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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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