Tomography is Necessary for Universal Entanglement Detection with Single-Copy Observables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entanglement, one of the central mysteries of quantum mechanics, plays an essential role in numerous tasks of quantum information science. A natural question of both theoretical and experimental importance is whether universal entanglement detection can be accomplished without full state tomography. In this Letter, we prove a no-go theorem that rules out this possibility for nonadaptive schemes that employ single-copy measurements only. We also examine a previously implemented experiment [H. Park et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 230404 (2010)], which claimed to detect entanglement of two-qubit states via adaptive single-copy measurements without full state tomography. In contrast, our simulation and experiment both support the opposite conclusion that the protocol, indeed, leads to full state tomography, which supplements our no-go theorem. These results reveal a fundamental limit of single-copy measurements in entanglement detection and provide a general framework of the detection of other interesting properties of quantum states, such as the positivity of partial transpose and the k-symmetric extendibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".