MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898924064 · doi:10.1103/physreva.99.052348

Bounds on entanglement catalysts

2019· article· en· W2898924064 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Grabowecky, Gilad Gour

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuantum entanglementDimension (graph theory)Transformation (genetics)QubitState (computer science)LOCCMathematicsUpper and lower boundsDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsQuantum mechanicsQuantumPhysicsAlgorithmMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a finite-dimensional pure state transformation restricted by entanglement-assisted local operations and classical communication (ELOCC), we derive minimum and maximum bounds on the entanglement of an ancillary catalyst that allows that transformation. These bounds are nontrivial even when the Schmidt number of both the original and ancillary states becomes large. We identify a lower bound for the dimension of a catalyst allowing a particular ELOCC transformation. Along with these bounds, we present further constraints on ELOCC transformations by identifying restrictions on the Schmidt coefficients of the target state. In addition, an example showing the existence of qubit ELOCC transformations with multiple ranges of potential ancillary states is provided. This example reveals some additional difficulty in finding strict bounds on ELOCC transformations, even in the qubit case. Finally, a comparison of the bounds in this paper with previously discovered bounds is presented.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207