MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396555670 · doi:10.1063/5.0202957

Interference is in the eye of the beholder: Application to the coherent control of collisional processes

2024· article· en· W4396555670 on OpenAlexaff
Adrien Devolder, Timur V. Tscherbul, Paul Brumer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum optics and atomic interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific Research
KeywordsControllabilityInterference (communication)Basis (linear algebra)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsCoherent controlFormalism (music)PhysicsFourier transformScatteringMatrix (chemical analysis)Quantum mechanicsComputer scienceStatistical physicsQuantumMathematicsChemistryTelecommunicationsApplied mathematicsChannel (broadcasting)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interference is widely regarded as a foundational attribute of quantum mechanics. However, for a given experimental arrangement, interference can either contribute or not contribute to the outcome depending upon the basis in which it is measured. This observation is both foundational and particularly relevant to coherent control of molecular processes, an approach based upon quantum interference. Here, we address this issue and its relevance to controlling molecular processes via the "coherent control scattering (CCS) matrix," a formalism that allows for an analysis of modifications in an interference structure resulting from a change of basis. This analysis reveals that the change in the interference structure can be attributed to the non-commutativity of the transformation matrix with the CCS matrix and the non-orthogonality of the transformation. Additionally, minimal interference is shown to be associated with the CCS eigenbasis and that the Fourier transform of the eigenvectors of the CCS matrix provides the maximal interference and hence the best coherent control. The change of controllability through a change of basis is illustrated with an example of 85Rb+ 85Rb scattering. In addition, the developed formalism is applied to explain recent experimental results on He + D2 inelastic scattering demonstrating the presence or absence of interference depending on the basis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicQuantum optics and atomic interactionsFrench-language works237,207