Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the apparent similarity between shared randomness and shared entanglement in the context of Communication Complexity, our understanding of the latter is not as good as of the former. In particular, there is no known ``entanglement analogue'' for the famous theorem by Newman, saying that the number of shared random bits required for solving any communication problem can be at most logarithmic in the input length (i.e., using more than $\asO[]{\log n}$ shared random bits would not reduce the complexity of an optimal solution). In this paper we prove that the same is not true for entanglement. We establish a wide range of tight (up to a polylogarithmic factor) entanglement vs.\ communication trade-offs for relational problems. The low end is:\ for any $t>2$, reducing shared entanglement from $log^tn$ to $\aso[]{log^{t-2}n}$ qubits can increase the communication required for solving a problem almost exponentially, from $\asO[]{log^tn}$ to $\asOm[]{\sqrt n}$. The high end is:\ for any $\eps>0$, reducing shared entanglement from $n^{1-\eps}\log n$ to $\aso[]{n^{1-\eps}/\log n}$ can increase the required communication from $\asO[]{n^{1-\eps}\log n}$ to $\asOm[]{n^{1-\eps/2}/\log n}$. The upper bounds are demonstrated via protocols which are \e{exact} and work in the \e{simultaneous message passing model}, while the lower bounds hold for \e{bounded-error protocols}, even in the more powerful \e{model of 1-way communication}. Our protocols use shared EPR pairs while the lower bounds apply to any sort of prior entanglement. We base the lower bounds on a strong direct product theorem for communication complexity of a certain class of relational problems. We believe that the theorem might have applications outside the scope of this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it