MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Minimax Quantum Tomography: Estimators and Relative Entropy Bounds

2016· article· en· W1892898072 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher Ferrie, Robin Blume-Kohout

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research OfficeAustralian Research CouncilNational Nuclear Security AdministrationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMinimaxEstimatorQuantum tomographyMinimax estimatorMathematicsEntropy (arrow of time)Minimax approximation algorithmPrinciple of maximum entropyApplied mathematicsQuantumTomographyKullback–Leibler divergenceQuantum stateMathematical optimizationStatisticsPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A minimax estimator has the minimum possible error ("risk") in the worst case. We construct the first minimax estimators for quantum state tomography with relative entropy risk. The minimax risk of nonadaptive tomography scales as O(1/sqrt[N])-in contrast to that of classical probability estimation, which is O(1/N)-where N is the number of copies of the quantum state used. We trace this deficiency to sampling mismatch: future observations that determine risk may come from a different sample space than the past data that determine the estimate. This makes minimax estimators very biased, and we propose a computationally tractable alternative with similar behavior in the worst case, but superior accuracy on most states.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207