MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102278702 · doi:10.1109/tit.2014.2298436

The Entropy Power Inequality for Quantum Systems

2014· article· en· W2102278702 on OpenAlexaff
Robert König, Graeme Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMatrix Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityQuantum relative entropyStatistical physicsQuantumMathematicsPhysicsQuantum discordQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisQuantum entanglement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When two independent analog signals, X and Y are added together giving Z=X+Y, the entropy of Z, H(Z), is not a simple function of the entropies H(X) and H(Y), but rather depends on the details of X and Y's distributions. Nevertheless, the entropy power inequality (EPI), which states that e2H(Z)≥ e2H(X)+e2H(Y), gives a very tight restriction on the entropy of Z. This inequality has found many applications in information theory and statistics. The quantum analogue of adding two random variables is the combination of two independent bosonic modes at a beam splitter. The purpose of this paper is to give a detailed outline of the proof of two separate generalizations of the EPI to the quantum regime. Our proofs are similar in spirit to the standard classical proofs of the EPI, but some new quantities and ideas are needed in the quantum setting. In particular, we find a new quantum de Bruijin identity relating entropy production under diffusion to a divergence-based quantum Fisher information. Furthermore, this Fisher information exhibits certain convexity properties in the context of beam splitters.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations74
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicMatrix Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207