MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905192198 · doi:10.1103/physreva.99.052315

Communicating without shared reference frames

2019· article· en· W2905192198 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alexander R. H. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReference frameAlice and BobAlice (programming language)Protocol (science)Security tokenState (computer science)FidelityFrame of referenceComputer scienceFrame (networking)PhysicsComputer securityTelecommunicationsAlgorithmQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We generalize a quantum communication protocol introduced by Bartlett et al. [New J. Phys. 11, 063013 (2009)], in which two parties communicating do not share a classical reference frame, to the case where changes of their reference frames form a one-dimensional noncompact Lie group. Alice sends to Bob the state ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{R}\ensuremath{\bigotimes}{\ensuremath{\rho}}_{S}$, where ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{S}$ is the state of the system Alice wishes to communicate and ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{R}$ is the state of an ancillary system serving as a token of her reference frame. Because Bob is ignorant of the relationship between his reference frame and Alice's, he will describe the state ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{R}\ensuremath{\bigotimes}{\ensuremath{\rho}}_{S}$ as an average over all possible reference frames. Bob measures the reference token and applies a correction to the system Alice wished to communicate conditioned on the outcome of the measurement. The recovered state ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{S}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ is decohered with respect to ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{S}$, the amount of decoherence depending on the properties of the reference token ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{R}$. We present an example of this protocol when Alice and Bob do not share a reference frame associated with the one-dimensional translation group and use the fidelity between ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{S}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{S}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ to quantify the success of the recovery operation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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