MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285665705 · doi:10.1103/physreva.94.012333

Quantum reference frames associated with noncompact groups: The case of translations and boosts and the role of mass

2016· article· en· W2285665705 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander R. H. Smith, Marco Piani, Robert B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMacquarie UniversityEuropean Commission
KeywordsReference frameFrame of referenceGalileanQuantumFrame (networking)Quantum stateGroup (periodic table)State (computer science)MathematicsTheoretical physicsPure mathematicsPhysicsClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceAlgorithmTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum communication without a shared reference frame or the construction of a relational quantum theory requires the notion of a quantum reference frame. We analyze aspects of quantum reference frames associated with noncompact groups, specifically, the group of spatial translations and Galilean boosts. We begin by demonstrating how the usually employed group average, used to dispense of the notion of an external reference frame, leads to unphysical states when applied to reference frames associated with noncompact groups. However, we show that this average does lead naturally to a reduced state on the relative degrees of freedom of a system, which was previously considered by Angelo et al. [J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 145304 (2011)]. We then study in detail the informational properties of this reduced state for systems of two and three particles in Gaussian states.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations45
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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