MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimentally Faking the Violation of Bell’s Inequalities

2011· article· en· W2047897334 on OpenAlexaff
Ilja Gerhardt, Qin Liu, Antı́a Lamas-Linares, Johannes Skaar, Valerio Scarani, Vadim Makarov, Christian Kurtsiefer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsBell test experimentsBell's theoremInequalityLocal hidden variable theoryTheoretical physicsPhilosophyQuantum entanglementQuantum mechanicsMathematicsQuantumMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entanglement witnesses such as Bell inequalities are frequently used to prove the nonclassicality of a light source and its suitability for further tasks. By demonstrating Bell inequality violations using classical light in common experimental arrangements, we highlight why strict locality and efficiency conditions are not optional, particularly in security-related scenarios.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations216
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207