Entanglement in channel discrimination with restricted measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the power of measurements implementable with local quantum operations and classical communication (LOCC) measurements in the setting of quantum channel discrimination. More precisely, we consider discrimination procedures that attempt to identify an unknown channel, chosen uniformly from two known alternatives, that take the following form: (i) the input to the unknown channel is prepared in a possibly entangled state with an ancillary system, (ii) the unknown channel is applied to the input system, and (iii) an LOCC measurement is performed on the output and ancillary systems, resulting in a guess for which of the two channels was given. The restriction of the measurement in such a procedure to be an LOCC measurement is of interest because it isolates the entanglement in the initial input-ancillary systems as a resource in the setting of channel discrimination. We prove that there exist channel discrimination problems for which restricted procedures of this sort can be at either of the two extremes: they may be optimal within the set of all discrimination procedures (and simultaneously outperform all strategies that make no use of entanglement), or they may be no better than unentangled strategies (and simultaneously suboptimal within the set of all discrimination procedures).
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 | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".