Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Coherent superposition of emitted and resonantly scattered photons from a two-level system driven by an even-$\pi$ pulse

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the bunching signal $g^{(2)}(0)\approx3$ seen when a charged quantum dot in a microcavity is excited by a 2π pulse is a coherent superposition of one emitted trion photon and one resonantly scattered laser photon…

desk verdict A plausible new mechanism for even-π bunching, but the model's first-order expansion in δ is violated by the fitted δ = 0.58, so the central quantitative claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05943 v1 pith:JAQDY3JC submitted 2025-07-08 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

I.V. Krainov , A.I. Galimov , M.V. Rakhlin , A.A. Toropov , T.V. Shubina This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords coherentsuperpositionresonantRayleighscatteringtwo-levelsystemchargedquantumdotmicrocavitymultiphotonFockstatessecond-ordercorrelationfunctioneven-πpulse
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

This paper claims that the bunching signal $g^{(2)}(0)\approx3$ seen when a charged quantum dot in a microcavity is excited by a 2π pulse is not produced by the dot emitting two photons at once. Instead, the detected V-polarized two-photon component is a coherent superposition of one photon emitted by the trion and one resonantly scattered laser photon whose polarization has been rotated by the interaction. The mechanism requires treating the pump pulse as a coherent state containing several tens of photons, not as a classical field, and requires the dot to carry a resident hole, forming a charged trion. If the claim is right, earlier 2π-pulse experiments need reinterpreting, and the output is a controllable high-order Fock-space state assembled from photons of different origins.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coherent-state pump pulse $|\Psi_{\rm in}\rangle = e^{-|\alpha|^2/2} e^{\alpha \hat{b}^\dagger_H}|0\rangle$ with mean photon number $N=|\alpha|^2\approx50$, evolved by the trion-light operator $\hat{S}_0 = \exp(-i\tau \hat{H}_0)$ with $\hat{H}_0 = g(\hat{b}^\dagger_- \hat{a}_+ + \hat{b}_- \hat{a}^\dagger_+)$. Linearizing $\sqrt{n}$ around $N$ defines the pulse area $\theta = g\tau\sqrt{N}$ and the small parameter $\delta = g\tau\alpha/(2\sqrt{2N})$; expanding the output to first order in $\delta$ and projecting onto V polarization produces the two-photon term $|2\rangle = \hat{b}^\dagger_- \hat{b}^\dagger_{t-}|0\rangle$. Phonon dephasing is added through a Lindblad master equation, yielding the damped correlation formula used for the fits.

What would settle it

Measure the V-polarized output under $2\pi$ excitation with a photon-number-resolving or fast start-stop setup and record the joint arrival-time distribution of photon pairs; the model predicts one prompt photon following the roughly 16 ps laser envelope and one delayed photon following the roughly 155 ps trion decay. Observing no prompt-slow pair correlation, or pairs in which both photons are delayed, would rule out the claimed emitted-plus-scattered superposition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For resonant H-polarized excitation of a positively charged trion, the paper projects the output state onto the V-polarized detection channel and finds vacuum, one-photon, and two-photon components, with the two-photon term proportional to $\delta \cos(\theta/2)$ and containing one scattered laser photon and one trion-recombination photon. The zero-delay correlation function $g^{(2)}(0) = 2|\delta|^2 \cos^2(\theta/2)/(\sin^2(\theta/2)+|\delta|^2)^2$ vanishes at odd pulse areas and peaks at even ones, and with phonon-induced dephasing and an incoherent admixture it reproduces the measured $g^{(2)}(0)=3.0\pm0.3$ at $\theta=2\pi$. The paper claims this demonstrates that the bunching is coherent multiphoton dynamics rather than photon-pair emission, and that detuning the cavity from the dot continuously changes the statistics from super-Poissonian to Poissonian.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of the output state and of $g^{(2)}(0)$ keeps only first-order terms in the small parameter $\delta$, assuming $\delta\ll1$, but the fit to the measured correlation uses $\delta=0.58$; if higher-order terms cannot be neglected, the truncated equations are the load-bearing simplification that could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured $g^{(2)}(0)\approx3$ at $2\pi$ excitation can be explained without invoking two-photon emission from the dot; one of the two coincident photons is a resonantly scattered pump photon.
  • Photon statistics become a controllable function of pulse area: $g^{(2)}(0)$ should vanish at odd $\pi$ pulses and peak at even $\pi$ pulses, with the peak height set by $\delta$ and by phonon dephasing.
  • Detuning the cavity mode from the trion shifts the balance from trion emission toward scattered coherent photons, converting super-Poissonian statistics into Poissonian statistics.
  • The model gives a unified interpretation of earlier charged-quantum-dot experiments under $2\pi$ excitation, including why bunching is pronounced for charged rather than neutral excitons.
  • The output is a coherent superposition of vacuum, one-photon, and two-photon components, a high-order Fock-space state relevant for quantum computing and quantum key distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural check is to compute the output state without the first-order truncation in $\delta$; since the fit uses $\delta=0.58$, higher-order terms could shift the predicted $g^{(2)}(0)$ and refine the extracted parameters.
  • A direct test of the scattered-photon component would be to measure the joint temporal distribution of V-polarized pairs: the model predicts one photon arrives promptly with the laser pulse while the other follows the roughly 155 ps trion decay.
  • If the charged-trion condition is essential, then pumping the same dot after charge neutralization should suppress the bunching, providing a clean control experiment.
  • The same mechanism suggests pulse-area-tuned generation of two-photon states could be faster than waiting for radiative decay, a potential resource not explored in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports measurements of the second-order correlation function g(2)(0) ≈ 3.0 ± 0.3 under resonant 2π-pulse excitation of a positively charged InAs/GaAs quantum dot in a micropillar cavity, together with a fast time-resolved component that the authors attribute to resonantly scattered laser photons whose polarization has been rotated. The authors model the pump pulse as a coherent state and expand the output state to first order in a parameter δ (Eqs. (3) and (4)), obtaining Eq. (5) for g(2)(0) and a phonon-damped generalization in Eq. (6). Parameters are fitted to Rabi oscillations, g(2) versus pulse area, and trion lifetime versus detuning (Appendix C), after which the model reproduces the measured g(2) versus detuning in Fig. 2b.

Significance. If established, the proposed mechanism would provide a new interpretation of even-π-pulse multiphoton emission in quantum-dot microcavity systems, namely that the observed bunching arises from a coherent superposition of QD-emitted photons and resonantly scattered laser photons rather than predominantly from two-photon emission. The experimental dataset is substantial and the idea of treating the pump pulse as a multi-photon coherent state is physically motivated. However, the central quantitative claim is currently not supported, because the expansion parameter δ is not small in the fitted regime and the fitted value is inconsistent with the stated photon number in the pump pulse.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main text, after Eq. (4)] The derivation of the output state (4) and of Eqs. (5) and (6) explicitly retains only first-order terms in δ under the assumption δ∼gτ≪1. The fit reported in the caption of Fig. 2d uses δ=0.58, which is not ≪1. Moreover, using the paper's own definition δ=gτα/(2√(2N)), with |α|²=N≈50 and θ=gτ√N=2π, gives |δ|=θ/(2√(2N))≈0.31; the fitted value 0.58 would require N≈15, contradicting the stated N≈50. The truncated equations are therefore invalid in the regime used to compare with experiment, and the quantitative support for the 'coherent superposition' interpretation collapses.
  2. [Eq. (5) and Fig. 2d] At even pulse areas θ=2π, Eq. (5) gives g(2)(0)=2/|δ|². Inserting the fitted δ=0.58 yields g(2)(0)≈5.9, which is far above the measured value of 3.0±0.3. The agreement shown in Fig. 2d is obtained only after adding phonon and incoherent-admixture corrections in Eq. (6) with fitted parameters λ, γ1, γ2, and b. This means that the paper's leading-order prediction is not actually compared with the data; the extracted 'coherent superposition' decomposition depends on the fitted corrections rather than on the first-order derivation that is claimed to be the model's cornerstone.
  3. [Appendix C, fitting procedure (i)–(iii) and Fig. 2] The parameters δ, λ, b, a, and Γν0 are determined by fitting the same experimental curves—Rabi oscillations (Fig. 2c), g(2) as a function of pulse area (Fig. 2d), and trion lifetime versus detuning (Fig. 2a)—that the model subsequently reproduces. Consequently Fig. 2b is a consistency check of the fitting procedure rather than an independent prediction. To support the central claim, the authors should provide at least one parameter-free or out-of-sample prediction, for example g(2)(0) at 4π excitation or at a substantially different temperature.
  4. [Fig. 1d–e and Appendix A] The identification of the fast time-resolved component as resonantly scattered laser photons with rotated polarization is not supported by a control experiment. The cross-polarization scheme suppresses the H-polarized laser by six orders of magnitude, but no measurement is shown that this suppression remains constant at even-π powers or that the fast component cannot be attributed to residual laser leakage. Since this fast component is one of the two constituents of the claimed superposition, it requires a dedicated control measurement or an explicit quantitative exclusion of leakage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'bunching of ~3 photon states' is imprecise; the measured quantity is g(2)(0)≈3, which does not by itself imply a three-photon Fock state.
  2. [After Eq. (3)] The statement 'δ∼gτ≪1' is imprecise because δ is defined with additional factors α/(2√(2N)); the text should state the actual small parameter used in the truncation.
  3. [Eq. (3)] The displayed expression for |Ψout⟩ contains an unbalanced bracket and the sign structure is hard to follow; please check the parentheses and signs.
  4. [Appendix A] The mean photon number N≈50 is quoted without a measurement or uncertainty; since the consistency argument for δ depends on N, a direct calibration or at least an estimated error bar would be helpful.
  5. [Fig. 2d and Appendix C] The fitted parameter δ=0.58 is given without an uncertainty. Given that this value is close to the validity boundary of the perturbation expansion, providing error bars and a sensitivity analysis is essential.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the central g(2) result and the scattered-photon amplitude are set by δ, which is fitted from the g(2)-vs-pulse-area data, and the same fitted model is then presented as reproducing the data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix C, fitting procedure items (i)-(iii); Eq. (6); Fig. 2d caption]
    "Then, we simulated the function g(2)(0) as a function of the pulse area to determine the coupling strength δ and the incoherent admixture λ ... Finally, we construct the dependence of g(2)(0) at θ = 2π on the detuning (Fig. 2b), using the found parameters and the relation Γτp between the resonator width and the pulse duration."

    The parameter δ is not determined from the stated physical definition δ = gτα/(2√(2N)), but from a fit to the measured g(2)(0) versus pulse area. The same Eqs. (5)-(6), with this fitted δ, then produce the theoretical g(2)(0) values, including the peak near 3 at θ = 2π and the detuning curve in Fig. 2b. The central claim that the bunching arises from a coherent superposition containing a scattered-photon amplitude is therefore inferred from a parameter obtained by fitting the very observable it is used to explain; the 'prediction' is statistically forced by construction. In addition, the fitted δ = 0.58 violates the δ ≪ 1 assumption used to retain first-order terms in Eq. (4), so the fitted value is not the same small parameter that appears in the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain from Eq. (3) to Eq. (5) is explicit, and there is no load-bearing self-citation: the cited prior work is used for standard techniques or experimental comparison, not to justify the central result. However, the quantitative centerpiece—g(2)(0) ≈ 3 at 2π and the interpretation in terms of scattered laser photons—depends on δ, λ, γ, which are fit to the g(2) and Rabi data in Fig. 2c,d; the subsequent detuning curve is then built from those same parameters. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the model's output is not independent of the data used to calibrate it. Separately, the fitted δ is inconsistent with the model's own δ ≪ 1 assumption and with the definition δ = θ/(2√(2N)), a correctness risk rather than a circularity. On balance, the central quantitative claim is partially circular because the key scattering amplitude is a fitted parameter rather than a first-principles prediction, while the rest of the model retains some independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical output g(2)(theta) depends on five fitted parameters (delta, lambda, b, a, Gamma*nu0) that are all adjusted to the same experimental curves the paper uses for validation. The physical interpretation introduces no new entities, but the derivation carries a substantial axiomatic load: the spin-selective coupling, the coherent-state pump, the high-temperature phonon approximation, and the ad hoc incoherent admixture.

free parameters (5)
  • delta (coupling parameter) = 0.58
    Appears in g(2) formulas (5)-(6); fitted to g(2) vs pulse area in Appendix C(ii). The value 0.58 contradicts the expression delta = g tau alpha / (2 sqrt(2) N) which for theta=2pi and N=50 gives ~0.044.
  • lambda (incoherent admixture) = 0.08
    Incoherent background added to the density matrix; fitted together with delta to g(2) vs pulse area; sets gamma1 = 2*lambda/(1-lambda) = 0.17.
  • b (phonon decay coefficient) = 0.003 (2*gamma*tau = 0.003*theta^2)
    Phonon-induced decay rate gamma*tau proportional to theta^2; fitted to the damping of Rabi oscillations in Fig. 2c.
  • a (Rabi frequency correction coefficient) = 0.0027 (theta_tilde = theta + 0.0027*theta^2)
    Correction to the pulse area due to phonons; fitted to the Rabi oscillation data.
  • Gamma*nu0 (cavity width times out-of-mode density of states) = 0.55 (nu0*Gamma = 0.55)
    Fitted to the trion lifetime versus detuning data in Fig. 2a; used in the detuning dependence of g(2).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation for the trion-photon interaction
    Invoked in Eq. (1) to write the interaction Hamiltonian without counter-rotating terms.
  • domain assumption Coherent-state model of the laser pulse with mean photon number N ~ 50
    The pump is represented as a coherent state |alpha> in Eq. (2); this is central to the multiphoton mechanism.
  • domain assumption Only the sigma- circular polarization couples to the trion because the hole spin is +3/2 and the hole lifetime is long
    Stated before Eq. (1); it is the basis for the polarization-selective interaction producing a V-polarized scattered component.
  • domain assumption Weak phonon coupling with second-order perturbation theory and high-temperature regime T >> Omega_R, giving gamma ~ Omega_R^2
    Used in Appendix B to derive the Lindblad master equation with parameters gamma and epsilon; follows the procedure of ref. [28].
  • standard math Linearization of sqrt(n) around N for large N
    Used after Eq. (2) to factor the evolution operator into displaced coherent states; requires N >> 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Incoherent admixture lambda with gamma1 = 2*lambda/(1-lambda) and gamma2 = 0
    Introduced to model experimental imperfections; it is an extra noise channel not derived from the Hamiltonian, with the single-photon nature of the admixture assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coherent superposition of emitted and resonantly scattered photons from a two-level system driven by an even-$\pi$ pulse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JAQDY3JC

@misc{pith2026250705943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coherent superposition of emitted and resonantly scattered photons from a two-level system driven by an even-$\pi$ pulse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JAQDY3JC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05943}
}
abstract

We report the observation of a bunching of ~3 photon states, which is a coherent superposition of emitted photons and resonantly scattered laser photons, arising upon excitation by even-$\pi$ pulses of a two-level system represented by a charged quantum dot in a microcavity. This phenomenon emerges because the exciting laser pulse contains several tens of photons whose quantum amplitude distribution creates such a superposition, and the polarization of the scattered photons is changed by the interaction with the charged resonant system. Such a beam is a high-order member of the Fock space, promising for quantum technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05943 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Experiment: The InAs/GaAs QD in the microcavity is resonantly excited by a H-polarized 16-ps laser pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of experimental (dots) for resonant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Senellart, G

    P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, High- performance semiconductor quantum-dot single-photon sources, Nature Nanotechnology 12, 1026 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    The dis- tribution of the number of photons in the input pulse leads to a superposition of coherent states oscillating at different frequencies

    The interaction of the considered trion state and the light component σ− leads to Rabi oscillations with frequency Ω R ∼ g√n. The dis- tribution of the number of photons in the input pulse leads to a superposition of coherent states oscillating at different frequencies. This leads to a non-zero probabil- ity of excitation of the trion state for a 2 π-puls...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Rakhlin, A

    M. Rakhlin, A. Galimov, I. Dyakonov, N. Skryabin, G. Klimko, M. Kulagina, Y. Zadiranov, S. Sorokin, I. Se- dova, Y. Guseva, D. Berezina, Y. Serov, N. Maleev, A. Kuzmenkov, S. Troshkov, K. Taratorin, A. Skalkin, S. Straupe, S. Kulik, T. Shubina, and A. Toropov, De- multiplexed single-photon source with a quantum dot coupled to microresonator, Journal of Lu...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. Lobl, A. Korsch, R. Schott, S. Valentin, A. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. Warburton, A bright and fast source of coher- ent single photons, Nature Nanotechnology 16, 399–403 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    H. Huet, P. R. Ramesh, S. C. Wein, N. Coste, P. Hilaire, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, M. F. Doty, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, D. A. Fioretto, and P. Senel- lart, Deterministic and reconfigurable graph state gener- ation with a single solid-state quantum emitter, Nature Communications 16, 4337 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Tiurev, M

    K. Tiurev, M. H. Appel, P. L. Mirambell, M. B. Lau- ritzen, A. Tiranov, P. Lodahl, and A. S. Sørensen, High-fidelity multiphoton-entangled cluster state with solid-state quantum emitters in photonic nanostructures, Physical Review A 105, L030601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Coherent superposition of emitted and resonantly scattered photons from a two-level system driven by an even-$\pi$ pulse

    and coherent states [8], despite their semiclassical na- ture. N00N states, a superposition of entangled states reminiscent of Schr¨ odinger’s cat [9], can be obtained by interference of quantum light with a coherent state [10]. Decoy states, which are intentionally added multiphoton states, including coherent ones, to a sequence of single photons, are an...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s theorem without inequalities, Ameri- can Journal of Physics 58, 1131–1143 (1990)

    work page 1990

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 409, 46–52 (2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

    T. C. Ralph, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Milburn, W. J. Munro, 7 and S. Glancy, Quantum computation with optical co- herent states, Physical Review A 68, 042319 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    Ourjoumtsev, H

    A. Ourjoumtsev, H. Jeong, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Generation of optical ‘Schr¨ odinger cats’ from photon number states, Nature 448, 784–786 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    I. Afek, O. Ambar, and Y. Silberberg, High-NOON states by mixing quantum and classical light, Science 328, 879–881 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Hwang, Quantum key distribution with high loss: Toward global secure communication, Physical Review Letters 91, 057901 (2003)

    W.-Y. Hwang, Quantum key distribution with high loss: Toward global secure communication, Physical Review Letters 91, 057901 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Matthiesen, A

    C. Matthiesen, A. N. Vamivakas, and M. Atat¨ ure, Sub- natural linewidth single photons from a quantum dot, Physical Review Letters 108, 093602 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    A. J. Bennett, J. P. Lee, D. J. P. Ellis, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, A semiconductor photon- sorter, Nature Nanotechnology 11, 857–860 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    X.-J. Wang, G. Huang, M.-Y. Li, Y.-Z. Wang, L. Liu, B. Wu, H. Liu, H. Ni, Z. Niu, W. Ji, R. Jiao, H.-L. Yin, and Z. Yuan, Coherence in resonance fluorescence (2025), arXiv:2312.13743 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Muller, E

    A. Muller, E. B. Flagg, P. Bianucci, X. Y. Wang, D. G. Deppe, W. Ma, J. Zhang, G. J. Salamo, M. Xiao, and C. K. Shih, Resonance fluorescence from a coherently driven semiconductor quantum dot in a cavity, Physical Review Letters 99, 187402 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    A. V. Kuhlmann, J. H. Prechtel, J. Houel, A. Lud- wig, D. Reuter, A. D. Wieck, and R. J. Warburton, Transform-limited single photons from a single quantum dot, Nature Communications 6, 8204 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    A. I. Galimov, M. V. Rakhlin, G. V. Klimko, Y. M. Zadi- ranov, Y. A. Guseva, S. I. Troshkov, T. V. Shubina, and A. A. Toropov, Source of indistinguishable single photons based on epitaxial InAs/GaAs quantum dots for integra- tion in quantum computing schemes, JETP Letters 113,...

    2021

  12. [20]

    C. S. Mu˜ noz, E. del Valle, A. G. Tudela, K. M¨ uller, S. Lichtmannecker, M. Kaniber, C. Tejedor, J. J. Finley, and F. P. Laussy, Emitters of N-photon bundles, Nature Photonics 8, 550–555 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Fischer, L

    K. Fischer, L. Hanschke, J. Wierzbowski, T. Simmet, C. Dory, J. Finley, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, and K. M¨ uller, Signatures of two-photon pulses from a quantum two-level system, Nature Physics 13, 649–654 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    del Valle, A

    E. del Valle, A. Gonzalez-Tudela, F. P. Laussy, C. Teje- dor, and M. J. Hartmann, Theory of frequency-filtered and time-resolved N -photon correlations, Physical Re- view Letters 109, 183601 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Zubizarreta Casalengua, J

    E. Zubizarreta Casalengua, J. C. L´ opez Carre˜ no, F. P. Laussy, and E. del Valle, Tuning photon statistics with coherent fields, Physical Review A 101, 063824 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Hanschke, L

    L. Hanschke, L. Schweickert, J. C. L. Carre˜ no, E. Sch¨ oll, K. D. Zeuner, T. Lettner, E. Z. Casalengua, M. Reindl, S. F. C. da Silva, R. Trotta, J. J. Finley, A. Rastelli, E. del Valle, F. P. Laussy, V. Zwiller, K. M¨ uller, and K. D. J¨ ons, Origin of antibunching in resona...

    2020

  17. [25]

    S. K. Kim, E. Z. Casalengua, K. Boos, F. Sbresny, C. Calcagno, H. Riedl, J. J. Finley, C. Ant´ on-Solanas, F. P. Laussy, K. M¨ uller, L. Hanschke, and E. del Valle, Unlocking multiphoton emission from a single- photon source through mean-field engineering (2024), arXiv:2411.10...

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. C. Loredo, C. Ant´ on, B. Reznychenko, P. Hilaire, A. Harouri, C. Millet, H. H. Ollivier, N. Somaschi, L. De Santis, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, L. Lanco, A. Auf- feves, O. Krebs, and P. Senellart, Generation of non- classical light in a photon-number superposition, Nature Phot...

    2019

  19. [27]

    K. A. Fischer, L. Hanschke, M. Kremser, J. J. Finley, K. M¨ uller, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Pulsed Rabi oscillations in quantum two-level systems: beyond the area theorem, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 014006 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Serov, A

    Y. Serov, A. Galimov, D. S. Smirnov, M. Rakhlin, N. Leppenen, G. Klimko, S. Sorokin, I. Sedova, D. Berez- ina, Y. Salii, M. Kulagina, Y. Zadiranov, S. Troshkov, T. V. Shubina, and A. A. Toropov, Hidden anisotropy controls spin-photon entanglement in a charged quantum dot, Phys...

    2025

  21. [29]

    A. J. Ramsay, A. V. Gopal, E. M. Gauger, A. Nazir, B. W. Lovett, A. M. Fox, and M. S. Skolnick, Damping of exciton Rabi rotations by acoustic phonons in optically excited InGaAs /GaAs quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 017402 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Nazir and D

    A. Nazir and D. P. S. McCutcheon, Modelling exci- ton–phonon interactions in optically driven quantum dots, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 28, 103002 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    A. J. Ramsay, T. M. Godden, S. J. Boyle, E. M. Gauger, A. Nazir, B. W. Lovett, A. M. Fox, and M. S. Skolnick, Phonon-induced Rabi-frequency renormalization of opti- cally driven single InGaAs /GaAs quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 177402 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Arnold, J

    C. Arnold, J. Demory, V. Loo, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, M. Glazov, O. Krebs, P. Voisin, P. Senellart, and L. Lanco, Macroscopic rotation of photon polarization in- duced by a single spin, Nature Communications 6, 6236 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Androvitsaneas, A

    P. Androvitsaneas, A. B. Young, C. Schneider, S. Maier, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, S. Knauer, E. Harbord, C. Y. Hu, J. G. Rarity, and R. Oulton, Charged quantum dot micropillar system for deterministic light-matter interac- tions, Phys. Rev. B 93, 241409 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Mehdi, M

    E. Mehdi, M. Gund ´ ın, C. Millet, N. Somaschi, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, L. Le Gratiet, D. A. Fioretto, N. Belabas, O. Krebs, P. Senellart, and L. Lanco, Giant optical polarisation rotations induced by a single quan- tum dot spin, Nature Communications 15, 598 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    A. I. Galimov, Y. M. Serov, M. V. Rakhlin, G. V. Klimko, S. V. Sorokin, I. V. Sedova, M. M. Kulagina, Y. M. Zadiranov, Y. A. Salii, D. S. Berezina, S. I. Troshkov, T. V. Shubina, and A. A. Toropov, Charge states of sin- gle quantum dots in a microcavity p–n–p heterostructure w...

    2025

  28. [36]

    Monmayrant, S

    A. Monmayrant, S. Weber, and B. Chatel, A new- comer’s guide to ultrashort pulse shaping and charac- terization, Journal of Physics B-atomic Molecular and Optical Physics 43, 103001 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    H. S. Nguyen, G. Sallen, M. Abbarchi, R. Fer- reira, C. Voisin, P. Roussignol, G. Cassabois, and C. Diederichs, Photoneutralization and slow capture of carriers in quantum dots probed by resonant excitation spectroscopy, Physical Review B 87, 115305 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Hilaire, C

    P. Hilaire, C. Millet, J. C. Loredo, C. Ant´ on, A. Harouri, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, N. Somaschi, O. Krebs, P. Senel- lart, and L. Lanco, Deterministic assembly of a charged- quantum-dot–micropillar cavity device, Phys. Rev. B 8 102, 195402 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.