Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Under the optimal drive (Ω/γ)_max ≈ 2N1/π, a storage ensemble in a waveguide QED setup approaches full population inversion, with error falling as N1^{-1.47}.

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

2026-08-01 18:21 UTC pith:WZHYTITU

load-bearing objection Plausible numerical scaling law and a useful storage-release protocol, but the analytic derivation in Sec. IV has a factor-of-2 error that invalidates the claimed mean-field validation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17320 v1 pith:WZHYTITU submitted 2026-07-19 quant-ph

Scaling law for optimal excitation storage and superradiant release in waveguide QED systems

Wei Chen , Kuan-Ting Lin , Guin-Dar Lin , Hsiang-Hua Jen This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords waveguide quantum electrodynamicssuperradiancesubradianceexcitation storage and releasequantum batterycollective spin modelmean-field approximationdriven-dissipative dynamics
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.

This paper sets out to show that excitation transfer between two emitter ensembles in a semi-infinite waveguide follows a simple scaling law once the driven ensemble is much larger than the storage ensemble. In that limit the driven ensemble behaves as an effectively classical source, and tuning the drive to (Ω/γ)_max ≈ 2N1/π makes the storage ensemble approach full population inversion, with the residual error falling as N1^{-1.47}. The paper further proposes a three-stage protocol — drive, detune, restore — that stores the excitation in a subradiant configuration protected by mirror-image interference and then releases it through the driven ensemble's superradiant decay channel. A sympathetic reader would care because the result reduces a complex many-body open-system problem to a two-spin mean-field description and gives concrete design rules for quantum memories and quantum batteries on waveguide platforms.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a scaling law for optimal excitation storage: in a semi-infinite waveguide, a driven ensemble of N1 emitters acting on a subradiant storage ensemble of N2 emitters stores best at (Ω/γ)_max ≈ 2N1/π, at which the storage ensemble's peak excitation approaches unity with error 1 − ⟨n2⟩_{τ,max} ∝ N1^{-1.47}. The mechanism: because the driven ensemble's back-action scales as √(N2/N1), for N1 ≫ N2 transfer is nearly correlation-free and the driven ensemble behaves as a classical source; dissipation removes the strictly correlation-free regime but leaves the early-time window nearly uncorrelated, doubling the required drive. The paper also claims the release stage is sup

What carries the argument

The argument rests on reducing the microscopic waveguide master equation to two coupled collective spins: a driven-dissipative spin (the driven ensemble) with enhanced drive √N1Ω and collective decay 2N1γ, coherently coupled at rate √(N1N2)g to a non-dissipative storage spin placed at the field nodes. The load-bearing identity is the mean-field factorization ⟨O1O2⟩ ≈ ⟨O1⟩⟨O2⟩ (Eq. 6), valid when the connected correlator C12 = ⟨S†1S2⟩ − ⟨S†1⟩⟨S2⟩ stays near zero during the transfer window t ≤ τ. In the dissipation-free case this yields the closed-form solution ⟨Ŝz2⟩ = −cos[(gN1/Ω)(1 − cos 2Ωt)], whose full-inversion condition sets the boundary Ω/g ≤ N1/π; including dissipation shifts the opti

Load-bearing premise

The scaling law rests on the mean-field factorization ⟨O1O2⟩ ≈ ⟨O1⟩⟨O2⟩ holding throughout the transfer window t ≤ τ; the paper's own numerics show that once dissipation is included the strictly correlation-free regime disappears, so the claim stands only if inter-ensemble correlations stay negligible during the entire early-time transfer.

What would settle it

Run the full master equation (or a circuit-QED experiment) for storage ensembles larger than those fitted here, e.g., N2 = 4–10 with N1 up to a few hundred: if the fitted error stops following N1^{-1.47} or the optimal ratio departs from 2N1/π, the mean-field scaling fails outside the tested range. A direct laboratory check: apply a square pulse with Ω/γ ≈ 7.6 and duration 106 ns to a (12,1) system in a semi-infinite waveguide and verify that the storage qubit reaches near-unity population and releases with a peak rate approaching 2γ.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • At the optimal drive (Ω/γ)_max ≈ 2N1/π, the storage ensemble approaches full inversion, with the stored-excitation error obeying 1 − ⟨n2⟩_{τ,max} ∝ N1^{-1.47} in the N1 ≫ N2 limit.
  • The optimal pulse duration shrinks as τ ≈ 4/(N1γ), so scaling up the driven ensemble both deepens and speeds up the storage.
  • The three-stage protocol (drive, detune, restore) protects the stored excitation through emitter–mirror interference, so storage is largely insensitive to pure dephasing, unlike dark-state schemes that rely on phase coherence between distinct emitters.
  • During release, the driven ensemble acts as a superradiant amplifier: peak emission exceeds the isolated-ensemble superradiance limit for N1 > N2 and converges to 2γ for N2 = 1 as N1 → ∞.
  • The protocol maps onto existing superconducting circuit experiments: with γ/2π = 0.5 MHz and (N1, N2) = (12,1), it requires a 106 ns pulse at Ω/γ ≈ 7.6, then a ~10 ns frequency quench.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the classical-source behavior persists at larger N2, the transfer should be shapeable: non-square pulses with time-dependent Ω(t) might push the storage error below the N1^{-1.47} floor by engineering the correlation buildup rather than only minimizing it.
  • Because the required drive grows linearly with N1, the scaling law doubles as a resource budget: at fixed drive power there will be an optimal ensemble size beyond which the stronger field needed erodes the storage gain.
  • The mirror-image protection mechanism suggests a general design principle — replacing entanglement between distinct emitters with a boundary-condition-fixed phase relation — that could transfer to photonic-crystal or cavity geometries that supply the same 'image' symmetry.
  • The paper fits the error law only for N2 = 1, 2, 3; a natural extension is to test whether the −1.47 exponent and the 2N1/π law survive for larger storage ensembles, where correlations should be stronger.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies two emitter ensembles in a semi-infinite waveguide: a driven ensemble at field antinodes and a storage ensemble at nodes, described by the collective-spin master equation (4). The authors numerically find that, for N1 ≫ N2, tuning Ω/γ ≈ 2N1/π yields near-complete transient inversion of the storage ensemble, with 1 − ⟨n2⟩_τ,max ∝ N1^{−1.47}. They propose a three-stage drive/storage/release protocol and characterize superradiant release. The analytical route in Sec. IV attempts to justify the 2N1/π law from a mean-field solution of the dissipation-free dynamics.

Significance. The collective-spin reduction and the storage/release protocol are interesting, and Appendix B provides a closed-form treatment of the N2 = 1 release with a clean large-N limit γ_tot,max → 2γ. If the scaling law is correct, it gives a simple design rule for excitation storage in waveguide QED and a concrete experimental protocol (Sec. VI). However, the analytic derivation in Sec. IV is internally inconsistent, and Eq. (9) is effectively a fit to the same simulations it claims to validate; the paper's central quantitative claim therefore currently lacks independent analytic support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Eqs. (6)–(8)] The no-dissipation solution is not self-consistent. Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (7) gives ⟨S_z2⟩ = −cos(2π) = −1, not +1, so Eq. (8) does not follow from Eq. (7). Correctly commuting the collective operators in Eq. (4) gives d⟨S_z2⟩/dt = −4g√(N1/N2) Im⟨S1†S2⟩, opposite to the sign printed in the third line of Eq. (6). With that sign the consistent mean-field solution is ⟨S_z2⟩ = −cos[(gN1/(2Ω))(1−cos 2Ωt)] and ⟨S2⟩ = −(√N2/2) sin[(gN1/(2Ω))(1−cos 2Ωt)]. Full inversion then requires Ω/g ≤ N1/π, and the argument in Eq. (8) should involve πΩ/(gN1), not 2πΩ/(gN1). As printed, Eq. (7) also violates |⟨S2⟩| ≤ √N2/2 by a factor of two. Thus the analytic derivation of the 2N1/π law is not valid as written.
  2. [Sec. IV B and Fig. 4] Eq. (9) is presented as a fitted relation and then used as the comparison curve in the same figure. The text states 'By numerically fitting these results, we find that the optimal driving condition follows (Ω/γ)_max ≈ 2N1/π,' and Fig. 4 labels the same simulation data as agreeing with Eq. (9). This is circular: it does not independently test the scaling law. Since the analytic derivation in Sec. IV A is invalid, the 2/π coefficient and the 1.47 exponent are currently empirical fit parameters without a supporting derivation. Their fit ranges and uncertainties should be reported, or the analytic route should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 3] The justification for the mean-field factorization is contradictory. The text asserts that for t ≤ τ 'the correlator C12 remains vanishingly small,' but later in the same subsection it states that at the optimal drive 'significant inter-ensemble correlations persist, as indicated by the dotted line in Fig. 3(b).' Both statements cannot simultaneously support the use of Eqs. (6)–(8). A quantitative criterion for when C12 is negligible (e.g., normalized by ⟨S1†S2⟩ or by N1N2) and a check for larger N2 are needed before the mean-field solution can be claimed to describe the optimal transfer.
  4. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (6)] The normalization procedure is unclear and affects the claimed small back-action. The text says 'we further normalize the collective atomic coherence by dividing ⟨S1⟩ by N1,' but Eq. (7) gives ⟨S1⟩ of order √N1, not N1. The transformed equations and the explicit small parameter controlling the back-action from the storage ensemble onto the driven ensemble should be written out; this is load-bearing for the statement that the driven ensemble decouples dynamically in the N1 ≫ N2 limit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2(b)] The exponent 1.47 in the scaling 1 − ⟨n2⟩_τ,max ∝ N1^{−1.47} is quoted without a fit interval or the N1 range over which the fit is valid. Please provide residuals and uncertainty.
  2. [Sec. II] There are several grammatical issues, e.g., 'we investigate ... is a specific configuration.' Also, the ensemble labels {1} and {2} could be defined more clearly before Eq. (3).
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The dotted line in (a) is labeled 'transition point' and in (b) 'optimal ratio,' but the text refers to both as 'dotted line.' Clarify whether the plotted quantity is |C12| and which curve corresponds to the correlation-free condition.
  4. [Eq. (B5)] In the matrix of Eq. (B5), products like 'γN1' are notationally ambiguous with 'γ N1'; use an explicit multiplication dot or spacing throughout the appendix.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The central scaling law Eq. (9) is fitted from the same master-equation data used to 'validate' it, while the analytic derivation in Eqs. (7)-(8) is internally inconsistent; the claimed prediction reduces to a numerical fit.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV B, Eq. (9) and Fig. 4]
    "By numerically fitting these results, we find that the optimal driving condition follows (Ω/γ)max ≈ 2N1/π. (9) ... The numerical results are compared with the scaling relation in Eq. (9), showing good agreement in the regime N1≫N2."

    Eq. (9) is obtained by fitting the same master-equation simulations (Eq. (4)) whose results are then shown in Fig. 4 as being in 'good agreement' with Eq. (9). The agreement is therefore by construction: the fitted curve is compared with the very points from which it was fitted. No independent dataset or parameter-free derivation is supplied, so the central optimization law is an empirical fit presented as a scaling-law prediction.

  2. other [Sec. IV A, Eqs. (7)-(8)]
    "⟨S_z2⟩=−cos( gN1/Ω (1−cos(2Ωt)) ), (7) ... the optimized transfer condition is determined by solving ⟨S_z2⟩=1, yielding Ωt= 1/2 arccos(1− 2πΩ/gN1). (8)"

    Direct substitution of Eq. (8) into Eq. (7): 1−cos(2Ωt)=2πΩ/(gN1), so the cosine argument is 2π and ⟨S_z2⟩=−1, not +1. Solving Eq. (7) for ⟨S_z2⟩=1 would require argument π, i.e. arccos(1−πΩ/(gN1)). Moreover Eq. (7) does not integrate the printed mean-field equations (6) (drive term and signs are inconsistent). Thus the analytic derivation of the optimal condition is broken as written, and the 2N1/π law rests on the numerical fit in step 1 rather than on an independent first-principles derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—the optimal driving condition (Ω/γ)max≈2N1/π and the resulting near-inversion of the storage ensemble—is introduced in Eq. (9) by numerically fitting master-equation simulations and then 'validated' against those same simulations in Fig. 4. This is a fitted relation presented as a scaling law, not an independent prediction. The analytic route that would have made it independent is not self-consistent as printed: substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (7) gives ⟨S_z2⟩=−1 instead of +1, and Eq. (7) is not a solution of the printed mean-field equations (6). The paper also concedes in Sec. IV B that 'significant inter-ensemble correlations persist' at the numerically optimized drive, undermining the mean-field validity claim. No load-bearing self-citation chain or definitional identity is present; the numerical results may be correct, but the claimed analytical support and the 'prediction' reduce to the simulations that generated them. This is partial circularity, hence score 6 rather than a higher score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the Born-Markov master equation and the exact two-spin reduction, the mean-field factorization in the early-time window, and the fitted coefficients in Eqs. (9), the N1^-1.47 law, and tau ~ 4/(N1 gamma). No external data or independent benchmarks are used; robustness is assessed only through the same numerical model with added local noise.

free parameters (4)
  • optimal-ratio coefficient 2/pi in (Omega/gamma)_max = 2/pi
    Eq. (9) is obtained by numerically fitting the maxima of <n2> from simulations of Eq. (4); the paper's analytic derivation as written predicts N1/pi, not 2N1/pi, so the coefficient is not independently derived.
  • scaling exponent 1.47 = 1.47
    1 - <n2>_{tau,max} proportional to N1^{-1.47} is a numerical fit in Fig. 2(b); no analytic derivation is given.
  • optimal driving duration coefficient 4 = 4
    tau ~ 4/(N1 gamma) is a numerical fit in Fig. 6; used to set the pulse duration in the protocol.
  • storage detuning Delta/gamma = 500
    Chosen for the storage stage in Sec. V; large enough to quench the inter-ensemble transfer.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov master equation Eq. (1) with rates Eq. (2) is the correct open-system description.
    Adopted from Ref. [43] without re-derivation; assumes a Markovian waveguide bath and weak coupling. All subsequent results rest on this equation.
  • domain assumption The spatial arrangement Eq. (3) reduces the full N1+N2 emitter dynamics exactly to the two-collective-spin model Eq. (4).
    Requires identical couplings and positions within each ensemble and dissipative symmetry; exact only for symmetric initial states and in the absence of local noise and position disorder.
  • domain assumption Mean-field factorization <O1 O2> ~ <O1><O2> is valid in the N1 >> N2 early-time regime.
    Used in Eq. (6); the paper shows C12 is small for t <= tau but admits that correlations persist at the optimal drive, so the approximation is only approximately valid.
  • domain assumption Storage ensemble at nodes has zero radiative decay and is perfectly protected during storage.
    Idealized subradiance from destructive mirror interference; real node positions and imperfections introduce decay. Robustness is only discussed perturbatively in Appendix C.
  • domain assumption The coherent drive is a square pulse and decoherence channels other than waveguide loss are small (gamma >> gamma_nr, gamma_phi).
    Assumed in the protocol and Appendix C, where nonradiative decay and dephasing are added as small rates epsilon*gamma.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14435 in / 25197 out tokens · 243505 ms · 2026-08-01T18:21:53.274539+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling law for optimal excitation storage and superradiant release in waveguide QED systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WZHYTITU

@misc{pith2026260717320,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling law for optimal excitation storage and superradiant release in waveguide QED systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WZHYTITU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17320}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Driven-dissipative quantum emitters provide a powerful platform for controllable excitation storage and release, with promising applications in quantum batteries and quantum storage. Yet, transient excitation transfer in collective many-body systems is often obscured by the intricate interplay among coherent driving, dissipation, and correlation dynamics. Here, we uncover a scalable excitation-storage mechanism in two emitter ensembles coupled to a semi-infinite waveguide. A coherently driven ensemble acts as an effective excitation reservoir, while a second ensemble positioned near a dissipative node serves as a subradiant storage medium. Surprisingly, when the driven ensemble largely exceeds the storage ensemble in size, the transfer dynamics enters a nearly correlation-free regime, allowing the driven ensemble to behave effectively as a classical excitation source. This reveals a simple scaling law for optimal excitation transfer, under which the storage ensemble approaches near-complete population inversion as the driven ensemble size increases. Building on this mechanism, we propose a three-stage storage-and-release protocol enabling fast excitation storage and controllable photon emission. Our results demonstrate how coherent and dissipative collective interactions can be jointly harnessed for quantum energy storage and programmable nonequilibrium dynamics in waveguide QED platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17320 by Guin-Dar Lin, Hsiang-Hua Jen, Kuan-Ting Lin, Wei Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Optical quantum memory.Nature photonics, 3(12):706–714, 2009

    Alexander I Lvovsky, Barry C Sanders, and Wolfgang Tittel. Optical quantum memory.Nature photonics, 3(12):706–714, 2009

    2009

  2. [2]

    Long-lived quantum memory.Nature Physics, 5(2):100–104, 2009

    R Zhao, YO Dudin, SD Jenkins, CJ Campbell, DN Matsuke- vich, TAB Kennedy, and A Kuzmich. Long-lived quantum memory.Nature Physics, 5(2):100–104, 2009

    2009

  3. [3]

    A millisecond quan- tum memory for scalable quantum networks.Nature Physics, 5(2):95–99, 2009

    Bo Zhao, Yu-Ao Chen, Xiao-Hui Bao, Thorsten Strassel, Chih- Sung Chuu, Xian-Min Jin, J ¨org Schmiedmayer, Zhen-Sheng Yuan, Shuai Chen, and Jian-Wei Pan. A millisecond quan- tum memory for scalable quantum networks.Nature Physics, 5(2):95–99, 2009

    2009

  4. [4]

    Colloquium: quan- tum batteries.Reviews of Modern Physics, 96(3):031001, 2024

    Francesco Campaioli, Stefano Gherardini, James Q Quach, Marco Polini, and Gian Marcello Andolina. Colloquium: quan- tum batteries.Reviews of Modern Physics, 96(3):031001, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Driven-dissipative preparation of entangled states in cascaded quantum-optical networks.New Journal of Physics, 14(6):063014, 2012

    Kai Stannigel, Peter Rabl, and Peter Zoller. Driven-dissipative preparation of entangled states in cascaded quantum-optical networks.New Journal of Physics, 14(6):063014, 2012

    2012

  6. [6]

    Quantum spin dimers from chiral dissipation in cold- atom chains.Physical review letters, 113(23):237203, 2014

    Tom ´as Ramos, Hannes Pichler, Andrew J Daley, and Peter Zoller. Quantum spin dimers from chiral dissipation in cold- atom chains.Physical review letters, 113(23):237203, 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    Quantum optics of chiral spin networks.Physical Re- view A, 91(4):042116, 2015

    Hannes Pichler, Tom ´as Ramos, Andrew J Daley, and Peter Zoller. Quantum optics of chiral spin networks.Physical Re- view A, 91(4):042116, 2015

    2015

  8. [8]

    Dephas- ing enabled fast charging of quantum batteries.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):9, 2025

    Rahul Shastri, Chao Jiang, Guo-Hua Xu, B Prasanna Venkatesh, and Gentaro Watanabe. Dephas- ing enabled fast charging of quantum batteries.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):9, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Dissipative charging of a quantum battery.Phys- ical review letters, 122(21):210601, 2019

    Felipe Barra. Dissipative charging of a quantum battery.Phys- ical review letters, 122(21):210601, 2019

    2019

  10. [10]

    Charger-mediated energy transfer for quantum batteries: An open-system approach

    Donato Farina, Gian Marcello Andolina, Andrea Mari, Marco Polini, and Vittorio Giovannetti. Charger-mediated energy transfer for quantum batteries: An open-system approach. Physical Review B, 99(3):035421, 2019

    2019

  11. [11]

    Environment-mediated charging process of quantum batteries.Physical Review A, 102(5):052223, 2020

    FT Tabesh, FH Kamin, and S Salimi. Environment-mediated charging process of quantum batteries.Physical Review A, 102(5):052223, 2020

    2020

  12. [12]

    En- hancing the performance of an open quantum battery via envi- ronment engineering.Physical Review E, 104(6):064143, 2021

    Kai Xu, Han-Jie Zhu, Guo-Feng Zhang, and Wu-Ming Liu. En- hancing the performance of an open quantum battery via envi- ronment engineering.Physical Review E, 104(6):064143, 2021

    2021

  13. [13]

    Superab- sorption in an organic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery

    James Q Quach, Kirsty E McGhee, Lucia Ganzer, Dominic M 11 Rouse, Brendon W Lovett, Erik M Gauger, Jonathan Keeling, Giulio Cerullo, David G Lidzey, and Tersilla Virgili. Superab- sorption in an organic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery. Science advances, 8(2):eabk3160, 2022

    2022

  14. [14]

    Ex- tractable work, the role of correlations, and asymptotic freedom in quantum batteries.Physical review letters, 122(4):047702, 2019

    Gian Marcello Andolina, Maximilian Keck, Andrea Mari, Michele Campisi, Vittorio Giovannetti, and Marco Polini. Ex- tractable work, the role of correlations, and asymptotic freedom in quantum batteries.Physical review letters, 122(4):047702, 2019

    2019

  15. [15]

    Cavity-optomechanical quantum battery.Physical Review A, 110(6):062204, 2024

    Lu Wang, Shu-Qian Liu, Feng-lin Wu, Hao Fan, and Si-Yuan Liu. Cavity-optomechanical quantum battery.Physical Review A, 110(6):062204, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Cavity qed with atomic mirrors.New Journal of Physics, 14(6):063003, 2012

    Darrick E Chang, L Jiang, A V Gorshkov, and HJ Kimble. Cavity qed with atomic mirrors.New Journal of Physics, 14(6):063003, 2012

    2012

  17. [17]

    Control of localized single-and many-body dark states in waveguide qed.Physical Review Letters, 129(25):253601, 2022

    Raphael Holzinger, Ricardo Gutierrez-Jauregui, Teresa H¨onigl- Decrinis, Gerhard Kirchmair, Ana Asenjo-Garcia, and Helmut Ritsch. Control of localized single-and many-body dark states in waveguide qed.Physical Review Letters, 129(25):253601, 2022

    2022

  18. [18]

    Deterministic generation of photonic en- tangled states using decoherence-free subspaces.Physical Re- view Letters, 134(21):213603, 2025

    Oriol Rubies-Bigorda, Stuart J Masson, Susanne F Yelin, and Ana Asenjo-Garcia. Deterministic generation of photonic en- tangled states using decoherence-free subspaces.Physical Re- view Letters, 134(21):213603, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Cavity quantum electrodynamics with atom-like mirrors.Nature, 569(7758):692–697, 2019

    Mohammad Mirhosseini, Eunjong Kim, Xueyue Zhang, Alp Sipahigil, Paul B Dieterle, Andrew J Keller, Ana Asenjo- Garcia, Darrick E Chang, and Oskar Painter. Cavity quantum electrodynamics with atom-like mirrors.Nature, 569(7758):692–697, 2019

    2019

  20. [20]

    Waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Collective radiance and photon- photon correlations.Reviews of Modern Physics, 95(1):015002, 2023

    Alexandra S Sheremet, Mihail I Petrov, Ivan V Iorsh, Alexan- der V Poshakinskiy, and Alexander N Poddubny. Waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Collective radiance and photon- photon correlations.Reviews of Modern Physics, 95(1):015002, 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    Near-unity coupling effi- ciency of a quantum emitter to a photonic crystal waveguide

    Marta Arcari, Immo S ¨ollner, Alisa Javadi, S Lindskov Hansen, Sahand Mahmoodian, Jin Liu, Henri Thyrrestrup, Eun Hye Lee, Jin Dong Song, Søren Stobbe, et al. Near-unity coupling effi- ciency of a quantum emitter to a photonic crystal waveguide. Physical review letters, 113(9):093603, 2014

    2014

  22. [22]

    Light–matter in- teractions in quantum nanophotonic devices.Nature Reviews Physics, 6(3):166–179, 2024

    Alejandro Gonz ´alez-Tudela, Andreas Reiserer, Juan Jos ´e Garc´ıa-Ripoll, and Francisco J Garc ´ıa-Vidal. Light–matter in- teractions in quantum nanophotonic devices.Nature Reviews Physics, 6(3):166–179, 2024

    2024

  23. [23]

    Controlling excita- tion localization in waveguide qed systems.Physical Review Research, 7(4):043123, 2025

    C-Y Lee, K-T Lin, G-D Lin, and HH Jen. Controlling excita- tion localization in waveguide qed systems.Physical Review Research, 7(4):043123, 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Photon-mediated dipole–dipole interactions as a resource for quantum science and technology in cold atoms

    Hsiang-Hua Jen. Photon-mediated dipole–dipole interactions as a resource for quantum science and technology in cold atoms. Quantum Science and Technology, 10(2):023001, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    Input-output theory for waveguide qed with an ensemble of inhomogeneous atoms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.7135, 2013

    Kevin Lalumiere, Barry C Sanders, Arjan F van Loo, Arkady Fedorov, Andreas Wallraff, and Alexandre Blais. Input-output theory for waveguide qed with an ensemble of inhomogeneous atoms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.7135, 2013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    Chiral quantum optics.Nature, 541(7638):473–480, 2017

    Peter Lodahl, Sahand Mahmoodian, Søren Stobbe, Arno Rauschenbeutel, Philipp Schneeweiss, J ¨urgen V olz, Hannes Pichler, and Peter Zoller. Chiral quantum optics.Nature, 541(7638):473–480, 2017

    2017

  27. [27]

    Exper- imental reconstruction of the few-photon nonlinear scattering matrix from a single quantum dot in a nanophotonic waveguide

    Hanna Le Jeannic, Tom´as Ramos, Signe F Simonsen, Tommaso Pregnolato, Zhe Liu, R ¨udiger Schott, Andreas D Wieck, Arne Ludwig, Nir Rotenberg, Juan Jos ´e Garc´ıa-Ripoll, et al. Exper- imental reconstruction of the few-photon nonlinear scattering matrix from a single quantum dot in a nanophotonic waveguide. Physical Review Letters, 126(2):023603, 2021

    2021

  28. [28]

    Quantum many- body models with cold atoms coupled to photonic crystals.Na- ture Photonics, 9(5):326–331, 2015

    James S Douglas, Hessam Habibian, C-L Hung, Alexey V Gor- shkov, H Jeff Kimble, and Darrick E Chang. Quantum many- body models with cold atoms coupled to photonic crystals.Na- ture Photonics, 9(5):326–331, 2015

    2015

  29. [29]

    Cooperative enhancement of channeling of emission from atoms into a nanofiber.Phys- ical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 77(1):013801, 2008

    Fam Le Kien and K Hakuta. Cooperative enhancement of channeling of emission from atoms into a nanofiber.Phys- ical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 77(1):013801, 2008

    2008

  30. [30]

    Photon- mediated interactions between distant artificial atoms.Science, 342(6165):1494–1496, 2013

    Arjan F Van Loo, Arkady Fedorov, Kevin Lalumiere, Barry C Sanders, Alexandre Blais, and Andreas Wallraff. Photon- mediated interactions between distant artificial atoms.Science, 342(6165):1494–1496, 2013

    2013

  31. [31]

    Emergence of correlated optics in one-dimensional waveguides for classi- cal and quantum atomic gases.Physical review letters, 117(14):143602, 2016

    Janne Ruostekoski and Juha Javanainen. Emergence of correlated optics in one-dimensional waveguides for classi- cal and quantum atomic gases.Physical review letters, 117(14):143602, 2016

    2016

  32. [32]

    Radiation from an n-atom system

    RH Lehmberg. Radiation from an n-atom system. i. general formalism.Physical Review A, 2(3):883, 1970

    1970

  33. [33]

    Excitation transfer and many-body dark states in waveguide quantum elec- trodynamics.Physical Review A, 112(4):043713, 2025

    Wei Chen, Guin-Dar Lin, and Hsiang-Hua Jen. Excitation transfer and many-body dark states in waveguide quantum elec- trodynamics.Physical Review A, 112(4):043713, 2025

    2025

  34. [34]

    Subradiant states of quantum bits coupled to a one-dimensional waveguide.New Journal of Physics, 21(2):025003, 2019

    Andreas Albrecht, Lo ¨ıc Henriet, Ana Asenjo-Garcia, Paul B Dieterle, Oskar Painter, and Darrick E Chang. Subradiant states of quantum bits coupled to a one-dimensional waveguide.New Journal of Physics, 21(2):025003, 2019

    2019

  35. [35]

    Selective protected state preparation of coupled dissipative quantum emitters.Scientific reports, 5(1):16231, 2015

    David Plankensteiner, Laurin Ostermann, Helmut Ritsch, and Claudiu Genes. Selective protected state preparation of coupled dissipative quantum emitters.Scientific reports, 5(1):16231, 2015

    2015

  36. [36]

    Efficient nano-photonic antennas based on dark states in quantum emitter rings.Optics Express, 30(7):10779–10791, 2022

    Maria Moreno-Cardoner, Raphael Holzinger, and Helmut Ritsch. Efficient nano-photonic antennas based on dark states in quantum emitter rings.Optics Express, 30(7):10779–10791, 2022

    2022

  37. [37]

    Aging of a quantum battery.Physical Review A, 100(4):043833, 2019

    Faezeh Pirmoradian and Klaus Mølmer. Aging of a quantum battery.Physical Review A, 100(4):043833, 2019

    2019

  38. [38]

    Quantum advantage of two-level batteries in the self-discharging process.Physical Review E, 103(4):042118, 2021

    Alan C Santos. Quantum advantage of two-level batteries in the self-discharging process.Physical Review E, 103(4):042118, 2021

    2021

  39. [39]

    Lower and upper bounds of quantum battery power in multiple central spin systems.Physical Review A, 103(5):052220, 2021

    Li Peng, Wen-Bin He, Stefano Chesi, Hai-Qing Lin, and Xi- Wen Guan. Lower and upper bounds of quantum battery power in multiple central spin systems.Physical Review A, 103(5):052220, 2021

    2021

  40. [40]

    Entanglement and work extraction in the central-spin quantum battery.Physical Review B, 104(24):245418, 2021

    Jia-Xuan Liu, Hai-Long Shi, Yun-Hao Shi, Xiao-Hui Wang, and Wen-Li Yang. Entanglement and work extraction in the central-spin quantum battery.Physical Review B, 104(24):245418, 2021

    2021

  41. [41]

    Optimal energy storage and collective charging speedup in the central-spin quantum battery.Physical Review B, 111(8):085410, 2025

    Hui-Yu Yang, Kun Zhang, Xiao-Hui Wang, and Hai-Long Shi. Optimal energy storage and collective charging speedup in the central-spin quantum battery.Physical Review B, 111(8):085410, 2025

    2025

  42. [42]

    Entanglement and energy trans- portation in central-spin quantum battery.Chinese Physics B, 34(2):020306, 2025

    Fan Liu, Hui-Yu Yang, Shuai-Li Wang, Jun-Zhong Wang, Kun Zhang, and Xiao-Hui Wang. Entanglement and energy trans- portation in central-spin quantum battery.Chinese Physics B, 34(2):020306, 2025

    2025

  43. [43]

    Scalable collective lamb shift of a 1d super- conducting qubit array in front of a mirror.Scientific reports, 9(1):19175, 2019

    Kuan-Ting Lin, Ting Hsu, Chen-Yu Lee, Io-Chun Hoi, and Guin-Dar Lin. Scalable collective lamb shift of a 1d super- conducting qubit array in front of a mirror.Scientific reports, 9(1):19175, 2019

    2019

  44. [44]

    Deterministic load- ing of microwaves onto an artificial atom using a time-reversed waveform.Nano Letters, 22(20):8137–8142, 2022

    Wei-Ju Lin, Yong Lu, Ping Yi Wen, Yu-Ting Cheng, Ching- Ping Lee, Kuan Ting Lin, Kuan Hsun Chiang, Ming Che Hsieh, Ching-Yeh Chen, Chin-Hsun Chien, et al. Deterministic load- ing of microwaves onto an artificial atom using a time-reversed waveform.Nano Letters, 22(20):8137–8142, 2022

    2022

  45. [45]

    Single-atom amplifi- 12 cation assisted by multiple sideband interference in waveguide qed systems.New Journal of Physics, 27(6):064108, 2025

    Kuan-Ting Lin, Ting Hsu, Fahad Aziz, Yu-Chen Lin, Ping-Yi Wen, Io-Chun Hoi, and Guin-Dar Lin. Single-atom amplifi- 12 cation assisted by multiple sideband interference in waveguide qed systems.New Journal of Physics, 27(6):064108, 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    Collective effects and quantum coherence in dissipative charging of quantum batter- ies.Physical Review A, 105(6):062203, 2022

    Franco Mayo and Augusto J Roncaglia. Collective effects and quantum coherence in dissipative charging of quantum batter- ies.Physical Review A, 105(6):062203, 2022

    2022

  47. [47]

    Single-atom dissipation and dephasing in dicke and tavis-cummings quantum batteries.Physical Review A, 111(2):022222, 2025

    Andrea Canzio, Vasco Cavina, Marco Polini, and Vittorio Giovannetti. Single-atom dissipation and dephasing in dicke and tavis-cummings quantum batteries.Physical Review A, 111(2):022222, 2025

    2025

  48. [48]

    Quantum correlations of localized atomic exci- tations in a disordered atomic chain.Physical Review A, 105(2):023717, 2022

    HH Jen. Quantum correlations of localized atomic exci- tations in a disordered atomic chain.Physical Review A, 105(2):023717, 2022

    2022

  49. [49]

    Suppression of quantum correlations in a clean-disordered atom-nanophotonic interface.Physical Review Research, 7(2):023303, 2025

    I Gusti Ngurah Yudi Handayana, Yi-Lin Tsao, and HH Jen. Suppression of quantum correlations in a clean-disordered atom-nanophotonic interface.Physical Review Research, 7(2):023303, 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    Generalized cumulant expansion method.Jour- nal of the Physical Society of Japan, 17(7):1100–1120, 1962

    Ryogo Kubo. Generalized cumulant expansion method.Jour- nal of the Physical Society of Japan, 17(7):1100–1120, 1962

    1962

  51. [51]

    Moment hierarchies and cumulants in quantum optics.Physical Review A, 41(7):3847, 1990

    R ¨udiger Schack and Axel Schenzle. Moment hierarchies and cumulants in quantum optics.Physical Review A, 41(7):3847, 1990

    1990

  52. [52]

    Large collective lamb shift of two distant superconducting artificial atoms.Phys- ical review letters, 123(23):233602, 2019

    PY Wen, K-T Lin, AF Kockum, B Suri, H Ian, JC Chen, SY Mao, CC Chiu, P Delsing, F Nori, et al. Large collective lamb shift of two distant superconducting artificial atoms.Phys- ical review letters, 123(23):233602, 2019

    2019

  53. [53]

    Propagating wigner-negative states generated from the steady-state emis- sion of a superconducting qubit.Physical Review Letters, 126(25):253602, 2021

    Yong Lu, Ingrid Strandberg, Fernando Quijandr ´ıa, G ¨oran Jo- hansson, Simone Gasparinetti, and Per Delsing. Propagating wigner-negative states generated from the steady-state emis- sion of a superconducting qubit.Physical Review Letters, 126(25):253602, 2021

    2021

  54. [54]

    Circuit quantum electrodynamics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 93(2):025005, 2021

    Alexandre Blais, Arne L Grimsmo, Steven M Girvin, and An- dreas Wallraff. Circuit quantum electrodynamics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 93(2):025005, 2021

    2021

  55. [55]

    Tunable coherent microwave beam splitter and combiner at the single- photon level.Applied Physics Letters, 127(1), 2025

    Y-H Huang, K-M Hsieh, F Aziz, ZQ Niu, PY Wen, Y-T Cheng, Y-S Tsai, JC Chen, Xin Wang, AF Kockum, et al. Tunable coherent microwave beam splitter and combiner at the single- photon level.Applied Physics Letters, 127(1), 2025

    2025