MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253343217 · doi:10.1103/physreva.94.042313

Quantifying the coherence of pure quantum states

2016· article· en· W2253343217 on OpenAlexafffund
Jianxin Chen, Shane Grogan, Nathaniel Johnston, Chi-Kwong Li

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityUniversity of GuelphMount Allison University
FundersSimons FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaU.S. Department of DefenseNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTrace distanceCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Quantum entanglementMeasure (data warehouse)TRACE (psycholinguistics)Quantum stateKullback–Leibler divergenceQuantumQuantum discordState (computer science)Coherence theoryCoherent statesQuantum mechanicsStatistical physicsPhysicsMathematicsCoherence lengthComputer scienceStatisticsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, several measures have been proposed for characterizing the coherence of a given quantum state. We derive several results that illuminate how these measures behave when restricted to pure states. Notably, we present an explicit characterization of the closest incoherent state to a given pure state under the trace distance measure of coherence. We then use this result to show that the states maximizing the trace distance of coherence are exactly the maximally coherent states. We define the trace distance of entanglement and show that it coincides with the trace distance of coherence for pure states. Finally, we give an alternate proof to a recent result that the ${\ensuremath{\ell}}_{1}$ measure of coherence of a pure state is never smaller than its relative entropy of coherence.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207