Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 130 references

Symmetry-constrained tight-binding models convert photonic-crystal Maxwell data into minimal quantum Hamiltonians that keep vectorial light-matter couplings, capturing polarization-dependent emission and non-Markovian dynamics.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:24 UTC pith:JVDFQ4AV

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful framework for mode-resolved emitter-photon couplings; the main caveat is an unquantified off-path dispersion fit, but the construction itself is sound. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.12603 v2 pith:JVDFQ4AV submitted 2026-07-14 quant-ph physics.optics

Constructing mode-resolved quantum optical models for emitters in photonic crystals

Antonio Morales-P\'erez , I\~naki Garc\'ia-Elcano , Chiara Devescovi , Maia G. Vergniory , Aitzol Garc\'ia-Etxarri , Alejandro Gonz\'alez-Tudela This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.optics
keywords photonic crystalsquantum opticstight-binding modelslight-matter couplingnon-Markovian dynamicsdirectional emissionmacroscopic QEDband representation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper introduces a systematic procedure for building reduced quantum-optical lattice models of emitters in photonic crystals. The central claim is that combining symmetry-constrained tight-binding constructions with numerically computed band structures and field profiles yields minimal lattice Hamiltonians that reproduce the photonic dispersion while retaining position- and polarization-dependent light-matter coupling. In the perturbative limit these models match macroscopic-QED predictions, and beyond that they allow non-perturbative quantum simulations. A two-dimensional proof of principle reproduces polarization-dependent directional emission that scalar models miss, and predicts non-Markovian dynamics and emitter-bath entanglement.

Core claim

The paper claims that the trade-off between realistic electromagnetic descriptions and tractable quantum-optical models can be overcome by projecting the Maxwell operator onto the minimal symmetry-adapted orbital basis dictated by the target bands' band-representation content. The effective photonic Hamiltonian is the positive square root of this projected Maxwell operator, and light-matter couplings are reconstructed from the original Bloch mode profiles, yielding couplings that depend explicitly on emitter position and dipole orientation. The authors show that adiabatically eliminating the photonic degrees of freedom reproduces the familiar Born-Markov master equation with coherent couplin

What carries the argument

The central object is the symmetry-constrained low-energy photonic Hamiltonian H(k) = ℏ√Θ(k), where Θ(k) is the Maxwell operator projected onto elementary-band-representation orbitals (in the example, a single A2 orbital at the 1a Wyckoff position). The square-root construction converts squared eigenfrequencies of the Maxwell problem into a linear bosonic Hamiltonian, and the Fourier-transformed orbital couplings G̃β,R(ri) encode the mode-resolved, vectorial light-matter interaction. Minimality and symmetry structure are fixed by band-representation theory rather than arbitrary fitting; the proof-of-principle model retains only three hopping parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The three-parameter tight-binding dispersion is assumed to reproduce the true photonic band at the off-symmetry momenta that set the direction of emission, even though the fit is only displayed along a high-symmetry path; if the isofrequency contours near the saddle point are inaccurate there, the predicted routing could change.

What would settle it

Compare the reduced-model isofrequency contour near the saddle-point frequency with the full Maxwell-solver contour, and check that the momentum-space nodes of the coupling G_k coincide at the resonant wavevectors; alternatively, measure the far-field directional pattern of a single dipole at the high-symmetry point — if a 135° orientation does not predominantly channel emission along one diagonal, the off-path dispersion of the reduced model is wrong.

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

If this is right

  • If the framework is correct, quantum many-body simulations of emitters in photonic crystals can start from realistic Maxwell data instead of phenomenological scalar couplings.
  • Perturbative emitter dynamics (coherent couplings Jij and collective decay rates Γij) computed from the reduced model coincide with macroscopic QED in the relevant-band limit.
  • Keeping the photonic degrees of freedom explicit enables non-perturbative, non-Markovian dynamics, including strong-coupling revivals and light-matter entanglement.
  • Polarization-dependent directional emission, absent in scalar models, can be predicted and used to route excitations between distant emitters.
  • The construction extends to three dimensions and multiband or topological photonic crystals, where additional orbitals accommodate transversality constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's demonstration relies on the fitted dispersion being accurate at off-symmetry momenta that dictate which propagation channels are selected; a quantitative comparison of the reduced-model isofrequency contours with full-solver group velocities at the resonant wavevectors would directly test this.
  • The same construction could be combined with tensor-network or resolvent-based techniques to simulate large arrays of emitters in realistic photonic structures, potentially enabling design of chiral quantum networks.
  • The framework may adapt to lossy or nonlinear photonic media, although the present derivation assumes lossless dispersion and handles counter-rotating terms only in the perturbative comparison.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a constructive framework for deriving minimal tight-binding quantum-optical models of photonic crystals with mode-resolved light-matter couplings. Starting from Maxwell-solver data (band structure and Bloch mode profiles), the method uses band-representation theory to identify the minimal symmetry-adapted orbital basis, fits the corresponding hopping parameters to the target photonic dispersion, and then reconstructs position- and polarization-dependent couplings from the full mode profiles. The authors show, via Born-Markov elimination, that the reduced model reproduces the macroscopic-QED master equation in the relevant-band limit. As a proof of principle, they apply the method to a 2D square photonic crystal and demonstrate polarization-dependent directional emission, non-Markovian single-emitter dynamics, and polarization-controlled excitation transfer/entanglement between two emitters.

Significance. If the framework performs as claimed, it would provide a practical bridge between full electromagnetic simulations and quantum many-body/non-Markovian modeling, addressing a real gap in the literature. The paper's analytic derivations in Appendices A-C are careful and internally consistent; the explicit inclusion of vectorial mode structure in the light-matter couplings is a genuine advance over scalar tight-binding emitter-bath models. The authors also provide open code and data, which strengthens reproducibility. However, the quantitative validity of the central construction hinges on the accuracy of the reduced tight-binding dispersion over the full Brillouin zone, a point that is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III A, Eq. (22), Fig. 2(b-d), Fig. 3(c-d)] The central predictive claim—that the reduced model reproduces the target dispersion closely enough for quantitative directional emission—rests on the three-parameter dispersion Θ(k)=J0+2J1[cos(kx a)+cos(ky a)]+4J2 cos(kx a)cos(ky a). With J0, J1, J2 fixed by the Γ, X, and M constraints, all off-path behavior is a prediction of the functional form. The paper validates Eq. (22) only along the high-symmetry path (Fig. 2(b)), but the directional-emission channels in Figs. 2(c-d) and 3(c-d) are controlled by the isofrequency contours near ω_X and by the resonant momenta k0 satisfying ω(k0)=ω0, which lie off this path. A poor off-path fit would shift those contours and alter or erase the predicted polarization-dependent routing. Please provide a full-Brillouin-zone error measure (e.g., maximum and mean absolute/relative error of ω_fit(k) over a uniform k-grid) and, ideally, a dynamical benchm
  2. [Section II C, Appendix C, Eqs. (C2), (20)] The perturbative consistency proof is performed in the limit where the diagonalized reduced-model bath Hamiltonian is taken to be H_B = ℏ Σ ω_α(k) d†_α,k d_α,k, i.e., using the exact Maxwell frequencies rather than the fitted eigenvalues λ_α(k) of Eq. (22). The couplings g_α,k are also constructed from the exact Maxwell mode profiles and frequencies. Consequently, the derivation shows that the coupling normalization is consistent with the spectral decomposition of the Green's tensor, but it does not by itself validate the tight-binding approximation; that approximation enters only through the assumption λ_α(k) = ω_α(k). Since the non-perturbative dynamics and directional-emission predictions are generated by the fitted λ_α(k), the claimed recovery of macroscopic QED is conditional on the fit accuracy. Please state this explicitly and quantify the induced error in J_ij and Γ_ij, for examp
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (22)] The quoted parameters are inconsistent with the stated constraint at Γ. With J1/J0 = -0.26 and J2/J0 = 6.96×10^-3, the bracket in Eq. (22) at k=0 equals J0(1 + 4(-0.26) + 4(0.00696)) ≈ -0.012 J0, which would make the square root imaginary at Γ and contradict the red dashed curve in Fig. 2(b). Please provide full-precision values satisfying Θ(Γ)=0 and confirm that Θ(k) ≥ 0 throughout the Brillouin zone.
  2. [Section III A, Eq. (22)] The text says the parameters are obtained from a 'least-squares fit ... constrained to reproduce the high-symmetry-point frequencies Γ, X, and M.' With exactly three parameters and three constraints, the problem is an interpolation, not a least-squares fit. Please clarify what quantity is minimized.
  3. [Fig. 3(a)] The symbol Γ(ω) for the frequency-resolved decay rate conflicts with the Γ point of the Brillouin zone used elsewhere in the same paper. Consider using γ(ω) or another notation to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Section III B] The resonant momenta are written as k0 = (±π/2, ±π/2) without units. Please specify the normalization (e.g., in units of π/a) so that the relation to the Brillouin-zone coordinates in Fig. 2 is unambiguous.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (B9)] The normalization constant C_α,k depends on ω_α(k). Please clarify whether this frequency is the exact Maxwell eigenvalue or the fitted eigenvalue of the reduced model when the couplings are evaluated numerically; the two choices affect the comparison with Eq. (20).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Perturbative consistency with macroscopic QED is essentially an identity after substituting the Maxwell modes used to define the couplings; the directional-emission results are independent and not fitted.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section II C, Eq. (20); Appendix B Eq. (B9); Appendix C Eqs. (C19), (C22)-(C23)]
    "The first line retains both poles and reproduces the macroscopic-QED result from Eq. (19) within the relevant-band approximation after substituting the couplings of Eq. (11), including the contributions from both the rotating and counter-rotating terms [118]."

    The coupling g_{α,k}(r_i) in Eq. (11) is defined using the same Maxwell eigenmodes f_{α,k}(r) that enter the spectral decomposition of the Green's tensor in Eq. (19), and the normalization C_{α,k}=sqrt(ℏω_α/(2ε0Na^3)) from Eq. (B9) makes the mode sum in Eq. (20) algebraically identical to the corresponding term in the macroscopic-QED expression. The 'recovery' of Green's-function emitter dynamics is therefore a restatement of the input electromagnetic data plus the fitted dispersion, not an independent validation: the numerator and pole structure are the same by construction, and the only non-tautological ingredient is the accuracy of the fitted ω_α(k) in the denominator, which is not quantified off the high-symmetry path.

full rationale

The paper's constructive machinery is otherwise self-contained: photonic bands and mode profiles come from a Maxwell solver, the orbital content is fixed by band-representation symmetry data, the three tight-binding parameters are explicitly fitted to the target band, and the polarization-dependent directional emission is compared against the independent semiclassical result of Ref. [25] without fitting to it. The one genuinely circular element is the perturbative consistency check of Section II C / Appendix C: because the light-matter couplings are built from the exact Maxwell modes that define the macroscopic-QED Green's tensor, the equality of Eqs. (19) and (20) follows by substitution once the relevant-band approximation is made. This makes the 'recovery' of macroscopic QED a consistency check by construction rather than a falsifiable prediction. The central new content—mode-resolved, polarization-dependent coupling and the resulting directional emission—does not reduce to a fit and is externally benchmarked. The unquantified off-path accuracy of the fitted dispersion is a real correctness risk, but it is not itself a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

All fitted parameters are disclosed; the main free parameters are the tight-binding hoppings. No new physical entities are postulated. The strongest underlying assumption is that the truncated symmetry-adapted orbital basis faithfully represents the relevant photonic physics.

free parameters (2)
  • Tight-binding parameters J0, J1, J2 = J0(a/c)^2=3.06, J1/J0=-0.26, J2/J0=6.96e-3
    Fit to the squared photonic band ω1²(k) (least-squares constrained at Γ, X, M), Eq. (22); the reduced dispersion and all subsequent dynamics depend on these.
  • Absorbing boundary parameters N_abs, κ_max = N_abs=10, κ_max=0.5 c/a
    Chosen from convergence tests (Appendix D); affect the real-time dynamics but not the central construction.
axioms (8)
  • standard math The photonic band structure and modes are obtained by solving the Maxwell eigenvalue problem Θ f = ω² f
    Eq. (2); classical electrodynamics in periodic media. Used throughout as input.
  • domain assumption The target band decomposes as a single elementary band representation (A2|1a) under p4mm, so one orbital at the origin suffices
    Eq. (21) and Appendix A. This determines N_o=1; if the symmetry vector were misassigned the reduced model would use the wrong minimal basis.
  • standard math The photonic degrees of freedom are bosonic with H(k)=ℏ√Θ(k)
    Eq. (5) and Eq. (A11); standard second quantization. Requires Θ(k) non-negative; the 3D case relies on auxiliary longitudinal orbitals from Ref [81].
  • domain assumption Relevant-band approximation: only photonic bands near the emitter frequency ω0 contribute
    Used in Eqs. (19)-(20) and throughout; far-detuned bands are neglected. Standard in quantum optics.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation for the dynamics in Sec. III
    Eq. (10) and footnote [123]: g_max/ω0 < 0.1; counter-rotating terms are neglected except in the perturbative comparison.
  • domain assumption The emitter is a point two-level dipole within the local dipole approximation
    Eqs. (6), (9); standard for atoms/defects in photonic crystals, ignores finite size and non-dipolar transitions.
  • domain assumption The finite 50×50 lattice with absorbing boundaries approximates the infinite crystal
    Appendix D; absorbing parameters chosen to suppress reflections without affecting bulk dynamics.
  • standard math Born and Markov approximations in the perturbative validation
    Appendix C; used only to connect to the macroscopic QED master equation, not in the exact dynamics.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26554 in / 17331 out tokens · 169449 ms · 2026-08-02T06:24:29.199449+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advances are enabling quantum emitters to interact with photonic crystals, whose electromagnetic modes exhibit complex dispersion relations, spatial mode structure, and polarization textures. However, modeling light-matter behavior in these systems faces a persistent trade-off: electromagnetic approaches based on Maxwell-equation solvers provide realistic vectorial descriptions but are difficult to integrate with quantum many-body and non-perturbative methods, whereas simplified quantum-optical lattice models are tractable but typically rely on scalar and spatially independent light-matter couplings that miss essential features of these structured photonic environments. Here, we introduce a constructive framework to derive quantum-optical lattice descriptions that overcome this trade-off. Combining symmetry-constrained tight-binding constructions with numerically computed photonic band structures and field profiles, our method yields minimal, symmetry-enforced lattice Hamiltonians that reproduce the target photonic dispersion while retaining the mode-resolved (position- and polarization-dependent) structure of the light-matter coupling. We show that these models recover Green's-function-based emitter dynamics in the perturbative regime, while providing access to non-perturbative quantum dynamical simulations beyond emitter-only descriptions. As a proof of principle, we apply the framework to a two-dimensional photonic crystal and show that it captures polarization-dependent directional emission inaccessible to scalar models, while enabling the analysis of non-Markovian light-matter dynamics and entanglement. Our results provide a practical bridge between classical electromagnetic simulation tools and quantum-optical many-body and non-Markovian modeling in photonic crystal settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.12603 by Aitzol Garc\'ia-Etxarri, Alejandro Gonz\'alez-Tudela, Antonio Morales-P\'erez, Chiara Devescovi, I\~naki Garc\'ia-Elcano, Maia G. Vergniory.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (b) shows the first two bands, plotted as solid black lines, along a path connecting the high-symmetry points Γ, X, and M of the Brillouin zone. The lowest band ω1(k) exhibits saddle-point features accompanied by nearly straight isofrequency contours, see dashed red lines in Figs. 2(c-d). Since these spectral features were shown to be responsible for the directional emission re￾ported in Refs. [25, 50–52],… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

130 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Goban, C.-L

    A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, S.-P. Yu, J. D. Hood, J. A. Mu- niz, J. H. Lee, M. J. Martin, A. C. McClung, K. S. Choi, D. E. Chang, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimblemblrm, Nat. Commun.5, 3808 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, N. P. de Leon, J. Feist, A. V. Akimov, M. Gullans, A. S. Zibrov, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, Science340, 1202 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    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, 63601 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    J. D. Hood, A. Goban, A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Lu, S.-P. Yu, D. E. Chang, and H. J. Kimble, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.113, 10507 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    J. B. Beguin, J. Laurat, X. Luan, A. P. Burgers, Z. Qin, and H. J. Kimble, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.117, 26109 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    X. Zhou, H. Tamura, T.-H. Chang, and C.-L. Hung, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 103601 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    M. E. Kim, T. H. Chang, B. M. Fields, C. A. Chen, and C. L. Hung, Nat. Commun.10, 10.1038/s41467- 019-09635-7 (2019)

    doi:10.1038/s41467- 2019

  8. [8]

    Samutpraphoot, P

    P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, C. Senko, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 063602 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    Dordevic, P

    T. Dordevic, P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, B. Grinkemeyer, I. Dimitrova, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science373, 1511 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    S. G. Menon, N. Glachman, M. Pompili, A. Dibos, and H. Bernien, Nat. Comumnn.15, 1 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Tiranov, V

    A. Tiranov, V. Angelopoulou, C. J. van Diepen, B. Schrinski, O. A. Dall’Alba Sandberg, Y. Wang, L. Midolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lodahl, Science379, 389 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    R. E. Evans, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, C. T. Nguyen, A. Sipahigil, M. J. Burek, B. Machielse, G. H. Zhang, A. S. Zibrov, E. Bielejec, and others, Science 362, 662 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    D. M. Lukin, M. A. Guidry, J. Yang, M. Ghezellou, S. D. Mishra, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. Ul-Hassan, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, arXiv:2202.04845 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    A. E. Rugar, C. Dory, S. Aghaeimeibodi, H. Lu, S. Sun, S. D. Mishra, Z. X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, ACS Photonics7, 2356 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    A. E. Rugar, S. Aghaeimeibodi, D. Riedel, C. Dory, H. Lu, P. J. McQuade, Z. X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Phys. Rev X11, 031021 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    C. M. Lange, E. Daggett, V. Walther, L. Huang, and J. D. Hood, Nat. Physics20, 836 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    J. T. Hansen, F. Gargiulo, J. B. Mathiassen, J. H. M¨ uller, E. S. Polzik, and J. B. B´ eguin, arXiv: 2511.18211 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Fayard, A

    N. Fayard, A. Bouscal, J. Berroir, A. Urvoy, T. Ray, S. Mahapatra, M. Kemiche, J.-A. Levenson, J.-J. Gr- effet, K. Bencheikh, J. Laurat, and C. Sauvan, Optics Express30, 45093 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Bouscal, M

    A. Bouscal, M. Kemiche, S. Mahapatra, N. Fayard, J. Berroir, T. Ray, J. J. Greffet, F. Raineri, A. Leven- son, K. Bencheikh, C. Sauvan, A. Urvoy, and J. Laurat, New Journal of Physics26, 023026 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Margalit, O

    Y. Margalit, O. Davidson, O. Zemer, Y. Michael, O. Bechler, D. Liran, N. Gross, D. Azoury, J. Raskop, Y. Yudkin, G. Guendelman, M. Katzman, M. Nagli, Y. Antman, N. Kandel, G. Arwas, I. Peer, O. Firsten- berg, and B. Dayan, arXiv: 2605.09532 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

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

    2023

  22. [22]

    Chang, J

    D. Chang, J. Douglas, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. Kimble, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031002 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela, A

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, A. Reiserer, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and F. J. Garc ´ ıa-Vidal, Light-matter interactions in quantum nanophotonic devices (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Daggett, C

    E. Daggett, C. M. Lange, B. Windt, A. Danageozian, A. Senichev, J. A. Monta˜ n` a-L´ opez, Chanchal, K. Barua, X. Gao, Z. Zheng, V. Kizhake Veetil, S. Biswas, J. M. Peterson, N. Liu, C. Hong, T. Odom, M. Pelton, T. Li, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, V. M. Shalaev, A. Boltasseva, S. E. Economou, J. D. Hood, V. Walther, R. Trivedi, and L. Huang, Nature Reviews Materials1...

    2026

  25. [25]

    S. P. Yu, J. A. Muniz, C. L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.116, 12743 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Si- mon, O. Zilberberg, and I. Carusotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 15006 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    M. S. Rider, S. J. Palmer, S. R. Pocock, X. Xiao, P. Ar- royo Huidobro, and V. Giannini, Journal of Applied Physics125, 120901 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    M. J. Mehrabad, S. Mittal, and M. Hafezi, Phys. Rev. A108, 040101 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Nature541, 473 (2017)

    2017

  30. [30]

    D. G. Su´ arez-Forero, M. Jalali Mehrabad, C. Vega, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and M. Hafezi, PRX Quantum6, 020101 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    V. P. Bykov, Soviet Journal of Quantum Electronics4, 861 (1975)

    1975

  32. [32]

    John and J

    S. John and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 2418 (1990)

    1990

  33. [33]

    Kurizki, Phys

    G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. A42, 2915 (1990)

    1990

  34. [34]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela, V

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, V. Paulisch, D. Chang, H. Kim- ble, and J. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 10.1103/Phys- 11 RevLett.115.163603 (2015)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2015

  35. [35]

    J. S. Douglas, H. Habibian, C.-L. Hung, A. V. Gorshkov, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Nat. Photon.9, 326 (2015)

    2015

  36. [36]

    John and T

    S. John and T. Quang, Phys. Rev. A50, 1764 (1994)

    1994

  37. [37]

    Tanaka, S

    S. Tanaka, S. Garmon, and T. Petrosky, Phys. Rev. B 73, 115340 (2006)

    2006

  38. [38]

    Garmon, T

    S. Garmon, T. Petrosky, L. Simine, and D. Segal, Fortschritte der Physik61, 261 (2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    Garmon, K

    S. Garmon, K. Noba, G. Ordonez, and D. Segal, Phys. Rev. A99, 010102 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Calaj´ o, F

    G. Calaj´ o, F. Ciccarello, D. Chang, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. A93, 33833 (2016)

    2016

  41. [41]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A97, 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.043831 (2018)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.97.043831 2018

  42. [42]

    Calaj´ o, M

    G. Calaj´ o, M. J. Schuetz, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. A99, 053852 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and F

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and F. Galve, ACS Photonics6, 10.1021/acsphotonics.8b01455 (2019)

    doi:10.1021/acsphotonics.8b01455 2019

  44. [44]

    De Bernardis, Z.-P

    D. De Bernardis, Z.-P. Cian, I. Carusotto, M. Hafezi, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 103603 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Roccati, S

    F. Roccati, S. Lorenzo, G. Calaj` o, G. M. Palma, G. M. Palma, A. Carollo, A. Carollo, F. Ciccarello, and F. Ci- ccarello, Optica9, 565 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    C. Vega, D. Porras, and A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023031 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    I. n. Garc ´ ıa-Elcano, J. Bravo-Abad, and A. Gonz´ alez- Tudela, Phys. Rev. A103, 033511 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    Roccati, M

    F. Roccati, M. Bello, Z. Gong, M. Ueda, F. Ciccarello, A. Chenu, and A. Carollo, Nat. Commun.15, 1 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    R. A. Vicencio, F. G. L. Carcamo-Macaya, and P. Solano, arXiv: 2501.09261 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.143602 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.143602 2017

  51. [51]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A96, 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.043811 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.96.043811 2017

  52. [52]

    Galve, A

    F. Galve, A. Mandarino, M. G. A. Paris, C. Benedetti, and R. Zambrini, Sci. Rep.7, 10.1038/srep42050 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1038/srep42050 2017

  53. [53]

    C. Vega, M. Bello, D. Porras, and A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, Phys. Rev. A104, 053522 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    I. n. Garc ´ ıa-Elcano, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and J. Bravo- Abad, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 163602 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    Bello, G

    M. Bello, G. Platero, J. I. Cirac, and A. Gonz´ alez- Tudela, Science Advances5, eaaw0297 (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    Leonforte, A

    L. Leonforte, A. Carollo, and F. Ciccarello, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 063601 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    I. n. Garc ´ ıa-Elcano, J. Merino, J. Bravo-Abad, and A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, Science Advances9, 10.1126/SCI- ADV.ADF8257 (2023)

    doi:10.1126/sci- 2023

  58. [58]

    Bello and J

    M. Bello and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B107, 054301 (2023)

    2023

  59. [59]

    E. D. Benedetto, A. Gonzalez-Tudela, and F. Ciccarello, Quantum9, 1671 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    Leonforte, X

    L. Leonforte, X. Sun, D. Valenti, B. Spagnolo, F. Illu- minati, A. Carollo, and F. Ciccarello, Quantum Science and Technology10, 015057 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    Du and A

    L. Du and A. F. Kockum, arXiv: 2408.09826 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Salinas, J

    I. Salinas, J. C. Cornejo, A. Szameit, P. Solano, and R. A. Vicencio, APL Photonics9, 10.1063/5.0185504/3262380 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0185504/3262380 2024

  63. [63]

    Lanuza, J

    A. Lanuza, J. Kwon, Y. Kim, and D. Schneble, Phys. Rev. A105, 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.023703 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.023703 2022

  64. [64]

    Teˇ cer, G

    M. Teˇ cer, G. Calaj´ o, and M. D. Liberto, Phys. Rev. A 113, 013701 (2026)

    2026

  65. [65]

    Shi, Y.-H

    T. Shi, Y.-H. Wu, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and J. Cirac, New Journal of Physics20, 10.1088/1367-2630/aae4a9 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aae4a9 2018

  66. [66]

    Bello, G

    M. Bello, G. Platero, and A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, PRX Quantum3, 010336 (2022)

    2022

  67. [67]

    Roccati, arXiv: 2505.02892 (2025)

    F. Roccati, arXiv: 2505.02892 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Teˇ cer, M

    M. Teˇ cer, M. Di Liberto, P. Silvi, S. Montangero, F. Ro- manato, and G. Calaj´ o, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 163602 (2024)

    2024

  69. [69]

    Lanuza and D

    A. Lanuza and D. Schneble, Phys. Rev. Research6, 033196 (2024)

    2024

  70. [70]

    Calaj` o, M

    G. Calaj` o, M. Tecer, S. Montangero, P. Silvi, and M. Di Liberto, arXIv:2504.07207 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Dinc and A

    F. Dinc and A. M. Bra´ nczyk, Phys. Rev. Research1, 032042 (2019)

    2019

  72. [72]

    R. L. Capurso, G. Calaj´ o, S. Montangero, S. Pascazio, F. V. Pepe, M. Maffei, G. Magnifico, and P. Facchi, Communications Physics 10.1038/S42005-026-02722-4 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-026-02722-4 2026

  73. [73]

    Barahona-Pascual, H

    C. Barahona-Pascual, H. Jiang, A. C. Santos, and J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, Quantum Science and Technology11, 015016 (2025)

    2025

  74. [74]

    Gonz´ alez and A

    I. Gonz´ alez and A. And´And´angel Rivas, arXiv: 2601.05989 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    Windt, M

    B. Windt, M. Bello, E. Demler, and J. I. Cirac, arXiv: 2305.11610 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Windt, M

    B. Windt, M. Bello, D. Malz, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 173601 (2025)

    2025

  77. [77]

    Windt, L

    B. Windt, L. Rossi, A. V. Poshakinskiy, D. Malz, and D. S. Wild, arXiv: 2606.06621 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [78]

    Z. Wang, T. Jaako, P. Kirton, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 213601 (2020)

    2020

  79. [79]

    A. P. Misselwitz, J. Luneau, and P. Rabl, arXiv: 2603.09523 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    X. H. H. Zhang, D. Malz, and P. Rabl, Arxiv (2025)

    2025

Showing first 80 references.