MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992103331 · doi:10.1080/09500340.2014.899645

Experimental demonstration of Klyshko’s advanced-wave picture using a coincidence-count based, camera-enabled imaging system

2014· article· en· W1992103331 on OpenAlexaff
Reuben S. Aspden, D. S. Tasca, Andrew Forbes, Robert W. Boyd, Miles J. Padgett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Optics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRandom lasers and scattering media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoincidenceSpeckle patternParametric statisticsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)OpticsPhysicsBeam (structure)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Klyshko advanced-wave picture is a well-known tool useful in the conceptualisation of parametric down-conversion (SPDC) experiments. Despite being well-known and understood, there have been few experimental demonstrations illustrating its validity. Here, we present an experimental demonstration of this picture using a time-gated camera in an image-based coincidence measurement. We show an excellent agreement between the spatial distributions as predicted by the Klyshko picture and those obtained using the SPDC photon pairs. An interesting speckle feature is present in the Klyshko predictive images due to the spatial coherence of the back-propagated beam in the multi-mode fibre. This effect can be removed by mechanically twisting the fibre, thus degrading the spatial coherence of the beam and time-averaging the speckle pattern, giving an accurate correspondence between the predictive and SPDC images.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modern OpticsSame topicRandom lasers and scattering mediaFrench-language works237,207