MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Complexity of compatible measurements

2020· article· en· W2971260184 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul Skrzypczyk, Matty J. Hoban, Ana Belén Sainz, Noah Linden

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersFundacja na rzecz Nauki PolskiejInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaFoundational Questions InstituteOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)State (computer science)Statistical physicsComputer scienceMathematicsTheoretical physicsTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies how complex sets of compatible measurements need to be. Focusing on the minimal number of outcomes that a parent measurement must necessarily have, the main result shows that this only grows linearly with the number of measurements. This result has implications both for the problem of determining whether a set of measurements is incompatible or not, and for the complexity of local-hidden-state models in the study of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.543
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.044 · 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.

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ResearchSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207