MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stimulated Emission Tomography

2013· article· en· W2328555648 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPhotonParametric statisticsCoincidenceQuantum tomographyMixing (physics)Four-wave mixingSpontaneous parametric down-conversionStimulated emissionTomographyOpticsQuantum opticsQuantumQuantum stateAtomic physicsComputational physicsQuantum mechanicsLaserNonlinear opticsStatisticsQuantum entanglementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We identify a relation between the number of photon pairs generated by parametric fluorescence, through either spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) or spontaneous four-wave mixing, and the number generated by the corresponding stimulated process, respectively, either difference-frequency generation or stimulated four-wave mixing. On the basis of this very general result, we show that the characterization of SPDC sources of two-photon states in a given system can be performed solely by studying stimulated emission. We call this technique stimulated emission tomography (SET). We show that the number of photons detected in SET can be 9 orders of magnitude larger than the average number of coincidence counts in two-photon quantum state tomography. These results open the way to the study of sources of quantum-correlated photon pairs with unprecedented precision and unparalleled resolution.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · 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