MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106782663 · doi:10.1142/s0217979213450410

QUANTUM DISCORD AS A RESOURCE IN QUANTUM COMMUNICATION

2012· article· en· W2106782663 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics B · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsQuantum discordQuantum entanglementQuantum capacityQuantum channelQuantum networkQuantum error correctionQuantum information scienceQuantum technologyQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As quantum technologies move from the issues of principle to those of practice, it is important to understand the limitations on attaining tangible quantum advantages. In the realm of quantum communication, quantum discord captures the damaging effects of a decoherent environment. This is a consequence of quantum discord quantifying the advantage of quantum coherence in quantum communication. This establishes quantum discord as a resource for quantum communication processes. We discuss this progress, which derives a quantitative relation between the yield of the fully quantum Slepian–Wolf (FQSW) protocol in the presence of noise and the quantum discord of the state involved. The significance of quantum discord in noisy versions of teleportation, super-dense coding, entanglement distillation and quantum state merging are discussed. These results lead to open questions regarding the tradeoff between quantum entanglement and discord in choosing the optimal quantum states for attaining palpable quantum advantages in noisy quantum protocols.

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.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.265 · 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