MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078601978 · doi:10.1103/physreva.81.012334

Derivation and experimental test of fidelity benchmarks for remote preparation of arbitrary qubit states

2010· article· en· W2078601978 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Killoran, D. N. Biggerstaff, Rainer Kaltenbaek, K. J. Resch, Norbert Lütkenhaus

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidelityQubitQuantum entanglementComputer scienceProtocol (science)State (computer science)Topology (electrical circuits)QuantumStatistical physicsAlgorithmPhysicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote state preparation (RSP) is the act of preparing a quantum state at a remote location without actually transmitting the state itself. Using at most two classical bits and a single shared maximally entangled state, one can in theory remotely prepare any qubit state with certainty and with perfect fidelity. However, in any experimental implementation the average fidelity between the target and output states cannot be perfect. In order for an RSP experiment to demonstrate genuine quantum advantages, it must surpass the optimal threshold of a comparable classical protocol. Here we study the fidelity achievable by RSP protocols lacking shared entanglement and determine the optimal value for the average fidelity in several different cases. We implement an experimental scheme for deterministic remote preparation of arbitrary photon polarization qubits, preparing $178$ different pure and mixed qubit states with an average fidelity of $0.995$. Our experimentally achieved average fidelities surpass our derived classical thresholds whenever the classical protocol does not trivially allow for perfect RSP.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations50
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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