Intensity<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msup><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math>correlations in random fiber lasers: A random-matrix-theory approach
Classification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose an approach based on random matrix theory to calculate the temporal second-order intensity correlation function ${g}^{(2)}(t)$ of the radiation emitted by random lasers and random fiber lasers. The multimode character of these systems, with a relevant degree of disorder in the active medium, and a large number of random scattering centers substantially hinder the calculation of ${g}^{(2)}(t)$. Here, we apply in a photonic system the universal statistical properties of Ginibre's non-Hermitian random matrix ensemble to obtain ${g}^{(2)}(t)$. Excellent agreement is found with time-resolved measurements for several excitation powers of an erbium-based random fiber laser. We also discuss the extension of the random matrix approach to address the statistical properties of general disordered photonic systems with various Hamiltonian symmetries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it