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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Electromagnetically induced transparency: Optics in coherent media
Fleischhauer, M., Imamoglu, A., & Marangos, J. P. (2005) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.77.633 · Cited by 5,189
Observation of coherent optical information storage in an atomic medium using halted light pulses
Liu, C., Dutton, Z., Behroozi, C. H., & Hau, L. V. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35054017 · Cited by 2,217 · cited 1×
“( ) ( ) 2 2 2 2 1 2 i ζ ζ χ ω κ ζ ω κ ζ = + − + + + (9)”
Storage of Light in Atomic Vapor
Phillips, D. F., Fleischhauer, A., Mair, A., Walsworth, R. L., & Lukin, M. D. (2001) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.86.783 · Cited by 2,042
Cited by
Microwave photonics with superconducting quantum circuits
Gu, X., Kockum, A. F., Miranowicz, A., Liu, Y.-X., & Nori, F. (2017) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.002 · Cited by 1,307
Self-citationMetrology withPT-Symmetric Cavities: Enhanced Sensitivity near thePT-Phase Transition
Liu, Z.-P., Zhang, J., Özdemir, Ş. K., Peng, B., Jing, H., Lü, X.-Y., Li, C.-W., Yang, L., Nori, F., & Liu, Y.-X. (2016) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.110802 · Cited by 445
Self-citation
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.