MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Quantification of Coherence of a Tunable Quantum Detector

2020· article· en· W2980553956 on OpenAlexaff
Huichao Xu, Feixiang Xu, Thomas Theurer, Dario Egloff, Zi-Wen Liu, Nengkun Yu, Martin B. Plenio, Lijian Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaH2020 European Research CouncilNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsDetectorCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)QuantumComputer sciencePhysicsQuantum imagingOperator (biology)Degree of coherenceQuantum technologyQuantum sensorCoherence theoryOpticsQuantum mechanicsCoherence lengthOpen quantum system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum coherence is a fundamental resource that quantum technologies exploit to achieve performance beyond that of classical devices. A necessary prerequisite to achieve this advantage is the ability of measurement devices to detect coherence from the measurement statistics. Based on a recently developed resource theory of quantum operations, here we quantify experimentally the ability of a typical quantum-optical detector, the weak-field homodyne detector, to detect coherence. We derive an improved algorithm for quantum detector tomography and apply it to reconstruct the positive-operator-valued measures of the detector in different configurations. The reconstructed positive-operator-valued measures are then employed to evaluate how well the detector can detect coherence using two computable measures. As the first experimental investigation of quantum measurements from a resource theoretical perspective, our work sheds new light on the rigorous evaluation of the performance of a quantum measurement apparatus.

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 score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207