MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tomography is Necessary for Universal Entanglement Detection with Single-Copy Observables

2016· article· en· W2224187407 on OpenAlexafffund
Dawei Lu, Tao Xin, Nengkun Yu, Zhengfeng Ji, Jianxin Chen, Jonathan Baugh, Xinhua Peng, Bei Zeng, Raymond Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of GuelphPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaIndustry CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsQuantum entanglementTransposeObservablePhysicsQuantum mechanicsQubitQuantum tomographyState (computer science)Theoretical physicsQuantum stateQuantumComputer scienceStatistical physicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations53
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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