Report on QUA-2023-0403:

Photothermally and optomechanically induced transparency in a hybrid optomechanical system, by Yu et al.

Since the discovery (in 1990) of electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) in atomic vapour medium coupled with a weak probe and strong pump lasers, there have been many research works on the laser-induced EIT-like phenomena. In 2010, Agarwal et al. demonstrated the EIT-like phenomenon and related dispersion in an opto-mechanical cavity. In this connection, later, optomechanically induced transparency (OMIT) and photothermally induced transparency (PTIT) gained a lot of interest from various research groups. In this manuscript, the authors have considered a hybrid optomechanical cavity system where three external effects are involved with the optical cavity: photothermal effect, optomechanical effect and quantum dots (QDs) in the cavity. I appreciate the up-to-date literature review (References) provided in this manuscript. I have gone through the whole manuscript and the references provided in the manuscript, and my observations are, 1. From my point of view, the new aspect of the article is only considering three effects (photothermal effect, optomechanical effect and QDs) simultaneously in the optical cavity coupled with probe-pump lasers. It is obvious that when the parameters involved with OMIT, PTIT and QD change, there is a possibility to get double transparency windows and related double dispersion or group velocity delay regions. 2. On the other hand, I feel that the theory and the results involving OMIT and PTIT are well established. So the absorption and dispersion plots presented in the manuscript have little contribution to the related fields. 3. I think the novelty and significance of the work are not enough for publication in this journal in the present form. It seems extended work compared to the earlier works on OMIT and PTIT. In this regard, I have the following questions/suggestions/queries on the whole manuscript, a) Although the literature on OMIT and PTIT is well mentioned, the novelty/main objective/goals/motivations are not well mentioned in the Introduction. In particular, paragraphs 2 and 4 do not provide the novelty/main objective/goals/motivations of the paper. What are the new objectives or research gaps those are not been explored previously by other groups? b) I think it should be mentioned why the transmitted field (ET) is measured/detected (using eqn 8) instead of the conventional probe (Ep) field (using eqn 7). c) Eqns 3 are not visible in the pdf file. Here I can't find d/dt of the system operators! d) δ in eqn 5 and detuning parameter δ in page 4 are confusing. e) Here, the authors should explain/mention the possibility of experimental realization of the scheme in Fig 1. f) Section 2: The theory is derived and written well. However, a similar theory is well established by Refs 11, 41, 43, 56, 57, 60 etc. g) It is not clear how other parameters are scaled by w_m= 1 MHz (I think it is better to use like parameter/wm following Ref. 41). h) Fig 2: Plots (a)-(d) should be better understood if they appear in a single box with 2 rows and 2 columns. Because it is a comparison of absorption and dispersion under (a)- OMIT only, (b)- PTIT only, (c)- OMIT and PTIT and (d)- OMIT, PTIT and QDs. i) Similarly, Figs. 3,4,5 should be accommodated in 1 column and 3 rows, as these plots are a comparison of variation of parameters of OMIT, PTIT and QDs. j) Figs 6 and 7 should also be accommodated column-wise with plots (a) and (b). Because here only difference is detuning delta_c and delta_d. k) Fig 4: caption: I think lambda = 0.2 should be χ=0.5, as lambda is a varying parameter here. l) Page-15: below figure caption 8: ….. can be seen in Fig 1(d). I think this is not correct. Fig 1(d)—not in the manuscript! m) OVERALL, the presentation of results and discussion does not provide in-depth physics and explanation of new findings. Scientific analysis of all findings is missing in this paper. n) The results show only the findings of EIT or double EIT-like dips, and the effects of the parameters related to OMIT, PTIT, QDs on the EIT or double EIT-like dips. o) Inset figures should be resized/reallocated, so that the actual plots don’t hide by the inset plots. If possible, presenting results and discussion as First, Second, ….Sixth, Finally may be avoided. A few typos are also in the text. Finally, I feel that the present version of the manuscript does not provide the criteria (scientific interpretation of results: weak; the impact of the results: moderate; experimental realization of the scheme- not mentioned, overall significance and novelty of the work: moderate) for publication in Int J Quantum Chemistry. However, I suggest major revisions, rewriting and submitting to a subject-specific journal.