Preparation of cavity Fock state superpositions by reinforcement learning exploiting measurement back-action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preparation of bosonic and general cavity quantum states usually relies on using open-loop control to reach a desired target state. In this work, a measurement-based feedback approach is used instead, exploiting the non-linearity of weak measurements alongside a coherent drive to prepare these states. The extension of previous work on Lyapunov-based control is shown to fail for this task. This prompts for a different approach, and reinforcement learning (RL) is resorted to here for this purpose. With such an approach, cavity eigenstate superpositions can be prepared with fidelities over 98$\%$ using only the measurements back-action as the non-linearity, while naturally incorporating detection of cavity photon jumps. Two different RL frameworks are analyzed: an off-policy approach recently introduced called truncated quantile critic~(TQC) and the on-policy method commonly used in quantum control, namely proximal policy optimization~(PPO). It is shown that TQC performs better at reaching higher target state fidelity preparation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".