Novel Criteria for Deterministic Remote State Preparation via the Entangled Six-Qubit State
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, our concern is to design some criteria for deterministic remote state preparation for preparing an arbitrary three-particle state via a genuinely entangled six-qubit state. First, we put forward two schemes in both the real and complex Hilbert space, respectively. Using an appropriate set of eight-qubit measurement basis, the remote three-qubit preparation is completed with unit success probability. Departing from previous research, our protocol has a salient feature in that the serviceable measurement basis only contains the initial coefficients and their conjugate values. By utilizing the permutation group, it is convenient to provide the permutation relationship between coefficients. Second, our ideas and methods can also be generalized to the situation of preparing an arbitrary N-particle state in complex case by taking advantage of Bell states as quantum resources. More importantly, criteria satisfied conditions for preparation with 100% success probability in complex Hilbert space is summarized. Third, the classical communication costs of our scheme are calculated to determine the classical recourses required. It is also worth mentioning that our protocol has higher efficiency and lower resource costs compared with the other papers.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it