Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Effects of finite trapping on the decay, recoil, and decoherence of dark states of quantum emitter arrays

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By including quantized atomic motion, this paper shows that dark states in emitter arrays have a time-dependent decay rate and that each emitted photon can deposit one full vibrational quantum of recoil, even in the Lamb-Dicke regime.

desk verdict Solid extension of the authors' earlier work: the one-trap-quantum recoil result is real within the stated identical-trap model, but a robustness check against state-dependent traps would make it much stronger. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09851 v2 pith:IXOZNZB4 submitted 2025-02-14 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

M. Eltohfa , F. Robicheaux This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords subradiantstatesdarkcollectivedecayLamb-DickeregimeatomrecoilvibrationaldecoherencequantumemitterarrayswaveguideQED
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 establishes that the motion of atoms inside their traps changes the standard picture of subradiant (dark) states in emitter arrays, and quantifies the damage. For two atoms in a 1D waveguide separated by $\lambda_0$, in the dark state, the decay rate is not constant: light-induced forces shift the atomic wavepacket, so the decay accelerates at later times, and in a strong trap the recoil energy per emitted photon reaches one trap quantum $\hbar\omega_t$, even in the Lamb-Dicke regime. For three atoms in a waveguide, the two dark states are coupled through motion, producing entanglement entropy and infidelity with amplitude proportional to $(\gamma_0\eta/\omega_t)^2$. For large ring arrays in free space, the spread-limited decay rate is $C\eta^2\gamma_0$, with $C$ set by polarization and spread anisotropy; the induced-force infidelity is minimized by perpendicular polarization and larger separations. These results matter because subradiant states are a leading platform for storing photons and quantum information, and the paper identifies which trap and geometry parameters keep motional degradation small.

What carries the argument

The central object is the master equation for the combined electronic-vibrational density matrix, with a non-Hermitian effective Hamiltonian containing the trap term and the dipole-dipole interaction mediated by the position-dependent Green's function, plus a recycling superoperator that deposits recoil when a photon is emitted. The load-bearing expansion is the relative-motion Hamiltonian for two atoms at $\lambda_0$ separation, $H_{\rm rel}=\hbar\omega_t a^\dagger a + \frac{\hbar\gamma_0\eta}{\sqrt{2}}(a+a^\dagger) - i\frac{\hbar\gamma_0\eta^2}{2}(a+a^\dagger)^2$, whose three terms — trap, linear induced force, non-uniform decay — define the strong, intermediate, and weak trap regimes used throughout. The Lamb-Dicke parameter $\eta=k_0\sqrt{\hbar/2m\omega_t}$ is the small parameter that sets both the internal-motional coupling and the wavepacket spread; its square sets the initial decay rate $\gamma_0\eta^2$. For three atoms, an effective two-level Hamiltonian with off-diagonal coupling $\eta\gamma_0$ and detuning $\omega_t$ yields the infidelity scaling; for rings, a Bloch spin-wave basis with quasi-momentum conservation identifies the few $n=1$ states that couple to the most subradiant state.

What would settle it

Prepare two atoms in a 1D waveguide at $\lambda_0$ separation in the dark state with trap frequency $\omega_t\approx0.01\gamma_0$ and measure the excited-state population and the final motional energy; the paper predicts the decay rate to rise clearly above $\gamma_0\eta^2$ after about $35/\gamma_0$ and the final vibrational energy to approach $\hbar\omega_t$, so observing purely exponential decay at $\gamma_0\eta^2$ or a final energy far below $\hbar\omega_t$ would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that a finite trapping potential turns a nominally dark state into a dynamical object: the electronic bright/dark character is no longer fixed, because the coupling between electronic and vibrational degrees of freedom, controlled by the Lamb-Dicke parameter $\eta = k_0\sqrt{\hbar/2m\omega_t}$, introduces position-dependent decay and induced forces. Concretely, for two waveguide-coupled atoms at $\lambda_0$ separation in the state $|{-}\rangle$, the relative-motion Hamiltonian is $H_{\rm rel}=\hbar\omega_t a^\dagger a + \frac{\hbar\gamma_0\eta}{\sqrt{2}}(a+a^\dagger) - i\frac{\hbar\gamma_0\eta^2}{2}(a+a^\dagger)^2$: a harmonic trap, a linear induced-force potential that shifts the wavepacket, and a non-uniform decay that deforms it. The shift raises the later-time decay rate far above the initial $\gamma_0\eta^2$ value, and the recoil deposited in the atoms is $E_R(\infty)\approx\hbar\omega_t$, one trap quantum, independent of trap frequency in the strong-trap regime. For three atoms, the two dark states are coupled through one-phonon states, giving oscillations in population, entropy, and infidelity of order $(\gamma_0\eta/\omega_t)^2$. For a ring in free space, the limiting decay rate $\gamma_{\rm spread}=C\eta^2\gamma_0$ has $C=1$ for isotropic spread, $C\approx0.8$ for linear polarization perpendicular to the ring plane with planar spread, and $C\approx0.6$ for in-plane polarization; induced forces are much weaker for perpendicular than for circular polarization, making perpendicular polarization the recommended choice for storage.

Load-bearing premise

The key quantitative results assume every atom sits in a harmonic trap that is identical, with the same frequency, for the ground and excited electronic states; if real traps are state-dependent or anharmonic, the induced-force balance, the time-dependent decay, and the predicted infidelity scaling would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Storing a photon in a two-atom waveguide dark state deposits on average one trap quantum of vibrational energy per retrieved photon, so stiffening the trap does not suppress recoil heating below $\hbar\omega_t$.
  • Weakly trapped dark states are not metastable: induced forces shift the atomic wavepacket, turning the decay rate from a constant into a growing function of time.
  • For three-atom waveguide qubits, motion couples the two dark states and limits storage fidelity through an infidelity of order $(\gamma_0\eta/\omega_t)^2$, which sets a required trap-strength-to-force ratio.
  • In ring arrays in free space, perpendicular linear polarization gives much weaker induced forces than circular polarization, making it the preferred choice for quantum memories at subwavelength separations.
  • The spread-limited decay rate of a ring array saturates at $C\eta^2\gamma_0$ with $C$ determined by polarization and spread anisotropy, independent of interatomic distance for $d<0.5\lambda_0$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The one-quantum recoil floor implies that repeated read-out of a subradiant memory must budget at least one trap quantum of heat per emitted photon regardless of trap stiffness, which bounds the repetition rate unless active cooling is interleaved.
  • The dimensionless ratio $\omega_t/(\eta\gamma_0)$ should control the same crossover from static to accelerating decay in any spread-limited subradiant array, not just the two-atom waveguide; a scan of trap frequency in a 2D array at fixed $\eta$ would test this universality.
  • The predicted constants $C\approx0.8$ and $C\approx0.6$ for the two linear polarizations give a parameter-free ratio test: measuring the saturated decay rates of large rings with perpendicular versus in-plane polarization would verify the spread-limited decay formula directly.
  • The two-level description of the three-atom dark-state pair suggests an active control knob: modulating or shaping the trap frequency to stay off resonance from the $\eta\gamma_0$ coupling could suppress the motion-induced mixing oscillations, which the paper does not explore.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the decay, recoil, and decoherence of singly-excited subradiant states in atomic arrays when the atomic motion is quantized in finite harmonic traps. It treats two atoms in a 1D waveguide, three atoms in a 1D waveguide, and N-atom ring arrays in free space. The central claims are: (i) for two atoms at d = λ0, light-mediated forces shift the relative vibrational wavepacket, making the decay rate time dependent; (ii) in the strong-trap regime the recoil energy per emitted photon approaches one trap quantum, ER(∞) ≈ ℏωt, even in the Lamb-Dicke regime (Eqs. 24-26); (iii) for three atoms the infidelity and entanglement entropy from vibrational mixing scale as (γ0η/ωt)^2 (Appendix A); and (iv) for ring arrays the spread-limited decay rate is Cη^2γ0 with a polarization-dependent constant C, and the induced-force infidelity can be minimized by choosing perpendicular polarization and larger interatomic separations.

Significance. If the results hold, they provide concrete design rules for quantum memories and atom-array experiments: avoid circular polarization, use perpendicular polarization, choose larger separations within the subradiant regime, and strengthen traps to suppress vibrational mixing. The paper's analytic scaling laws are simple and potentially useful, and the two-level model in Appendix A matches the numerical infidelity in Fig. 5 without fitted parameters, which is a strength. The paper is also transparent about the limitations of the one-vibration truncation in the ring calculations. However, the headline recoil-energy result relies on an idealized identical-trap assumption, and the ring infidelity values in Fig. 7 include parameter points where the truncation is known to be non-convergent. These issues affect the generality of the main claims and should be addressed before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III C, Fig. 7] The central result ER(∞) ≈ ℏωt is derived under the assumption stated in Sec. II that the harmonic trap is identical for the ground and excited electronic states, with the same frequency and center. This assumption is doing real work: at d = λ0 the dark-state emission amplitude e^{ik0x1} - e^{ik0x2} vanishes at the trap center, so photon detection projects the relative wavefunction onto its first excited state and deposits one trap quantum. If the excited-state trap has a different frequency or a displaced center, the initial |DS,0⟩ state is no longer the ground state of the excited-state potential, and the clean n = 1 projection is lost. The paper explicitly isolates the collective-motion effect by this assumption, but it provides no estimate of how much the headline numbers shift under realistic trap asymmetries, such as a few-percent frequency mismatch or a small trap-center offset. Since the abstract states the one-quantum recoil as a general feature of tightly trapped atoms, the absence of such a robustness check is a load-bearing gap. I request either a quantitative estimate of the shift in ER(∞) and γd(t) under small trap asymmetry, or an explicit restriction of the abstract claim to the identical-trap model.
  2. [Sec. III C, Fig. 7] The infidelity values for small interatomic separations in Fig. 7 are obtained with the one-vibration Hilbert-space restriction, and the paper itself states that at small d the one- and two-vibration restrictions mismatch, so more vibrations would be needed for accurate results. Despite this, the figure presents one-vibration data across the full d range, and the text uses those data to draw quantitative conclusions about optimal parameters. The paper should either restrict the quantitative claims in Fig. 7 to the parameter range where the one- and two-vibration results agree, or provide convergence data (e.g., error bars from including two vibrations) for all points shown. As it stands, the recommendations for small d rest on unconverged numerics, even though the qualitative trend is likely robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data availability statement, Ref. [45]] The data availability statement is a placeholder: 'a permanent doi link to the data used in the figures will be provided here once the refereeing process is complete and the figures are in final form.' This must be replaced with a working DOI before publication.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] The (2,1) entry of the matrix in Eq. (A2) appears as '2ηγ0/√2', which breaks Hermiticity; it should be ηγ0/√2 to match the (1,2) entry. Please correct this typo.
  3. [Appendix A, text after Eq. (A1)] The sentence 'the states |0⟩ and |V3⟩ have even parity while the states |V1⟩ and |V1⟩ have odd parity' contains a typo: the second state should be |V2⟩, not |V1⟩.
  4. [Sec. III A] The strong-trap prediction ER(∞) ≈ ℏωt is derived analytically but not verified numerically in the paper. A short numerical check for a parameter set satisfying ωt ≫ γ0η would strengthen confidence in Eq. (26), which is the headline result.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'signficantly' (Introduction), 'undesriable' (Introduction), 'istropy' (Sec. III C), 'unvaforable' (Sec. III B), 'spontanteous' (Sec. III C), 'dyanmics' (Sec. III B), 'afromentioned' (Sec. III C), 'ciruclar' (Sec. III C and Fig. 7), and 'cureves' (Fig. 3 caption). A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central recoil and infidelity results are derived from the stated Hamiltonian and standard definitions; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central two-atom result ER(∞)≈ℏωt is obtained from Eq. (25), ER≈(γ0/γd)Er, together with Eq. (22), γd(t=0)=1−exp(−η²)≈γ0η², and the standard definitions η=k0√(ℏ/2mωt) and Er=ℏ²k0²/2m. The paper explicitly states that the recoil formula is 'derived from the recycling term, assuming a stationary initial excited state' (Sec. III A), and Eq. (22) is a spread-limited decay bound quoted from external literature [27]; neither of these inputs already contains the headline claim. The identity Er/η²=ℏωt follows algebraically from the definitions and is presented as a consequence of the derived ER, not as an assumed output. The three-atom infidelity scaling I∼(γ0η/ωt)² is derived in Appendix A from the explicit 2×2 Hamiltonian H2-level with off-diagonal coupling ηγ0 and detuning ωt, so it is not a restatement of a fitted input. The ring-array results use matrix elements (B1)–(B2) computed from the given Green's function with numerically evaluated derivatives; the proportionality constant C=1 for isotropic spread is attributed to external Ref. [44], and other C values are obtained by computation, not by assuming the target. Self-citations to Refs. [28,32,34] provide a published framework and a prior recoil formula, but the present paper re-derives the needed matrix elements and scaling relations, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The identical ground/excited trap assumption in Sec. II is a stated modeling simplification and a potential robustness limitation, not a circular definition. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

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

The central claims rest on standard quantum-optical master equation approximations and a state-independent harmonic-trap assumption, plus numerical truncations. No new particles or forces are introduced, and no constants are fitted to data; the stated scaling laws are derived analytically. The main unvalidated choices are the truncations and the identical-trap assumption, both acknowledged in the text.

free parameters (1)
  • 2% decay threshold for Imax = 0.02
    Defines the time window over which maximum mixing infidelity is recorded in Sec. III C.1. The authors state other thresholds (1%, 4%, 8%) give the same qualitative trends, but the quoted optimal parameters depend on this arbitrary choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Markovian master equation with the electromagnetic field traced out and no driving lasers.
    Starting point of Sec. II B; standard for collective spontaneous emission but assumes Born-Markov and single-photon sector.
  • domain assumption Each atom is in a harmonic trap identical for ground and excited states, with equal angular frequency ωt.
    Sec. II states this explicitly; it removes state-dependent trap effects and makes single-atom excitation and de-excitation trivial, focusing only on collective coupling.
  • domain assumption Only the single-excitation subspace is considered.
    Sec. II states this; multi-excitation effects and interactions between multiple stored photons are excluded.
  • ad hoc to paper Vibrational Hilbert space is truncated to at most one atom vibrating in one direction for ring arrays.
    Introduced for numerical feasibility in Sec. II A and App. B; the paper validates one- vs two-vibration restrictions only in the intermediate trap regime and notes breakdown at small distances and long times.
  • ad hoc to paper Out-of-plane z-motion is ignored in the ring analysis because its force is suppressed by η/(k0d).
    App. B uses this to reduce Hilbert space; the paper later analyzes the effect of z-spread only on the decay rate, not on forces.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of finite trapping on the decay, recoil, and decoherence of dark states of quantum emitter arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IXOZNZB4

@misc{pith2026250209851,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of finite trapping on the decay, recoil, and decoherence of dark states of quantum emitter arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IXOZNZB4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09851}
}
read the original abstract

The collective interaction of electronic excitations with the electromagnetic field in atomic arrays can lead to reduced decay rates, forming subradiant states with applications in quantum information and memories. By including quantized vibrational excitations, we examine the effects of finite trap strength and light-mediated forces on highly subradiant singly-excited states for two, three, and many atoms in a 1D waveguide or free space. For waveguide-coupled and tightly trapped atoms, the recoil energy from photon emission can reach a vibrational quantum, even in the Lamb-Dicke regime. For weakly trapped atoms, the vibrational wavepackets are shifted or distorted due to induced forces and uneven decay. These effects lead to a time-dependent decay rate, extra vibrational energy transfer, and mixing of different electronic and vibrational states. The resulting entanglement entropy and infidelity can be mitigated by decreasing the induced forces or increasing trap strength. For quantum information storage, these findings suggest optimal array configurations in geometry and polarization. Our results provide insights for quantum memories and atom array experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09851 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of part of an atom array on a circle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) the time-dependent expectation of the scaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Energy gained by the atoms. In case 2 with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Early dynamics of three atoms in a 1D waveg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Similar to Fig. 5(b), the evolution of the most [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Maximum infidelity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    To achieve that, we analyze how infidelity depends on various parameters ( N, d, η, ωt, ˆq)

    Trends with Different Parameters In this section, we find the optimal parameters for the ring configuration that minimize the vibrational effects. To achieve that, we analyze how infidelity depends on various parameters ( N, d, η, ωt, ˆq). First, we time-evolve the excited state |DSmin, 0⟩ till a significant fraction of it (which we take to be 2%) decays ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This removal of the linear potential gives results very similar to simulating Eq

    In other words, we cancel the linear part of the induced potential by adding a linear potential to the Hamiltonian. This removal of the linear potential gives results very similar to simulating Eq. (23) after deleting the full coherent potential. The results of the simulations are in Figs. 2, 3, and

    work page

  3. [3]

    sin2(ωtt/2), for I(t) is derived in App. A. Chosen parameters correspond to ωt = 0.34γ0 and η = 0.034. ceeds the free-space wavenumber k0, the radiation must be evanescent perpendicular to the array, resulting in guided modes around the ring that are completely dark. For finite even N , the most subradiant eigenmode is the one with the largest k which is ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The mass of the atom is m = 2.21 × 10−25 kg, and the individual atom decay rate is γ0 = 2 π × 5.2 MHz

    In these simulations, we choose paramters that cor- respond to a Cesium atom transition 6 2S1/2 ↔ 62P3/2 with an experimentally relevant trap strength. The mass of the atom is m = 2.21 × 10−25 kg, and the individual atom decay rate is γ0 = 2 π × 5.2 MHz. The internal 6 transition has λ0 = 852 nm, and the trap frequency is ωt = 0.01γ0 = 2π ×52 KHz resultin...

    work page

  5. [5]

    All curves, ex- cept where indicated, use one vibration restricted Hilbert space

    Note that the curves for circular polarization are divided by 10 for clarity. All curves, ex- cept where indicated, use one vibration restricted Hilbert space. Unlike the periodic mixing seen for three atoms in Fig. 5, the mixing here is not periodic and generally more complex at early times. The lack of periodicity can be ex- plained by the change of ene...

    work page

  6. [6]

    At d = 0.3λ0, for example, the infidelity is on the order of 10 −4 for perpendicular polarization, whereas it increases to 10 −2 for circular polarization

    Consequently, the in- fidelity is significantly higher for the circular polarization case. At d = 0.3λ0, for example, the infidelity is on the order of 10 −4 for perpendicular polarization, whereas it increases to 10 −2 for circular polarization. Compared to the decay infidelity, the mixing infidelity is much smaller for perpendicular polarization and onl...

    work page

  7. [7]

    These infidelities from the mixing of the excited states are compared to the decay infidelity in- dicated by the horizontal line

    Parameters: ωt = 0.34γ0, η = 0.034, N = 30. These infidelities from the mixing of the excited states are compared to the decay infidelity in- dicated by the horizontal line. To the right of the vertical orange line, the configuration is not in the spread dom- inated decay. We use the one-vibration restriction and validate it with a two-vibration restricti...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Subradiant bell states in distant atomic arrays,

    P-O Guimond, A Grankin, DV Vasilyev, B Vermersch, and P Zoller, “Subradiant bell states in distant atomic arrays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 093601 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Photon-mediated dipole-dipole interactions as a resource for quantum science and technology in cold atoms,

    HH Jen, “Photon-mediated dipole-dipole interactions as a resource for quantum science and technology in cold atoms,” Quantum Sci. Technol. (2024), 10.1088/2058- 9565/adbb86

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Quantum interface between light and atomic en- sembles,

    Klemens Hammerer, Anders S Sørensen, and Eugene S Polzik, “Quantum interface between light and atomic en- sembles,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1041–1093 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Many- body subradiant excitations in metamaterial arrays: Ex- periment and theory,

    Stewart D. Jenkins, Janne Ruostekoski, Nikitas Papasi- makis, Salvatore Savo, and Nikolay I. Zheludev, “Many- body subradiant excitations in metamaterial arrays: Ex- periment and theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 053901 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Stor- ing light with subradiant correlations in arrays of atoms,

    G. Facchinetti, S. D. Jenkins, and J. Ruostekoski, “Stor- ing light with subradiant correlations in arrays of atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 243601 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Interaction of light with planar lattices of atoms: Reflection, transmis- sion, and cooperative magnetometry,

    G. Facchinetti and J. Ruostekoski, “Interaction of light with planar lattices of atoms: Reflection, transmis- sion, and cooperative magnetometry,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 023833 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Quantum and nonlinear effects in light transmitted through planar atomic arrays,

    Robert J Bettles, Mark D Lee, Simon A Gardiner, and Janne Ruostekoski, “Quantum and nonlinear effects in light transmitted through planar atomic arrays,” Com- munications Physics 3, 141 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes,

    Robert H Dicke, “Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes,” Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  8. [16]

    Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission,

    Michel Gross and Serge Haroche, “Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission,” Phys. Rep. 93, 301–396 (1982)

    1982

  9. [17]

    Obser- vation of near-infrared dicke superradiance on cascading transitions in atomic sodium,

    M Gross, C Fabre, P Pillet, and S Haroche, “Obser- vation of near-infrared dicke superradiance on cascading transitions in atomic sodium,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1035 (1976)

    1976

  10. [18]

    Collective lamb shift in single pho- ton dicke superradiance,

    Marlan O Scully, “Collective lamb shift in single pho- ton dicke superradiance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 143601 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Observation of suppression of light scatter- ing induced by dipole-dipole interactions in a cold-atom ensemble,

    J Pellegrino, R Bourgain, Stephan Jennewein, Yvan RP Sortais, Antoine Browaeys, SD Jenkins, and J Ru- ostekoski, “Observation of suppression of light scatter- ing induced by dipole-dipole interactions in a cold-atom ensemble,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 133602 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Polarium model: Coherent radiation by a resonant medium,

    Sudhakar Prasad and Roy J Glauber, “Polarium model: Coherent radiation by a resonant medium,” Phys. Rev. A 61, 063814 (2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    Observation of superradi- ant and subradiant spontaneous emission of two trapped ions,

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

    1996

  14. [22]

    Exponential improvement in photon storage fidelities using subradi- ance and “selective radiance

    Ana Asenjo-Garcia, M Moreno-Cardoner, Andreas Al- brecht, HJ Kimble, and Darrick E Chang, “Exponential improvement in photon storage fidelities using subradi- ance and “selective radiance” in atomic arrays,” Phys. Rev. X 7, 031024 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Photon control and coherent in- teractions via lattice dark states in atomic arrays,

    Oriol Rubies-Bigorda, Valentin Walther, Taylor L. Patti, and Susanne F. Yelin, “Photon control and coherent in- teractions via lattice dark states in atomic arrays,” Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013110 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Cavity antiresonance spec- troscopy of dipole coupled subradiant arrays,

    David Plankensteiner, Christian Sommer, Helmut Ritsch, and Claudiu Genes, “Cavity antiresonance spec- troscopy of dipole coupled subradiant arrays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 093601 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Free-space photonic quantum link and chi- ral quantum optics,

    A Grankin, PO Guimond, DV Vasilyev, B Vermersch, and P Zoller, “Free-space photonic quantum link and chi- ral quantum optics,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 043825 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Negative refraction of light in an atomic medium,

    L Ruks, KE Ballantine, and J Ruostekoski, “Negative refraction of light in an atomic medium,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03622 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Cooperative quantum-optical pla- nar arrays of atoms,

    Janne Ruostekoski, “Cooperative quantum-optical pla- nar arrays of atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 108, 030101 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Atom-light interactions in quasi-one-dimensional nanostructures: A green’s-function perspective,

    Ana Asenjo-Garcia, JD Hood, DE Chang, and HJ Kim- ble, “Atom-light interactions in quasi-one-dimensional nanostructures: A green’s-function perspective,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 033818 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Cooperative resonances in light scattering from two-dimensional atomic arrays,

    Ephraim Shahmoon, Dominik S Wild, Mikhail D Lukin, and Susanne F Yelin, “Cooperative resonances in light scattering from two-dimensional atomic arrays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 113601 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Enhanced optical cross section via collective coupling of atomic dipoles in a 2d array,

    Robert J Bettles, Simon A Gardiner, and Charles S Adams, “Enhanced optical cross section via collective coupling of atomic dipoles in a 2d array,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 103602 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    A subradiant optical mir- ror formed by a single structured atomic layer,

    Jun Rui, David Wei, Antonio Rubio-Abadal, Simon Hol- lerith, Johannes Zeiher, Dan M Stamper-Kurn, Christian Gross, and Immanuel Bloch, “A subradiant optical mir- ror formed by a single structured atomic layer,” Nature 583, 369–374 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Collectively enhanced ground-state cooling in subwavelength atomic arrays,

    Oriol Rubies-Bigorda, Raphael Holzinger, Ana Asenjo- Garcia, Oriol Romero-Isart, Helmut Ritsch, Stefan Oster- mann, Carlos Gonzalez-Ballestero, Susanne F Yelin, and Cosimo C Rusconi, “Collectively enhanced ground-state cooling in subwavelength atomic arrays,” arXiv preprint ar...

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ex- ploiting the photonic nonlinearity of free-space subwave- length arrays of atoms,

    Cosimo C Rusconi, Tao Shi, and J Ignacio Cirac, “Ex- ploiting the photonic nonlinearity of free-space subwave- length arrays of atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 104, 033718 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Spectrum of light in a quantum fluctuating periodic structure,

    Mauro Antezza and Yvan Castin, “Spectrum of light in a quantum fluctuating periodic structure,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 123903 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Atom recoil in col- lectively interacting dipoles using quantized vibrational states,

    Deepak A Suresh and F. Robicheaux, “Atom recoil in col- lectively interacting dipoles using quantized vibrational states,” Phys. Rev. A 105, 033706 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Collective motion of an atom array under laser il- lumination,

    Ephraim Shahmoon, Mikhail D Lukin, and Susanne F Yelin, “Collective motion of an atom array under laser il- lumination,” in Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics , Vol. 68 (Elsevier, 2019) pp. 1–38

    2019

  29. [37]

    Recoil-induced er- rors and their correction in photon-mediated entangle- ment between atom qubits,

    Jan Apol ´ ın and David P. Nadlinger, “Recoil-induced er- rors and their correction in photon-mediated entangle- ment between atom qubits,” (2025), arXiv:2503.16837 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hybrid sub- and superradiant states in emitter arrays with quantized mo- tion,

    Beatriz Olmos and Igor Lesanovsky, “Hybrid sub- and superradiant states in emitter arrays with quantized mo- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01428 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Photon-induced atom recoil in collectively interacting planar arrays,

    Deepak A Suresh and F. Robicheaux, “Photon-induced atom recoil in collectively interacting planar arrays,” Phys. Rev. A 103, 043722 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Taming recoil ef- fect in cavity-assisted quantum interconnects,

    Seigo Kikura, Ryotaro Inoue, Hayata Yamasaki, Aki- hisa Goban, and Shinichi Sunami, “Taming recoil ef- fect in cavity-assisted quantum interconnects,” (2025), arXiv:2502.14859 [physics.atom-ph]

    2025

  33. [41]

    Spatial averaging for light reflection and 15 transmission through cold-atom arrays,

    F. Robicheaux, “Spatial averaging for light reflection and 15 transmission through cold-atom arrays,” Phys. Rev. A 111, 013711 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Near-resonant light scattering by an atom in a state-dependent trap,

    Teresa D Karanikolaou, Robert J Bettles, and Darrick E Chang, “Near-resonant light scattering by an atom in a state-dependent trap,” New J. Phys. 26, 043005 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang, Quantum compu- tation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Modifying cooperative decay via disorder in atom arrays,

    Nik O. Gjonbalaj, Stefan Ostermann, and Susanne F. Yelin, “Modifying cooperative decay via disorder in atom arrays,” Phys. Rev. A 109, 013720 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Rodney Loudon, The quantum theory of light (OUP Ox- ford, 2000)

    2000

  38. [46]

    Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochas- tic differential equations and the master equation,

    Crispin W Gardiner and Matthew J Collett, “Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochas- tic differential equations and the master equation,” Phys. Rev. A 31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  39. [47]

    Quan- tum dynamics of propagating photons with strong inter- actions: a generalized input–output formalism,

    Tommaso Caneva, Marco T Manzoni, Tao Shi, James S Douglas, J Ignacio Cirac, and Darrick E Chang, “Quan- tum dynamics of propagating photons with strong inter- actions: a generalized input–output formalism,” New J. Phys. 17, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Collective radi- ance and photon-photon correlations,

    Alexandra S Sheremet, Mihail I Petrov, Ivan V Iorsh, Alexander V Poshakinskiy, and Alexander N Poddubny, “Waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Collective radi- ance and photon-photon correlations,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 015002 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Universal quantum computation in waveguide qed using decoherence free subspaces,

    Vanessa Paulisch, HJ Kimble, and Alejandro Gonz´ alez- Tudela, “Universal quantum computation in waveguide qed using decoherence free subspaces,” New J. Phys. 18, 043041 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Deterministic generation of photonic entangled states using decoherence-free sub- spaces,

    Oriol Rubies-Bigorda, Stuart J Masson, Susanne F Yelin, and Ana Asenjo-Garcia, “Deterministic generation of photonic entangled states using decoherence-free sub- spaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03325 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cavity quantum electrodynamics with atom ar- rays in free space,

    David Castells-Graells, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Dominik S. Wild, “Cavity quantum electrodynamics with atom ar- rays in free space,” Phys. Rev. A 111, 053712 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    “Data for: Effects of finite trapping on the decay, re- coil, and decoherence of dark states of quantum emit- ter arrays, a permanent doi link to the data used in the figures will be provided here once the referreeing process is complete and the figures are in final form.” htt...

  45. [53]

    Atom-atom entanglement generation via collec- tive states of atomic rings,

    Nadav Antman Ron, Maor Carmi, and Rivka Beken- stein, “Atom-atom entanglement generation via collec- tive states of atomic rings,” Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L042051 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.