Distinguishing quantum from classical oscillations in a driven phase qubit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rabi oscillations are coherent transitions in a quantum two-level system under the influence of a resonant drive, with a much lower frequency dependent on the perturbation amplitude. These serve as one of the signatures of quantum coherent evolution in mesoscopic systems. It was shown recently (Grønbech-Jensen N and Cirillo M 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 067001) that in phase qubits (current-biased Josephson junctions) this effect can be mimicked by classical oscillations arising due to the anharmonicity of the effective potential. Nevertheless, we find qualitative differences between the classical and quantum effects. Firstly, while the quantum Rabi oscillations can be produced by the subharmonics of the resonant frequency ω 10 (multiphoton processes), the classical effect also exists when the system is excited at the overtones, n ω 10 . Secondly, the shape of the resonance is, in the classical case, characteristically asymmetric, whereas quantum resonances are described by symmetric Lorentzians. Thirdly, the anharmonicity of the potential results in the negative shift of the resonant frequency in the classical case, in contrast to the positive Bloch–Siegert shift in the quantum case. We show that in the relevant range of parameters these features allow us to distinguish confidently the bona fide Rabi oscillations from their classical Doppelgänger.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".