Coherent control of subradiant excitations in atomic rings

Beatriz Olmos; Igor Lesanovsky; Milena Djatchkova

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Coherent control of subradiant excitations in atomic rings

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 Ring-shaped atomic arrays can coherently transport, transfer, and conditionally phase-shift dissipation-protected collective excitations by dynamically rotating the atomic dipole orientation.

desk verdict A plausible and clean set of protocols, but the two-excitation controlled-phase claim needs a full master-equation check before the headline numbers are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25638 v1 pith:RIY446MN submitted 2026-07-28 quant-ph

Milena Djatchkova , Igor Lesanovsky , Beatriz Olmos This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a42.50.Nn

keywords subradianceatomicringarraysdipole-exchangeinteractionsadiabatictransportexcitationtransfercontrolled-phasegatecollectiveexcitationsquantuminformationprocessing

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 claims that localized subradiant collective excitations in ring-shaped atomic arrays can be coherently steered by rotating the transition dipoles, and that this control can implement elementary photonic operations. It predicts three capabilities: adiabatic transport of an excitation around a single ring, geometry-selective coherent transfer between two neighboring rings, and interaction-induced conditional phase shifts when one excitation is stored in each ring. The conditional phase can be read as a controlled-phase gate on the basis 'presence or absence of an excitation per ring', with reported fidelities up to 0.9998. If these results hold, ordered atomic arrays could become a platform for storing and processing photonic quantum information while retaining subradiant protection against radiative decay.

What carries the argument

The effective potential and the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H_eff = V - i Γ/2. The trapping potential arises because the nearest-neighbor dipole-exchange coupling varies with the angle θ between the transition dipoles and the local ring bond; the potential minimum sits where dipoles align with the bond. Rotating the dipoles translates the minimum. Hybridization of localized modes between neighboring rings is controlled by the relative ring geometry, and the two-excitation dynamics is governed by a matrix equation involving products of H_eff that the paper derives after neglecting the population-recycling jump terms.

What would settle it

A numerical or experimental test would solve the full master equation including the σαρ σ†β recycling terms for the two-excitation protocol and compare the resulting excess phase and state fidelity to the values reported here; any significant deviation would mean the controlled-phase operation is not realized as described.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the angle-dependent dipole-dipole interaction in a ring creates an effective trapping potential for a localized subradiant mode, and that a collective rotation of the dipole orientation moves this potential. A slow full rotation carries the trapped excitation around the ring with survival probability above 0.99999. With two rings, the transfer between them depends on relative orientation: the symmetric geometry hybridizes the localized modes and supports coherent Rabi-like oscillations between rings (transfer probability up to 0.996), while the shifted geometry leaves the modes unhybridized and suppresses transfer. In the two-excitation manifold, bringing the tw

Load-bearing premise

The conditional-phase protocol relies on the evolution staying inside the two-excitation manifold, with the population-recycling jump terms neglected; if that leakage is significant, the states are no longer cleanly labeled by excitation presence/absence and the controlled-phase interpretation fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, ring arrays offer a single platform in which an excitation can be transported, split, and made to interact without losing its subradiant protection.
The geometry-controlled selectivity means the same array can host both communicating and isolated storage sites, depending on the relative orientation of neighboring rings.
The controlled-phase interpretation suggests a route to quantum information processing where logical states are excitation-presence states protected from collective radiative decay.
Tuning ring separation and dipole rotation time gives control over the beam-splitter splitting ratio and the accumulated phase, enabling a programmable single-excitation operation.
The reported survival probabilities above 0.9999 for single-excitation transport indicate that the protocols preserve the long-lived character of the excitations throughout the manipulation.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not compute the entanglement genuinely produced by the conditional phase; a natural next step would be to use the shifted-ring protocol on a superposition of |10> and |01> and check whether |11> acquires the predicted phase, yielding a Bell-type state.
The reported fidelities explicitly assume that population-recycling jump terms are negligible; if those terms are retained, the controlled-phase gate would acquire a loss-dependent error that could be mitigated by post-selection or by optimal control of the dipole rotation.
The mechanism should extend to larger networks of rings; a lattice with individually controllable dipole orientations could act as a programmable photonic circuit for stored excitations, though crosstalk between non-neighboring rings would need to be assessed.
A direct experimental signature would be the geometry-controlled suppression of transfer in the shifted configuration while a phase still accumulates on the two-excitation state, a combination unique to this platform.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a serious theory proposal built on standard tools. The rotating-dipole transport and the geometry-selective transfer between rings are genuinely new and coherently explained. But the most novel piece—the controlled-phase operation—is validated only inside a truncated no-jump subspace, and the quoted F=0.9998 does not tell you the probability that both excitations survive once recycling is included. That gap is addressable, not fatal, but it means the central quantitative claim is not yet established.

What's good: the model is standard (master equation with dipole-dipole couplings), and the qualitative story is compelling. Rotating the dipoles moves the trapping potential, and the symmetric-versus-shifted geometry contrast is clean. The eigenmode analysis in the supplement explains the energy crossing and the transfer fringe pattern well. The paper is also honest that radiative losses need to be negligible for the controlled-phase interpretation.

The soft spots: first, there is no code or data release, and the initial wave-packet parameters (k_s, σ, x_0) are not given. So none of the quantitative numbers (Psur > 0.99999, F = 0.9998, Ptr ≈ 0.98–0.996) are reproducible from the manuscript alone. That's a reproducibility problem, not a correctness problem. Second, the two-excitation dynamics is computed via H_eff after dropping the terms σαρσ†β that repopulate lower sectors. The reported fidelity is an overlap inside the two-excitation subspace; it doesn't bound the unconditional survival probability, which can be smaller if recycling matters. They do note the interpretation holds "in the limit of negligible radiative losses," but they never quantify those losses for the two-excitation protocol. A full master-equation run, or even a bound from the decay rate of the participating eigenmodes, would close the gap. Third, the beam-splitter interpretation for the symmetric configuration relies on the same kind of overlap argument; the |g|^2 + |h|^2 ≈ Psur statement is only checked numerically, and the same reproducibility caveat applies.

Verdict: this paper deserves a serious referee. The physics is plausible, the toolset is standard, and my main concern is a missing validation rather than an internal contradiction. If the authors add the full master-equation check for the two-excitation case and make the numerics reproducible, the controlled-phase result would be much stronger. I'd send it to a good referee and ask for those additions.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript theoretically studies coherent control of subradiant collective excitations in atomic ring arrays. Using a standard Born-Markov master equation with dipole-dipole exchange and collective dissipation, the authors show that a Gaussian wave packet localized near the effective trapping minimum of a ring remains subradiant under adiabatic rotation of the dipole orientation, enabling transport around the ring with reported survival probability Psur(500/gamma) > 0.99999. They then consider two neighboring rings in symmetric and shifted geometries: the symmetric configuration supports coherent excitation transfer with Ptr between about 0.98 and 0.996, while the shifted configuration suppresses transfer. Finally, they simulate two simultaneously trapped excitations and report an interaction-induced excess phase Delta-phi and a fidelity F = 0.9998, interpreting the shifted-geometry protocol as an effective controlled-phase operation. The two-excitation calculation is performed in the truncated Hilbert space H_0 + H_1 + H_2 using the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian and explicitly neglecting recycling terms that transfer population out of the two-excitation manifold.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper demonstrates a plausible toolbox for photonic quantum information processing with dissipation-protected collective excitations: adiabatic transport, geometry-selective coherent transfer, and an interaction-induced conditional phase. The master-equation framework and the single-excitation dynamics are standard, and the beam-splitter analogy in the Supplemental Material is a useful conceptual contribution. The main novelty, the conditional-phase/controlled-phase operation, is not yet verified as an unconditional process, because the reported figures of merit are computed in a truncated no-jump subspace; leakage into one-excitation and vacuum sectors is not quantified. With that gap filled, the paper would be a solid contribution to the quantum-optics literature.

major comments (3)

[Supplemental Material, 'Equation of Motion for Two Excitations', SM Eq. (15)] The two-excitation dynamics is computed with d c(t)/dt = -(i/hbar)[H_eff c(t) + c(t) H_eff], explicitly neglecting the recycling terms sigma_alpha rho sigma^dagger_beta that transfer population out of the two-excitation manifold. The fidelity F = 0.9998 reported in Fig. 3 is therefore a norm-overlap within the truncated no-jump subspace. It does not by itself bound the unconditional probability that both excitations survive, which is the relevant figure of merit for the logical encoding of Fig. 3c. The single-excitation survival probabilities (Eq. (9), Fig. 1) do not constrain the two-excitation case, which has additional decay channels. Please quantify the leakage into the one-excitation and vacuum sectors, or solve the full master equation including recycling terms, and report the unconditional two-excitation survival probability. Without this, the controlled-phase interpretation is un
[Main text, 'Coherent interactions between subradiant excitations', Fig. 3] The definition F = |<psi_0^{2e}|psi(t_end)>|^2 is ambiguous. If psi(t_end) is normalized within the two-excitation manifold, F is a conditional shape overlap; if it is the unnormalized non-Hermitian evolution, F conflates survival probability with state overlap. The manuscript should specify which quantity is plotted and should separately provide the unconditional logical fidelity, including population that leaks to one-excitation and vacuum sectors. For the claimed controlled-phase operation, the relevant fidelity is the probability that the logical basis state |11> is mapped to e^{i Delta-phi} |11> without population loss, not merely the overlap in the truncated subspace.
[All quantitative results: Eqs. (9)-(10), Figs. 1-3] All quantitative claims (Psur > 0.99999, Ptr about 0.98-0.996, F = 0.9998, and the Delta-phi curves in Fig. 3) come from numerical time evolution, but no simulation parameters are provided: no time step or integrator, no convergence checks, no statement of how the dipole-dipole and dissipative couplings are truncated (all-to-all vs nearest-neighbor), and no code/data availability. Since these numbers are the evidence for the protocols, please report the numerical implementation and convergence criteria, and ideally release simulation code or data. This is a reproducibility issue that can be fixed without changing the physics.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 1 caption] The caption states 'theoretical survival probability Psur(500 gamma^{-1}) > 0.99999' but does not specify whether this applies to the fixed-dipole panel, the rotated panel, or both at t = 500 gamma^{-1}. Please clarify.
[Eq. (6)] The Gaussian wave packet normalization uses a continuum prefactor sqrt(sigma sqrt(2 pi)) that is not the exact normalization on a finite discrete lattice of N sites. Please provide the exact normalization constant or state that the formula is approximate.
[SM Eq. (13)] The free-evolution phase phi_f is said to be 'determined analytically from the rotation frequency of the wave function in the complex plane', but the explicit expression is not given. Please provide the formula or a clear definition.
[Main text, sentence on ring geometries and Ref. [40]] The text attributes the ring-geometry trapping potential to Ref. [40], whose title refers to one-dimensional emitter chains. Please check the citation; it may be that a different prior work is intended or that the connection to rings should be stated explicitly.
[SM, 'Dependence on interatomic spacing'] The claim that 'qualitative behavior persists over a wider range of subwavelength spacings' is supported only by one additional spacing, a = 0.2 lambda_a. A brief scan over spacing values would strengthen this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: protocols are simulated from the dipole-dipole master equation with no fitted parameters; the only self-citation (Ref. [40]) is corroborated by in-paper numerics.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—adiabatic transport, inter-ring transfer, and conditional phase—are obtained by integrating the microscopically defined master equation (Eqs. 1–5) for specified initial Gaussian wave packets and dipole-rotation schedules. No parameter is fitted to the reported outputs: survival probabilities, transfer probabilities, excess phases, and fidelities are all computed from the same Hamiltonian and dissipation matrices. The trapping potential and subradiant mode localization are attributed to the authors' prior work (Ref. [40]), but the paper independently shows localization in Fig. 1b and the modes follow directly from the position-dependent Vαβ of Eq. (3), so the citation is not the sole load-bearing input. The two-excitation equation of motion in the Supplemental Material neglects recycling terms σαρσ†β that transfer population out of the two-excitation manifold; this is an unquantified approximation, and the reported F=0.9998 is a no-jump-subspace overlap rather than an unconditional logical fidelity. However, that is a validation gap, not a circular reduction: the truncated dynamics are still a genuine prediction of the model, not an input renamed as an output. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it purports to predict, and no fitted constant is relabeled as a prediction. The controlled-phase interpretation is explicitly stated to hold only in the limit of negligible radiative losses, and the paper does not bound that limit for the two-excitation protocol, but this does not make the derivation circular.

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

The central claims rest on a standard dipole-dipole master equation, but the paper chooses several representative parameters by hand and imports the trapping-potential existence from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced; the main load-bearing approximations are the single- and two-excitation truncations.

free parameters (5)

interatomic spacing a = 0.08 λ_a (main), 0.2 λ_a (Supplement S7)
Chosen as a representative subwavelength spacing that yields strongly subradiant localized modes; all quantitative protocols are demonstrated at this value.
protocol duration τ = 400 γ^{-1}
Chosen to satisfy adiabaticity with a smooth sin^2 rotation profile; results depend on this timescale.
number of atoms per ring N = 50
Used in all main simulations; subradiant lifetimes and transfer behavior generally scale with N, and no N-dependence study is given.
Gaussian wave-packet parameters k_s, σ, x_0
The initial states in Eqs. (6) and (11) require k_s outside the light line and a narrow width, but actual numerical values are never reported; essential for reproducing Psur and fidelity claims.
inter-ring separation f = scanned; examples 0.155–0.185 λ_a, 0.12–0.27 λ_a
Scanned to tune transfer probability and phase; not fitted to external data, but the quantitative phase depends on f.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Born-Markov approximation and the vacuum dipole-dipole interaction model (Eqs. 3–5) are valid for subwavelength emitter spacings.
All results are obtained from this master equation; the paper relies on the standard Green's-function result of Ref. [41].
domain assumption Dynamics remain almost entirely within the single-excitation manifold, so the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H_eff (Eq. 7) governs transport and transfer.
Used throughout for single-excitation protocols; the paper cites Ref. [24] for this restriction.
ad hoc to paper For two excitations, the terms σ_αρσ†_β that recycle population out of the two-excitation manifold are negligible, and doubly occupied sites can be constrained to zero.
This no-jump truncation underlies the conditional-phase fidelity F=0.9998 and is not quantitatively justified against the full master equation.
domain assumption The geometry-induced trapping potential and localized subradiant modes in a ring exist and remain stable under dipole rotation (adopted from Ref. [40]).
Transport around the ring assumes the potential minimum follows the dipole orientation; the paper does not re-derive this.
standard math Adiabatic following is valid for rotation time τ=400 γ^{-1}; the energy gap between trapped mode and nearest eigenmode is large enough except near the crossing in Fig. 2c.
The paper invokes τ ≫ ħ/|ΔE| and a smooth sin^2 profile (Eq. 8) but does not give the gap size for the main parameters.
domain assumption A Gaussian wave packet with |k_s| > π/λ and narrow width populates predominantly subradiant modes.
Used to initialize localized excitations (Eqs. 6 and 11).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coherent control of subradiant excitations in atomic rings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIY446MN

@misc{pith2026260725638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coherent control of subradiant excitations in atomic rings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIY446MN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25638}
}

read the original abstract

Collective excitations in ordered subwavelength atomic arrays can exhibit strongly suppressed radiative decay due to interference between light scattered by neighboring emitters. These so-called subradiant states make these systems a promising platform for storing and manipulating photonic excitations. The external geometry of the array, combined with dynamical control of the atomic dipole orientation, enables localized trapping and coherent transport of these subradiant excitations. Here, we theoretically demonstrate these capabilities in ring-shaped atomic arrays. Specifically, we show adiabatic transport of a localized excitation around a single ring, coherent transfer of a single excitation between two neighboring rings with geometry-controlled selectivity, and interaction-induced conditional phase shifts between two simultaneously trapped excitations in neighboring rings. The latter can be interpreted as effective controlled-phase operations between stored excitations. Together, these results demonstrate the potential of ordered atomic arrays as a platform for coherent photonic quantum information processing with dissipation-protected collective excitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25638 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** a,b for the symmetric and shifted configurations, respectively. Here, we also introduce the fidelity as the overlap between the initial and final state when two excitations are present, namely F = |⟨ψ 2e 0 |ψ(tend)⟩|2 . As shown in Fig. 3a,b, the system predominantly occupies the subradiant manifold, where collective emission is strongly suppressed, which allows fidelities to reach F = 0.9998. Beyond characterizin… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

1954
[2]

R. H. Lehmberg, Radiation from ann-atom system. I. general formalism, Phys. Rev. A2, 883 (1970)

1970
[3]

R. H. Lehmberg, Radiation from ann-atom system. II. spontaneous emission from a pair of atoms, Phys. Rev. A2, 889 (1970)

1970
[4]

D. F. V. James, Frequency shifts in spontaneous emis- sion from two interacting atoms, Phys. Rev. A47, 1336 (1993)

1993
[5]

D. E. Chang, J. S. Douglas, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Colloquium: Quantum matter built from nanoscopic lattices of atoms and photons, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031002 (2018)

2018
[6]

R. G. DeVoe and R. G. Brewer, Observation of superradi- ant and subradiant spontaneous emission of two trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 2049 (1996)
[7]

Hotter, L

C. Hotter, L. Ostermann, and H. Ritsch, Cavity sub- and superradiance for transversely driven atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013056 (2023)

2023
[8]

Pi˜ neiro Orioli, J

A. Pi˜ neiro Orioli, J. K. Thompson, and A. M. Rey, Emer- gent dark states from superradiant dynamics in multi- level atoms in a cavity, Phys. Rev. X12, 011054 (2022)

2022

Show all 48 references

[9]

Shankar, J

A. Shankar, J. T. Reilly, S. B. J¨ ager, and M. J. Hol- land, Subradiant-to-subradiant phase transition in the bad cavity laser, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 073603 (2021)

2021
[10]

J. Kim, D. Yang, S.-h. Oh, and K. An, Coherent single- atom superradiance, Science359, 662 (2018)

2018
[11]

Trebbia, Q

J.-B. Trebbia, Q. Deplano, P. Tamarat, and B. Lounis, Tailoring the superradiant and subradiant nature of two coherently coupled quantum emitters, Nat. Commun.13, 2962 (2022)

2022
[12]

B. H. McGuyer, M. McDonald, G. Z. Iwata, M. G. Tarallo, W. Skomorowski, R. Moszynski, and T. Zelevin- sky, Precise study of asymptotic physics with subradiant ultracold molecules, Nat. Phys.11, 32 (2014)

2014
[13]

J. A. Mlynek, A. A. Abdumalikov, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Observation of Dicke superradiance for two artificial atoms in a cavity with high decay rate, Nat. Commun.5, 5186 (2014). 6

2014
[14]

Ferioli, A

G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, L. Henriet, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, Storage and release of subradiant exci- tations in a dense atomic cloud, Phys. Rev. X11, 021031 (2021)

2021
[15]

Glicenstein, G

A. Glicenstein, G. Ferioli, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier- Barbut, From superradiance to subradiance: exploring the many-body Dicke ladder, Opt. Lett.47, 1541 (2022)

2022
[16]

J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Hollerith, J. Zeiher, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, A subradi- ant optical mirror formed by a single structured atomic layer, Nature583, 369 (2020)

2020
[17]

Srakaew, P

K. Srakaew, P. Weckesser, S. Hollerith, D. Wei, D. Adler, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, A subwavelength atomic array switched by a single Rydberg atom, Nat. Phys.19, 714 (2023)

2023
[18]

Douglas, L

A. Douglas, L. Su, M. Szurek, R. Groth, S. Brand- stetter, O. Markovi´ c, O. Rubies-Bigorda, S. Ostermann, S. F. Yelin, and M. Greiner, Many-body super- and subradiance in ordered atomic arrays, arXiv (2026), arXiv:2604.11795

2026 arXiv
[19]

Olmos, D

B. Olmos, D. Yu, Y. Singh, F. Schreck, K. Bongs, and I. Lesanovsky, Long-range interacting many-body sys- tems with alkaline-earth-metal atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 143602 (2013)

2013
[20]

Selective Radiance

A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Exponential improve- ment in photon storage fidelities using subradiance and “Selective Radiance” in atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. X7, 031024 (2017)

2017
[21]

Reitz, C

M. Reitz, C. Sommer, and C. Genes, Cooperative quan- tum phenomena in light-matter platforms, PRX Quan- tum3, 010201 (2022)

2022
[22]

H. H. Jen, M.-S. Chang, and Y.-C. Chen, Cooperative single-photon subradiant states, Phys. Rev. A94, 013803 (2016)

2016
[23]

H. H. Jen, Phase-imprinted multiphoton subradiant states, Phys. Rev. A96, 023814 (2017)

2017
[24]

J. A. Needham, I. Lesanovsky, and B. Olmos, Subradiance-protected excitation transport, New J. Phys.21, 073061 (2019)

2019
[25]

R. J. Bettles, S. A. Gardiner, and C. S. Adams, En- hanced optical cross section via collective coupling of atomic dipoles in a 2d array, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 103602 (2016)

2016
[26]

R. J. Bettles, J. Min´ aˇ r, C. S. Adams, I. Lesanovsky, and B. Olmos, Topological properties of a dense atomic lattice gas, Phys. Rev. A96, 041603(R) (2017)

2017
[27]

Perczel, J

J. Perczel, J. Borregaard, D. E. Chang, H. Pichler, S. F. Yelin, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, Topological quantum optics in two-dimensional atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 023603 (2017)

2017
[28]

Browaeys and T

A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nat. Phys.16, 132 (2020)

2020
[29]

Moreno-Cardoner, D

M. Moreno-Cardoner, D. Plankensteiner, L. Ostermann, D. E. Chang, and H. Ritsch, Subradiance-enhanced ex- citation transfer between dipole-coupled nanorings of quantum emitters, Phys. Rev. A100, 023806 (2019)

2019
[30]

Cremer, D

J. Cremer, D. Plankensteiner, M. Moreno-Cardoner, L. Ostermann, and H. Ritsch, Polarization control of ra- diation and energy flow in dipole-coupled nanorings, New J. Phys.22, 083052 (2020)

2020
[31]

H. H. Jen, M.-S. Chang, and Y.-C. Chen, Coopera- tive light scattering from helical-phase-imprinted atomic rings, Sci. Rep.8, 9570 (2018)

2018
[32]

H. H. Jen, Directional subradiance from helical-phase- imprinted multiphoton states, Sci. Rep.8, 7163 (2018)

2018
[33]

Scheil, R

V. Scheil, R. Holzinger, M. Moreno-Cardoner, and H. Ritsch, Optical properties of concentric nanorings of quantum emitters, Nanomaterials13, 851 (2023)

2023
[34]

Holzinger, J

R. Holzinger, J. S. Peter, S. Ostermann, H. Ritsch, and S. F. Yelin, Harnessing quantum emitter rings for efficient energy transport and trapping, Optica Quantum2, 57 (2024)

2024
[35]

Guimond, A

P.-O. Guimond, A. Grankin, D. V. Vasilyev, B. Verm- ersch, and P. Zoller, Subradiant bell states in distant atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 093601 (2019)

2019
[36]

M. T. Manzoni, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Asenjo-Garcia, J. V. Porto, A. V. Gorshkov, and D. E. Chang, Optimiza- tion of photon storage fidelity in ordered atomic arrays, New J. Phys.20, 083048 (2018)

2018
[37]

K. E. Ballantine and J. Ruostekoski, Quantum single- photon control, storage, and entanglement generation with planar atomic arrays, PRX Quantum2, 040362 (2021)

2021
[38]

K. E. Ballantine and J. Ruostekoski, Unidirectional ab- sorption, storage, and emission of single photons in a collectively responding bilayer atomic array, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033200 (2022)

2022
[39]

Rubies-Bigorda, V

O. Rubies-Bigorda, V. Walther, T. L. Patti, and S. F. Yelin, Photon control and coherent interactions via lat- tice dark states in atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013110 (2022)

2022
[40]

M. Cech, I. Lesanovsky, and B. Olmos, Dispersionless subradiant photon storage in one-dimensional emitter chains, Phys. Rev. A108, L051702 (2023)

2023
[41]

Asenjo-Garcia, J

A. Asenjo-Garcia, J. D. Hood, D. E. Chang, and H. J. Kimble, Atom-light interactions in quasi-one-dimensional nanostructures: A green’s-function perspective, Phys. Rev. A95, 033818 (2017)

2017
[42]

Jones, J

R. Jones, J. A. Needham, I. Lesanovsky, F. Intravaia, and B. Olmos, Modified dipole-dipole interaction and dissipa- tion in an atomic ensemble near surfaces, Phys. Rev. A 97, 053841 (2018)

2018
[43]

See Supplemental Material for a more detailed analysis
[44]

Olmos and I

B. Olmos and I. Lesanovsky, Hybrid sub- and superradi- ant states in emitter arrays with quantized motion, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 243602 (2025)

2025
[45]

Rubies-Bigorda, R

O. Rubies-Bigorda, R. Holzinger, A. Asenjo-Garcia, O. Romero-Isart, H. Ritsch, S. Ostermann, C. Gonzalez- Ballestero, S. F. Yelin, and C. C. Rusconi, Collectively enhanced ground-state cooling in subwavelength atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. A112, 023714 (2025)

2025
[46]

B. Du, Q. Guo, and R. Ma, Programmable superradiance in an interacting qubit array (2026), arXiv:2605.12442 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2026 arXiv
[47]

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]. 7 Supplemental Material: Coherent control of subradiant excitations in at...

2026 arXiv
[2024]

55456179

under DFG Grant No. 55456179

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

1954

[2] [2]

R. H. Lehmberg, Radiation from ann-atom system. I. general formalism, Phys. Rev. A2, 883 (1970)

1970

[3] [3]

R. H. Lehmberg, Radiation from ann-atom system. II. spontaneous emission from a pair of atoms, Phys. Rev. A2, 889 (1970)

1970

[4] [4]

D. F. V. James, Frequency shifts in spontaneous emis- sion from two interacting atoms, Phys. Rev. A47, 1336 (1993)

1993

[5] [5]

D. E. Chang, J. S. Douglas, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Colloquium: Quantum matter built from nanoscopic lattices of atoms and photons, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031002 (2018)

2018

[6] [6]

R. G. DeVoe and R. G. Brewer, Observation of superradi- ant and subradiant spontaneous emission of two trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 2049 (1996)

[7] [7]

Hotter, L

C. Hotter, L. Ostermann, and H. Ritsch, Cavity sub- and superradiance for transversely driven atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013056 (2023)

2023

[8] [8]

Pi˜ neiro Orioli, J

A. Pi˜ neiro Orioli, J. K. Thompson, and A. M. Rey, Emer- gent dark states from superradiant dynamics in multi- level atoms in a cavity, Phys. Rev. X12, 011054 (2022)

2022