MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165863746 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/1/013055

Spontaneous parametric downconversion in waveguides: what's loss got to do with it?

2015· article· en· W2165863746 on OpenAlexaff
L. G. Helt, M. J. Steel, J. E. Sipe

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsParametric statisticsOpticsQuantum electrodynamicsOptoelectronicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive frequency correlation and exit probability expressions for photons generated via spontaneous parametric downconversion (SPDC) in nonlinear waveguides that exhibit linear scattering loss.Such loss is included within a general Hamiltonian formalism by connecting waveguide modes to reservoir modes with a phenomenological coupling Hamiltonian, the parameters of which are later related to the usual loss coefficients.In the limit of a low probability of SPDC pair production, the presence of loss requires that we write the usual lossless generated pair state as a reduced density operator, and we find that this density operator is naturally composed of two photon, one photon, and zero photon contributions.The biphoton probability density, or joint spectral intensity (JSI), associated with the two-photon contribution is determined not only by a phase matching term, but also by a loss matching term.The relative sizes of the loss coefficients within this term lead to three qualitatively different regimes of SPDC JSIs.If either the pump or generated photon loss is much higher than the other, the side lobes of the phase matching squared sinc function are washed out.On the other hand, if pump and generated photon loss are appropriately balanced, the lossy JSI is identical to the lossless JSI.Finally, if the generated photon loss is frequency dependent, the shape of the JSI can be altered more severely, potentially leading to generated photons that are less frequency correlated though also produced less efficiently when compared to photons generated in low-loss waveguides.

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)0.003
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207