MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958442219 · doi:10.1103/physreva.100.012315

<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math>-norm coherence of assistance

2019· article· lv· W2958442219 on OpenAlexaff
Ming‐Jing Zhao, Teng Ma, Quan Quan, Heng Fan, Rajesh Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2019
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersBeijing Information Science and Technology UniversityChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Norm (philosophy)Quantum entanglementMathematicsAlgorithmQuantumComputer scienceStatisticsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce and study the ${l}_{1}$-norm coherence of assistance both theoretically and operationally. We first provide an upper bound for the ${l}_{1}$-norm coherence of assistance and show a necessary and sufficient condition for the saturation of the upper bound. For two- and three-dimensional quantum states, the analytical expression of the ${l}_{1}$-norm coherence of assistance is given. Operationally, the mixed quantum coherence can always be increased with the help of another party's local measurement and one way classical communication since the ${l}_{1}$-norm coherence of assistance, as well as the relative-entropy coherence of assistance, are shown to be strictly larger than the original coherence. The relation between the ${l}_{1}$-norm coherence of assistance and entanglement is revealed. Finally, a comparison between the ${l}_{1}$-norm coherence of assistance and the relative-entropy coherence of assistance is made.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.010

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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