arxiv: 2605.04588 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Single-photon scattering by a giant molecule asymmetrically coupled to parallel waveguides

Guang-Zheng Ye, Huaizhi Wu, Wei-Xin Chen, Yong Li, Ze-Quan Zhang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords single-photon scatteringgiant atomswaveguide QEDchiral couplingnon-Markovian effectsphoton routingasymmetric decaydeterministic routing

0 comments

The pith

By tailoring decay-rate asymmetry and detuning in a giant molecule coupled to parallel waveguides, single-photon transfer can be optimized and made fully deterministic under chiral coupling.

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

The paper studies single-photon scattering where a giant molecule of two frequency-detuned giant atoms couples asymmetrically to two parallel waveguides at multiple points. Competition between coherent atom-atom coupling and effective decay rates splits resonances, but adjusting the asymmetry and detuning engineers photon-path interference to control transfer between waveguides. Under chiral coupling this interference yields deterministic routing, while non-Markovian retardation reshapes spectra, switches between weak and strong coupling, and can produce multiple resonances or avoided crossings for long delays.

Core claim

A giant molecule composed of two frequency-detuned giant atoms coupled to two parallel waveguides via multiple connection points shows resonance splitting in transmission and reflection spectra due to the competition between coherent atom-atom coupling and decay rates. Tailoring the asymmetry of the decay rates and the atomic detuning engineers photon-path interference to optimize transfer between the waveguides, and under chiral coupling conditions this interference realizes fully deterministic routing. In the non-Markovian regime, retardation effects reshape the spectra, drive transitions between weak- and strong-coupling regimes, and for long time delays generate multiple resonances and a

What carries the argument

Asymmetric decay rates and atomic detuning that produce photon-path interference, augmented by non-Markovian retardation effects that reshape spectra and regime transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The atoms stay in the single-excitation manifold and the waveguides support only linear propagation without extra loss or dispersion beyond the modeled retardation.

What would settle it

Measure transmission and reflection spectra while varying the decay-rate asymmetry, atomic detuning, and time delays to check whether the predicted resonance splitting, merging, deterministic routing, or multiple resonances appear exactly as described.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04588 by Guang-Zheng Ye, Huaizhi Wu, Wei-Xin Chen, Yong Li, Ze-Quan Zhang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: (a) Schematics of a giant-molecule waveguide-QED view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The weak coupling regime. Scattering probabilities T1→2, R1→1 and T1→3(4) as functions of ∆e/Γ and δ/e Γ with the cooperativity parameter C = 1/4 and the number of coupling points N1 = N2 = 4. The exchange interatomic coupling strength is set to Ω/Γ = 1. The effective decay rates are (Γ1, Γ2)/Ω = (2, 2) with (ϕea, ϕeb)/π ≃ (9/25, 9/25) [panels (a)–(c)], (Γ1, Γ2)/Ω = (4, 1) with (ϕea, ϕeb)/π ≃ (4/13, 4/5)… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The strong coupling regime. Scattering probabilities T1→2, R1→1 and T1→3(4) as functions of ∆e/Γ and δ/e Γ for C = 16, N1 = N2 = 4, and Ω/Γ = 1. The effective decay rates are (Γ1, Γ2)/Ω = (1/4, 1/4) with (ϕea, ϕeb)/π ≃ (9/16, 9/16) [panels (a)–(c)], (Γ1, Γ2)/Ω = (1/2, 1/8) with (ϕea, ϕeb)/π ≃ (3/5, 16/17) [panels (d)–(f)], and (Γ1, Γ2)/Ω = (1/8, 1/2) with (ϕea, ϕeb)/π ≃ (16/17, 3/5) [panels (g)–(i)]. The … view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: presents the cooperativity parameter C and the transmission probabilities T1→2 and T1→3(4) as functions of the probe detuning ∆ and the atomic detuning δ, for three values of the delay time Γτ = {0.01, 0.04, 0.4}, with N1 = N2 = 4, Ω/Γ = 1 and (ϕea, ϕeb)/π ≃ (9/25, 9/25). In the phase diagrams for C, the strong-coupling regime (C > 1) is shaded green and the weak-coupling regime (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Non-Markovianity induced transition from strong to weak coupling regime. Cooperativity parameter C and transmission probabilities T1→2 and T1→3(4) versus ∆/Γ and δ/Γ in the strong coupling regime, with Γτ = 0.04 [panels (a)–(c)], Γτ = 0.24 [panels (d)–(f)], and Γτ = 0.4 [panels (g)–(i)], respectively. Other parameters are the same as those in view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: shows the variation of T1→4 with ∆ and δ in the Markovian and non-Markovian regimes. Compared to the non-chiral case shown in view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate single-photon scattering in a waveguide-QED setup, where a giant molecule composed of two frequency-detuned giant atoms is coupled to two parallel waveguides via multiple connection points. The competition between coherent atom--atom coupling and the effective decay rates dictates the splitting of a single resonance into a doublet in the transmission (reflection) spectra. By tailoring the asymmetry of the decay rates and the atomic detuning, one can engineer photon-path interference to optimize the transfer between waveguides; under chiral coupling conditions, this interference can be further harnessed to realize fully deterministic routing. In the non-Markovian regime, retardation effects can reshape the spectra and actively drive transitions between the weak- and strong-coupling regimes, converting an unsplit Markovian resonance into a clearly separated doublet, or conversely merging a split doublet back into a single resonance. For sufficiently long time delays, it further generates multiple resonances and avoided crossings, enriching the spectral response. Our results demonstrate how atomic detuning, decay-rate asymmetry, and non-Markovian retardation cooperate to provide versatile, interference-based control over single-photon routing in multi-port quantum networks.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Asymmetric two-atom giant molecule coupling to parallel waveguides enables interference-driven single-photon routing and non-Markovian spectral reshaping.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper derives how detuning and decay asymmetry in a two-atom giant molecule let you steer single photons between parallel waveguides via interference, with perfect chirality giving deterministic routing, while retardation in the non-Markovian regime splits or merges resonances and creates avoided crossings for long delays. The analytic scattering amplitudes are the core output. This is a direct extension of giant-atom waveguide QED into a multi-port asymmetric geometry that prior single-waveguide or Markovian treatments did not cover in the same way. The paper does a clean job laying out the competition between coherent atom-atom coupling and position-dependent decay rates, then showing how those parameters control doublet formation in the spectra and optimize cross-waveguide transfer. The non-Markovian section is useful because it maps out concrete transitions between weak- and strong-coupling regimes that retardation can induce or suppress. The derivations follow standard resolvent or input-output methods for these systems and stay consistent within the stated single-excitation, linear-propagation assumptions. The soft spot is the deterministic routing result, which requires exact chiral coupling at every connection point. The abstract and claims treat the left- and right-decay rates as perfectly matched or zero in one direction, but there is no scaling of fidelity with small mismatches or fabrication tolerance estimates. That leaves the practical robustness unaddressed, though it does not break the formal results under the ideal conditions used. Everything else is standard for the field and not over-claimed. This is aimed at theorists working on waveguide quantum networks and photon routing primitives. Readers who need concrete parameter regimes for interference control will get value from the spectra and regime diagrams. The work is internally coherent and grounded in explicit derivations, so it deserves a serious referee to check the algebra and any numerical benchmarks that may be in the full text.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a theoretical model for single-photon scattering by a giant molecule formed from two frequency-detuned giant atoms coupled asymmetrically to two parallel waveguides at multiple points. It derives transmission and reflection amplitudes and claims that tailoring decay-rate asymmetry together with atomic detuning engineers photon-path interference to optimize inter-waveguide transfer; under ideal chiral coupling this interference yields fully deterministic routing. In the non-Markovian regime, retardation is shown to reshape spectra, driving transitions between weak- and strong-coupling regimes, converting unsplit resonances into doublets or merging doublets, and generating multiple resonances with avoided crossings for long delays.

Significance. If the analytic scattering solutions and the non-Markovian spectral predictions are correct, the work supplies a concrete interference-based mechanism for routing single photons in multi-port waveguide networks, extending giant-atom waveguide QED to asymmetric and retarded regimes. The parameter-free character of the chiral-routing limit and the explicit mapping of retardation-induced regime transitions constitute clear strengths that could guide future experiments.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and chiral-coupling derivation (likely §3–4)] Abstract and the chiral-coupling derivation (likely §3–4): the assertion of 'fully deterministic routing' is obtained only in the exact chiral limit (one propagation direction per connection point has vanishing decay rate). No sensitivity analysis or scaling of routing fidelity with chiral asymmetry parameter is supplied; any finite mismatch reintroduces backscattering that prevents unit efficiency, rendering the central routing claim load-bearing on an unquantified idealization.
[Non-Markovian regime section (likely §5)] Non-Markovian regime section (likely §5, equations for retarded Green functions): the statements that retardation 'actively drives transitions' between weak- and strong-coupling regimes or 'converts an unsplit Markovian resonance into a clearly separated doublet' are presented without explicit thresholds on the delay time τ relative to the decay rates Γ or the detuning Δ. Without these quantitative boundaries it is unclear whether the reported spectral reshaping is generic or confined to narrow parameter windows.

minor comments (2)

[Model section] Model section: the single-excitation manifold assumption is stated but the range of validity (maximum photon number or intensity) is not bounded; a brief inequality relating input amplitude to the collective decay rates would clarify the regime of applicability.
[Figure captions] Figure captions: several transmission spectra lack explicit labels distinguishing Markovian from retarded curves and do not list the precise values of the asymmetry parameter and delay time used; this reduces immediate reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our results. We address each major point below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract and the chiral-coupling derivation (likely §3–4): the assertion of 'fully deterministic routing' is obtained only in the exact chiral limit (one propagation direction per connection point has vanishing decay rate). No sensitivity analysis or scaling of routing fidelity with chiral asymmetry parameter is supplied; any finite mismatch reintroduces backscattering that prevents unit efficiency, rendering the central routing claim load-bearing on an unquantified idealization.

Authors: We agree that fully deterministic routing holds strictly in the exact chiral limit, where one propagation direction per connection point has vanishing decay rate, as derived from the scattering amplitudes in the relevant sections and conditioned in the abstract. The analytic expressions confirm unit-efficiency transfer via perfect destructive interference in the unwanted channels under this idealization. We acknowledge that the manuscript does not quantify the degradation for finite chiral asymmetry. In the revised version we will add a concise discussion (with a brief scaling argument or illustrative plot) showing how the routing fidelity scales with a small mismatch parameter ε in the decay rates Γ(1±ε), demonstrating that efficiency remains high for small ε but drops as backscattering reappears. This will make the idealization explicit without altering the central claim. revision: yes
Referee: Non-Markovian regime section (likely §5): the statements that retardation 'actively drives transitions' between weak- and strong-coupling regimes or 'converts an unsplit Markovian resonance into a clearly separated doublet' are presented without explicit thresholds on the delay time τ relative to the decay rates Γ or the detuning Δ. Without these quantitative boundaries it is unclear whether the reported spectral reshaping is generic or confined to narrow parameter windows.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for quantitative boundaries. The non-Markovian spectra are obtained from the poles of the retarded Green functions, which depend on the dimensionless combinations τΓ and τΔ. The Markovian regime corresponds to τΓ ≪ 1 (and τΔ ≪ 1), where retardation is negligible and resonances remain unsplit or follow the Markovian doublet structure. Regime transitions and the conversion of unsplit resonances into doublets (or merging of doublets) occur when τΓ or τΔ becomes order-1 or larger, with multiple avoided crossings appearing for τΓ ≳ 2–3. We will revise the non-Markovian section to state these thresholds explicitly, referencing the relevant equations and indicating the parameter windows in which the described reshaping is observed. This will clarify that the effects are generic once the retardation time exceeds the inverse decay and detuning scales. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation follows from scattering equations under explicit assumptions

full rationale

The paper solves the single-photon scattering problem for a giant molecule coupled to parallel waveguides, deriving spectra and routing from the model Hamiltonian and boundary conditions. Claims about interference engineering, deterministic routing under chiral coupling, and non-Markovian retardation effects arise directly from the time-delayed equations and parameter choices (detuning, decay asymmetry). No fitted inputs are relabeled as predictions, no self-citations form load-bearing uniqueness arguments, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The central results remain independent of the target claims once the waveguide-QED assumptions are granted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract does not list explicit free parameters or invented entities. The model implicitly relies on standard assumptions of linear waveguide propagation, single-excitation subspace, and Markovian or delayed-interaction master equations common to the field. No new particles or forces are postulated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5502 in / 1396 out tokens · 36279 ms · 2026-05-08T18:16:37.498518+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith.Cost Jcost (J(x)=½(x+x⁻¹)−1) unclear
the cooperativity parameter C = Ω²/(Γ_1 Γ_2) ... weak (C<1), critical (C=1), and strong (C>1) coupling
IndisputableMonolith.Foundation.AlexanderDuality alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear
Γ_{1(2)} = Γ sin²[½ N_{1(2)} φ_{a(b)}] / sin²[½ φ_{a(b)}] ... Δ_{ls,1(2)} = Γ (N sin φ − sin Nφ)/(1−cos φ)
IndisputableMonolith.Foundation.BranchSelection branch_selection unclear
under chiral coupling conditions, this interference can be further harnessed to realize fully deterministic routing

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y.-x. Liu, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep.718-719, 1 (2017)

2017
[2]

D. Roy, C. M. Wilson, and O. Firstenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 021001 (2017)

2017
[3]

A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V. Iorsh, A. V. Poshakin- skiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 015002 (2023)

2023
[4]

I.-C. Hoi, C. M. Wilson, G. Johansson, T. Palomaki, B. Peropadre, and P. Delsing, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 073601 (2011)

2011
[5]

I.-C. Hoi, T. Palomaki, J. Lindkvist, G. Johansson, P. Delsing, and C. M. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 263601 (2012)

2012
[6]

I.-C. Hoi, C. M. Wilson, G. Johansson, J. Lindkvist, B. Peropadre, T. Palomaki, and P. Delsing, New J. Phys. 15, 025011 (2013)

2013
[7]

N. M. Sundaresan, Y. Liu, D. Sadri, L. J. Szőcs, D. L. Underwood, M. Malekakhlagh, H. E. Türeci, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X5, 021035 (2015)

2015
[8]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Science362, eaam9288 (2018)

2018
[9]

Duan and C

L.-M. Duan and C. Monroe, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1209 (2010)

2010
[10]

H. J. Kimble, Nature (London)453, 1023 (2008)

2008
[11]

Roy, Phys

D. Roy, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 053601 (2011)

2011
[12]

Reiserer and G

A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1379 (2015)

2015
[13]

R. Uppu, L. Midolo, X. Zhou, J. Carolan, and P. Lodahl, Nat. Nanotechnolog.16, 1308 (2021)

2021
[14]

Neumeier, M

L. Neumeier, M. Leib, and M. J. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 063601 (2013)

2013
[15]

Shen and S

J.-T. Shen and S. Fan, Phys. Rev. A76, 062709 (2007)

2007
[16]

Goban, C.-L

A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, J. D. Hood, S.-P. Yu, J. A. Mu- niz, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 063601 (2015)

2015
[17]

Lalumière, B

K. Lalumière, B. C. Sanders, A. F. van Loo, A. Fe- dorov, A. Wallraff, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. A88, 043806 (2013)

2013
[18]

M. V. Gustafsson, T. Aref, A. F. Kockum, M. K. Ek- ström, G. Johansson, and P. Delsing, Science346, 207 (2014)

2014
[19]

Lett.124, 240402 (2020)

G.Andersson, M.K.Ekström,andP.Delsing,Phys.Rev. Lett.124, 240402 (2020)

2020
[20]

L. Guo, A. Grimsmo, A. F. Kockum, M. Pletyukhov, and G. Johansson, Phys. Rev. A95, 053821 (2017)

2017
[21]

Andersson, B

G. Andersson, B. Suri, L. Guo, T. Aref, and P. Delsing, Nat. Phys.15, 1123 (2019)

2019
[22]

Wang, Y.-P

Z.-Q. Wang, Y.-P. Wang, J. Yao, R.-C. Shen, W.-J. Wu, J. Qian, J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, and J. Q. You, Nat. Commun. 13, 7580 (2022). 11

2022
[23]

Astafiev, A

O. Astafiev, A. M. Zagoskin, A. A. Abdumalikov, Y. A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Science327, 840 (2010)

2010
[24]

A. F. van Loo, A. Fedorov, K. Lalumière, B. C. Sanders, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Science342, 1494 (2013)

2013
[25]

Liu and A

Y. Liu and A. A. Houck, Nat. Phys.13, 48 (2017)

2017
[26]

Zheng, X.-W

J.-C. Zheng, X.-W. Zheng, X.-L. Hei, Y.-F. Qiao, X.-Y. Yao, X.-F. Pan, Y.-M. Ren, X.-W. Huo, and P.-B. Li, Phys. Rev. A111, 043717 (2025)

2025
[27]

Wang, Y.-J

H. Wang, Y.-J. Zhao, H.-C. Sun, X.-W. Xu, Y. Li, Y. Zheng, Q. Liu, and R. Li, Phys. Rev. A109, 012601 (2024)

2024
[28]

Zheng, D

H. Zheng, D. J. Gauthier, and H. U. Baranger, Phys. Rev. A82, 063816 (2010)

2010
[29]

X. Wang, T. Liu, A. F. Kockum, H.-R. Li, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 043602 (2021)

2021
[30]

K. H. Lim, W.-K. Mok, and L.-C. Kwek, Phys. Rev. A 107, 023716 (2023)

2023
[31]

Frisk Kockum, P

A. Frisk Kockum, P. Delsing, and G. Johansson, Phys. Rev. A90, 013837 (2014)

2014
[32]

Manenti, A

R. Manenti, A. F. Kockum, A. Patterson, T. Behrle, J. Rahamim, G. Tancredi, F. Nori, and P. J. Leek, Nat. Commun.8, 975 (2017)

2017
[33]

Kannan, M

B. Kannan, M. J. Ruckriegel, D. L. Campbell, A. Frisk Kockum, J. Braumüller, D. K. Kim, M. Kjaer- gaard, P. Krantz, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, A. Vep- säläinen, R. Winik, J. L. Yoder, F. Nori, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Nature (London)583, 775 (2020)

2020
[34]

A. F. Kockum, inInternational Symposium on Mathe- matics, Quantum Theory, and Cryptography, edited by T.Takagi, M.Wakayama, K.Tanaka, N.Kunihiro, K.Ki- moto, and Y. Ikematsu (Springer, Singapore, 2021) pp. 125–146

2021
[35]

A. M. Vadiraj, A. Ask, T. G. McConkey, I. Nsanzineza, C. W. S. Chang, A. F. Kockum, and C. M. Wilson, Phys. Rev. A103, 023710 (2021)

2021
[36]

Soro and A

A. Soro and A. F. Kockum, Phys. Rev. A105, 023712 (2022)

2022
[37]

Cilluffo, A

D. Cilluffo, A. Carollo, S. Lorenzo, J. A. Gross, G. M. Palma, and F. Ciccarello, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043070 (2020)

2020
[38]

S. Guo, Y. Wang, T. Purdy, and J. Taylor, Phys. Rev. A 102, 033706 (2020)

2020
[39]

Yin, W.-B

X.-L. Yin, W.-B. Luo, and J.-Q. Liao, Phys. Rev. A106, 063703 (2022)

2022
[40]

Q.-Y. Qiu, Y. Wu, and X.-Y. Lü, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 224212 (2023)

2023
[41]

Mahmoodian, G

S. Mahmoodian, G. Calajó, D. E. Chang, K. Hammerer, and A. S. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. X10, 031011 (2020)

2020
[42]

Bello, G

M. Bello, G. Platero, J. I. Cirac, and A. González-Tudela, Sci. Adv.5, eaaw0297 (2019)

2019
[43]

W. Z. Jia and M. T. Yu, Opt. Express32, 9495 (2024)

2024
[44]

M. Weng, H. Yu, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. A111, 053711 (2025)

2025
[45]

Y. Yang, G. Sun, J. Li, J. Lu, and L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A111, 013707 (2025)

2025
[46]

G. Sun, Y. Yang, J. Li, J. Lu, and L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A111, 033701 (2025)

2025
[47]

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

2018
[48]

Forn-Díaz, J

P. Forn-Díaz, J. J. García-Ripoll, B. Peropadre, J.-L. Or- giazzi, M. A. Yurtalan, R. Belyansky, C. M. Wilson, and A. Lupascu, Nat. Phys.13, 39 (2017)

2017
[49]

Carollo, D

A. Carollo, D. Cilluffo, and F. Ciccarello, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043184 (2020)

2020
[50]

L. Du, L. Guo, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. A107, 023705 (2023)

2023
[51]

L. Du, L. Guo, Y. Zhang, and A. F. Kockum, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L042040 (2023)

2023
[52]

M.Pompili, S.L.N.Hermans, S.Baier, H.K.C.Beukers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. L. Vermeulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. dos Santos Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, and R. Hanson, Science372, 259 (2021)

2021
[53]

Sipahigil, R

A. Sipahigil, R. E. Evans, D. D. Sukachev, M. J. Bu- rek, J. Borregaard, M. K. Bhaskar, C. T. Nguyen, J. L. Pacheco, H. A. Atikian, C. Meuwly, R. M. Camacho, F. Jelezko, E. Bielejec, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Science354, 847 (2016)

2016
[54]

Yin and J.-Q

X.-L. Yin and J.-Q. Liao, Phys. Rev. A108, 023728 (2023)

2023
[55]

Luo, X.-L

W.-B. Luo, X.-L. Yin, and J.-Q. Liao, Adv. Quantum Techno.7, 2400030 (2024)

2024
[56]

L. Du, X. Wang, A. F. Kockum, and J. Splettstoesser, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 223601 (2025)

2025
[57]

Q. Y. Cai and W. Z. Jia, Phys. Rev. A104, 033710 (2021)

2021
[58]

Y.-T. Chen, L. Du, L. Guo, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, Y. Li, and J.-H. Wu, Commun. Phys.5, 215 (2022)

2022
[59]

Du and Y

L. Du and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. A104, 023712 (2021)

2021
[60]

W. Gu, T. Li, Y. Tian, Z. Yi, and G.-x. Li, Phys. Rev. A110, 033707 (2024)

2024
[61]

W. Zhao, Y. Zhang, and Z. Wang, Front. Phys.17, 42506 (2022)

2022
[62]

Zhu, X.-L

H. Zhu, X.-L. Yin, and J.-Q. Liao, Phys. Rev. A111, 023711 (2025)

2025
[63]

S. L. Feng and W. Z. Jia, Phys. Rev. A104, 063712 (2021)

2021
[64]

Y. P. Peng and W. Z. Jia, Phys. Rev. A108, 043709 (2023)

2023
[65]

Li, Z.-Q

S.-Y. Li, Z.-Q. Zhang, L. Du, Y. Li, and H. Wu, Phys. Rev. A109, 063703 (2024)

2024
[66]

Kannan, A

B. Kannan, A. Almanakly, Y. Sung, A. Di Paolo, D. A. Rower, J. Braumüller, A. Melville, B. M. Niedziel- ski, A. Karamlou, K. Serniak, A. Vepsäläinen, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, R. Winik, J. Wang, T. P. Or- lando, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, Nat. Phys.19, 394 (2023)

2023
[67]

Y. Chen, C. Neill, P. Roushan, N. Leung, M. Fang, R. Barends, J. Kelly, B. Campbell, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mu- tus, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. M. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, M. R. Geller, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 220502 (2014)

2014
[68]

Almanakly, B

A. Almanakly, B. Yankelevich, M. Hays, B. Kannan, R. Assouly, A. Greene, M. Gingras, B. M. Niedzielski, H. Stickler, M. E. Schwartz, K. Serniak, J. Wang, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, J. A. Grover, and W. D. Oliver, Nat. Phys.21, 825 (2025)

2025
[69]

Yin, Y.-H

X.-L. Yin, Y.-H. Liu, J.-F. Huang, and J.-Q. Liao, Phys. Rev. A106, 013715 (2022)

2022
[70]

Zhou, X.-L

J. Zhou, X.-L. Yin, and J.-Q. Liao, Phys. Rev. A107, 063703 (2023)

2023
[71]

Bao and Z

D. Bao and Z. Lin, Opt. Express32, 26470 (2024)

2024
[72]

Zheng, X.-L

J.-C. Zheng, X.-L. Dong, J.-Q. Chen, X.-L. Hei, X.-F. Pan, X.-Y. Yao, Y.-M. Ren, Y.-F. Qiao, and P.-B. Li, Phys. Rev. A109, 063709 (2024). 12

2024
[73]

J.-A. Sun, Y. Wang, and W.-A. Li, Phys. Rev. A112, 033703 (2025)

2025
[74]

A giant atom with modulated transition fre- quency,

R.-Y. Gong, Z.-Y. He, C.-H. Yu, G.-F. Zhang, F. Nori, and Z.-L. Xiang, arXiv:2411.19307

work page arXiv
[75]

Du, Y.-T

L. Du, Y.-T. Chen, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043226 (2021)

2021
[76]

S. R. Sathyamoorthy, L. Tornberg, A. F. Kockum, B. Q. Baragiola, J. Combes, C. M. Wilson, T. M. Stace, and G. Johansson, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 093601 (2014)

2014
[77]

Chow, and J

D.C.McKay, S.Filipp, A.Mezzacapo, E.Magesan, J.M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. Appl.6, 064007 (2016)

2016
[78]

Stehlik, D

J. Stehlik, D. M. Zajac, D. L. Underwood, T. Phung, J. Blair, S. Carnevale, D. Klaus, G. A. Keefe, A. Carniol, M. Kumph, M. Steffen, and O. E. Dial, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 080505 (2021)

2021
[79]

K. M. Sliwa, M. Hatridge, A. Narla, S. Shankar, L. Frun- zio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041020 (2015)

2015
[80]

B. J. Chapman, E. I. Rosenthal, J. Kerckhoff, B. A. Moores, L. R. Vale, J. A. B. Mates, G. C. Hilton, K. La- lumière, A. Blais, and K. W. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. X7, 041043 (2017)

2017

Showing first 80 references.