Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Photon-Number-Resolving Detector Based on a Cascade of Waveguide-Coupled Quantum Emitters

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

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

Pith's one-line read A chain of n waveguide-coupled Λ-type emitters can count photons by deterministically removing one photon per emitter, resolving pulses with up to n+1 photons, and can outperform beam-splitter-based photon-number-resolving detectors when…

desk verdict Sound waveguide-QED cascade theory with an overstated 'realistic conditions' claim; referees should require a loss budget before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09034 v1 pith:DB5NJZJM submitted 2025-07-11 quant-ph

Abdolreza Pasharavesh , Sai Sreesh Venuturumilli , Michal Bajcsy This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords photon-number-resolvingdetectiondeterministicphotonsubtractionSPRINTchiralwaveguidequantumelectrodynamicsLambda-typeemitterphoton-photoncorrelationsscatteringmatrixtrajectorymethod
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a photon-number-resolving detector made from a chain of $n$ waveguide-coupled $\Lambda$-type emitters, where each emitter extracts one photon from the incoming light pulse and sends it to its own single-photon detector, so the cascade can count pulses containing up to $n+1$ photons. The authors derive the single- and multi-photon scattering matrices of one emitter, cascade them into a closed-form expression for counting precision in the linear regime, and use quantum trajectory simulations to include nonlinear photon-photon interactions. They compare the cascade with conventional schemes that split the pulse across detectors with beam-splitter trees, and find that when the emitter-waveguide coupling rate $\gamma_g$ is about 1 GHz for 10 ns pulses, the proposed detector gives a more accurate click count than a conventional detector using the same number of detectors. If this holds, photon-number resolution could be achieved without the lossy splitting that limits demultiplexing detectors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the SPRINT subtractor: a chirally coupled $\Lambda$-type emitter in ground state $|1\rangle$ absorbs the first arriving photon on the $|1\rangle \leftrightarrow |3\rangle$ transition and re-emits it into a second waveguide on the $|2\rangle \leftrightarrow |3\rangle$ transition, leaving the atom in $|2\rangle$, where it no longer interacts with the input mode. The quantitative machinery is the scattering matrix of this device, computed from Green's functions of an effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, plus a multi-photon kernel that encodes time-ordering and saturation-induced reordering of scattered photons; the cascade is assembled by composing the input-output description of each emitter node. Together these convert the question 'how many photons arrived?' into a set of single-photon subtraction probabilities with computable corrections from photon-photon correlations.

What would settle it

Add per-circulator insertion loss and sub-unit detector efficiency to the comparison in Fig. 8 and recompute the crossover: if a balanced beam-splitter tree with the same five detectors matches or beats the cascade at $\delta\gamma_g = 10$, the claim that the scheme outperforms conventional detectors under realistic conditions is falsified. Experimentally, send heralded $|N\rangle$ Fock states, $N = 1$ through $5$, into a four-emitter cascade operated at $\gamma_g \approx 1$ GHz with 10 ns pulses, and compare the click-error curve against a five-detector beam-splitter tree.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that deterministic photon subtraction is itself a counting primitive: once a $\Lambda$-type emitter absorbs one photon via a single-photon Raman interaction it switches to a decoupled ground state, so it removes exactly one photon from the pulse and stops interacting. A cascade of $n$ such subtractors therefore demultiplexes an input pulse into $n+1$ output ports, one per emitter plus a through port, and the detector-click pattern is the photon number. The paper shows analytically with Green's-function scattering matrices and numerically with the quantum trajectory method how pulse reshaping and emitter-mediated photon correlations modify this mapping, and it identifies the operating point $\delta\gamma_g \approx 10$ at which the cascade out-accuracies a five-detector balanced beam-splitter tree using the same number of single-photon detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison that supports the claim of outperforming conventional detectors assumes unit-efficiency single-photon detectors, lossless optical circulators, perfect chiral directionality, and no dark counts or dead time, so the practical advantage rests on those idealizations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An $n$-emitter cascade resolves pulses with up to $n+1$ photons, and adding extra emitters compensates for occasional subtraction failures, lowering relative error even when nonlinear effects make subtraction harder.
  • At strong coupling ($\delta\gamma_g > 1$), the first arriving photon is almost deterministically subtracted and is detected before the remaining photons, making the detection event temporally correlated with the output field.
  • Photon-photon interactions create bunched multi-photon bound states in the transmitted mode, so nonlinear-regime precision is lower than the linear estimate; the paper quantifies this for two- and three-photon pulses and shows extra emitters restore accuracy.
  • With 10 ns pulses the crossover to outperforming a five-detector balanced beam-splitter tree occurs at $\delta\gamma_g \approx 10$, corresponding to $\gamma_g \approx 1$ GHz, a coupling strength reported for solid-state emitters coupled to chiral photonic-crystal waveguides.
  • Unlike passive spatial demultiplexing, the detection process itself involves coherent interaction, so the scheme can generate photon-photon correlations and intermittent entanglement as byproducts of counting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's comparison uses five detectors; scaling the cascade to many pixels would accumulate circulator and emitter loss differently from a beam-splitter tree, so the crossover could move as pixel count grows.
  • Each emitter latches after one subtraction, so resetting it is a practical dead-time requirement; the paper does not quantify how reset time affects the usable counting rate.
  • The through-port field is the photon-subtracted state, so the same hardware could act as a number-resolved subtraction source that heralds the subtracted photon number from its click pattern; the paper mentions this as outlook rather than analysis.
  • Adding dark counts and finite detector efficiency to the Fig. 8 model would likely shift the $\delta\gamma_g \approx 10$ crossover, and the threshold at which the advantage disappears is a testable extension of the model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a photon-number-resolving (PNR) detector built from a cascade of chirally waveguide-coupled Λ-type emitters, each acting as a deterministic single-photon subtractor via the SPRINT mechanism. The authors derive single- and multi-photon scattering matrices using Green's function and input-output formalisms, obtain a closed-form expression for detection precision in the linear regime, and analyze the nonlinear regime with quantum trajectory simulations. They compare the proposed detector with conventional spatial-demultiplexing PNR schemes based on beamsplitter trees and SNSPD-like cascades, concluding that the proposed scheme can outperform conventional detectors under realistic conditions when the waveguide coupling rate is on the order of 1 GHz for 10 ns pulses.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a promising new route to PNR detection that avoids the splitting loss of passive demultiplexers and instead uses deterministic single-photon subtraction. The analytical scattering-matrix formulation is a useful contribution, and the cross-checks between the closed-form linear results and independent quantum-trajectory simulations in Figs. 3-7 are a genuine strength: no parameter is fitted to the target result, and the numerical data agree with the analytical curves. The comparison in Fig. 8b is also informative as an ideal-model benchmark. However, the practical significance is currently limited because the headline 'realistic conditions' claim is evaluated for an idealized network with lossless circulators, unit-efficiency detectors, perfect chiral coupling, and no dark counts or dead time; this gap is the main obstacle to accepting the paper in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. III D, Fig. 8b] The claim that the proposed scheme can outperform conventional detectors 'under realistic conditions' is not supported by the comparison in Fig. 8b. The model assumes unit-efficiency single-photon detectors, lossless optical circulators, perfect chiral coupling, and no dark counts or dead time. The click-count metric is directly sensitive to photon loss: if one photon is lost or not detected, the recorded click count changes by exactly one, and this is precisely the regime where the claimed advantage over the balanced-tree scheme is largest. The feasibility estimate gamma_g ≈ 1 GHz for 10 ns pulses fixes the coupling rate but does not quantify how non-unity collection efficiency, circulator insertion loss, detector efficiency, or dark counts erode the response curves. I ask the authors to include a loss budget in the Fig. 8 comparison, or to restrict the abstract and conclusion claims to the idealized network.
  2. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (16)-(18)] The linear-regime precision formula P^n_{N,k} in Eq. (17) is derived under the assumptions that each emitter subtracts at most one photon and then decouples from the waveguide, and that the remaining photons propagate through the remaining emitters independently. These assumptions are physically valid only for temporally separated photons, but the text does not state the required condition clearly before presenting Fig. 2. Since Fig. 2 and the comparison in Fig. 8b rely on Eq. (17), the validity range of the linear model should be stated explicitly in Section III A.
  3. [Sec. III D, Eq. (27)] The conventional benchmark is also defined without loss, and two statements in Section III D need support. First, the claim that the balanced configuration P_1 = ... = P_{n+1} gives the 'most accurate response achievable' with the beamsplitter tree is asserted without proof; for click-count based PNR, the optimal routing probabilities are not obvious and should be demonstrated. Second, the equal-reflectivity curve is said to use a reflectivity value 'chosen to maximize precision,' but the optimization is not shown. Because the central comparison is between the proposed and conventional schemes, the benchmark should be specified precisely, including the metric being optimized.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eq. (24)] In Eq. (24) and the surrounding text, the normalization factor and the explicit form of the indistinguishability matrix S are missing: the text reads 'the normalization factor is , where S is ...' and 'this results in .' These expressions should be filled in.
  2. [Sec. II C, Eq. (11)] Equation (11) contains a citation artifact inside the Hamiltonian: H(i) = omega_13 sigma[45](i) + ... . This should be corrected to the proper atomic-transition notation.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption of Fig. 2 refers to 'a cascade of λ emitters,' but the text and figures use n for the number of emitters; please make the notation consistent.
  4. [Sec. II A, Eq. (1)] The definition of the Hilbert space for the waveguide modes is grammatically unclear ('the waveguides Hilbert spaces will be Hi=1,...,n wg = ...'), and the notation for mode n+1 is introduced abruptly. Rewriting this passage would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scattering-matrix and quantum-trajectory derivations are self-contained, and the cited SPRINT results are background rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the Green's-function expressions in Eqs. (5)-(7), the authors explicitly derive the single-photon scattering amplitudes in Eq. (8), cascade them via Eqs. (16)-(18), and compute nonlinear corrections from the multiphoton scattering kernels in Eqs. (9)-(10) and (21)-(23). No parameter is fitted to the target click-count or precision result. The quantum-trajectory simulations with QuTiP are independent numerical solutions of the same SLH network model, so their agreement with the analytical expressions is a consistency check, not a circular reduction. The comparison with conventional beamsplitter-demultiplexing PNR uses an independent multinomial model in Eqs. (26)-(27) and assumes equal detector counts; the claimed advantage for δγg around 10 follows from the computed curves, not from any input assumption that already contains the conclusion. The paper does cite the authors' own prior SPRINT work [11, 13, 18, 40] and the earlier PNR suggestion [19], but these provide background and motivation; the load-bearing single-photon transfer functions and many-photon correlators are re-derived here rather than imported as unverified premises. The 'realistic conditions' claim is weakened by the idealized network assumed in Fig. 8, but that is a support gap or correctness risk, not circularity. No Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction can be exhibited.

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

The model uses standard physical parameters (gamma-g, delta, N, n) rather than fitted constants, so no free parameters enter the central claim. The comparison tunes the conventional scheme's reflectivities to its best case, which is a design optimization for the baseline, not a parameter fitted to the proposed detector's output. No new particles, forces, or Hilbert-space entities are introduced; the model uses standard Lambda emitters, chiral waveguides, circulators, and photo-detectors.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each emitter absorbs at most one photon and after subtraction is shelved in state |2>, decoupled from the input waveguide.
    Section II A: 'After one photon is subtracted, the atom in state |2> and no longer interacts with photons in waveguide 1.' This makes the click count equal to the number of subtracted photons.
  • domain assumption The waveguides are chiral: one-directional propagation with no backscattering, and each emitter couples only to the intended waveguide modes.
    Section II A: 'The waveguides are chiral, allowing light to propagate in one direction only.' Violations would spread photons across ports and corrupt the click pattern.
  • domain assumption Propagation time between emitters is neglected, giving a Markovian input-output network model.
    Section II C: 'By neglecting the propagation time of light between the emitters, an equivalent Markovian model...' This is standard but can fail for very high bandwidths or long cascades.
  • domain assumption Detectors are ideal bucket detectors: any port receiving one or more photons produces exactly one click with unit efficiency and no dark counts.
    Used throughout Figs. 2, 7, and 8 and Eq. (27); no efficiency, dark count, or saturating-response model is included in the comparison.
  • domain assumption N-photon scattering is governed by the local emitter Green's functions and the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian from the Xu-Fan input-output formalism.
    Section II B adopts Refs. [34] and [27] as the starting point for the scattering matrices; the results inherit their assumptions of Markovian reservoirs and weak-excitation regimes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photon-Number-Resolving Detector Based on a Cascade of Waveguide-Coupled Quantum Emitters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DB5NJZJM

@misc{pith2026250709034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photon-Number-Resolving Detector Based on a Cascade of Waveguide-Coupled Quantum Emitters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DB5NJZJM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09034}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the operation of a photon-number-resolving (PNR) detector consisting of a cascade of waveguide-coupled lambda-type emitters, where each waveguide-coupled emitter extracts a single photon from the input light and sends it to a single-photon detector. Using Green's function and input-output formalisms, we derive the scattering matrices and photon-photon correlators for individual scatterers. By cascading these results, we obtain a closed-form expression for the detector's precision in the linear regime and predict how correlations generated by nonlinear photon-photon interactions influence this precision. To evaluate the performance of this PNR detector in the nonlinear regime, we apply the quantum trajectory method to the cascaded setup, calculating the achievable precision and analyzing its dependence on key system parameters, such as the number of emitters and their coupling strength to the waveguide. We compare the performance of the proposed PNR detector with that of a conventional PNR scheme based on spatial demultiplexing via beamsplitters. Our results indicate that the proposed scheme can outperform conventional detectors under realistic conditions, making it a promising candidate for next-generation PNR detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09034 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a shows the schematic of the waveguide-QED system used as deterministic single-photon subtractor. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Couteau, S

    C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, T. Gerrits, J. Huwer, R. Prevedel, J. Rarity, A. Shields, and G. Weihs, Applications of single photons to quantum communication and computing, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 326 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    , t′ N ) 2 dt′ 3

    = N (N − 1) Z g′ N,j (t′ 1, . . . , t′ N ) 2 dt′ 3 . . . dt′ N (22) In addition, the probability that the j-th photon is subtracted from an N -photon input pulse is given by: P N j = Z g′ N,j (t′ 1, . . . , t′ N ) 2 dt′ 1 . . . dt′ N (23) Fig. 3 shows the second-order autocorrelation function of the output photons for the cases described below equation (2...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Weng and C.-S

    H.-C. Weng and C.-S. Chuu, Implementation of shor’s algorithm with a single photon in 32 dimensions, Physical Review Applied 22, 034003 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Conclusion and outlook In summary, we proposed and investigated in detail a PNR detector based on a cascade of Λ-type emitters coupled to a chiral waveguide. In this potential application of SPRINT-based deterministic photon subtraction, the cascade of waveguide-coupled Λ-type atoms enables the deterministic demultiplexing of input photons am ong multiple...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Couteau, S

    C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, T. Gerrits, J. Huwer, R. Prevedel, J. Rarity, A. Shields, and G. Weihs, Applications of single photons in quantum metrology, biology and the foundations of quantum physics, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 354 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Bruschini, H

    C. Bruschini, H. Homulle, I. M. Antolovic, S. Burri, and E. Charbon, Single-photon avalanche diode imagers in biophotonics: review and outlook, Light: Science & Applications 8, 87 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Fukui, R

    K. Fukui, R. N. Alexander, and P. van Loock, All-optical long-distance quantum communication with gottesman-kitaev- preskill qubits, Physical Review Research 3, 033118 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Takeda and A

    S. Takeda and A. Furusawa, Toward large-scale fault-tolerant universal photonic quantum computing, APL Photonics 4 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Walschaers, Non-gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX quantum 2, 030204 (2021)

    M. Walschaers, Non-gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX quantum 2, 030204 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    J. S. Douglas, T. Caneva, and D. E. Chang, Photon molecules in atomic gases trapped near photonic crystal waveguides, Physical Review X 6, 031017 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Ilin and A

    D. Ilin and A. V. Poshakinskiy, Many-photon scattering and entangling in a waveguide with a λ-type atom, Physical Review A 109, 033710 (2024). 15

    2024

  4. [12]

    C. S. Mu˜ noz, E. Del Valle, A. G. Tudela, K. M¨ uller, S. Lichtmannecker, M. Kaniber, C. Tejedor, J. Finley, and F. Laussy, Emitters of n-photon bundles, Nature photonics 8, 550 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Pasharavesh and M

    A. Pasharavesh and M. Bajcsy, Deterministic single photon subtraction with a cascade of waveguide-coupled atoms, Optics Express 32, 26740 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Y.-D. Qu, Y. Zhang, P. Ni, C. Shan, H. David, and K. Mølmer, Superradiance from nitrogen vacancy centers coupled to an ultranarrow optical cavity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09755 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Pasharavesh and M

    A. Pasharavesh and M. Bajcsy, Generation of non-gaussian states of light using deterministic photon subtraction, New Journal of Physics 26, 113022 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Rosenblum, O

    S. Rosenblum, O. Bechler, I. Shomroni, Y. Lovsky, G. Guendelman, and B. Dayan, Extraction of a single photon from an optical pulse, Nature Photonics 10, 19 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    C. R. Murray, I. Mirgorodskiy, C. Tresp, C. Braun, A. Paris-Mandoki, A. V. Gorshkov, S. Hofferberth, and T. Pohl, Photon subtraction by many-body decoherence, Physical review letters 120, 113601 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, A brief introduction to multipartite entanglement, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.07747 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Z.-H. Liu, Y. Meng, Y.-Z. Wu, Z.-Y. Hao, Z.-P. Xu, C.-J. Ai, H. Wei, K. Wen, J.-L. Chen, and J. Ma, Exploring the boundary of quantum correlations with a time-domain optical processor, Science Advances 11, eabd8080 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Pasharavesh and M

    A. Pasharavesh and M. Bajcsy, Multi-photon fock state generation via selective single photon subtraction in a cascaded waveguide qed system, Advanced Quantum Technologies n/a, 2400616

  13. [21]

    Bajcsy and A

    M. Bajcsy and A. Majumdar, Arithmetic with photons, Nature Photonics 10, 4 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, A non-equilibrium superradiant phase transition in free space, Nature Physics 19, 1345 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    S. Liu, O. A. D. Sandberg, M. L. Chan, B. Schrinski, Y. Anyfantaki, R. B. Nielsen, R. G. Larsen, A. Skalkin, Y. Wang, and L. Midolo, Violation of bell inequality by photon scattering on a two-level emitter, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Masters, X.-X

    L. Masters, X.-X. Hu, M. Cordier, G. Maron, L. Pache, A. Rauschenbeutel, M. Schemmer, and J. Volz, On the simultaneous scattering of two photons by a single two-level atom, Nature Photonics 17, 972 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    O. A. Iversen and T. Pohl, Strongly correlated states of light and repulsive photons in chiral chains of three-level quantum emitters, Physical Review Letters 126, 083605 (2021), pRL

    2021

  18. [26]

    O. A. Iversen and T. Pohl, Self-ordering of individual photons in waveguide qed and rydberg-atom arrays, Physical Review Research 4, 023002 (2022), pRRESEARCH

    2022

  19. [27]

    Mahmoodian, G

    S. Mahmoodian, G. Calaj´ o, D. E. Chang, K. Hammerer, and A. S. Sørensen, Dynamics of many-body photon bound states in chiral waveguide qed, Physical Review X 10, 031011 (2020), pRX

    2020

  20. [28]

    Piasotski and M

    K. Piasotski and M. Pletyukhov, Diagrammatic approach to scattering of multiphoton states in waveguide qed, Physical Review A 104, 023709 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Trivedi, K

    R. Trivedi, K. Fischer, S. Xu, S. Fan, and J. Vuckovic, Few-photon scattering and emission from low-dimensional quantum systems, Physical Review B 98, 144112 (2018), pRB

    2018

  22. [30]

    Hinney, A

    J. Hinney, A. S. Prasad, S. Mahmoodian, K. Hammerer, A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and M. Schem- mer, Unraveling two-photon entanglement via the squeezing spectrum of light traveling through nanofiber-coupled atoms, Physical Review Letters 127, 123602 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Le Jeannic, T

    H. Le Jeannic, T. Ramos, S. F. Simonsen, T. Pregnolato, Z. Liu, R. Schott, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, N. Rotenberg, and J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, Experimental reconstruction of the few-photon nonlinear scattering matrix from a single quantum dot in a nanophotonic waveguide, Physica...

    2021

  24. [32]

    A. S. Prasad, J. Hinney, S. Mahmoodian, K. Hammerer, S. Rind, P. Schneeweiss, A. S. Sørensen, J. Volz, and A. Rauschen- beutel, Correlating photons using the collective nonlinear response of atoms weakly coupled to an optical mode, Nature Photonics 14, 719 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    B. Q. Baragiola, R. L. Cook, A. M. Bra´ nczyk, and J. Combes,n-photon wave packets interacting with an arbitrary quantum system, Physical Review A 86, 013811 (2012), pRA

    2012

  26. [34]

    Z. Liao, Y. Lu, and M. S. Zubairy, Multiphoton pulses interacting with multiple emitters in a one-dimensional waveguide, Physical Review A 102, 053702 (2020), pRA

    2020

  27. [35]

    T. Shi, D. E. Chang, and J. I. Cirac, Multiphoton-scattering theory and generalized master equations, Physical Review A 92, 053834 (2015), pRA

    2015

  28. [36]

    Xu and S

    S. Xu and S. Fan, Input-output formalism for few-photon transport: A systematic treatment beyond two photons, Physical Review A 91, 043845 (2015), pRA

    2015

  29. [37]

    D. L. Hurst and P. Kok, Analytic few-photon scattering in waveguide qed, Physical Review A 97, 043850 (2018), pRA

    2018

  30. [38]

    Shen and J.-T

    Y. Shen and J.-T. Shen, Photonic-fock-state scattering in a waveguide-qed system and their correlation functions, Physical Review A 92, 033803 (2015), pRA

    2015

  31. [39]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Chiral quantum optics, Nature 541, 473 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    S¨ ollner, S

    I. S¨ ollner, S. Mahmoodian, S. L. Hansen, L. Midolo, A. Javadi, G. Kirˇ sansk˙ e, T. Pregnolato, H. El-Ella, E. H. Lee, and J. D. Song, Deterministic photon–emitter coupling in chiral photonic circuits, Nature nanotechnology 10, 775 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Shomroni, S

    I. Shomroni, S. Rosenblum, Y. Lovsky, O. Bechler, G. Guendelman, and B. Dayan, All-optical routing of single photons by a one-atom switch controlled by a single photon, Science 345, 903 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Pasharavesh and M

    A. Pasharavesh and M. Bajcsy, Photon transport in bimodal atom-cavity systems with waveguide coupling: Application to deterministic photon subtraction, Physical Review Research 7, 013018 (2025). 16

    2025

  35. [43]

    Jalas, A

    D. Jalas, A. Petrov, M. Eich, W. Freude, S. Fan, Z. Yu, R. Baets, M. Popovi´ c, A. Melloni, J. D. Joannopoulos, M. Van- wolleghem, C. R. Doerr, and H. Renner, What is — and what is not — an optical isolator, Nature Photonics 7, 579 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Gough and M

    J. Gough and M. R. James, Quantum feedback networks: Hamiltonian formulation, Communications in Mathematical Physics 287, 1109 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Gough and M

    J. Gough and M. R. James, The series product and its application to quantum feedforward and feedback networks, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 54, 2530 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Combes, J

    J. Combes, J. Kerckhoff, and M. Sarovar, The slh framework for modeling quantum input-output networks, Advances in Physics: X 2, 784 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    J. E. Gough and G. Zhang, Generating nonclassical quantum input field states with modulating filters, EPJ Quantum Technology 2, 15 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    A. H. Kiilerich and K. Mølmer, Input-output theory with quantum pulses, Physical review letters 123, 123604 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    A. V. Gorshkov, R. Nath, and T. Pohl, Dissipative many-body quantum optics in rydberg media, Physical review letters 110, 153601 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Z. Liao, X. Zeng, H. Nha, and M. S. Zubairy, Photon transport in a one-dimensional nanophotonic waveguide qed system, Physica Scripta 91, 063004 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Shen and S

    J.-T. Shen and S. Fan, Strongly correlated two-photon transport in a one-dimensional waveguide coupled¡? format?¿ to a two-level system, Physical review letters 98, 153003 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    C. Lee, C. Noh, N. Schetakis, and D. G. Angelakis, Few-photon transport in many-body photonic systems: A scattering approach, Physical Review A 92, 063817 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    M. C. Tichy, Sampling of partially distinguishable bosons and the relation to the multidimensional permanent, Physical Review A 91, 022316 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Piacentini, M

    F. Piacentini, M. Levi, A. Avella, M. L´ opez, S. K¨ uck, S. Polyakov, I. P. Degiovanni, G. Brida, and M. Genovese, Positive operator-valued measure reconstruction of a beam-splitter tree-based photon-number-resolving detector, Optics letters 40, 1548 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    Straka, L

    I. Straka, L. Lachman, J. Hlouˇ sek, M. Mikov´ a, M. Miˇ cuda, M. Jeˇ zek, and R. Filip, Quantum non-gaussian multiphoton light, npj Quantum Information 4, 4 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Hao, Q.-Y

    H. Hao, Q.-Y. Zhao, Y.-H. Huang, J. Deng, F. Yang, S.-Y. Ru, Z. Liu, C. Wan, H. Liu, Z.-J. Li, et al., A compact multi- pixel superconducting nanowire single-photon detector array supporting gigabit space-to-ground communications, Light: Science & Applications 13, 25 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Cheng, Y

    R. Cheng, Y. Zhou, S. Wang, M. Shen, T. Taher, and H. X. Tang, A 100-pixel photon-number-resolving detector unveiling photon statistics, Nature Photonics 17, 112 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Arcari, I

    M. Arcari, I. S¨ ollner, A. Javadi, S. Lindskov Hansen, S. Mahmoodian, J. Liu, H. Thyrrestrup, E. H. Lee, J. D. Song, and S. Stobbe, Near-unity coupling efficiency of a quantum emitter to a photonic crystal waveguide, Physical review letters 113, 093603 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Siampour, C

    H. Siampour, C. O’Rourke, A. J. Brash, M. N. Makhonin, R. Dost, D. J. Hallett, E. Clarke, P. K. Patil, M. S. Skolnick, and A. M. Fox, Observation of large spontaneous emission rate enhancement of quantum dots in a broken-symmetry slow-light waveguide, npj Quantum Information 9...

    2023

  52. [60]

    Biagi, S

    N. Biagi, S. Francesconi, A. Zavatta, and M. Bellini, Photon-by-photon quantum light state engineering, Progress in Quantum Electronics 84, 100414 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Chen, H.-Y

    Y.-R. Chen, H.-Y. Hsieh, J. Ning, H.-C. Wu, H. L. Chen, Z.-H. Shi, P. Yang, O. Steuernagel, C.-M. Wu, and R.-K. Lee, Generation of heralded optical cat states by photon addition, Physical Review A 110, 023703 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Fadrn´ y, M

    J. Fadrn´ y, M. Neset, M. Bielak, M. Jeˇ zek, J. B ´ ılek, and J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, Experimental preparation of multiphoton-added coherent states of light, npj Quantum Information 10, 89 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    M. M. Lund, F. Yang, V. R. Christiansen, D. Kornovan, and K. Mølmer, Subtraction and addition of propagating photons by two-level emitters, Physical Review Letters 133, 103601 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    O. S. Maga˜ na-Loaiza, R. d. J. Le´ on-Montiel, A. Perez-Leija, A. B. U’Ren, C. You, K. Busch, A. E. Lita, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and T. Gerrits, Multiphoton quantum-state engineering using conditional measurements, npj Quantum Information 5, 80 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Stiesdal, H

    N. Stiesdal, H. Busche, K. Kleinbeck, J. Kumlin, M. G. Hansen, H. P. B¨ uchler, and S. Hofferberth, Controlled multi-photon subtraction with cascaded rydberg superatoms as single-photon absorbers, Nature Communications 12, 4328 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Gerrits, S

    T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, T. S. Clement, B. Calkins, A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, A. L. Migdall, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and E. Knill, Generation of optical coherent-state superpositions by number-resolved photon subtraction from the squeezed vacuum, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu...

    2010

  59. [67]

    D. Su, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, Conversion of gaussian states to non-gaussian states using photon-number- resolving detectors, Physical Review A 100, 052301 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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