MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123258563 · doi:10.1139/p08-140

Quantum trajectory equation for multiple qubits in circuit QED: Generating entanglement by measurementThis paper was presented at the Theory CANADA 4 conference, held at Centre de recherches mathématiques, Montréal, Québec, Canada on 4–7 June 2008.

2009· article· en· W3123258563 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chantal L. Hutchison, Jay Gambetta, Alexandre Blais, Frank K. Wilhelm

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de PointeUniversity of WaterlooUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMaster equationQubitQuantum decoherenceQuantum mechanicsQuantum entanglementHamiltonian (control theory)Bell stateQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we derive an effective master equation and quantum trajectory equation for multiple qubits in a single resonator and in the large resonator decay limit. We show that homodyne measurement of the resonator transmission is a weak measurement of the collective qubit inversion. As an example of this result, we focus on the case of two qubits and show how this measurement can be used to generate an entangled state from an initially separable state. This is realized without relying on an entangling Hamiltonian. We show that, for current experimental values of both the decoherence and measurement rates, this approach can be used to generate highly entangled states. This scheme takes advantage of the fact that one of the Bell states is decoherence-free under Purcell decay.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations42
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207