MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767015992 · doi:10.1103/physreva.97.023840

Squeezed-state evolution and entanglement in lossy coupled-resonator optical waveguides

2018· article· en· W2767015992 on OpenAlexafffund
Hossein Seifoory, Marc M. Dignam

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's University
KeywordsQuantum entanglementPhysicsResonatorPhotonSqueezed coherent stateLossy compressionQuantum mechanicsExcited stateOptical cavityWaveguidePhoton entanglementQuantum opticsOpticsQuantumCoherent statesMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate theoretically the temporal evolution of a squeezed state in lossy coupled-cavity systems. We present a general formalism based upon the tight-binding approximation and apply this to a two-cavity system as well as to a coupled-resonator optical waveguide in a photonic crystal. We derive analytical expressions for the number of photons and the quadrature noise in each cavity as a function of time when the initial excited state is a squeezed state in one of the cavities. We also analytically evaluate the time-dependent cross correlation between the photons in different cavities to evaluate the degree of quantum entanglement. We demonstrate that loss in such coupled-cavity systems cannot be treated using simple exponential factors. Finally, we also derive approximate analytic expressions for the maximum photon number, maximum squeezing, and maximum entanglement for cavities far from the initially excited cavity in a lossless coupled-resonator optical waveguide.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · 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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207