Unwanted couplings can induce amplification in quantum memories despite negligible apparent noise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical quantum memory design often involves selectively focusing on certain energy levels to mimic an ideal Λ configuration, a common approach that may unintentionally overlook the impact of neighboring levels or undesired couplings. While this simplification may be justified in certain protocols or platforms, it can significantly distort the achievable memory performance. Through numerical semiclassical analysis, we show that the presence of unwanted energy levels and undesired couplings in an absorptive memory based on a nitrogen-vacancy center can significantly amplify the signal, resulting in memory efficiencies exceeding unity, a clear indication of unwanted noise at the quantum level. Strikingly, this effect occurs even when the apparent noise, i.e., output in the absence of an input field, is negligible. We then generalize our results using semianalytical estimations to analyze this amplification, and propose a strategy to reduce its effect. Our findings extend to memory platforms beyond nitrogen-vacancy centers; as an example, we also analyze a cavity-based rubidium memory that experiences the same issue.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".