MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884965959 · doi:10.1364/oe.26.019730

Generation of random numbers by measuring phase fluctuations from a laser diode with a silicon-on-insulator chip

2018· article· en· W2884965959 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Raffaelli, Philip Sibson, Jake Kennard, Dylan H. Mahler, Mark G. Thompson, Jonathan C. F. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsXanadu Quantum Technologies (Canada)
FundersArmy Research OfficeH2020 European Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsRandom number generationPhotonicsSilicon on insulatorDiodeChipComputer scienceLaserElectronic engineeringOpticsSoftwareOptoelectronicsSiliconPhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Random numbers are a fundamental resource in science and technology. Among the different approaches to generating them, random numbers created by exploiting the laws of quantum mechanics have proven to be reliable and can be produced at enough rates for their practical use. While these demonstrations have shown very good performance, most of the implementations using free-space and fibre optics suffer from limitations due to their size, which strongly limits their practical use. Here we report a quantum random number generator based on phase fluctuations from a diode laser, where the other required optical components are integrated on a mm-scale monolithic silicon-on-insulator chip. The post-processing reported in this experiment is performed via software. However, our physical device shows the potential of operation at generation rates in the Gbps regime. Considering the device's size, its simple, robust and low power operation, and the rapid industrial uptake of silicon photonics, we foresee the widespread integration of the reported design in more complex 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 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 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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations61
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207