MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367175926 · doi:10.1116/5.0137579

Obtaining a single-photon weak value from experiments using a strong (many-photon) coherent state

2023· article· en· W4367175926 on OpenAlexafffund
Howard M. Wiseman, Aephraim M. Steinberg, Matin Hallaji

Bibliographic record

VenueAVS Quantum Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersCentre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology, Australian Research CouncilUniversity of TorontoGriffith UniversityFetzer InstituteCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJohn E. Fetzer Memorial Trust
KeywordsPhotonValue (mathematics)PhysicsState (computer science)Avalanche photodiodeFunction (biology)DetectorStatistical physicsQuantum mechanicsOpticsComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common type of weak-value experiment prepares a single particle in one state, weakly measures the occupation number of another state, and post-selects on finding the particle in a third state (a “click”). Most weak-value experiments have been done with photons, but the heralded preparation of a single photon is difficult and slow of rate. Here, we show that the weak value mentioned above can be measured using strong (many-photon) coherent states, while still needing only a click detector such as an avalanche photodiode. One simply subtracts the no-click weak value from the click weak-value and scales the answer by a simple function of the click probability.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAVS Quantum ScienceSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207