MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784923214 · doi:10.1103/physreva.98.062307

Self-testing quantum states and measurements in the prepare-and-measure scenario

2018· article· en· W2784923214 on OpenAlexaff
Armin Tavakoli, Jędrzej Kaniewski, Tamás Vértesi, Denis Rosset, Nicolas Brunner

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersHorizon 2020Engineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs HivatalEuropean CommissionVillum FondenDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Research, Development and Innovation OfficeEuropean Research CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsQuantum entanglementMeasure (data warehouse)A priori and a posterioriRobustness (evolution)QubitHilbert spaceComputer scienceQuantum stateQuantumWeak measurementQuantum error correctionUpper and lower boundsPOVMDimension (graph theory)Statistical physicsAlgorithmMathematicsQuantum operationQuantum mechanicsPhysicsOpen quantum systemMathematical analysisData miningPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of self-testing is to characterize an a priori unknown quantum system based solely on measurement statistics, i.e., using an uncharacterized measurement device. Here we develop self-testing methods for quantum prepare-and-measure experiments, thus not necessarily relying on entanglement and/or violation of a Bell inequality. We present noise-robust techniques for self-testing sets of quantum states and measurements, assuming an upper bound on the Hilbert space dimension. We discuss in detail the case of a $2\ensuremath{\rightarrow}1$ random access code with qubits, for which we provide analytically optimal self-tests. The simplicity and noise robustness of our methods should make them directly applicable to experiments.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.011
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations126
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207