MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comment on “Vacuum Rabi Splitting in a Semiconductor Circuit QED System”

2013· letter· en· W1566986260 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Wallraff, Anna Stockklauser, Thomas Ihn, J. R. Petta, Alexandre Blais

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSemiconductorRabi cycleAtomic physicsQuantum mechanicsEngineering physicsQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toida et al. claim in their recent article [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 066802 (2013)] that they `report a direct observation of vacuum Rabi splitting in a GaAs/AlGaAs double quantum dot (DQD) based charge qubit coupled with a superconducting coplanar waveguide (CPW) resonator'. In this comment, we challenge the main claims made in their paper and show that their results: a) do not provide any evidence of vacuum Rabi oscillations and b) do not provide any direct evidence of vacuum Rabi splitting.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207