MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768123889 · doi:10.1103/physreva.96.053863

Phase sensitivity of gain-unbalanced nonlinear interferometers

2017· article· en· W2768123889 on OpenAlexafffund
Enno Giese, Samuel Lemieux, Mathieu Manceau, Robert Fickler, Robert W. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMechanical and Optical Resonators
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsSpectrum analyzerSensitivity (control systems)Nonlinear systemAstronomical interferometerInterferometryScalingNoise (video)OpticsPhysicsShot noisePhase (matter)Symmetry (geometry)Control theory (sociology)Computer scienceElectronic engineeringQuantum mechanicsMathematicsEngineeringDetectorGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phase uncertainty of an unseeded nonlinear interferometer, where the output of one nonlinear crystal is transmitted to the input of a second crystal that analyzes it, is commonly said to be below the shot-noise level but highly dependent on detection and internal loss. Unbalancing the gains of the first (source) and second (analyzer) crystals leads to a configuration that is tolerant against detection loss. However, in terms of sensitivity, there is no advantage in choosing a stronger analyzer over a stronger source, and hence the comparison to a shot-noise level is not straightforward. Internal loss breaks this symmetry and shows that it is crucial whether the source or analyzer is dominating. Based on these results, claiming a Heisenberg scaling of the sensitivity is more subtle than in a balanced setup.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations44
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicMechanical and Optical ResonatorsFrench-language works237,207