MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165582177 · doi:10.1098/rspa.2014.0253

Tsirelson's bound and supersymmetric entangled states

2014· article· en· W2165582177 on OpenAlexaff
L. Borsten, Kamil Brádler, M. J. Duff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsMathematicsQubitHilbert spaceUpper and lower boundsQuantum mechanicsMathematical physicsQuantumCombinatoricsPhysicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A superqubit, belonging to a (2|1)-dimensional super-Hilbert space, constitutes the minimal supersymmetric extension of the conventional qubit. In order to see whether superqubits are more non-local than ordinary qubits, we construct a class of two-superqubit entangled states as a non-local resource in the CHSH game. Since super Hilbert space amplitudes are Grassmann numbers, the result depends on how we extract real probabilities and we examine three choices of map: (1) DeWitt (2) Trigonometric and (3) Modified Rogers. In cases (1) and (2), the winning probability reaches the Tsirelson bound p win = cos 2 π / 8 ≃ 0.8536 of standard quantum mechanics. Case (3) crosses Tsirelson's bound with p win ≃0.9265. Although all states used in the game involve probabilities lying between 0 and 1, case (3) permits other changes of basis inducing negative transition probabilities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207