Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Rapid classification of quantum sources enabled by machine learning

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Trained classifiers can label quantum emitters as single or not from one second of autocorrelation data with over 90% accuracy.

desk verdict A practical ML-based classifier for sparse HBT data that clearly beats direct fitting on 1-second acquisitions, with the caveat that experimental labels come from the same fits it is compared against. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08577 v2 pith:VF2QUTAM submitted 2019-08-22 physics.optics quant-ph

Zhaxylyk A. Kudyshev , Simeon Bogdanov , Theodor Isacsson , Alexander V. Kildishev , Alexandra Boltasseva , Vladimir M. Shalaev This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsquant-ph
keywords machinelearningsingle-photonemitterssecond-orderautocorrelationHanburyBrown-Twisssparsedataclassificationnitrogen-vacancycentersconvolutionalneuralnetworkquantumphotonics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a supervised machine-learning classifier can tell a single-photon emitter from a multi-emitter source using only one second of second-order autocorrelation data, with better than 90% agreement with labels obtained from much longer measurements. The quantity being judged is the zero-delay autocorrelation $g^{(2)}(0)$, and the binary decision is whether it falls below the conventional 0.5 threshold. On simulated three-level emitters and on 41 experimental nanodiamond nitrogen-vacancy sources, convolutional and voting classifiers outperform the standard Levenberg-Marquardt fit on the same sparse data, where the fit performs no better than a random guess. The practical payoff is a roughly hundredfold faster screening step for assembling integrated quantum photonic devices from many candidate emitters.

What carries the argument

The central object is the second-order autocorrelation histogram $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ recorded by a Hanbury Brown-Twiss interferometer, with the zero-delay value $g^{(2)}(0)$ serving as the single-photon purity metric. The mechanism is supervised binary classification on these histograms: a one-dimensional convolutional neural network and a voting classifier (a weighted combination of logistic regression and k-nearest neighbors) map a 215-bin sparse histogram to a 'single' or 'not-single' label. Training histograms come from a Monte Carlo simulation of a three-level emitter (ground, excited, and metastable states) mixed with non-antibunching background, with ground-truth labels derived from $g^{(2)}(0)$; the classifiers learn histogram-shape features, including the dip near zero delay and the surrounding wings, rather than relying on a fit of the full curve.

What would settle it

Apply the trained classifiers to one-second histograms from a source whose single-photon purity is certified by an independent method, such as pulsed excitation or a calibrated heralded source, and compare the labels against the certified $g^{(2)}(0)$ values; if agreement is not above 90% on clearly below-threshold sources, the reported accuracy is an artifact of the fitting-based labels.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the information needed to classify single-photon purity survives in extremely sparse autocorrelation histograms. The authors trained a one-dimensional convolutional neural network and a voting classifier on histograms that contain on average fewer than ten coincidence counts per bin, labeling each histogram by the $g^{(2)}(0)$ value retrieved from a long Levenberg-Marquardt fit. In a numerical experiment with 40,000 synthetic histograms from a three-level emitter model, the CNN exceeded 75% accuracy in regions of parameter space where the fit broke down completely, and the fit's accuracy dropped below 50% for the sparsest histograms. In physical measurements on 41 nanodiamond nitrogen-vacancy emitters, using 9,416 one-second histograms, the CNN classified single emitters with 87% accuracy and not-single emitters with 97% accuracy, while the fit on the same sparse histograms was no better than a random guess. The paper concludes that supervised classification is a practical substitute for fitting when data are too sparse for conventional analysis.

Load-bearing premise

A curve fit to the complete dataset is treated as the true label for each emitter; if that fit is biased for emitters whose true purity sits near the half-way threshold, the reported accuracy measures agreement with the fit rather than physical single-photon purity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Emitter screening for integrated quantum photonics can drop from minutes to about one second per candidate, because a one-second histogram carries enough signal for classification.
  • The same sparse-data classification pipeline can be retrained for a stricter purity threshold; the paper shows the CNN keeps its advantage for a $g^{(2)}(0)=0.3$ decision boundary.
  • Extending the approach to higher-order autocorrelation measurements is natural, since those datasets are even sparser for the same acquisition time.
  • The method can also be built into readout tasks such as spin-state discrimination and single-molecule spectroscopy, where the optical signal is weak or unstable.
  • Multi-bin classification could provide predictive estimates of $g^{(2)}(0)$ faster than any conventional fitting algorithm, turning the binary screener into a continuous quality estimator.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the ground-truth labels come from fits rather than an independent absolute measurement, the reported accuracies should be read as agreement with the fit's verdict; an independent calibration source would be needed to confirm the labels correspond to true single-photon purity.
  • Editorial inference: the roughly one-second decision time makes the classifier a natural fit for closed-loop deterministic assembly, where an emitter could be accepted or rejected on the fly; the paper motivates but does not demonstrate this feedback use.
  • Editorial inference: the CNN's learned features extend beyond the zero-delay bin, suggesting it exploits the full decay dynamics of the three-level system; emitters with very different lifetimes or detectors with different time jitter may need retraining before the classifier transfers to other platforms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes supervised machine learning classifiers (1D CNN, voting classifier, SVC, gradient boosting) to classify solid-state quantum emitters as "single" or "not-single" from sparse second-order autocorrelation histograms acquired in one second, as opposed to conventional Levenberg-Marquardt (L-M) fitting of much longer datasets. The authors train and evaluate on numerically simulated autocorrelation data with known ground truth and on experimental data from 41 nanodiamond NV centers, where the ground-truth labels are defined by L-M fits of complete datasets. They report that the best ML classifiers achieve over 90% classification accuracy on sparse data, while L-M fitting on the same sparse data performs near chance, and claim a roughly hundredfold speedup compared with L-M fitting.

Significance. If the claims hold, the method would address a real bottleneck in scalable quantum emitter characterization: the slow acquisition of second-order autocorrelation data. The paper has genuine strengths: the leave-one-emitter-out experimental protocol prevents the classifiers from memorizing specific emitters; the numerical experiment uses simulated data with known ground-truth g^(2)(0) values; several classifiers are compared with balanced metrics and confusion matrices; and the grad-CAM analysis provides useful interpretability. However, the experimental accuracy numbers depend entirely on the correctness of the L-M fits of complete datasets, which are not independently validated, so the headline claim as stated is stronger than what the data demonstrate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental emitter classification (Section 3.2) and Supplementary S7] The ground-truth labels for the physical emitters are exclusively the g^(2)(0) values obtained from L-M fits of complete datasets, with no independent physical validation. The text states that these fits "can be regarded as the ground truth" (average error about 0.03), but no comparison is made against pulsed excitation, a known calibration source, or an alternative estimation procedure. Because both training and test labels come from the same L-M procedure, the reported >90% accuracy is formally a measure of agreement with full-data L-M classifications, not a direct measure of physical single-photon purity. This distinction is load-bearing near the 0.5 threshold, where model misspecification or background/dark-count normalization bias in the fits could cause the ML classifiers to agree with L-M while misclassifying the true emitter state. Please either validate the fitted g^(2)(0) values with an independent measurement on a subset of the 41 emitters, or revise the abstract and discussion to state explicitly that the classifiers reproduce the decisions of full-data L-M fitting.
  2. [Discussion (speedup claim) and abstract] The "hundredfold speedup" claim is not precisely defined. The main text contrasts 1-second sparse datasets with "complete" datasets described only as "several minutes" in Fig. 1b and as accumulating "about 300 co-detection events per bin" in S7; the Discussion says L-M requires "two orders of magnitude longer" collection time to reach 90% accuracy, but no exact acquisition time, accuracy metric, or statistical test is reported. To support the quantitative factor of one hundred, the authors should state the exact integration time at which L-M reaches 90% accuracy on the same experimental data and clarify whether the speedup counts only integration time or total wall-clock time including ML training and inference.
  3. [Numerical experiment and Supplementary S3] The supplementary analysis in S3 shows that the 1D CNN requires at least 14,000 training datasets to achieve good classification performance on the ETCE model, yet the total experimental dataset contains 9,416 sparse datasets (before any upsampling). The paper reports strong experimental CNN performance without addressing this apparent discrepancy. Please explain whether the experimental data distribution is sufficiently narrower than the simulated distribution that the S3 threshold does not apply, or whether bootstrapping effectively compensates for the smaller training set.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical and language errors: "unencoutered" in the Experimental emitter classification section, "amout" in S3, "reviles" in S2, and "prototying" in the Discussion. Also, "regressive machine-learning techniques" in the Discussion should be "regression-based machine-learning techniques."
  2. [Figure 3c and abstract] The abstract claims "over 90%" accuracy, but Fig. 3c reports 87% ± 1.99% for the CNN on the "single" class and 97% ± 1.17% on "not-single"; the 93% value appears for the N≤5 subset. Please specify exactly which quantity corresponds to the abstract's "over 90%" and provide corresponding confidence intervals.
  3. [Supplementary S2 and Methods] The voting classifier weight ratio is described as "2 to 1" between logistic regression and k-NN, but the exact weighting of output probabilities (w1=2, w2=1) should be stated in the main text as well, since the VC is one of the two headline classifiers.
  4. [Supplementary S5] The grad-CAM analysis is informative, but there is a typo "grad-CAN" in the text, and some figure labels in Fig. S6 are difficult to read. Please improve the labeling for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ML classifiers are supervised emulators of an explicitly defined L-M ground-truth convention, with genuine out-of-sample evaluation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. In the numerical experiment, training and test data are generated with known g(2)(0) values, so the ground truth is independent of any fitting procedure; classifiers are trained on one subset and tested on a disjoint subset, and the comparison against L-M fitting is a fair benchmark. In the experimental section, the labels are L-M fits of complete datasets, as stated explicitly: "the L-M fitted g(2)(0) values ... can be regarded as the ground truth" and "both the training of the ML classifier and the estimation of classification accuracy were based on the ground truth g(2)(0) values retrieved from the L-M fits of the complete datasets." This is a transparent label convention, not a hidden reuse of the predicted quantity. The sparse datasets contain far less information than the complete datasets used for labeling, and the leave-one-emitter-out protocol means the tested emitter's sparse data were never seen in training, so the >90% accuracy is a genuine out-of-sample result rather than a statistical artifact. The fact that L-M fitting applied to the same sparse data performs at chance level further confirms that the ML success is not forced by construction. The only caveat is that the physical accuracy of the L-M labels themselves is not independently validated against a calibration source; however, that is an external-validity concern about the ground-truth definition, not circularity in the paper's reasoning. Self-citations appear only for contextual material and photophysical parameters, not as load-bearing justification for the central classification claim. Thus no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen or literature-derived choices. The classification threshold is a heuristic, the voting classifier weights and CNN hyperparameters are hand-selected, and the ground truth is defined by L-M fits of complete datasets rather than by an independent physical calibration. No new physical entities are introduced. The simulation parameters are taken from prior work, so they are not free parameters of this paper, but they do constrain the simulated training data.

free parameters (3)
  • Classification decision threshold = g(2)(0) = 0.5
    Chosen from the literature heuristic separating single-photon from classical emission. The paper also tests 0.3 in Supplementary S6, so results are threshold-dependent.
  • Voting classifier weight ratio = 2:1 for logistic regression vs k-NN
    Hand-selected weighting in the voting classifier; no optimization or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • CNN training hyperparameters = learning rate 0.01, momentum 0.9, decay 1e-5, batch size 150, 65 filters, kernel size 4
    Hand-chosen architecture and optimizer settings; sensitivity is not analyzed, so performance may depend on these choices.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Three-level model for NV center photodynamics
    Simulated training data are generated from a three-level system with fixed rates from prior literature; real emitters may deviate from this model.
  • domain assumption L-M fit of complete datasets provides ground-truth g(2)(0)
    Used to label all training and test data; if the fit model is misspecified, labels and reported accuracies inherit the error.
  • domain assumption g(2)(0) = 0.5 threshold separates single from not-single emitters
    Heuristic from literature (ref 20); alternative thresholds change the classification target, as shown in Supplementary S6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapid classification of quantum sources enabled by machine learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VF2QUTAM

@misc{pith2026190808577,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapid classification of quantum sources enabled by machine learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VF2QUTAM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08577}
}
read the original abstract

Deterministic nanoassembly may enable unique integrated on-chip quantum photonic devices. Such integration requires a careful large-scale selection of nanoscale building blocks such as solid-state single-photon emitters by the means of optical characterization. Second-order autocorrelation is a cornerstone measurement that is particularly time-consuming to realize on a large scale. We have implemented supervised machine learning-based classification of quantum emitters as "single" or "not-single" based on their sparse autocorrelation data. Our method yields a classification accuracy of over 90% within an integration time of less than a second, realizing roughly a hundredfold speedup compared to the conventional, Levenberg-Marquardt approach. We anticipate that machine learning-based classification will provide a unique route to enable rapid and scalable assembly of quantum nanophotonic devices and can be directly extended to other quantum optical measurements.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Simmons, A new horizon for quantum information

    M. Simmons, A new horizon for quantum information. npj Quantum Inf. 1, 15013 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Bogdanov, M

    S. Bogdanov, M. Y. Shalaginov, A. Boltasseva, V. M. Shalaev, Material platforms for integrated quantum photonics. Opt. Mater. Express. 7, 111 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    H. Wang, J. Qin, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, S. Chen, X. You, Y.-M. He, X. Jiang, Z. Wang, L. You, J. J. Renema, S. Hoefling, C.-Y. Lu, J.-W. Pan, Boson sampling with 20 input photons in 60-mode interferometers at 1410 state spaces (2019) (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09930)

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Aharonovich, D

    I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, M. Toth, Solid-state single-photon emitters. Nat. Photonics. 10, 631–641 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    X. Ding, Y. He, Z.-C. Duan, N. Gregersen, M.-C. Chen, S. Unsleber, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. Höfling, C.-Y. Lu, J.-W. Pan, On-Demand Single Photons with High Extraction Efficiency and Near-Unity Indistinguishability from a Resonantly Driven Quantum Dot in a Micropillar. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 020401 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Benson, Assembly of hybrid photonic architectures from nanophotonic constituents

    O. Benson, Assembly of hybrid photonic architectures from nanophotonic constituents. Nature. 480, 193–199 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    S. I. Bogdanov, O. A. Makarova, A. S. Lagutchev, D. Shah, C.-C. Chiang, S. Saha, A. S. Baburin, I. A. Ryzhikov, I. A. Rodionov, A. V. Kildishev, A. Boltasseva, V. M. Shalaev, ArXiv, in press (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05996)

    work page Pith review arXiv 1902

  8. [8]

    J.-H. Kim, S. Aghaeimeibodi, C. J. K. Richardson, R. P. Leavitt, D. Englund, E. Waks, Hybrid Integration of Solid-State Quantum Emitters on a Silicon Photonic Chip. Nano Lett. 17, 7394–7400 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Tao, C. L. Degen, Single-Crystal Diamond Nanowire Tips for Ultrasensitive Force Microscopy. Nano Lett. 15, 7893–7897 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Schirhagl, K

    R. Schirhagl, K. Chang, M. Loretz, C. L. Degen, Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers in Diamond: Nanoscale Sensors for Physics and Biology. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 65, 83–105 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Appel, E

    P. Appel, E. Neu, M. Ganzhorn, A. Barfuss, M. Batzer, M. Gratz, A. Tschöpe, P. Maletinsky, Fabrication of all diamond scanning probes for nanoscale magnetometry. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 063703 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    S. L. Mouradian, T. Schröder, C. B. Poitras, L. Li, J. Goldstein, E. H. Chen, M. Walsh, J. Cardenas, M. L. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, M. Lipson, D. Englund, Scalable Integration of Long-Lived Quantum Memories into a Photonic Circuit. Phys. Rev. X. 5, 031009 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Schröder, M

    T. Schröder, M. E. Trusheim, M. Walsh, L. Li, J. Zheng, M. Schukraft, A. Sipahigil, R. E. Evans, D. D. Sukachev, C. T. Nguyen, J. L. Pacheco, R. M. Camacho, E. S. Bielejec, M. D. Lukin, D. Englund, Scalable focused ion beam creation of nearly lifetime-limited single quantum em...

    2017

  6. [14]

    Palacios-Berraquero, D

    C. Palacios-Berraquero, D. M. Kara, A. R. P. Montblanch, M. Barbone, P. Latawiec, D. Yoon, A. K. Ott, M. Loncar, A. C. Ferrari, M. Atatüre, Large-scale quantum-emitter arrays in atomically thin semiconductors. Nat. Commun. 8, 15093 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    R. Q. Twiss, R. H. Brown, The Question of Correlation between Photons in Coherent Beams of Light. Nature. 179, 1128–1129 (1957)

    1957

  8. [16]

    H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, L. Mandel, Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691–695 (1977)

    1977

  9. [17]

    L. Li, E. H. Chen, J. Zheng, S. L. Mouradian, F. Dolde, T. Schröder, S. Karaveli, M. L. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Englund, Efficient Photon Collection from a Nitrogen Vacancy Center in a Circular Bullseye Grating. Nano Lett. 15, 1493–1497 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    K. A. Fischer, K. Müller, K. G. Lagoudakis, J. Vučković, Dynamical modeling of pulsed two-photon interference. New J. Phys. 18, 113053 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, ed

    R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, ed. 3, 2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    M. D. Eisaman, J. Fan, A. Migdall, S. V. Polyakov, Invited Review Article: Single-photon sources and detectors. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 82, 071101 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Y. Shen, N. C. Harris, S. Skirlo, M. Prabhu, T. Baehr-Jones, M. Hochberg, X. Sun, S. Zhao, H. Larochelle, D. Englund, M. Soljačić, Deep learning with coherent nanophotonic circuits. Nat. Photonics. 11, 441–446 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Mohammadi Estakhri, B

    N. Mohammadi Estakhri, B. Edwards, N. Engheta, Inverse-designed metastructures that solve equations. Science, 363, 1333–1338 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Jiang, D

    J. Jiang, D. Sell, S. Hoyer, J. Hickey, J. Yang, J. A. Fan, Free-Form Diffractive Metagrating Design Based on Generative Adversarial Networks. ACS Nano. 13, 8872– 8878 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    T. W. Hughes, M. Minkov, Y. Shi, S. Fan, Training of photonic neural networks through in situ backpropagation and gradient measurement. Optica. 5, 864 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Hamerly, L

    R. Hamerly, L. Bernstein, A. Sludds, M. Soljačić, D. Englund, Large-Scale Optical Neural Networks Based on Photoelectric Multiplication. Phys. Rev. X. 9, 021032 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    S. Pai, B. Bartlett, O. Solgaard, D. A. B. Miller, Matrix Optimization on Universal Unitary Photonic Devices. Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 064044 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Dunjko, H

    V. Dunjko, H. J. Briegel, Machine learning & artificial intelligence in the quantum domain: a review of recent progress. Reports Prog. Phys. 81, 074001 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    A. A. Melnikov, H. Poulsen Nautrup, M. Krenn, V. Dunjko, M. Tiersch, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Briegel, Active learning machine learns to create new quantum experiments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 1221–1226 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    I. Cong, S. Choi, M. D. Lukin, ArXiv, in press (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03787)

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Torlai, B

    G. Torlai, B. Timar, E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, H. Levine, A. Omran, A. Keesling, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, M. D. Lukin, R. G. Melko, M. Endres, ArXiv, in press (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08441)

    1904 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Santagati, A

    R. Santagati, A. A. Gentile, S. Knauer, S. Schmitt, S. Paesani, C. Granade, N. Wiebe, C. Osterkamp, L. P. McGuinness, J. Wang, M. G. Thompson, J. G. Rarity, F. Jelezko, A. Laing, Magnetic-Field Learning Using a Single Electronic Spin in Diamond with One- Photon Readout at Room...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Wiebe, C

    N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, D. G. Cory, Hamiltonian Learning and Certification Using Quantum Resources. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190501 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    J. Wang, S. Paesani, R. Santagati, S. Knauer, A. A. Gentile, N. Wiebe, M. Petruzzella, J. L. O’Brien, J. G. Rarity, A. Laing, M. G. Thompson, Experimental quantum Hamiltonian learning. Nat. Phys. 13, 551–555 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Hentschel, B

    A. Hentschel, B. C. Sanders, Machine Learning for Precise Quantum Measurement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 063603 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Naruse, M

    M. Naruse, M. Berthel, A. Drezet, S. Huant, M. Aono, H. Hori, S.-J. Kim, Single-photon decision maker. Sci. Rep. 5, 13253 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    IEEE Trans

    Chih-Wei Hsu, Chih-Jen Lin, A comparison of methods for multiclass support vector machines. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks. 13, 415–425 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    J. H. Friedman, Stochastic gradient boosting. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 38, 367–378 (2002)

    2002

  30. [38]

    D. Ruta, B. Gabrys, Classifier selection for majority voting. Inf. Fusion. 6, 63–81 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    LeCun, Y

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, G. Hinton, Deep learning. Nature. 521, 436–444 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    A. I. Schein, L. H. Ungar, Active learning for logistic regression: an evaluation. Mach. Learn. 68, 235–265 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    N. S. Altman, An Introduction to Kernel and Nearest-Neighbor Nonparametric Regression. Am. Stat. 46, 175–185 (1992)

    1992

  34. [42]

    Gatto Monticone, K

    D. Gatto Monticone, K. Katamadze, P. Traina, E. Moreva, J. Forneris, I. Ruo-Berchera, P. Olivero, I. P. Degiovanni, G. Brida, M. Genovese, Beating the Abbe Diffraction Limit in Confocal Microscopy via Nonclassical Photon Statistics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 143602 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Tenne, U

    R. Tenne, U. Rossman, B. Rephael, Y. Israel, A. Krupinski-Ptaszek, R. Lapkiewicz, Y. Silberberg, D. Oron, Super-resolution enhancement by quantum image scanning microscopy. Nat. Photonics. 13, 116–122 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    S. I. Bogdanov, A. Boltasseva, V. M. Shalaev, Overcoming quantum decoherence with plasmonics. Science, 364, 532–533 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    detectors

    S. I. Bogdanov, M. Y. Shalaginov, A. S. Lagutchev, C. C. Chiang, D. Shah, A. S. Baburin, I. A. Ryzhikov, I. A. Rodionov, A. V. Kildishev, A. Boltasseva, V. M. Shalaev, Ultrabright Room-Temperature Sub-Nanosecond Emission from Single Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers Coupled to Nanopatc...

    2018

  38. [46]

    S. I. Bogdanov, M. Y. Shalaginov, A. S. Lagutchev, C. C. Chiang, D. Shah, A. S. Baburin, I. A. Ryzhikov, I. A. Rodionov, A. V. Kildishev, A. Boltasseva, V. M. Shalaev, Ultrabright Room- Temperature Sub-Nanosecond Emission from Single Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers Coupled to Nanopat...

    2018

  39. [47]

    Gupta, L

    A. Gupta, L. Hacquebard, L. Childress, Efficient signal processing for time-resolved fluorescence detection of nitrogen-vacancy spins in diamond. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B. 33, B28 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    S. C. Kitson, P. Jonsson, J. G. Rarity, P. R. Tapster, Intensity fluctuation spectroscopy of small numbers of dye molecules in a microcavity. Phys. Rev. A. 58, 620–627 (1998)

    1998

  41. [49]

    Chollet, Keras: The Python Deep Learning library

    F. Chollet, Keras: The Python Deep Learning library. Keras.Io (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, G. Alexandre, M. Vincent, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, É. Duchesnay, Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825...

    2011

  43. [51]

    J. F. Bonnans, J. C. Gilbert, C. Lemaréchal, C. A. Sagastizábal, in Numerical Optimization (2003; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-662-05078-1_4), pp. 51–66

    2003 doi

  44. [52]

    Mason, J

    L. Mason, J. Baxter, P. Bartlett, M. Frean, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2000)

    2000

  45. [53]

    R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, D. Batra, in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (IEEE, 2017; http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8237336/), pp. 618–626

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.