Accessible versus Holevo Information for a Binary Random Variable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the best lower bound methods for the quantum communication complexity of a function H (with or without shared entanglement) is the logarithm of the approximate rank of the communication matrix of H. This measure is essentially equivalent to the approximate gamma-2 norm and generalized discrepancy, and subsumes several other lower bounds. All known lower bounds on quantum communication complexity in the general unbounded-round model can be shown via the logarithm of approximate rank, and it was an open problem to give any separation at all between quantum communication complexity and the logarithm of the approximate rank. In this work we provide the first such separation: We exhibit a total function H with quantum communication complexity almost quadratically larger than the logarithm of its approximate rank. We construct H using the communication lookup function framework of Anshu et al. (FOCS 2016) based on the cheat sheet framework of Aaronson et al. (STOC 2016). From a starting function F, this framework defines a new function H=F_G. Our main technical result is a lower bound on the quantum communication complexity of F_G in terms of the discrepancy of F, which we do via quantum information theoretic arguments. We show the upper bound on the approximate rank of F_G by relating it to the Boolean circuit size of the starting function F.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".