MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088912373 · doi:10.1103/physreva.84.052301

Randomly distilling<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:math>-class states into general configurations of two-party entanglement

2011· article· en· W2088912373 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Cui, Eric Chitambar, Hoi‐Kwong Lo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)QubitClass (philosophy)Entanglement distillationQuantum entanglementCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsMathematicsPhysicsAlgorithmQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceQuantumArtificial intelligenceW state

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we obtain results for the task of converting a single $N$-qubit $W$-class state (of the form $\sqrt{{x}_{0}}|00...0\ensuremath{\rangle}+\sqrt{{x}_{1}}|10...0\ensuremath{\rangle}+\ensuremath{\cdots}+\sqrt{{x}_{N}}|00...1\ensuremath{\rangle}$) into maximum entanglement shared between two random parties. Previous studies in random distillation have not considered how the particular choice of target pairs affects the transformation, and here we develop a strategy for distilling into general configurations of target pairs. We completely solve the problem of determining the optimal distillation probability for all three-qubit configurations and most four-qubit configurations when ${x}_{0}=0$. Our proof involves deriving new entanglement monotones defined on the set of four-qubit $W$-class states. As an additional application of our results, we present new upper bounds for converting a generic $W$-class state into the standard $W$ state $|{W}_{N}\ensuremath{\rangle}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{N}}(|10...0\ensuremath{\rangle}+\ensuremath{\cdots}+|00...1\ensuremath{\rangle})$.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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