Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dark-state photonic entanglement filters

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Post-selection and dark states are sufficient to recover entangled photons from mixed inputs, eliminating the need for anti-parity-time symmetry or engineered reservoirs.

desk verdict Dimer and trimer dark-state entanglement filters are sound, but the universal M-mode claim and 'arbitrary mixed state' input overreach; send to peer review with requests for revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13016 v1 pith:YFXOA4RB submitted 2025-07-17 quant-ph physics.optics

Stefano Longhi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords entanglementfilterdarkstatedecoherence-freesubspacepost-selectionphotonicwaveguidenetworkanti-parity-timesymmetryquantumdecoherence
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 entanglement filtering—recovering a nearly pure entangled state from a noisy mixed photonic state—can be achieved with a much simpler setup than previously thought. The author identifies a unique dark state in each N-photon sector of the Hilbert space as the essential ingredient, and shows that under post-selection (discarding runs with photon loss) that dark state becomes the long-time attractor of the dynamics. This eliminates the need for anti-parity-time symmetry or a specially engineered reservoir, and it turns a minimal dimer and a trimer of coupled waveguides into working filters. The same dark-state mechanism is argued to extend to arbitrary M-mode side-coupled networks and to other quantum platforms where decoherence-free subspaces occur, which would make entanglement protection more practical in integrated photonics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dark state $|\psi_d^{(N)}\rangle$, the unique non-decaying state in an $N$-particle sector, defined as a zero-eigenvalue eigenstate of the Liouvillian, $\mathcal{L}|\psi_d\rangle\langle\psi_d|=0$. The mechanism that makes the filter work is post-selection: writing the input as the dark state plus decaying modes, the dissipative dynamics drives the decaying part to zero, and conditioning on no photon loss renormalizes the remaining state onto the dark state. For the dimer this follows from the Heisenberg equation $dc^\dagger/dz=0$ for $c^\dagger=b^\dagger e^{i\Delta z}$, which expresses the destructive interference that decouples the dark mode from the bath; for the trimer and general networks it is the existence of a non-decaying eigenstate of the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{eff}}$ that matters. No anti-parity-time symmetry or engineered bath density of states is needed.

What would settle it

Inject into the dimer a two-photon state orthogonal to the dark state, for example the antisymmetric state $(1/\sqrt{2})(|2,0\rangle-|0,2\rangle)$, apply the post-selected protocol, and record the output count rate and conditional density matrix. If the central claim is right, the count rate decays to zero and no entangled dark state survives; if an output state approaching $|\psi_d\rangle\langle\psi_d|$ still appears, the proposed mechanism would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the paper's terms, is that a photonic entanglement filter works whenever the open system possesses a unique dark state $|\psi_d^{(N)}\rangle$ in each $N$-particle sector: a pure state that satisfies $\mathcal{L}|\psi_d^{(N)}\rangle\langle\psi_d^{(N)}|=0$, so it is a zero-eigenvalue eigenstate of the Lindblad Liouvillian and completely immune to dissipation. In the dimer, the dark-state creation operator is $b^\dagger=(\hat a_1^\dagger-\hat a_2^\dagger)/\sqrt{2}$ and the dark state $|\psi_d^{(N)}\rangle=(1/\sqrt{N!})\,b^{\dagger N}|0\rangle$ is unique in each $N$-photon sector. In the trimer, a dressed operator $b^\dagger=\mathcal{N}(\hat a_1^\dagger-(\kappa_1\omega_1/(J\kappa_2))\hat a_2^\dagger+(\kappa_1/\kappa_3)\hat a_3^\dagger)$ plays the same role under specific parameter conditions. Under post-selection, all decaying components of an input mixed state vanish over a propagation distance much larger than $1/\gamma$, and the density matrix converges to $|\psi_d\rangle\langle\psi_d|$. The author verifies this numerically beyond the Markovian weak-coupling limit by computing purity and trace distance, and argues that the same argument applies to arbitrary $M$-mode networks of waveguides side-coupled to a uniform one-dimensional lattice.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that the input mixed state has nonzero overlap with the unique dark state of the relevant $N$-photon sector; if the input lies entirely in the decaying subspace, every post-selected run ends in the vacuum and the filter produces no output, and the paper does not establish this overlap or the uniqueness of the dark state for the general $M$-mode case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Entanglement filters reduce to a homogeneous lattice bath plus a few side-coupled waveguides, so the dimer and trimer realizations no longer need the isospectral Lanczos bath construction used previously.
  • The same post-selection dynamics purify not just two-photon states but arbitrary N-photon sectors whenever a unique dark state exists, so the scheme scales from dimers to M-mode networks.
  • Because the mechanism is dark-state protection rather than a specific symmetry, the construction transfers to platforms with similar decoherence-free physics, including waveguide and circuit QED.
  • Numerical simulations beyond the Born-Markov and weak-coupling approximations show purity rising toward one and trace distance falling toward zero over propagation lengths of order $1/\gamma$, with parameters compatible with laser-written waveguide lattices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the success probability of the filter equals or is bounded by the input state's overlap with the dark-state sector, so the transmitted intensity itself is a measurable witness of how much dark-state entanglement was present in the input.
  • Beyond the paper: repeated stages of post-selection would effectively distill entanglement, with each successful run renormalizing the state toward the dark state and fidelity increasing at the cost of success probability.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct experimental test is to sweep the input from full overlap to zero overlap with the dark state and check that the output count rate vanishes at zero overlap while the conditional output purity peaks, which would isolate the dark-state mechanism from symmetry-based alternatives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that photonic entanglement filters can be built from simple waveguide networks without anti-parity-time (APT) symmetry or engineered reservoirs. The mechanism is the existence of a unique dark state in each N-particle sector; under post-selection (discarding events with photon loss), the state is claimed to converge to this dark state, which is an entangled pure state. The authors analyze a two-mode dimer and a three-mode trimer side-coupled to a uniform lattice bath, construct the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonians, identify the dark states explicitly, and numerically show convergence of purity and trace distance for representative parameters. The abstract and conclusion claim that the strategy generalizes to arbitrary M-mode networks and accepts arbitrary mixed states.

Significance. If the mechanism is valid as stated, the paper offers a conceptually useful simplification of the recent APT-symmetric entanglement filter of Selim et al., replacing symmetry and reservoir engineering with standard dark-state physics. The dimer and trimer calculations are explicit and self-contained in the main text, the eigenvalues of the effective Hamiltonians are given in closed form, and the numerical convergence curves in Figs. 1 and 2 support the core examples. The connection to decoherence-free subspaces and waveguide-QED dark states is appropriate and gives the work a broader context. However, the significance of the claimed universality for arbitrary M-mode networks is not established, and the input-state condition for the filter is incomplete; these issues limit the strength of the central claim as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Photonic entanglement filter in an optical dimer (Eqs. (1)-(6), Fig. 1) and trimer (Eqs. (7)-(15), Fig. 2)] The protocol is stated for 'an arbitrary mixed state belonging to the N-particle subspace', and the conclusion is that under post-selection the state converges to the dark state. This claim is missing the necessary condition that the initial state has nonzero overlap with the unique dark state in that sector. If Tr[ρ(0)|ψd⟩⟨ψd|]=0, the no-click conditional state has no surviving dark component; as z grows, the conditional state is controlled by the slowest-decaying eigenmodes of Heff and need not tend to |ψd⟩, while the no-click probability itself tends to zero. The convergence claim should be qualified by a nonzero-overlap condition, and the same qualification applies to the trimer protocol.
  2. [Conclusion and general M-mode model (Eqs. (7)-(11))] The Letter claims that the filtering strategy 'naturally generalizes' to arbitrary M-mode networks. For the general model, post-selection yields a pure entangled output only if the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian (8) has exactly one zero-imaginary eigenmode in each N-particle sector. The paper demonstrates this only for the dimer and for the trimer under the tuning condition (12); no condition on {nα, κα, ωα} is given that would ensure a unique dark state for arbitrary M. Without such a condition, the abstract's claim of universality and the conclusion's 'generalizable to arbitrary M-mode networks' are unsupported. The authors should either supply a general condition and proof, or restrict the claim to the demonstrated examples.
  3. [Supplemental document] The Letter delegates the exact beyond-Markovian proof of dark-state survival, the technical derivation of the trimer dark state, and the full-network simulations to 'Sec. 1 of the Supplemental document', but no supplement is included with the submission. Because the main text's robustness claims rest on these delegated derivations, they cannot be checked from the Letter. Please include the supplement with the resubmission or move the necessary proofs into the main text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [After Eqs. (5)-(6)] The sentence 'The former gives an information on how much the state is mixed, whereas the latter provides a measures of the distance' is reversed: P(z) is the purity (mixedness) and d(z) is the trace distance to the target dark state; the sentence should be corrected and the grammatical errors fixed.
  2. [Eq. (17)] The second and third eigenvalues are both labeled λ2; the third should be λ3.
  3. [Fig. 1(d) caption] The caption reads 'dissipative optical trimer that can sustains a dark state'; the verb should be 'sustain'.
  4. [Eq. (6)] The trace distance defined as Tr√((ρ-ρd)²) is the trace norm and is not bounded by 1; as written it reaches 2 for orthogonal pure states. If the plotted d(z) is the usual half-trace distance, the factor 1/2 should appear in Eq. (6), and the statement that both quantities are bounded in (0,1) should be adjusted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dimer and trimer filtering results follow from explicit eigenanalysis without fitted inputs or predictions that reduce to the inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central assertion is that post-selection in a system with a unique dark state drives the reduced state toward that dark state. This is derived explicitly: for the dimer, the eigenvalues λ1 = −iγ + Δ and λ2 = −Δ of Heff are displayed, showing exactly one non-decaying eigenmode; for the trimer, the tuning condition (12) leads to the eigenvalues in Eq. (17), again with exactly one real eigenvalue. The target filtered state is not inserted as an input or extracted from a fit; it is the long-time attractor of the stated Lindblad dynamics, and the numerical checks solve Hamiltonian propagation in the full network, which is an independent verification rather than a restatement of the Markovian model. The paper cites several prior works by the same author, notably Ref. [21] for the form of Eqs. (9)–(10), and Refs. [19,20,23,36–38] for dark-state and linear-optics context; these citations supply standard technical ingredients but do not by themselves force the paper's conclusion, and the central dimer/trimer claims are verifiable from the equations in the text. The extension to arbitrary M-mode networks is less supported than the explicitly analyzed dimer and trimer cases, and the phrase 'arbitrary mixed state' implicitly requires nonzero overlap with the dark state; these are correctness or completeness concerns, not circularity, because no equation or parameter in the argument is equivalent to the claimed output by construction.

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

The central claim rests on standard open-quantum-system modeling, the existence of a unique dark state in each N-particle sector, and the post-selection condition. No free parameters are fitted to data; the numerical parameters are typical experimental values, and design conditions such as Eq (12) are exact constraints rather than fits. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with collective dissipator is valid for the waveguide-bath system (Born-Markov and weak-coupling kappa_alpha << J).
    Used to derive H_eff and dark states in Eqs (1), (7)-(10); the paper asserts exact Hamiltonian propagation gives the same result, but details are only in the unpublished supplement.
  • domain assumption The side-coupled waveguide lattice is accurately described by a single-band tight-binding model with uniform coupling J and no back-scattering or nonlinear effects.
    Underlies Eqs (9)-(11) and the effective parameters via the method of Ref [21].
  • domain assumption Post-selection keeps only no-loss trajectories and the conditional dynamics is governed by H_eff, with all non-dark components decaying faster than the dark component.
    This is the mechanism claimed for convergence to the dark state; it requires nonzero overlap with the dark state, which is not stated in the paper.
  • standard math Photons are treated as non-interacting bosons in the Fock space of the waveguides, and the full network evolution is given by linear quantum optics.
    Used to construct the N-photon dark states in Eqs (4) and (13) and to justify the exact simulation method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark-state photonic entanglement filters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFXOA4RB

@misc{pith2026250713016,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark-state photonic entanglement filters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFXOA4RB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13016}
}
read the original abstract

Preserving entanglement in the presence of decoherence remains a major challenge for quantum technologies. Recent proposals [M.A. Selim et al., Science 387, 1424 (2025)] have employed photonic filters based on anti-parity-time symmetry to recover certain entangled states, but these approaches require intricate, symmetry-constrained waveguide architectures and precise bath engineering. In this work, we show that such strict non-Hermitian symmetry constraints are not necessary for entanglement filtering. Instead, we identify post-selection and the emergence of dark states -- arising naturally through destructive interference in simple photonic settings -- as the essential mechanisms. By avoiding the need for special bath engineering or non-Hermitian symmetries, our approach significantly simplifies the design and architecture, enhances universality, and extends applicability beyond previously studied dimer configurations. We demonstrate this concept using minimal waveguide network designs, offering a broadly accessible route to robust entanglement filtering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13016 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of a dissipative optical dimer that realizes an entanglement filter after post selection. The system does not display rather generally any non-Hermitian symmetry. The coupling constant J in the waveguide lattice bath is homogeneous. (b,c) Numerically￾computed behavior of the purity P(z) [panel (b)] and trace distance d(z) [panel (c)] of the evolving photon quantum state in the dimer versus propagation … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic of a photonic network comprising M waveguides (the system) side-coupled to a one-dimensional tight-binding lattice with uniform coupling constant (the bath). (b) Schematic of the network for M = 3 and for n3 − n2 = n2 − n1 = 1, that realizes a dissipative optical trimer. The system does not display rather generally any non-Hermitian symmetry, however it can sustain a dark state whenever the condition (… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Lifshitz-like Metastability and Optimal Dephasing in Dissipative Bosonic Lattices

    quant-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    In coupled bosonic lattices with non-uniform loss, an optimal intermediate dephasing rate speeds up equilibration, while stronger dephasing slows it by protecting quasi-dark modes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [16]

    Selim, M

    M.A. Selim, M. Ehrhardt, Y . Ding, H.M. Dinani, Q. Zhong, A. Perez Leija, S.K. Ozdemir, M. Heinrich, A. Szameit, D.N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Science 387, 1424 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Nat. Photon. 1, 165 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [3]

    Schlosshauer, Rev

    M.A. Schlosshauer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [4]

    M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frunzio, S.M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 482, 382 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [5]

    D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley , Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2594 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [6]

    Kwiat, A.J

    P .G. Kwiat, A.J. Berglund, J.B. Altepeter, and A.G. White, Science 290, 498 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [7]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999)

    1999

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F . Y an, F . Y oshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D.G. Cory , Y . Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W.D. Oliver, Nature Phys 7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  2. [9]

    Chiaverini, D

    J. Chiaverini, D. Leibfried, T . Schaetz, M. D. Barrett, R. B. Blakestad, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, E. Knill, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, and D. J. Wineland, Nature 432, 602 (2004)

    2004

  3. [10]

    J. Wang, F . Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M.G. Thompson, Nature Photon. 14, 273 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Hofmann and S

    H.F . Hofmann and S. T akeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 147901 (2002)

    2002

  5. [12]

    Okamoto, J.L

    R. Okamoto, J.L. O’Brien, H. F . Hofmann, T . Nagata, K. Sasaki, and S. T akeuchi, Science323, 483 (2009)

    2009

  6. [13]

    Zhou, T .C

    X.-Q. Zhou, T .C. Ralph, P . Kalasuwan, M. Zhang, A. Peruzzo, B.P . Lanyon, and J.L. O’Brien, Nature Commun. 2, 413 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    Qiang, X

    X. Qiang, X. Zhou, J. Wang, C.M. Wilkes, T . Loke, S. O’Gara, L. Kling, G.D. Marshall, R. Santagati, T .C. Ralph, J.B. Wang, J.L. O’Brien, M.G. Thompson, and J.C.F . Matthews, Nature Photon. 12, 534 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    G.-S. Y e, B. Xu, Y . Chang, S. Shi, T . Shi, and L. Li, Nature Photon. 17, 538 (2023)

    2023

  9. [18]

    17. G. Sudarshan, in Field Theory, Quantization and Statistical Physics edited by E. Tirapegui (D. Reidel Publishing, 1988), pp. 237-245

    1988

  10. [19]

    Longhi, Eur

    S. Longhi, Eur. Phys. J. B 57, 51 (2007)

    2007

  11. [20]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. A 79, 023811 (2009)

    2009

  12. [21]

    Longhi, J

    S. Longhi, J. Mod. Opt. 56, 729 (2009)

    2009

  13. [22]

    Dreisow, A

    F . Dreisow, A. Szameit, M. Heinrich, R. Keil, S. Nolte, A. Tünnermann, and S. Longhi, Opt. Lett. 34, 2405 (2009)

    2009

  14. [23]

    Crespi, L

    A. Crespi, L. Sansoni, G. Della Valle, A. Ciamei, R. Ramponi, F . Scia- rrino, P . Mataloni, S. Longhi, and R. Osellame, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090201 (2015)

    2015

  15. [24]

    Karasik, K.-P

    R.I. Karasik, K.-P . Marzlin, B.C. Sanders, and K.B. Whaley , Phys. Rev. A 77, 052301 (2008)

    2008

  16. [25]

    Lalumiére, B.C

    K. Lalumiére, B.C. Sanders, A.F . van Loo, A. Fedorov, A. Wallraff, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043806 (2013)

    2013

  17. [26]

    Lidar, Adv

    D.A. Lidar, Adv. Chem. Phys. 154, 295 (2014)

    2014

  18. [27]

    V Paulisch, H J Kimble and A González-T udela, New J. Phys. 18, 043041 (2016)

    2016

  19. [28]

    Kockum, G

    A.F . Kockum, G. Johansson, and F . Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett.120 140404 (2018)

    2018

  20. [29]

    S.L. Wu, L.C. Wang, and X.X. Yi, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 405305 (2021)

    2021

  21. [30]

    Zanner, T

    M. Zanner, T . Orell, C.M.F . Schneider, R. Albert, S. Oleschko, M.L. Juan, M. Silveri, and G. Kirchmair, Nat. Phys. 18, 538 (2022)

    2022

  22. [31]

    Holzinger, R

    R. Holzinger, R. Gutiérrez-Jáuregui, T . Hönigl-Decrinis, G. Kirchmair, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and H. Ritsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 253601 (2022)

    2022

  23. [32]

    Dubois, U

    J. Dubois, U. Saalmann, and J.M. Rost, Phys. Rev. Research 5, L012003 (2023)

    2023

  24. [35]

    Skaar, J.C

    J. Skaar, J.C. García Escartín, and H. Landro, Am. J. Phys. 72, 1385 (2004)

    2004

  25. [36]

    Longhi, Opt

    S. Longhi, Opt. Lett. 43, 5371 (2018)

    2018

  26. [37]

    Longhi, Opt

    S. Longhi, Opt. Lett. 45, 1591 (2020)

    2020

  27. [38]

    Longhi, APL Quantum 1, 046110 (2025)

    S. Longhi, APL Quantum 1, 046110 (2025)

    2025

  28. [39]

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V . Iorsh, A. V . Poshakinskiy , and A. N. Poddubny , Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 015002 (2023). Letter 5 References with full titles

    2023

  29. [40]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nat. Pho- ton. 1, 165 (2007)

    2007

  30. [41]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  31. [42]

    Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev

    M.A. Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267 (2005)

    2005

  32. [43]

    Chiaverini, D

    J. Chiaverini, D. Leibfried, T. Schaetz, M. D. Barrett, R. B. Blakestad, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, E. Knill, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, and D. J. Wineland, Realization of quantum error correction, Nature 432, 602 (2004)

    2004

  33. [44]

    M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frunzio, S.M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting circuits, Nature 482, 382 (2012)

    2012

  34. [45]

    D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Decoherence-Free Subspaces for Quantum Computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2594 (1998)

    1998

  35. [46]

    Kwiat, A.J

    P .G. Kwiat, A.J. Berglund, J.B. Altepeter, and A.G. White, Experimen- tal verification of decoherence-free subspaces, Science 290, 498 (2000)

    2000

  36. [47]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical Decoupling of Open Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999)

    1999

  37. [48]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D.G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W.D. Oliver, Noise spectroscopy through dynamical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit. Nature Phys 7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  38. [49]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M.G. Thompson, Integrated photonic quantum technologies, Nature Photon. 14, 273 (2020)

    2020

  39. [50]

    Hofmann and S

    H.F. Hofmann and S. Takeuchi, Quantum filter for nonlocal polarization properties of photonic qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 147901 (2002)

    2002

  40. [51]

    Okamoto, J.L

    R. Okamoto, J.L. O’Brien, H. F. Hofmann, T. Nagata, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, An entanglement filter, Science323, 483 (2009)

    2009

  41. [52]

    Zhou, T.C

    X.-Q. Zhou, T.C. Ralph, P . Kalasuwan, M. Zhang, A. Peruzzo, B.P . Lanyon, and J.L. O’Brien, Adding control to arbitrary unknown quantum operations, Nature Commun. 2, 413 (2011)

    2011

  42. [53]

    Qiang, X

    X. Qiang, X. Zhou, J. Wang, C.M. Wilkes, T. Loke, S. O’Gara, L. Kling, G.D. Marshall, R. Santagati, T.C. Ralph, J.B. Wang, J.L. O’Brien, M.G. Thompson, and J.C.F. Matthews, Large-scale silicon quantum photonics implementing arbitrary two-qubit processing, Nature Photon. 12, 534 (2018)

    2018

  43. [54]

    G.-S. Ye, B. Xu, Y. Chang, S. Shi, T. Shi, and L. Li, A photonic entanglement filter with Rydberg atoms, Nature Photon. 17, 538 (2023)

    2023

  44. [55]

    Selim, M

    M.A. Selim, M. Ehrhardt, Y. Ding, H.M. Dinani, Q. Zhong, A. Perez Leija, S.K. Ozdemir, M. Heinrich, A. Szameit, D.N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Selective filtering of photonic quantum entanglement via anti-parity-time symmetry, Science 387, 1424 (2025)

    2025

  45. [56]

    P . L. Knight, M.A. Lauder, and B.J. Dalton, Laser-induced continuum structures, Phys. Rep. 190, 1 (1990)

    1990

  46. [57]

    Sudarshan, in Field Theory, Quantization and Statistical Physics edited by E

    G. Sudarshan, in Field Theory, Quantization and Statistical Physics edited by E. Tirapegui (D. Reidel Publishing, 1988), pp. 237-245

    1988

  47. [58]

    Longhi, Bound states in the continuum in a single-level Fano-Anderson model, Eur

    S. Longhi, Bound states in the continuum in a single-level Fano-Anderson model, Eur. Phys. J. B 57, 51 (2007)

    2007

  48. [59]

    Longhi, Optical analog of population trapping in the continuum: Classical and quantum interference effects, Phys

    S. Longhi, Optical analog of population trapping in the continuum: Classical and quantum interference effects, Phys. Rev. A 79, 023811 (2009). 21.S. Longhi, Optical analogue of coherent population trapping via a continuum in optical waveguide arrays, J. Mod. Opt. 56, 729 (2009...

    2009

  49. [60]

    Lalumiére, B.C

    K. Lalumiére, B.C. Sanders, A.F. van Loo, A. Fedorov, A. Wallraff, and A. Blais, Input-output theory for waveguide QED with an ensemble of inhomogeneous atoms, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043806 (2013)

    2013

  50. [61]

    Lidar, Review of Decoherence Free Subspaces, Noiseless Subsystems, and Dynamical Decoupling, Adv

    D.A. Lidar, Review of Decoherence Free Subspaces, Noiseless Subsystems, and Dynamical Decoupling, Adv. Chem. Phys. 154, 295 (2014)

    2014

  51. [62]

    V Paulisch, H J Kimble and A González-Tudela, Universal quantum computation in waveguide QED using decoherence free subspaces, New J. Phys. 18, 043041 (2016)

    2016

  52. [63]

    Kockum, G

    A.F. Kockum, G. Johansson, and F. Nori, Decoherence-Free Interac- tion between Giant Atoms in Waveguide Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 140404 (2018)

    2018

  53. [64]

    S.L. Wu, L.C. Wang, and X.X. Yi, Time-dependent decoherence-free subspace, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 405305 (2021)

    2021

  54. [65]

    Zanner, T

    M. Zanner, T. Orell, C.M.F. Schneider, R. Albert, S. Oleschko, M.L. Juan, M. Silveri, and G. Kirchmair, Coherent control of a multi-qubit dark state in waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Nat. Phys. 18, 538 (2022)

    2022

  55. [66]

    Holzinger, R

    R. Holzinger, R. Gutiérrez-Jáuregui, T. Hönigl-Decrinis, G. Kirchmair, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and H. Ritsch, Control of Localized Single- and Many-Body Dark States in Waveguide QED, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 253601 (2022)

    2022

  56. [67]

    Dubois, U

    J. Dubois, U. Saalmann, and J.M. Rost, Symmetry-induced decoherence-free subspaces, Phys. Rev. Research 5, L012003 (2023)

    2023

  57. [68]

    Rubies-Bigorda, S.J

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, S.J. Masson, S.F. Yelin, and A. Asenjo- Garcia, Deterministic generation of photonic entangled states using decoherence-free subspaces, arXiv:2410.03325 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  58. [69]

    Chen, G.D

    W. Chen, G.D. Lin, and H.-H. Jen, Excitation transfer and many-body dark states in WQED, arXiv:2504.12677 (2025)

    2025

  59. [70]

    Skaar, J.C

    J. Skaar, J.C. García Escartín, and H. Landro, Quantum mechanical description of linear optics, Am. J. Phys. 72, 1385 (2004)

    2004

  60. [71]

    Longhi, Quantum interference and exceptional points, Opt

    S. Longhi, Quantum interference and exceptional points, Opt. Lett. 43, 5371 (2018)

    2018

  61. [72]

    Longhi, Quantum statistical signature of PT symmetry breaking, Opt

    S. Longhi, Quantum statistical signature of PT symmetry breaking, Opt. Lett. 45, 1591 (2020)

    2020

  62. [73]

    Longhi, Bosonic Mpemba effect with non-classical states of light , APL Quantum 1, 046110 (2025)

    S. Longhi, Bosonic Mpemba effect with non-classical states of light , APL Quantum 1, 046110 (2025)

    2025

  63. [74]

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V . Iorsh, A. V . Poshakinskiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Collective radi- ance and photon-photon correlations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 015002 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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