MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949706770 · doi:10.26421/qic14.3-4-9

Systems of Imprimitivity for the Clifford group

2014· article· en· W2949706770 on OpenAlexaff
D. M. Appleby, Ingemar Bengtsson, Stephen Brierley, Åsa Ericsson, Markus Grassl, Jan-Åke Larsson

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantum Information and Computation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic and Geometric Analysis
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear subspaceMathematicsDimension (graph theory)MonomialGroup (periodic table)Square (algebra)Representation (politics)Group representationClifford algebraCombinatoricsPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is known that if the dimension is a perfect square the Clifford group can be represented by monomial matrices. Another way of expressing this result is to say that when the dimension is a perfect square the standard representation of the Clifford group has a system of imprimitivity consisting of one dimensional subspaces. We generalize this result to the case of an arbitrary dimension. Let k be the square-free part of the dimension. Then we show that the standard representation of the Clifford group has a system of imprimitivity consisting of $k$-dimensional subspaces. To illustrate the use of this result we apply it to the calculation of SIC-POVMs (symmetric informationally complete positive operator valued measures), constructing exact solutions in dimensions 8 (hand-calculation) as well as 12 and 28 (machine-calculation).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantum Information and ComputationSame topicAlgebraic and Geometric AnalysisFrench-language works237,207