MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterizing heralded single-photon sources with imperfect measurement devices

2009· article· en· W2065550792 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhotorefractive and Nonlinear Optics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImperfectParametric statisticsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)CoincidenceStandardizationMetrologyObservational errorCoherence theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Any characterization of a single-photon source is not complete without specifying its second-order degree of coherence, i.e., its g (2) function. An accurate measurement of such coherence functions commonly requires high-precision single-photon detectors, in whose absence only time-averaged measurements are possible. It is not clear, however, how the resulting time-averaged quantities can be used to properly characterize the source. In this paper, we investigate this issue for a heralded source of single photons that relies on continuous-wave parametric down-conversion. By accounting for major shortcomings of the source and the detectors—i.e., the multiple-photon emissions of the source, the time resolution of photodetectors and our chosen width of coincidence window—our theory enables us to infer the true source properties from imperfect measurements. Our theoretical results are corroborated by an experimental demonstration using a PPKTP crystal pumped by a blue laser that results in a single-photon generation rate about 1.2 millions per second per milliwatt of pump power. This work takes an important step towards the standardization of such heralded single-photon sources.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical PhysicsSame topicPhotorefractive and Nonlinear OpticsFrench-language works237,207