MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392577793 · doi:10.1117/12.3000548

Source to detector simulation of quantum photonic integrated circuits

2024· article· en· W4392577793 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Gitt, Jeff F. Young, Dylan McGuire

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Reservoir Computing
Canadian institutionsAnsys (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotonicsPhotonic integrated circuitPhysicsPhotonElectronic circuitTopology (electrical circuits)Electronic engineeringComputer scienceOptoelectronicsOpticsQuantum mechanicsElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum photonic devices are typically based on either discrete variable (DV) or continuous variable (CV) principles. In either case, their performance must meet strict “fidelity” requirements, especially when scaled using integrated photonic circuitry. DV devices must be robust to imperfections such as timing delays between photons, unwanted spectral correlations present in photons from nonideal single photon sources and variations in circuit components. Furthermore, it becomes increasingly important to have a methodology for characterizing the performance of devices in the presence of such errors. Here, we present a method for simulating quantum photonic integrated circuits (PICs) and use it to model the behavior of a circuit constructed to model the evolution of a quantum state subject to a Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian, introducing variations to the coupling gaps in the directional couplers inside the circuit. Input states consisting of both indistinguishable and distinguishable photons are modelled. Compact models for the directional couplers and other photonic circuit elements that are parameterized for a specific fabrication process can be incorporated into the circuit using a foundry-associated compact model library, ensuring consistency between circuit design and manufactured component. In CV applications, the degree of squeezing provided by some nonlinear element is often a key metric. Here we describe how the degree of squeezing produced by spontaneous four-wave mixing (SFWM) in a microring resonator can be modelled in the low-power limit, accounting for the effects of self-phase modulation (SPM), cross-phase modulation (XPM), and component losses.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.267
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and Reservoir ComputingFrench-language works237,207