MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950228745 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.125004

Quantum imaging using relativistic detectors

2019· article· en· W2950228745 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicholas Bornman, Achim Kempf, Andrew Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRandom lasers and scattering media
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCouncil for Scientific and Industrial Research, South Africa
KeywordsPhysicsQuantum entanglementQuantum imagingUnruh effectDetectorQuantumInertial frame of referenceQuantum mechanicsPhotonSpontaneous parametric down-conversionGhost imagingClassical mechanicsOpticsQuantum network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imaging in quantum optics is usually formulated in the languages of quantum mechanics and Fourier optics. While relatively advanced fields, notions such as different reference frames and the degradation of entanglement due to acceleration are not usually featured. Here we propose the idea of using so-called Unruh-DeWitt (UDW) detectors to model the imaging process in quantum optics. In particular, we first present a quantum field theory version of a state describing spontaneous parametric down-conversion, one of the principal processes employed to create entangled photons in the laboratory. This state, coupled to UDW detectors, is used to investigate a single-pixel ghost image under both inertial and noninertial settings, and a two-pixel image under inertial conditions. The reconstructed images obtained for various possible inputs can be distinguished better than a pure guess, hence the formalism can be used to describe imaging between noninertial frames. We briefly consider the origin of the correlations between the UDW detectors, which do not appear to arise from the usual notion of entanglement. Finally, we find that the contrast between the possible outcomes in the single-pixel case follows a curious coupling time dependent behavior.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicRandom lasers and scattering mediaFrench-language works237,207