Coherent control and enhancement of refractive index in an asymmetric double quantum well
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose coherent control and enhancement of the refractive index with zero absorption in an n-type asymmetric double quantum well using intersubband transitions. These effects are caused by quantum coherence and interference whereby a strong infrared laser mixes upper conduction subbands of an intersubband transition with an auxiliary subband. In the ${\mathrm{G}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{A}\mathrm{l}}_{x}{\mathrm{Ga}}_{1\ensuremath{-}x}\mathrm{As}$ system considered here, an approximately 10% enhancement of the refractive index accompanied with zero absorption occurs at 10.5 \ensuremath{\mu}m, when the system is driven by a 6.2-\ensuremath{\mu}m laser field with an intensity of \ensuremath{\sim}1 ${\mathrm{M}\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}}^{2}$. The interplay between quantum coherence and electron population dynamics not only causes an enhancement of refractive index similar to that in atomic systems, but can also induce both low positive and negative group velocities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".