Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entangled physical systems are an important resource in quantum information. Many papers were published trying to grasp the meaning of entanglement. It was noticed that a Hilbert space of possible state vectors of compound physical system can be partitioned by introducing various tensor product structures induced by the experimentally accessible observables (interactions and measurements). In this sense, the entanglement is relative to a particular set of experimental capabilities. Inspired by these results some authors claim that in fact all quantum states are entangled. In this paper, we show that this claim is incorrect and we discuss in operational way differences existing between separable and entangled states. A sufficient condition for entanglement is the violation of Bell–CHSH-CH inequalities and/or steering inequalities. Since there exist experiments outside the domain of quantum physics violating these inequalities therefore in the operational approach one cannot say that the entanglement is an exclusive quantum phenomenon. We also explain that an unambiguous experimental certification of the entanglement is a difficult task because classical statistical significance tests may not be trusted if sample homogeneity cannot be tested or is not tested carefully enough.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".