Steering Bell-diagonal states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the steerability of two-qubit Bell-diagonal states under projective measurements by the steering party. In the simplest nontrivial scenario of two projective measurements, we solve this problem completely by virtue of the connection between the steering problem and the joint-measurement problem. A necessary and sufficient criterion is derived together with a simple geometrical interpretation. Our study shows that a Bell-diagonal state is steerable by two projective measurements iff it violates the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, in sharp contrast with the strict hierarchy expected between steering and Bell nonlocality. We also introduce a steering measure and clarify its connections with concurrence and the volume of the steering ellipsoid. In particular, we determine the maximal concurrence and ellipsoid volume of Bell-diagonal states that are not steerable by two projective measurements. Finally, we explore the steerability of Bell-diagonal states under three projective measurements. A simple sufficient criterion is derived, which can detect the steerability of many states that are not steerable by two projective measurements. Our study offers valuable insight on steering of Bell-diagonal states as well as the connections between entanglement, steering, and Bell nonlocality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".