Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 507

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What is and what is not electromagnetically induced transparency in whispering-gallery microcavities

Open access
Peng, Bo, Özdemir, Şahin Kaya, Chen, Weijian, Nori, Franco, Yang, Lan·2014·Nature Communications

Abstract

There has been an increasing interest in all-optical analogues of electromagnetically induced transparency and Autler–Townes splitting. Despite the differences in their underlying physics, both electromagnetically induced transparency and Autler–Townes splitting are quantified by a transparency window in the absorption or transmission spectrum, which often leads to a confusion about its origin. While the transparency window in electromagnetically induced transparency is a result of Fano interference among different transition pathways, in Autler–Townes splitting it is the result of strong field-driven interactions leading to the splitting of energy levels. Being able to tell objectively whether an observed transparency window is because of electromagnetically induced transparency or Autler–Townes splitting is crucial for applications and for clarifying the physics involved. Here we demonstrate the pathways leading to electromagnetically induced transparency, Fano resonances and Autler–Townes splitting in coupled whispering-gallery-mode resonators. Moreover, we report the application of the Akaike Information Criterion discerning between all-optical analogues of electromagnetically induced transparency and Autler–Townes splitting and clarifying the transition between them. Optical analogues of electromagnetically induced transparency and Autler–Townes splitting originate from different mechanisms but both are quantified by a transparency window. Here, Peng et al.use the Akaike information criterion to discriminate between the two regimes in coupled whispering gallery mode microresonators.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ncomms6082

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 507

Metadata

Authors
Peng, B., Özdemir, Ş. K., Chen, W., Nori, F., & Yang, L.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2014-10-24
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
5082-5082
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169655591
Cited by
507
References
3
FWCI
20.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What is and what is not electromagnetically induced transparency in whispering-gallery microcavities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ncomms6082
The paper
Peng, B., Özdemir, Ş. K., Chen, W., Nori, F., & Yang, L. (2014). What is and what is not electromagnetically induced transparency in whispering-gallery microcavities. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6082

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.