MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979688176 · doi:10.1103/physreva.76.042309

Entanglement of subspaces and error-correcting codes

2007· article· en· W1979688176 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear subspaceQuantum entanglementSubspace topologyDegenerate energy levelsMeasure (data warehouse)Bipartite graphDecoherence-free subspacesMathematicsCode (set theory)Discrete mathematicsQubitComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceQuantumPure mathematicsQuantum mechanicsPhysicsQuantum channelSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce the notion of entanglement of subspaces as a measure that quantifies the entanglement of bipartite states in a randomly selected subspace. We discuss its properties and in particular we show that for maximally entangled subspaces it is additive. Furthermore, we show that maximally entangled subspaces can play an important role in the study of quantum error-correction codes. We discuss both degenerate and nondegenerate codes and show that the subspace spanned by the logical code words of a nondegenerate code is a $k$-totally- (maximally) entangled subspace. As for non-degenerate codes, we provide a mathematical definition in terms of subspaces and, as an example, we analyze Shor's 9-qubit code in terms of 22 mutually orthogonal subspaces.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.298 · 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