Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Collective states of multi-level emitters: The role of multi-level interferences

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · 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 interference between near-resonant transitions in multi-level emitters suppresses superradiance when emitters are closer than about 0.01 of the excitation wavelength, a lower bound that two-level emitter models do not

desk verdict Useful multi-level master equation, but the superradiance-suppression threshold is not yet established because it sits exactly where the secular approximation is suspect. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25547 v1 pith:66FZB4JX submitted 2026-07-28 quant-ph

Nathan E. Rahat , Christiane P. Koch This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords multi-levelemitterssuperradiancequantuminterferencemasterequationcollectivedecayV-systemGreen'stensormoleculararrays
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

The paper asks whether collective radiation from an array of quantum emitters changes when each emitter has several closely spaced transitions rather than just two levels. It derives a master equation that keeps interference terms between different transitions, and applies it to three V-system emitters in a line. The central result is that for separations below about 0.01 of the excitation wavelength, these multi-level interferences can eliminate the superradiant burst that a non-interfering or two-level model predicts; above about 0.2 of the wavelength, the two-level approximation works fine. This matters because new experimental platforms can place emitters at such ultra-small separations, where the standard two-level description is no longer reliable. The paper also maps the parameter regime where the effect appears and names atomic and molecular systems where it could be observed.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the multi-level master equation (Eq. 6) with its correlated decay and dipole-dipole terms. Its dissipator contains rates that couple different transitions k and m of possibly different emitters, computed from the vacuum Green's tensor; the k-m parts are the multi-level interference terms. By comparing the full equation to the same equation with all k-m terms removed, the paper isolates the effect of inter-transition interference: the cross terms transfer population into symmetric Dicke states that contain the lower excited level, opening extra decay paths and reducing the superradiant burst.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the initial photon-emission rate for a three-emitter V-system as a function of emitter separation: if a superradiant burst is observed for separations below about 0.01 excitation wavelength, the claimed lower bound is wrong. The cleanest version is to solve the same model without the secular approximation and compare the initial emission rate in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a Born-Markov master equation for N multi-level emitters, the authors keep all cross-transition terms, so that decay channels k and m can interfere through the shared vacuum. For a three-emitter V-system initialized in the fully excited state, they compare this full equation with a version where all k-m terms are set to zero. The full equation predicts that at small separations the initially empty states involving the lower excited level become populated, opening additional decay channels and slowing the overall relaxation to the ground state. Consequently, the initial photon-emission rate crosses the superradiance threshold at a finite separation: for distances below about 0.0

Load-bearing premise

The master equation relies on the secular approximation, which the paper itself cautions may be unjustified for near-resonant transitions; the predicted suppression comes precisely from those near-resonant cross terms, so an error there would move or erase the lower bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two-level emitter models fail for arrays spaced below about 0.05 of the excitation wavelength when the emitters have near-resonant transitions, and are reliable at larger separations.
  • A finite lower bound on emitter separation for superradiance exists for multi-level emitters, so superradiant bursts cannot be achieved by packing emitters arbitrarily close.
  • Multi-level interference slows relaxation to the ground state and weakens the burst, changing photon-emission statistics and the total emitted energy.
  • Molecular rotational transitions or atomic electronic transitions can realize the required regime at accessible distances: microns for molecules and nanometers for atoms.
  • The derived master equation works for non-parallel transition dipoles, so it applies to molecular arrays where two-level treatments are not valid.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the threshold survives a test without the secular approximation, the detuning between transitions becomes a control knob for superradiance, switching the burst on and off as levels are moved closer or farther apart.
  • Editorial inference: the same cross-transition interference should also reshape subradiant states and the directional pattern of emitted light; these consequences are not computed in the paper.
  • Editorial inference: a numerically exact solution of the emitters coupled to a structured continuum, without the secular approximation, is the natural next calculation to test the 0.01-wavelength threshold.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives a Born–Markov master equation for an array of multi-level emitters coupled to the quantized EM vacuum, retaining interference terms between different transitions (k≠m) in both the coherent dipole–dipole Hamiltonian (Eq. 7) and the dissipator (Eq. 8). The framework is applied to three identical V-type emitters whose parameters are taken from hydrogen 2s–4p spectroscopy (Appendix B). The full master equation is compared with a non-interfering variant in which all k≠m terms are set to zero. The central result (Sec. III B, Fig. 4) is that the initial emission-rate derivative γ=dS/dt(0) becomes negative for inter-emitter separations d≲0.01λ_e in the full model, whereas the non-interfering model still predicts a superradiant burst. This is interpreted as evidence that multi-level interference can set a lower bound on d for superradiance, a feature absent for two-level emitters. The paper also maps the interference regime in the (d, ΔE_e) plane and proposes atomic and molecular experimental candidates (Table I).

Significance. If correct, the predicted suppression of superradiance at ultra-small separations would be a genuinely new collective effect of multi-level emitters, relevant for dense arrays of atoms and molecules. Strengths of the manuscript: the master equation is derived from a first-principles quantization with no fitted parameters — the coefficients come from hydrogen spectroscopy and Clebsch–Gordon coefficients; the non-interfering baseline provides a clean diagnostic; the experimental candidates are concrete and falsifiable; and the numerical implementation (Newton-polynomial propagation) is appropriate for the small system studied. However, the central claim is conditional on the validity of Eq. (6) in the very regime where the authors themselves (Appendix A) caution that the secular approximation may fail. The present analysis does not resolve this tension, so the significance of the paper will be determined by whether the lower-bound prediction survives a dressed-state treatment or a non-secularized benchmark.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A (Eqs. A7–A11) / Sec. III B (Fig. 4)] Appendix A (Eqs. A7–A11) / Sec. III B (Fig. 4): the ME is derived in the bare basis (H_sys as free Hamiltonian), with H_dd added a posteriori; the central prediction γ<0 for d<0.01λ_e comes from the k≠m dissipator cross terms, which this derivation keeps. But in this regime the derivation is not valid: at d=0.01λ_e, |Δ^{1,2}_{A,B}|≈γ/(kd)^3≈2.3 GHz (Appendix B) exceeds ΔE_e=1.367 GHz, so H_sys+H_dd eigenstates are strongly mixed and the dissipator must be constructed from dressed jump operators. Moreover, |ω_e1−ω_e2|≈10^3 Γ_eff, so the standard secular approximation would drop the k≠m dissipator terms entirely. The warning in Appendix A ("must be treated with caution...") concerns precisely these terms but is never quantified. The prediction is therefore not established; required is a dressed-state derivation (or a Redfield/non-secularized benchmark) for d≤0.05λ_e.
  2. [Abstract / Sec. III] Abstract and Sec. III: the abstract compares the results to 'two-level approximations', but the numerical baseline is a multi-level model with all k≠m terms set to zero (Sec. III: 'a ME in which interactions between transitions k≠m are suppressed'). This baseline retains both excited states and two independent decay channels; it is a diagnostic, not a two-level approximation. The claimed deviation from 'two-level emitter arrays' (Sec. I) is not directly demonstrated by any calculation reported here. Either include a genuine two-level truncation for comparison or rephrase the abstract/conclusions to describe the comparison against a non-interfering multi-level model.
  3. [Sec. IV / Sec. II] Sec. IV / Sec. II: 'Since no additional approximations were introduced beyond the standard ones needed to derive the master equation, our results may serve as a benchmark' conflicts with the Appendix A caveat that the secular approximation 'must be treated with caution' for near-resonant transitions. The central result lives in exactly the regime named in that caveat: if the secular approximation is unjustified there, Eq. (6) cannot serve as a benchmark. State the validity range of Eq. (6) explicitly and state its consequences for the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III B / Fig. 3] The text refers to the d=0.2λ_e curves as 'solid green and dashed black lines', while the Fig. 3 caption describes them as 'solid green' and 'dashed brown'. Please make the color references consistent.
  2. [Appendix B] In the definition γ^{A,B}_{i,j} = (4ω^3_{ij} d_{A,i} d_{B,k})/(3c^3), the index of the second dipole appears to be a typographical error; it should presumably read d_{B,j} to match the Green's-tensor expression in Eq. (9).
  3. [Sec. II] The sentence 'Working with the full equation limits us to small system sizes, while secular error accumulation prevents reliable access to long-time dynamics [35]' is ambiguous: is the accumulation due to the secular approximation made in deriving Eq. (6), or to the polynomial propagation? Please clarify and make sure the cited reference supports the intended claim.
  4. [Table I] The column 'Maximal distance' (10 nm, 16 nm, 7 μm, 22 μm) is not defined in the text. Presumably this is the separation below which the interference effects of Sec. III C become non-negligible; please define it and state how it is obtained from the model.
  5. [Sec. III C] The thresholds quoted in the text ('detunings larger than 3·10^{-4}...', 'ΔE_e ≤ 10^{-5} E_e') would be easier to interpret if the normalized detuning used in Fig. 5 were defined explicitly in the text or caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central threshold is a numerical consequence of an externally parameterized master equation, not a fitted or self-referential input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity test. The master equation (Eq. 6) is derived in Appendix A from the standard Born-Markov and secular approximations; no parameter is fitted to the superradiance threshold. Transition frequencies, radiative shifts, and dipole moments are fixed by hydrogen spectroscopy and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (Appendix B), and the Green's tensor is the free-space expression of Eq. (10). The 'non-interfering array' comparison is obtained by setting all k ≠ m terms to zero in Eq. (6), which is a diagnostic intervention that isolates the interference terms rather than a fit that forces the predicted difference. The claim that multi-level interference suppresses superradiance for d ≲ 0.01λ_e is read off the initial emission rate γ = dS/dt(0) from Eq. (12), so it is a model prediction with independent computational content. There are no self-citations by the present authors that carry a load-bearing argument. The Appendix A caveat that the secular approximation 'must be treated with caution' for near-resonant transitions is a validity concern about the model in the regime of interest, not evidence that a result reduces to its input by construction; the same caveat applies to the two-level baseline and does not make the comparison circular. No step was found in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, a prior result by these authors is invoked to forbid alternatives, or an ansatz is smuggled in via citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to the central superradiance-suppression result; all single-emitter parameters come from hydrogen spectroscopy and angular-momentum algebra. The ΔE_e scan is a control-parameter scan, not a fit, but the reported range of validity is inferred from that scan and therefore inherits its domain. The main load-bearing assumptions are the Born-Markov and secular approximations, with the secular approximation explicitly flagged by the authors as questionable in the near-resonant regime.

free parameters (1)
  • ΔE_e (excited-state splitting) = 1.367 GHz for hydrogen; scanned over 1e-6 to 1e-3 E_e in Fig. 5
    Controls whether the two transitions are near-resonant and therefore whether multi-level interference is active. The claimed regime boundary ΔE_e ≤ 1e-5 E_e is read off a scan of this parameter, so the regime claim depends on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation
    Used to trace out the EM field and obtain Eq. (6); standard but limits validity to weak coupling and Markovian reservoirs. Invoked in Sec. II and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Secular approximation (neglect double (de)excitation terms)
    Applied in Appendix A despite the authors' caveat [35,50] that it may fail for near-resonant transitions; directly affects the k≠m interference terms that produce the central result.
  • domain assumption Replacement of ω_B,m by the average ω_km in ME coefficients
    Appendix A states this is valid only for near-resonant transitions and a slowly varying Green's tensor; this is precisely the regime where the claimed effects occur, so part of the regime is assumed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Superradiance criterion γ = dS/dt(t=0) > 0 from Ref. [29]
    Sec. III B imports a two-level superradiance criterion to multi-level emitters; no derivation shows it remains valid when cross-transition interference is present.
  • standard math Free-space Green's tensor (Eq. 10)
    Standard macroscopic QED Green's tensor for vacuum from Novotny and Hecht; used to compute the Δ and Γ coefficients.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collective states of multi-level emitters: The role of multi-level interferences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/66FZB4JX

@misc{pith2026260725547,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collective states of multi-level emitters: The role of multi-level interferences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/66FZB4JX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25547}
}
read the original abstract

We explore how collective states of light and matter differ when the multi-level nature of the quantum emitters is fully taken into account. For closely spaced emitters, interferences between near-resonant transitions completely change the character of the collective states compared to two-level approximations. In particular, we find a lower bound on the emitter separation for superradiance to occur which does not exist for two-level emitters. By contrast, for larger separations between the emitters, the collective states resemble those obtained within the widely used two-level approximation of the emitters. Both regimes may be realized by molecules trapped in optical lattices. We therefore propose molecular candidates and describe experimental signatures of emerging multi-level interference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25547 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of a system consisting of three identical emit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Population dynamics comparing time evolution with (solid lines) and without (dashed lines) interferences between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Photon emission rate from the fully excited emitter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The initial photon emission rate from the array as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Difference of initial photon emission rate between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [29]

    S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Nature Communica- tions13, 2285 (2022)

    2022

  2. [1]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  3. [2]

    Asenjo-Garcia, M

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Phys. Rev. X7, 031024 (2017)

    2017

  4. [3]

    Shahmoon, D

    E. Shahmoon, D. S. Wild, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 113601 (2017)

    2017

  5. [4]

    Holzinger and S

    R. Holzinger and S. F. Yelin, Superradiant peak emis- sion rate and time in quantum emitter arrays (2025), arXiv:2504.09985 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [5]

    Holzinger and S

    R. Holzinger and S. F. Yelin, Scaling of superradiant peak emission in spatially extended emitter arrays (2025), arXiv:2506.12649 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Nature529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Colombo, E

    S. Colombo, E. Pedrozo-Pe˜ nafiel, A. F. Adiyatullin, Z. Li, E. Mendez, C. Shu, and V. Vuleti´ c, Nature Physics18, 925 (2022)

    2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Ben-Maimon, Y

    R. Ben-Maimon, Y. Solomons, and E. Shahmoon, Phys. Rev. A110, 033719 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    M. A. Norcia, J. R. K. Cline, J. A. Muniz, J. M. Robin- son, R. B. Hutson, A. Goban, G. E. Marti, J. Ye, and J. K. Thompson, Phys. Rev. X8, 021036 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Hollerith, J. Zeiher, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, Nature 583, 369 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Kersten, N

    W. Kersten, N. de Zordo, O. Diekmann, E. S. Redchenko, A. N. Kanagin, A. Angerer, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, I. E. Mazets, S. Rotter, T. Pohl, and J. Schmiedmayer, Nature Physics22, 158 (2026)

    2026

  5. [13]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Processes and Applica- tions(Wiley, New York, 1992)

    1992

  6. [14]

    Gruner and D.-G

    T. Gruner and D.-G. Welsch, Phys. Rev. A53, 1818 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    Asenjo-Garcia, J

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, J. D. Hood, D. E. Chang, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A95, 033818 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    S. J. Masson, J. P. Covey, S. Will, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, PRX Quantum5, 010344 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    W.-K. Mok, S. J. Masson, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, T. Zelevinsky, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L022015 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Robicheaux, Phys

    F. Robicheaux, Phys. Rev. A104, 063706 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Q. Wu, Y. Zhang, H. Wu, S.-L. Su, K.-K. Liu, M. Oxbor- row, C.-X. Shan, and K. Mølmer, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy67, 260314 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Yanes-Thomas, R

    P. Yanes-Thomas, R. Guti´ errez-J´ auregui, P. Barberis- Blostein, D. Sahag´ un-S´ anchez, R. J´ auregui, and A. Kunold, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013028 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Konovalov, G

    A. Konovalov, G. Morigi, and N. Piovella, Vacuum- induced interference in light scattering by multilevel atomic chains (2026), arXiv:2607.21073 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. A. Cardimona, M. G. Raymer, and C. R. Stroud, Jr., Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics15, 55 (1982)

    1982

  15. [23]

    Ficek and S

    Z. Ficek and S. Swain,Quantum Interference and Co- herence: Theory and Experiments(Springer-Verlag New York, 2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    Horbatsch and E

    M. Horbatsch and E. A. Hessels, Phys. Rev. A82, 052519 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    A. A. Buchheit and G. Morigi, Phys. Rev. A94, 042111 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Konovalov and G

    A. Konovalov and G. Morigi, Phys. Rev. A102, 013724 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Holman, X

    A. Holman, X. Sun, B. Seo, J. Corn, Z. Zhu, Y. Xu, J. Wu, N. Yu, D. Filin, M. Safronova, and S. Will, A mid-infrared platform based on strontium tweezer arrays (2026), arXiv:2606.02560 [physics.atom-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pi˜ neiro Orioli and A

    A. Pi˜ neiro Orioli and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. A101, 043816 (2020)

    2020

  21. [30]

    S. J. Masson, I. Ferrier-Barbut, L. A. Orozco, A. Browaeys, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 263601 (2020)

    2020

  22. [31]

    H. T. Dung, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3931 (1998)

    1998

  23. [32]

    H. T. Dung, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043813 (2002)

    2002

  24. [33]

    Pi˜ neiro Orioli, J

    A. Pi˜ neiro Orioli, J. K. Thompson, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. X12, 011054 (2022)

    2022

  25. [34]

    Agarwal, A

    S. Agarwal, A. Pi˜ neiro Orioli, J. K. Thompson, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 233003 (2024)

    2024

  26. [35]

    Cattaneo, G

    M. Cattaneo, G. L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zam- brini, New J. Phys.21, 113045 (2019)

    2019

  27. [36]

    Kolachevsky, A

    N. Kolachevsky, A. Beyer, L. Maisenbacher, A. Matveev, R. Pohl, K. Khabarova, A. Grinin, T. Lamour, D. C. Yost, T. W. Haensch, and T. Udem, AIP Conference Pro- ceedings1936, 020015 (2018)

    2018

  28. [37]

    Beyer, J

    A. Beyer, J. Alnis, K. Khabarova, A. Matveev, C. G. Parthey, D. C. Yost, R. Pohl, T. Udem, T. W. H¨ ansch, and N. Kolachevsky, Annalen der Physik525(2013)

    2013

  29. [38]

    Novotny and B

    L. Novotny and B. Hecht,Principles of nano-optics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  30. [39]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Physics Reports93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  31. [40]

    R. I. Nepomechie, F. Ravanini, and D. Raveh, Advanced Quantum Technologies7, 2400057 (2024)

    2024

  32. [41]

    D. A. Steck, Rubidium 87 D line data (2001)

    2001

  33. [42]

    A., Margul` es, L., Pi- rali, O., Wlodarczak, G., Roy, P., Roueff, E., Gerin, M., Faure, A., and Hily-Blant, P., Astron

    Bailleux, S., Martin-Drumel, M. A., Margul` es, L., Pi- rali, O., Wlodarczak, G., Roy, P., Roueff, E., Gerin, M., Faure, A., and Hily-Blant, P., Astron. Astrophys.538, A135 (2012)

    2012

  34. [43]

    Hoeft and K

    J. Hoeft and K. Nair, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters8(1988)

    1988

  35. [44]

    M. R. Tarbutt, Contemporary Physics59, 356 (2018)

    2018

  36. [45]

    Jones, J

    R. Jones, J. A. Needham, I. Lesanovsky, F. Intravaia, and B. Olmos, Phys. Rev. A97, 053841 (2018)

    2018

  37. [46]

    Juergensen, M

    S. Juergensen, M. Kessens, C. Berrezueta-Palacios, N. Severin, S. Ifland, J. P. Rabe, N. S. Mueller, and S. Re- 11 ich, ACS Nano17, 17350 (2023)

    2023

  38. [47]

    Juergensen, J.-B

    S. Juergensen, J.-B. Marceau, C. Mueller, E. B. Barros, P. Kusch, A. Setaro, E. Gaufr` es, and S. Reich, The Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry Letters16, 2393 (2025)

    2025

  39. [48]

    Carmichael and K

    H. Carmichael and K. Kim, Optics Communications179, 417 (2000)

    2000

  40. [49]

    H. T. Dung, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, Phys. Rev. A 66, 063810 (2002)

    2002

  41. [50]

    Vaaranta and M

    A. Vaaranta and M. Cattaneo, Computer Physics Com- munications320, 109948 (2026)

    2026

  42. [51]

    Kosloff, Annu

    R. Kosloff, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.45, 145 (1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.