MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1665251036 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/9/093013

Computable entanglement conversion witness that is better than the negativity

2015· article· en· W1665251036 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Girard, Gilad Gour

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsQuantum entanglementEntanglement witnessWitnessPhysicsNegativity effectQubitState (computer science)Quantum mechanicsQuantumTheoretical physicsStatistical physicsSquashed entanglementComputer scienceAlgorithmLawPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary goal of entanglement theory is to determine convertibility conditions for two quantum states. Up until now, this has always been done with the use of entanglement monotones. With the exception of the negativity, such quantities tend to be rather uncomputable. We instead promote the idea of conversion witnesses in this paper. A conversion witness is a function on pairs of states and whose value determines whether a state can be converted into another. We construct a conversion witness that can be efficiently computed for arbitrary states in systems of any size. This conversion witness is always better than the negativity at detecting when two entangled states are not interconvertible. Furthermore, when considering states of two-qubit systems, this new conversion witness is sometimes better than the entanglement of formation. This shows that the study of conversion witness is in fact useful, and may have applications in resource theories beyond that of entanglement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207