MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genuine Network Multipartite Entanglement

2020· article· en· W3004967896 on OpenAlexafffund
Miguel Navascués, Elie Wolfe, Denis Rosset, Alejandro Pozas-Kerstjens

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeOntario Ministry of Economic Development and InnovationInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaAustrian Science FundFundación Cellex“la Caixa” FoundationMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadGeneralitat de CatalunyaGovernment of CanadaJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsMultipartiteMultipartite entanglementQuantum entanglementW stateBipartite graphRandomnessSquashed entanglementComputer scienceState (computer science)Quantum stateMathematicsQuantumQuantum mechanicsTheoretical computer sciencePhysicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standard definition of genuine multipartite entanglement stems from the need to assess the quantum control over an ever-growing number of quantum systems. We argue that this notion is easy to hack: in fact, a source capable of distributing bipartite entanglement can, by itself, generate genuine k-partite entangled states for any k. We propose an alternative definition for genuine multipartite entanglement, whereby a quantum state is genuinely network k-entangled if it cannot be produced by applying local trace-preserving maps over several (k-1)-partite states distributed among the parties, even with the aid of global shared randomness. We provide analytic and numerical witnesses of genuine network entanglement, and we reinterpret many past quantum experiments as demonstrations of this feature.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations103
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207