Accurate unsupervised photon counting from transition-edge-sensor signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare methods for signal classification applied to voltage traces from transition edge sensors (TES) which are photon-number resolving detectors fundamental for accessing quantum advantages in information processing, communication, and metrology. We quantify the effect of numerical analysis on the distinction of such signals. Furthermore, we explore dimensionality reduction techniques to create interpretable and precise photon-number embeddings. We demonstrate that the preservation of local data structures of some nonlinear methods is an accurate way to achieve unsupervised classification of TES traces. We do so by considering a confidence metric that quantifies the overlap of the photon-number clusters inside a latent space. Furthermore, we demonstrate that for our dataset previous methods such as the signal's area and principal component analysis can resolve up to 16 photons with confidence above 90% whereas nonlinear techniques can resolve up to 21 photons with the same confidence threshold. In addition, we showcase implementations of neural networks to leverage information within local structures, aiming to increase confidence in assigning photon numbers. Finally, we demonstrate the advantage of some nonlinear methods to detect and remove outlier signals.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".