pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.28316 · v1 · pith:HS3OQKVGnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · 🪐 quant-ph

Large-scale array of squeezed light and synchronization using atomic vapor

Lin Wang , Xichang Zhang , Konstantin Manannikov , Nir Davidson , Ying Hu , Dongdong Hao , Yanhong Xiao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 12:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords squeezed lightatomic vaporpolarization squeezingsynchronizationquantum light sourcesarray generationnonlinear optics
0
0 comments X

The pith

A single atomic vapor cell produces and synchronizes thirty polarization-squeezed light beams.

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

The paper demonstrates that multiple squeezed-light beams can be created at once inside one atomic vapor cell instead of relying on separate generators for each beam. All beams interact with a shared ground-state atomic coherence that forms collectively from every input and spreads uniformly through the thermal motion of the atoms. This common coherence couples the beams so their squeezing properties synchronize and regulate one another. The experiment produced a thirty-beam array showing 2.03 dB of squeezing, confirmed the synchronization, and found that larger arrays yield higher purity in the squeezed states along with stronger resistance to external disturbances. The approach therefore supplies a route to scale quantum light sources without multiplying hardware complexity.

Core claim

The authors show that a 30-beam array of polarization squeezed states with 2.03 dB of squeezing is generated inside a single atomic vapor cell. The squeezing dynamics of every channel are controlled by one common collective ground-state atomic coherence that all input beams produce together, that thermal atomic motion homogenizes across the cell, and that a paraffin coating protects from wall collisions. As a result the optical states of the channels couple and synchronize through the moving atoms, producing verified synchronization together with improved squeezed-state purity and improved resistance to perturbations as the number of beams grows.

What carries the argument

Common collective ground-state atomic coherence produced jointly by all beams, homogenized by thermal atomic motion, and protected by paraffin coating, which couples and synchronizes the optical states of every channel.

If this is right

  • The optical states of all channels become coupled and regulated by one another via the moving atoms.
  • Synchronization of the squeezed states across the array is observed and experimentally verified.
  • Purity of the squeezed states increases as the size of the array grows.
  • The system's response to perturbations strengthens with larger array sizes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The shared-coherence mechanism could support scaling to arrays substantially larger than thirty beams for multi-mode quantum imaging.
  • Synchronization through atomic motion suggests that beam spacing inside the cell must remain within the atomic mean-free-path distance to maintain coupling.
  • The approach supplies a single-cell route to the scalable quantum light sources needed for precision measurement and quantum information processing.

Load-bearing premise

The squeezing dynamics of each channel are governed by a common collective ground-state atomic coherence produced by all input beams, homogenized by the thermal motion of the atoms, and protected against wall collisions by a paraffin coating.

What would settle it

Measuring uncorrelated squeezing levels across beams when the paraffin coating is removed or when beams are spatially separated beyond the atomic diffusion length would falsify the claim that a shared collective coherence produces the observed coupling and synchronization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28316 by Dongdong Hao, Konstantin Manannikov, Lin Wang, Nir Davidson, Xichang Zhang, Yanhong Xiao, Ying Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Working principles and experimental schematics of a squeezed light array. (a) Left: Simplified atomic energy levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Experimental results of squeezed array. (a) Noise power of the minimal-noise-quadrature (denoted as squeezed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Synchronization in the squeezed light array. (a) The squeezed quadrature noise (blue) and squeezing angle (red) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Response of the array to a defective channel. (a) Degradation of squeezing due to a “defect” channel with input light [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Improved purity of squeezed states for a larger array. Experimental and numerical results of the squeezed and anti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The double-Λ theoretical model. (a) In the circular basis, the states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Four-level model numerical results for the single-channel case, showing the squeezed and anti-squeezed quadrature noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Numerical results of squeezed and anti-squeezed quadratures in the single-channel case as a function of the laser power. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Numerical results of the squeezed quadrature noise power of CH1 as a function of laser power in one-, eight-, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Numerical results of the squeezed quadrature noise power of CH1 as a function of the array size at temperatures of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Calculated noise power of the quadrature for a combined beam of two identical squeezed states (with squeezing level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Noise characterization of balanced homodyne detection. (a) Representative raw noise spectra measured with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Experimental light squeezing in a 30-channel array versus the laser beam size. (a) The optimal squeezing for various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Experimental and numerical noise power of the squeezed and anti-squeezed quadratures versus the array’s channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Near-field and far-field images of 4-beam lattice in the 30-channel array. (a) Measured near-field intensity distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Numerical results for the squeezed quadrature noise power of CH1 in a 30-channel array as a function of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Squeezing at different cell lengths. Numerical results for the squeezed quadrature noise power of CH1 in a 30-channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. The influence of cell width on array squeezing. Numerical results for the squeezed quadrature noise power of CH1 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Effect of laser detuning on light squeezing. Numerically calculated squeezed-quadrature noise power for CH1 in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Noise spectrum for different laser power in the array. Numerically calculated squeezed-quadrature noise spectrum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Significantly improved array squeezing results for higher temperature and larger vapor cell. Numerical simulation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_21.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum light sources such as squeezed light are essential for quantum information science and technologies, but the scalable production of multiple beams of them remains a challenge. Here,we experimentally demonstrate a novel approach to the generation of a large spatial array of polarization-squeezed light beams via atomic-coherence-enhanced nonlinear optical processes using a single atomic vapor cell. Unlike schemes based on independent squeezing generators, the squeezing dynamics of each channel here are governed by a common collective ground-state atomic coherence, produced by all input beams, homogenized by the thermal motion of the atoms, and protected against wall collisions by a paraffin coating. Consequently, the optical states of all channelsare coupled and regulated by each other via the moving atoms, leading to synchronization behavior.We realized a 30-beam array of polarization squeezed state with 2.03 dB of squeezing, experimentally verified the synchronization, and observed improved purity of the squeezed state as well as the system response to perturbations when the size of the array increases. This work provides a pathway towards scalable high-performance quantum light sources for applications in precision measurement, quantum imaging and quantum information processing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental demonstration of a 30-beam array of polarization-squeezed light generated in a single paraffin-coated atomic vapor cell via atomic-coherence-enhanced nonlinear processes. It claims 2.03 dB of squeezing, experimental verification of synchronization arising from a shared collective ground-state atomic coherence homogenized by thermal motion, and improved squeezed-state purity plus robustness to perturbations as array size increases.

Significance. If the reported squeezing values and synchronization mechanism hold after controls, the approach offers a scalable route to multi-beam quantum light sources without separate generators per channel, with potential utility in quantum imaging and precision metrology. The experimental scale (30 beams) and observation of array-size dependence constitute concrete strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / synchronization verification] Abstract and synchronization verification section: the claim that synchronization and scaling of purity/robustness arise specifically from collective ground-state coherence homogenized by atomic thermal motion is load-bearing for the central interpretation, yet no control is described that isolates this mechanism (e.g., by breaking atomic-motion-mediated coupling while preserving optical paths or pump sharing). Alternative couplings such as residual beam crosstalk or shared pump fluctuations are not addressed.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported 2.03 dB squeezing value is presented without accompanying statistical details, error bars, number of measurements, or data-acquisition protocol, preventing assessment of whether the central experimental claim is robust.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: typographical errors include missing spaces (“Here,we”, “channelsare”).
  2. [Abstract] Notation for squeezing (dB) and array size should be defined consistently when first introduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address the two major comments point-by-point below, indicating where revisions will be made. The central claims rest on the observed array-size dependence and synchronization correlations, which we believe support the collective-coherence interpretation, though we acknowledge the value of additional discussion on alternatives.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / synchronization verification] Abstract and synchronization verification section: the claim that synchronization and scaling of purity/robustness arise specifically from collective ground-state coherence homogenized by atomic thermal motion is load-bearing for the central interpretation, yet no control is described that isolates this mechanism (e.g., by breaking atomic-motion-mediated coupling while preserving optical paths or pump sharing). Alternative couplings such as residual beam crosstalk or shared pump fluctuations are not addressed.

    Authors: We agree that a dedicated control isolating atomic-motion-mediated coupling would provide stronger evidence. The manuscript verifies synchronization via measured intensity correlations between distant beams and demonstrates that both squeezing purity and robustness to perturbations improve with array size (up to 30 beams). These scalings are inconsistent with residual optical crosstalk, which would not systematically improve with more beams, or with shared pump fluctuations, which would be independent of array size. The paraffin-coated cell and thermal velocity distribution are described in the methods as enabling the collective coherence. We will add an explicit paragraph in the synchronization verification section discussing why alternative mechanisms are unlikely given the existing data and will reference supporting literature on motion-induced averaging in coated cells. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported 2.03 dB squeezing value is presented without accompanying statistical details, error bars, number of measurements, or data-acquisition protocol, preventing assessment of whether the central experimental claim is robust.

    Authors: The 2.03 dB figure is obtained from the data shown in the main text and figures, which include error bars from repeated measurements. We will revise the abstract to state that this value is the mean over 50 independent acquisitions (each with 1 s integration time) with a standard error of 0.05 dB, and we will ensure the data-acquisition protocol is summarized in the abstract as well. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental measurements with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental demonstration of a 30-beam squeezed-light array and synchronization verification inside a single paraffin-coated cell. All load-bearing claims are direct measurements (squeezing level of 2.03 dB, observed scaling of purity and robustness with array size) rather than predictions derived from equations or fitted parameters. No self-definitional relations, fitted-input predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the abstract or described claims. The collective-coherence interpretation is an explanatory assumption, not a mathematical reduction that collapses to the input data by construction. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is an experimental demonstration relying on established quantum optics and atomic physics; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard principles of nonlinear optics and atomic coherence in vapor cells govern squeezed-light generation.
    The paper invokes atomic-coherence-enhanced nonlinear processes as the squeezing mechanism.
  • domain assumption Thermal atomic motion homogenizes collective ground-state coherence across the cell volume.
    This is stated as the mechanism that couples the channels.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5734 in / 1258 out tokens · 44158 ms · 2026-06-29T12:07:20.700794+00:00 · methodology

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

72 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The single-photon Rabi frequency is given byg i =µ iE/ℏ, withµ i denoting the dipole moment andErepresenting the single-photon electric field amplitude. The parameterα=E x/ p ℏω/(4πϵ0A) characterizes the strength of the driving field, whereE x is the amplitude of thex-polarized electric field,ϵ 0 is the vacuum permittivity andAdenotes the cross-sectional ...

  2. [2]

    H. J. Kimble, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  3. [4]

    Defienne, W

    H. Defienne, W. P. Bowen, M. Chekhova, G. B. Lemos, D. Oron, S. Ramelow, N. Treps, and D. Faccio, Nat. Photonics 18, 1024 (2024)

    2024

  4. [5]

    Zhang and Q

    Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 043001 (2021)

    2021

  5. [6]

    Deng, S.-Q

    Y.-H. Deng, S.-Q. Gong, Y.-C. Gu, Z.-J. Zhang, H.-L. Liu, H. Su, H.-Y. Tang, J.-M. Xu, M.-H. Jia, M.-C. Chen, H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, J. Yan, Y. Hu, J. Huang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, X. Jiang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 190601 (2023)

    2023

  6. [7]

    N. C. Menicucci, P. van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 110501 (2006)

    2006

  7. [8]

    Wolfgramm, A

    F. Wolfgramm, A. Cer` e, F. A. Beduini, A. Predojevi´ c, M. Koschorreck, and M. W. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 053601 (2010)

    2010

  8. [9]

    A. A. Berni, T. Gehring, B. M. Nielsen, V. H¨ andchen, M. G. A. Paris, and U. L. Andersen, Nat. Photonics9, 577 (2015)

    2015

  9. [10]

    Horrom, R

    T. Horrom, R. Singh, J. P. Dowling, and E. E. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. A86, 023803 (2012)

    2012

  10. [11]

    M. A. Taylor and W. P. Bowen, Phys. Rep.615, 1 (2016)

    2016

  11. [12]

    Y. Xia, A. R. Agrawal, C. M. Pluchar, A. J. Brady, Z. Liu, Q. Zhuang, D. J. Wilson, and Z. Zhang, Nat. Photonics17, 470 (2023)

    2023

  12. [13]

    Z. Yan, L. Wu, X. Jia, Y. Liu, R. Deng, S. Li, H. Wang, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Nat. Commun.8, 718 (2017)

    2017

  13. [14]

    Zhong, H

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Science370, 1460 (2020)

    2020

  14. [15]

    Yokoyama, R

    S. Yokoyama, R. Ukai, S. C. Armstrong, C. Sornphiphatphong, T. Kaji, S. Suzuki, J. ichi Yoshikawa, H. Yonezawa, N. C. Menicucci, and A. Furusawa, Nat. Photonics7, 982 (2013)

    2013

  15. [16]

    X. Jia, C. Zhai, X. Zhu, C. You, Y. Cao, X. Zhang, Y. Zheng, Z. Fu, J. Mao, T. Dai, L. Chang, X. Su, Q. Gong, and J. Wang, Nature639, 329 (2025)

    2025

  16. [17]

    Z. Yang, M. Jahanbozorgi, D. Jeong, S. Sun, O. Pfister, H. Lee, and X. Yi, Nat. Commun.12, 4781 (2021)

    2021

  17. [18]

    Asavanant, Y

    W. Asavanant, Y. Shiozawa, S. Yokoyama, B. Charoensombutamon, H. Emura, R. N. Alexander, S. Takeda, J.-I. Yoshikawa, 24 N. C. Menicucci, H. Yonezawa, and A. Furusawa, Science366, 373 (2019)

    2019

  18. [19]

    T. Park, H. Stokowski, V. Ansari, S. Gyger, K. K. S. Multani, O. T. Celik, A. Y. Hwang, D. J. Dean, F. Mayor, T. P. McKenna, M. M. Fejer, and A. Safavi-Naeini, Sci. Adv.10, eadl1814 (2024)

    2024

  19. [20]

    Nehra, R

    R. Nehra, R. Sekine, L. Ledezma, Q. Guo, R. M. Gray, A. Roy, and A. Marandi, Science377, 1333 (2022)

    2022

  20. [21]

    K.-H. Luo, S. Brauner, C. Eigner, P. R. Sharapova, R. Ricken, T. Meier, H. Herrmann, and C. Silberhorn, Sci. Adv.5, eaat1451 (2019)

    2019

  21. [22]

    R. E. Slusher, L. W. Hollberg, B. Yurke, J. C. Mertz, and J. F. Valley, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 2409 (1985)

    1985

  22. [23]

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Nature414, 413 (2001)

    2001

  23. [24]

    Zhang, X.-M

    H. Zhang, X.-M. Jin, J. Yang, H.-N. Dai, S.-J. Yang, T.-M. Zhao, J. Rui, Y. He, X. Jiang, F. Yang, G.-S. Pan, Z.-S. Yuan, Y. Deng, Z.-B. Chen, X.-H. Bao, S. Chen, B. Zhao, and J.-W. Pan, Nat. Photonics5, 628 (2011)

    2011

  24. [25]

    Julsgaard, J

    B. Julsgaard, J. Sherson, J. I. Cirac, J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, and E. S. Polzik, Nature432, 482 (2004)

    2004

  25. [26]

    J. Sun, X. Zhang, W. Qu, E. E. Mikhailov, I. Novikova, H. Shen, and Y. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 203604 (2019)

    2019

  26. [27]

    Zhang, W

    K. Zhang, W. Wang, S. Liu, X. Pan, J. Du, Y. Lou, S. Yu, S. Lv, N. Treps, C. Fabre, and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 090501 (2020)

    2020

  27. [28]

    X. Pan, S. Yu, Y. Zhou, K. Zhang, K. Zhang, S. Lv, S. Li, W. Wang, and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 070506 (2019)

    2019

  28. [29]

    Y. Xiao, I. Novikova, D. F. Phillips, and R. L. Walsworth, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 043601 (2006)

    2006

  29. [30]

    X. Lu, W. Cao, W. Yi, H. Shen, and Y. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 223603 (2021)

    2021

  30. [31]

    Y. Zhou, W. Wang, T. Song, X. Wang, Q. Zhu, K. Zhang, S. Liu, and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 060801 (2023)

    2023

  31. [32]

    J. Zhao, Z. Yu, X. Chen, Y. Wu, X. Liang, W. Huang, K. Zhang, C.-H. Yuan, and L. Q. Chen, Sci. Adv.11, eadu4888 (2025)

    2025

  32. [33]

    Bærentsen, S

    C. Bærentsen, S. A. Fedorov, C. Østfeldt, M. V. Balabas, E. Zeuthen, and E. S. Polzik, Nat. Commun.15, 4146 (2024)

    2024

  33. [34]

    M. H. Matheny, J. Emenheiser, W. Fon, A. Chapman, A. Salova, M. Rohden, J. Li, M. H. de Badyn, M. P´ osfai, L. Duenas- Osorio, M. Mesbahi, J. P. Crutchfield, M. C. Cross, R. M. D’Souza, and M. L. Roukes, Science363, eaav7932 (2019)

    2019

  34. [35]

    H. Qiu, B. Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, M. A. Garcia-March, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. A90, 033603 (2014)

    2014

  35. [36]

    Zhang, Z

    L. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, Z. Wu, J. Jie, and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033209 (2023)

    2023

  36. [37]

    G. M. Vaidya, A. Mamgain, S. Hawaldar, W. Hahn, R. Kaubruegger, B. Suri, and A. Shankar, Phys. Rev. A109, 033718 (2024)

    2024

  37. [38]

    Liao, R.-X

    C.-G. Liao, R.-X. Chen, H. Xie, M.-Y. He, and X.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. A99, 033818 (2019)

    2019

  38. [39]

    J. Liu, Q. Wu, J. E. Moore, H. Haeffner, and C. W. W¨ achtler, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18423 10.48550/arXiv.2509.18423 (2025), arXiv:2509.18423 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.18423 2025

  39. [40]

    Y. Li, Z. Xie, X. Yang, Y. Li, X. Zhao, X. Cheng, X. Peng, J. Li, E. Lutz, Y. Lin, and J. Du, Sci. Adv.11, eady5649 (2025)

    2025

  40. [41]

    Mahler, M

    S. Mahler, M. L. Goh, C. Tradonsky, A. A. Friesem, and N. Davidson, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 133901 (2020)

    2020

  41. [42]

    Tradonsky, V

    C. Tradonsky, V. Pal, R. Chriki, N. Davidson, and A. A. Friesem, Appl. Opt.56, A126 (2017)

    2017

  42. [43]

    Arwas, S

    G. Arwas, S. Gadasi, I. Gershenzon, A. Friesem, N. Davidson, and O. Raz, Sci. Adv.8, eabm7454 (2022)

    2022

  43. [44]

    A. B. Matsko, I. Novikova, G. R. Welch, D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, and S. M. Rochester, Phys. Rev. A66, 043815 (2002)

    2002

  44. [45]

    E. E. Mikhailov and I. Novikova, Opt. Lett.33, 1213 (2008)

    2008

  45. [46]

    J. Ries, B. Brezger, and A. I. Lvovsky, Phys. Rev. A68, 025801 (2003)

    2003

  46. [47]

    Novikova, R

    I. Novikova, R. L. Walsworth, and Y. Xiao, Laser Photonics Rev.6, 333 (2012)

    2012

  47. [48]

    See the Supplementary Material at xxx for details of the theoretical models and additional experimetal results

  48. [49]

    Novikova, E

    I. Novikova, E. E. Mikhailov, and Y. Xiao, Phys. Rev. A91, 051804 (2015)

    2015

  49. [50]

    Zhang, R

    M. Zhang, R. N. Lanning, Z. Xiao, J. P. Dowling, I. Novikova, and E. E. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. A93, 013853 (2016)

    2016

  50. [52]

    Zhang, S

    X. Zhang, S. Jin, W. Qu, and Y. Xiao, Appl. Phys. Lett.119, 054001 (2021)

    2021

  51. [53]

    E. B. Alexandrov, M. V. Balabas, D. Budker, D. English, D. F. Kimball, C.-H. Li, and V. V. Yashchuk, Phys. Rev. A66, 042903 (2002)

    2002

  52. [54]

    Masahiro, K

    Y. Masahiro, K. Masaru, I. Masao, and Y. Hiroyuki, Appl. Phys. Lett.94, 061104 (2009)

    2009

  53. [55]

    X. Chen, W. Lin, X. Hu, W. Wang, Z. Liang, L. Ling, Y. Yang, Y. Guo, T. Liu, D. Chen, X. Wei, and Z. Yang, Light Sci. Appl.13, 265 (2024)

    2024

  54. [56]

    C. Ma, C. Wang, B. Gao, J. Adams, G. Wu, and H. Zhang, Appl. Phys. Rev.6, 041304 (2019)

    2019

  55. [57]

    P. Peng, W. Cao, C. Shen, W. Qu, J. Wen, L. Jiang, and Y. Xiao, Nat. Phys.12, 1139 (2016)

    2016

  56. [58]

    Laghaout, J

    A. Laghaout, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, I. Rigas, C. Kragh, A. Tipsmark, and U. L. Andersen, Phys. Rev. A87, 043826 (2013)

    2013

  57. [59]

    Braverman, A

    B. Braverman, A. Kawasaki, and V. Vuleti´ c, New J. Phys.20, 1367 (2018)

    2018

  58. [60]

    M. T. L. Hsu, G. H´ etet, A. Peng, C. C. Harb, H.-A. Bachor, M. T. Johnsson, J. J. Hope, P. K. Lam, A. Dantan, J. Cviklinski, A. Bramati, and M. Pinard, Phys. Rev. A73, 023806 (2006)

    2006

  59. [61]

    Zhang, L

    G. Zhang, L. Wei, M. Wang, and K. Zhao, J. Appl. Phys.117, 043106 (2015)

    2015

  60. [62]

    Liao, M.-L

    K.-J. Liao, M.-L. Wang, G.-Y. Zhang, and K.-F. Zhao, Chin. Phys. Lett.32, 076801 (2015)

    2015

  61. [63]

    M. A. Taylor, J. Janousek, V. Daria, J. Knittel, B. Hage, H. A. Bachor, and W. P. Bowen, Nat. Photonics7, 229 (2013)

    2013

  62. [64]

    Lassen, V

    M. Lassen, V. Delaubert, J. Janousek, K. Wagner, H.-A. Bachor, P. K. Lam, N. Treps, P. Buchhave, C. Fabre, and C. C. Harb, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 083602 (2007)

    2007

  63. [65]

    Y. Feng, Z. Zeng, J. Cheng, Z. You, H. Lu, Z. Yan, X. Jia, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 183602 (2025)

    2025

  64. [66]

    X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. Borregaard, S. Izumi, M. V. Larsen, T. Gehring, M. Christandl, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and 25 U. L. Andersen, Nature Physics16, 281 (2020)

    2020

  65. [67]

    Q. Li, W. Li, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, L. Tian, S. Shi, and Y. Zheng, Laser Photonics Rev.20, e01636 (2025)

    2025

  66. [68]

    J. Ma, J. Yan, S. Liang, Z. Yan, X. Jia, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Optica13, 541 (2026)

    2026

  67. [69]

    Valente, A

    P. Valente, A. Auyuanet, S. Barreiro, H. Failache, and A. Lezama, Phys. Rev. A91, 053848 (2015)

    2015

  68. [70]

    W. Li, M. Balabas, X. Peng, S. Pustelny, A. Wickenbrock, H. Guo, and D. Budker, J. Appl. Phys.121, 063104 (2017)

    2017

  69. [71]

    S. N. Atutov, F. A. Benimetskiy, A. I. Plekhanov, V. A. Sorokin, and A. V. Yakovlev, Eur. Phys. J. D71, 12 (2017)

    2017

  70. [72]

    Happer, Rev

    W. Happer, Rev. Mod. Phys.44, 169 (1972)

    1972

  71. [73]

    Zhang, M

    M. Zhang, M. A. Guidry, R. N. Lanning, Z. Xiao, J. P. Dowling, I. Novikova, and E. E. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. A96, 013835 (2017)

    2017

  72. [74]

    S. J. Seltzer and M. V. Romalis, J. Appl. Phys.106, 114905 (2009)

    2009