MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795366386 · doi:10.1103/physreva.96.062132

Generalizing entanglement

2017· article· en· W2795366386 on OpenAlexafffund
Ding Jia

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsQuantum entanglementMeasure (data warehouse)Squashed entanglementGeneralizationMultipartite entanglementAmplitude damping channelW stateQuantum mechanicsEntanglement witnessQuantum discordQuantumPhysicsMathematicsTheoretical physicsStatistical physicsComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expected indefinite causal structure in quantum gravity poses a challenge to the notion of entanglement: If two parties are in an indefinite causal relation of being causally connected and not, can they still be entangled? If so, how does one measure the amount of entanglement? We propose to generalize the notions of entanglement and entanglement measure to address these questions. Importantly, the generalization opens the path to study quantum entanglement of states, channels, networks, and processes with definite or indefinite causal structure in a unified fashion, e.g., we show that the entanglement distillation capacity of a state, the quantum communication capacity of a channel, and the entanglement generation capacity of a network or a process are different manifestations of one and the same entanglement measure.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.011
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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