Determining Complementary Properties with Quantum Clones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a classical world, simultaneous measurements of complementary properties (e.g., position and momentum) give a system's state. In quantum mechanics, measurement-induced disturbance is largest for complementary properties and, hence, limits the precision with which such properties can be determined simultaneously. It is tempting to try to sidestep this disturbance by copying the system and measuring each complementary property on a separate copy. However, perfect copying is physically impossible in quantum mechanics. Here, we investigate using the closest quantum analog to this copying strategy, optimal cloning. The coherent portion of the generated clones' state corresponds to "twins" of the input system. Like perfect copies, both twins faithfully reproduce the properties of the input system. Unlike perfect copies, the twins are entangled. As such, a measurement on both twins is equivalent to a simultaneous measurement on the input system. For complementary observables, this joint measurement gives the system's state, just as in the classical case. We demonstrate this experimentally using polarized single photons.
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".