MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042980081 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.79.205416

Generation of entangled photon pairs from a single quantum dot embedded in a planar photonic-crystal cavity

2009· article· en· W2042980081 on OpenAlexaff
P. K. Pathak, Stephen Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiexcitonPhysicsQuantum entanglementPhotonPhoton entanglementQuantum dotPhotonic crystalQuantum mechanicsCoupling (piping)PlanarPhotonicsExcitonQuantumMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a formal theory of single quantum dot coupling to a planar photonic crystal that supports quasidegenerate cavity modes and use this theory to describe and optimize entangled-photon pair generation via the biexciton-exciton cascade. In the generated photon pairs, either both photons are spontaneously emitted from the dot or one photon is emitted from the biexciton spontaneously while the other is emitted via the leaky cavity mode. In the strong-coupling regime, the generated photon pairs can be maximally entangled in qualitative agreement with the dressed-state predictions of Johne et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 240404 (2008)]. We derive useful analytical formulas for the spectrum of the emitted photon pairs in the presence of exciton and biexciton broadening, which is necessary to connect to realistic experiments and demonstrate the important differences with the approximate dressed-state approach. We also present a method for calculating and optimizing the entanglement between the emitted photons, which can account for postsample spectral filtering. Pronounced entanglement values of greater than 80% are demonstrated using experimentally achievable parameters even without spectral filtering.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and DevicesFrench-language works237,207