MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Feedback Control of Quantum Systems Using Weak Measurements

2010· article· en· W2129997485 on OpenAlexaff
Geoff Gillett, R. B. Dalton, B. P. Lanyon, M. P. Almeida, Marco Barbieri, Geoff J. Pryde, Jeremy L. O’Brien, K. J. Resch, Stephen D. Bartlett, A. G. White

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMechanical and Optical Resonators
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsDephasingWeak measurementQubitQuantumComputer scienceContext (archaeology)PhysicsQuantum technologyNoise (video)Quantum sensorOpen quantum systemControl (management)Statistical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A goal of the emerging field of quantum control is to develop methods for quantum technologies to function robustly in the presence of noise. Central issues are the fundamental limitations on the available information about quantum systems and the disturbance they suffer in the process of measurement. In the context of a simple quantum control scenario-the stabilization of nonorthogonal states of a qubit against dephasing-we experimentally explore the use of weak measurements in feedback control. We find that, despite the intrinsic difficultly of implementing them, weak measurements allow us to control the qubit better in practice than is even theoretically possible without them. Our work shows that these more general quantum measurements can play an important role for feedback control of quantum systems.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations151
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicMechanical and Optical ResonatorsFrench-language works237,207