes out vacuum Rabi oscillations, so strongly over-coupling the resonator is necessary rather than simply increasing bandwidth or squeezing strength.
  • Qubit absorption spectra show a clear progression from thermal-noise-dominated spectra at low bandwidth to coherent vacuum Rabi splitting at high bandwidth, providing an experimentally accessible signature of when the squeezed-bath limit is reached.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the paper's quantitative thresholds rest on a Lorentzian, Markovian source model, so non-Lorentzian spectra from pulsed waveguides or Josephson travelling-wave amplifiers could shift the required $\kappa_a/\kappa_b$ values even if the qualitative cooling picture survives.
  • Editorial inference: the effective-thermal-noise interpretation suggests a practical diagnostic: fitting an experimental absorption spectrum to a squeezed-bath master equation with a single effective thermal-occupation parameter could tell an experimentalist whether their source bandwidth is sufficient without performing the full cascaded simulation.
  • Editorial inference: the bandwidth-versus-squeezing trade-off implies that a moderate-squeezing, very broadband source may outperform a high-squeezing, narrowband source for reaching strong coupling in lossy integrated devices, a comparison the paper does not directly optimize.
  • Editorial inference: the model could be tested in circuit QED by tuning the pump bandwidth of a broadband squeezed source and measuring the qubit absorption spectrum; failure of the predicted threshold would indicate that the Markovian two-cavity cascade misses essential non-Markovian correlations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies cavity QED with a parametrically driven cavity and an injected squeezed vacuum of finite bandwidth. The authors model the finite-bandwidth squeezed reservoir as the output of a source degenerate OPO coupled through a unidirectional waveguide to the target cavity, using the SLH formalism to obtain the cascaded master equation in Eqs. (10)-(14). Solving this master equation numerically, they compute qubit absorption spectra and Rabi dynamics and find that the ideal squeezed-bath enhancement of the atom-photon coupling is recovered only when the source bandwidth κa is about 10^3 times the target cavity linewidth κb for 20 dB squeezing, with a smaller ratio for 12 dB. They also find that intrinsic loss κi comparable to κb destroys the enhancement. Based on these results, the paper concludes that cavity-based squeezed light sources are inadequate and that waveguide or TWPA sources are needed, and it discusses an InAs quantum dot in GaAs photonic crystal implementation.

Significance. The SLH cascade is a sensible and tractable way to include a finite-bandwidth squeezed source while retaining a Markovian description in an enlarged Hilbert space, and the derivations in Appendices A-C and the matching conditions in Appendix B are useful. The paper delivers a concrete, falsifiable prediction (the κa/κb threshold scaling with squeezing) and is unusually transparent about numerical limitations (Appendix E) and about the auxiliary fitting model (Appendix D). However, the quantitative threshold is established only for a Lorentzian single-cavity source, and the paper's headline conclusion that waveguide/TWPA sources with different spectra are adequate is not yet justified; the truncation limitation also sits exactly in the onset regime. These issues are fixable and the central framework is likely sound.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V and Section III.B] The central quantitative claim—that κa/κb ≈ 10^3 at 20 dB (and ≈ 4×10^2 at 12 dB) is required to recover the ideal squeezed-bath behavior—is derived entirely from the two-cavity SLH model of Eqs. (10)–(14), where the source is a single OPO cavity with the Lorentzian-like two-pole spectrum of Appendix C. The conclusion in Section V that waveguide/TWPA sources (which have flat, broadband, non-Lorentzian spectra) are adequate is an extrapolation: no argument or benchmark is given for how a non-Lorentzian spectrum maps onto the parameter κa, and the paper does not compare against the non-Markovian finite-bandwidth treatments of refs. 29–31. Since the paper's stated contribution is precisely a quantitative bandwidth requirement, this step is load-bearing. Please either restrict the claims to the OPO-source class, or add a comparison or estimate showing that the threshold is insensitive to the spectral shape.
  2. [Appendix E and Section III.B] Appendix E states that "For the finite bandwidth regime, where κa/κb <~ 400, our simulations' accuracy is limited by the Hilbert space truncation." This is the same regime in which the onset of vacuum Rabi splitting is identified (Fig. 2a, κa/κb = 300) and in which the 12 dB convergence threshold (κa/κb >~ 400) is located in Section III.B. The paper should quantify the truncation error (e.g., convergence in the number Nb of kept Fock states, or a comparison with lab-frame simulations) or soften the quantitative statements in this regime. Without this, the thresholds at the onset are not firmly established.
  3. [Section II.B and Appendix C] The paper claims in Section II.B that the broadband squeezed reservoir approximation is recovered in the limit κa → ∞ via adiabatic elimination of the ˆa mode, with details deferred to Appendix C. Appendix C provides the two-time correlation functions of the source output and their Markovian limit, but it does not actually show the adiabatic elimination of Eq. (14) or the explicit reduction to Eq. (9). Since the numerical comparison in Section III uses Eq. (9) as the ideal reference, this missing derivation is load-bearing; please supply it or replace it with a numerical convergence demonstration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (12)] There is an apparent typo in Eq. (12): the source term is written as i(Ea a†^2 - E_b^* a^2), which should presumably read E_a instead of E_b; please correct.
  2. [Section III.A] The stated weak-coupling criterion is inconsistent: with g = 0.003, κb = 0.015, and γ = 0.001, the cooperativity is 4g^2/(κb γ) = 2.4, not < 1; the text should clarify which criterion defines the weakly coupled regime.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The vertical axis of Fig. 2(b) is labeled "Normalized Linewidth κ", while the text says the linewidth is normalized to the ideal squeezed-bath linewidth; please make the normalization explicit in the caption and axis label.
  4. [Appendix D] The fitting parameter λ is introduced as "free" and the fit is shown only for selected spectra; please state in the main text that the physical conclusions (e.g., the thermal-noise interpretation) do not depend on the fitted values, since leaving this implicit could be misread as fitting the central results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the finite-bandwidth threshold is an emergent numerical result of the SLH cascade, not a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks rather than circular. The finite-bandwidth model in Eqs. (10)-(14) is constructed from the standard SLH cascade (Appendix A) and from the exact input-output correlation functions of a source OPO (Appendix C, following Gardiner-Zoller, ref. [58]). The claim that κa→∞ recovers the ideal squeezed bath is a stated consistency check, not the source of the quantitative thresholds. The thresholds (κa/κb ≳ 10^3 for 20 dB squeezing) are obtained by numerically integrating Eq. (14) and comparing absorption linewidths against the ideal squeezed-bath spectrum computed from Eq. (9); they are emergent from the dynamics rather than equivalent to any fitted parameter. The only free fit parameter, λ in Appendix D, is used post hoc to interpret the spectral features of the SLH simulations and does not generate the central claim. The manuscript's self-citations (refs. [21], [47], [48], [52], [57]) are experimental or contextual references and are not load-bearing for the derivation. The limitation admitted in Appendix E, that Hilbert-space truncation limits accuracy for κa/κb < 400, is a numerical caveat, not a circular step. The skeptic's concern that thresholds derived from a Lorentzian OPO source may not transfer to non-Lorentzian waveguide or TWPA sources is an external-validity/correctness question, not a circularity, and so does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main modeling freedom is the choice of a two-cavity cascade to represent a finite-bandwidth squeezed reservoir, and the explicit fitting parameter λ in Appendix D. The scale parameters (squeezing, bandwidth, loss) are scanned inputs.

free parameters (2)
  • Markovian fitting parameter λ = fitted per bandwidth via grid search
    Appendix D introduces λ∈[0,1] as a free parameter to match SLH spectra to an effective thermal master equation; this is an explicit fit to simulated data.
  • Squeezing coefficient r (20 dB) = r ≈ 1.38
    The operating squeezing level is chosen by hand (12 dB and 20 dB) to match prior work [13]; it is an input scenario, not fitted to target data, but it influences all thresholds.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SLH formalism gives an exact cascaded description of two cavities coupled through a Markovian shared waveguide.
    The finite-bandwidth squeezed reservoir is modeled as the output of a source OPO fed into the target cavity via a common waveguide (Section II.B, Eq. 10-11).
  • domain assumption The output field of the source OPO is a squeezed vacuum with Lorentzian spectrum; the waveguide coupling is white-noise Markovian.
    This is the standard quantum optics model of a below-threshold OPO (Appendix C), and it replaces the infinite-bandwidth idealization with a finite but Markovian reservoir.
  • ad hoc to paper The phase-matching condition θ+θe=π and squeezing-matching r=re can be satisfied in practice.
    Appendix B derives conditions to cancel squeezing-induced noise; the paper assumes these are realizable, but experimental implementation is not demonstrated.
  • standard math The Bogoliubov transformation diagonalizes the detuned DOPO with δa > Ea (stability condition).
    Standard result; the paper uses it to define the squeezed frame.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics in Finite-Bandwidth Squeezed Reservoir." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULS66AAH

@misc{pith2026241215068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics in Finite-Bandwidth Squeezed Reservoir},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULS66AAH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15068}
}
read the original abstract

Light-matter interaction with squeezed vacuum has received much interest for the ability to enhance the native interaction strength between an atom and a photon with a reservoir assumed to have an infinite bandwidth. Here, we study a model of parametrically driven cavity quantum electrodynamics (cavity QED) for enhancing light-matter interaction while subjected to a finite-bandwidth squeezed vacuum drive. Our method is capable of unveiling the effect of relative bandwidth as well as squeezing required to observe the anticipated anti-crossing spectrum and enhanced cooperativity without the ideal squeezed bath assumption. Furthermore, we analyze the practicality of said models when including intrinsic photon loss due to resonators imperfection. With these results, we outline the requirements for experimentally implementing an effectively squeezed bath in solid-state platforms such as InAs quantum dot cavity QED such that \textit{in situ} control and enhancement of light-matter interaction could be realized.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15068 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of best-fit absorption spectra using spectra computed from simulating Eq. D1 that includes thermal and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ganapathy, W

    D. Ganapathy, W. Jia, M. Nakano, V. Xu, N. Aritomi, T. Cullen, N. Kijbunchoo, S. E. Dwyer, A. Mullavey, L. McCuller, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, R. X. Ad- hikari, A. Ananyeva, S. Appert, K. Arai, S. M. Aston, M. Ball, S. W. Ballmer, D. Barker, L. Barsotti, B. K. Berger, J. Betzwieser, D. Bhattacharjee, G. Billingsley, S. Biscans, N. Bode, E. Bonilla, V. ...

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Kraus and J

    B. Kraus and J. I. Cirac, Discrete entanglement distri- bution with squeezed light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 013602 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    C. J. Zhu, L. L. Ping, Y. P. Yang, and G. S. Agarwal, Squeezed light induced symmetry breaking superradiant phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 073602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Groszkowski, H.-K

    P. Groszkowski, H.-K. Lau, C. Leroux, L. C. G. Govia, and A. A. Clerk, Heisenberg-limited spin squeezing via bosonic parametric driving, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 203601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Eddins, S

    A. Eddins, S. Schreppler, D. M. Toyli, L. S. Martin, S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. C. G. Govia, H. Ribeiro, A. A. Clerk, and I. Siddiqi, Stroboscopic qubit measurement with squeezed illumination, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 040505 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Beating the 3 db limit for intracavity squeezing and its application to non- demolition qubit readout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 123602 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Exponentially improved dispersive qubit readout with squeezed light (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    N. P. Georgiades, E. S. Polzik, K. Edamatsu, H. J. Kim- ble, and A. S. Parkins, Nonclassical excitation for atoms in a squeezed vacuum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3426 (1995)

    work page 1995

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Q. A. Turchette, N. P. Georgiades, C. J. Hood, H. J. Kimble, and A. S. Parkins, Squeezed excitation in cav- ity qed: Experiment and theory, Phys. Rev. A 58, 4056 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    Messikh, R

    A. Messikh, R. Tana´ s, and Z. Ficek, Response of a two- level atom to a narrow-bandwidth squeezed-vacuum ex- citation, Phys. Rev. A 61, 033811 (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    B. J. Dalton, Z. Ficek, and S. Swain, Atoms in squeezed light fields, Journal of Modern Optics46, 379–474 (1999)

    1999

  4. [12]

    Zeytino˘ glu, A

    S. Zeytino˘ glu, A. m. c. ˙Imamo˘ glu, and S. Huber, En- gineering matter interactions using squeezed vacuum, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021041 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Leroux, L

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

    2018

  6. [14]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, P.-B. Li, X.-Y. L¨ u, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Exponentially enhanced light-matter inter- action, cooperativities, and steady-state entanglement using parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 093601 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Y.-H. Chen, W. Qin, and F. Nori, Fast and high-fidelity generation of steady-state entanglement using pulse mod- ulation and parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. A 100, 012339 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    P.-B. Li, Y. Zhou, W.-B. Gao, and F. Nori, Enhancing spin-phonon and spin-spin interactions using linear re- sources in a hybrid quantum system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 153602 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    S. C. Burd, R. Srinivas, H. M. Knaack, W. Ge, A. C. Wilson, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, J. J. Bollinger, D. T. C. Allcock, and D. H. Slichter, Quantum ampli- fication of boson-mediated interactions, Nature Physics 17, 898–902 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    S. C. Burd, H. M. Knaack, R. Srinivas, C. Arenz, A. L. Collopy, L. J. Stephenson, A. C. Wilson, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, J. J. Bollinger, D. T. C. Allcock, and D. H. Slichter, Experimental speedup of quantum dynamics through squeezing, PRX Quantum 5, 020314 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Villiers, W

    M. Villiers, W. Smith, A. Petrescu, A. Borgognoni, M. Delbecq, A. Sarlette, M. Mirrahimi, P. Campagne- Ibarcq, T. Kontos, and Z. Leghtas, Dynamically enhanc- ing qubit-photon interactions with antisqueezing, PRX Quantum 5, 020306 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    W. Qin, A. F. Kockum, C. S. Mu˜ noz, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Quantum amplification and simulation of strong and ultrastrong coupling of light and matter, Physics Re- ports 1078, 1–59 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    D. M. Lukin, D. Catanzaro, B. Windt, M. Bello, M. A. Guidry, E. Lustig, S. Biswas, G. Scuri, K. Le, J. Yang, A. R. Nikitina, M. Ghezellou, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. Ul- Hassan, and J. Vuckovic, Multiemitter cavity quantum electrodynamics with parametric drive, In preparation (202...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Lemonde, N

    M.-A. Lemonde, N. Didier, and A. A. Clerk, Enhanced nonlinear interactions in quantum optomechanics via mechanical amplification, Nature Communications 7, 10.1038/ncomms11338 (2016)

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    S. C. Burd, R. Srinivas, J. J. Bollinger, A. C. Wilson, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, D. H. Slichter, and D. T. C. Allcock, Quantum amplification of mechanical oscillator motion, Science 364, 1163–1165 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Arenz, D

    C. Arenz, D. I. Bondar, D. Burgarth, C. Cormick, and H. Rabitz, Amplification of quadratic hamiltonians, Quantum 4, 271 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

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

    1986

  18. [26]

    K. W. Murch, S. J. Weber, K. M. Beck, E. Ginossar, and I. Siddiqi, Reduction of the radiative decay of atomic co- herence in squeezed vacuum, Nature 499, 62–65 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    D. M. Toyli, A. W. Eddins, S. Boutin, S. Puri, D. Hover, V. Bolkhovsky, W. D. Oliver, A. Blais, and I. Sid- diqi, Resonance fluorescence from an artificial atom in squeezed vacuum, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031004 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Crisafulli, N

    O. Crisafulli, N. Tezak, D. B. S. Soh, M. A. Armen, and H. Mabuchi, Squeezed light in an optical parametric os- cillator network with coherent feedback quantum control, Optics Express 21, 18371 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Zippilli and F

    S. Zippilli and F. Illuminati, Non-markovian dynamics and steady-state entanglement of cavity arrays in finite- bandwidth squeezed reservoirs, Phys. Rev. A 89, 033803 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Asjad, S

    M. Asjad, S. Zippilli, and D. Vitali, Mechanical einstein- podolsky-rosen entanglement with a finite-bandwidth squeezed reservoir, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062307 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    J. A. Gross, B. Q. Baragiola, T. M. Stace, and J. Combes, Master equations and quantum trajectories for squeezed 14 wave packets, Phys. Rev. A 105, 023721 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Joshi, F

    C. Joshi, F. Yang, and M. Mirhosseini, Resonance flu- orescence of a chiral artificial atom, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021039 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Metelmann, O

    A. Metelmann, O. Lanes, T.-Z. Chien, A. McDonald, M. Hatridge, and A. A. Clerk, Quantum-limited amplifi- cation without instability (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    M. J. Collett and C. W. Gardiner, Squeezing of intracav- ity and traveling-wave light fields produced in parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. A 30, 1386 (1984)

    1984

  27. [35]

    S´ anchez Mu˜ noz and D

    C. S´ anchez Mu˜ noz and D. Jaksch, Squeezed lasing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 183603 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Shani, E

    I. Shani, E. G. Dalla Torre, and M. Stern, Coherence properties of a spin in a squeezed resonator, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022617 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Combes, J

    J. Combes, J. Kerckhoff, and M. Sarovar, The slh frame- work for modeling quantum input-output networks, Ad- vances in Physics: X 2, 784–888 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    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, Nature 431, 162–167 (2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    X. Cao, J. Q. You, H. Zheng, and F. Nori, A qubit strongly coupled to a resonant cavity: asymmetry of the spontaneous emission spectrum beyond the rotating wave approximation, New Journal of Physics 13, 073002 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Tian and H

    L. Tian and H. J. Carmichael, Incoherent excitation of the jaynes-cummings system, Quantum Optics: Jour- nal of the European Optical Society Part B 4, 131–144 (1992)

    1992

  33. [41]

    C. W. Gardiner and A. S. Parkins, Driving atoms with light of arbitrary statistics, Phys. Rev. A50, 1792 (1994)

    1994

  34. [42]

    Nehra, R

    R. Nehra, R. Sekine, L. Ledezma, Q. Guo, R. M. Gray, A. Roy, and A. Marandi, Few-cycle vacuum squeezing in nanophotonics, Science 377, 1333–1337 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    P.-K. Chen, I. Briggs, S. Hou, and L. Fan, Ultra- broadband quadrature squeezing with thin-film lithium niobate nanophotonics, Optics Letters 47, 1506 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Presutti, L

    F. Presutti, L. G. Wright, S.-Y. Ma, T. Wang, B. K. Malia, T. Onodera, and P. L. McMahon, Highly multi- mode visible squeezed light with programmable spectral correlations through broadband up-conversion (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    J. Y. Qiu, A. Grimsmo, K. Peng, B. Kannan, B. Lien- hard, Y. Sung, P. Krantz, V. Bolkhovsky, G. Calusine, D. Kim, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, J. Yoder, M. E. Schwartz, T. P. Orlando, I. Siddiqi, S. Gustavsson, K. P. O’Brien, and W. D. Oliver, Broadband squeezed mi- crowave...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Hurvitz, A

    I. Hurvitz, A. Karnieli, and A. Arie, Frequency-domain engineering of bright squeezed vacuum for continuous- variable quantum information, Optics Express 31, 20387 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Faraon, I

    A. Faraon, I. Fushman, D. Englund, N. Stoltz, P. Petroff, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Coherent generation of non-classical light on a chip via photon-induced tunnelling and block- ade, Nature Physics 4, 859–863 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    M¨ uller, A

    K. M¨ uller, A. Rundquist, K. A. Fischer, T. Sarmiento, K. G. Lagoudakis, Y. A. Kelaita, C. S´ anchez Mu˜ noz, E. del Valle, F. P. Laussy, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Coherent generation of nonclassical light on chip via detuned pho- ton blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 233601 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Buckley, Engineering photonic crystal cavitities in III- V semiconductors for χ(2) frequency conversion (2014)

    S. Buckley, Engineering photonic crystal cavitities in III- V semiconductors for χ(2) frequency conversion (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Skauli, K

    T. Skauli, K. L. Vodopyanov, T. J. Pinguet, A. Schober, O. Levi, L. A. Eyres, M. M. Fejer, J. S. Harris, B. Gerard, L. Becouarn, E. Lallier, and G. Arisholm, Measurement of the nonlinear coefficient of orientation-patterned gaas and demonstration of highly efficient second-har...

    2002

  43. [51]

    Baboux, G

    F. Baboux, G. Moody, and S. Ducci, Nonlinear integrated quantum photonics with algaas, Optica 10, 917 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Riedel, H

    D. Riedel, H. Lee, J. F. Herrmann, J. Grzesik, V. Ansari, J.-M. Borit, H. S. Stokowski, S. Aghaeimeibodi, H. Lu, P. J. McQuade, N. A. Melosh, Z.-X. Shen, A. H. Safavi- Naeini, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Efficient photonic integration of diamond color centers and thin-film lithium ni...

    2023

  45. [53]

    W. Ge, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, K. Jacobs, J. J. Bollinger, and M. Foss-Feig, Trapped ion quantum in- formation processing with squeezed phonons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 030501 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    X.-Y. L¨ u, Y. Wu, J. R. Johansson, H. Jing, J. Zhang, and F. Nori, Squeezed optomechanics with phase-matched amplification and dissipation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 093602 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    Yanagimoto, T

    R. Yanagimoto, T. Onodera, E. Ng, L. G. Wright, P. L. McMahon, and H. Mabuchi, Engineering a kerr-based deterministic cubic phase gate via gaussian operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 240503 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Groszkowski, M

    P. Groszkowski, M. Koppenh¨ ofer, H.-K. Lau, and A. A. Clerk, Reservoir-engineered spin squeezing: Macroscopic even-odd effects and hybrid-systems implementations, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011015 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Karnieli, O

    A. Karnieli, O. Tziperman, C. Roques-Carmes, and S. Fan, Decoherence-free many-body hamiltonians in nonlinear waveguide quantum electrodynamics (2024), arXiv:2405.20241

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics (Springer Nature, London, 2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    J. M. Fink, L. Steffen, P. Studer, L. S. Bishop, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, D. Bozyigit, C. Lang, S. Filipp, P. J. Leek, and A. Wallraff, Quantum-to-classical transition in cavity quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 163601 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Settineri, V

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

    2018

  53. [61]

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

    1985

  54. [62]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open- source python framework for the dynamics of open quan- tum systems, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760–1772 (2012)

    2012

  55. [63]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quan- tum systems, Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234–1240 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.