MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098764026

The conditional entropy power inequality for Gaussian quantum states

2014· article· en· W3098764026 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConditional quantum entropyMathematicsConditional entropyQuantum relative entropyEntropy power inequalityQuantum entanglementStatistical physicsGaussianEntropy (arrow of time)Symplectic geometryJoint quantum entropyQuantum discordQuantumMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsPure mathematicsApplied mathematicsPhysicsEntropy ratePrinciple of maximum entropyStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a generalization of the quantum entropy power inequality involving condi-tional entropies. For the special case of Gaussian states, we give a proof based on perturba-tion theory for symplectic spectra. We discuss some implications for entanglement-assisted classical communication over additive bosonic noise channels. 1 Classical and quantum entropy-power inequalities The entropy power inequality, proposed by Shannon [27] and later established with increasing rigor by Stam [29] and Blachman [5], has become a fundamental tool in classical informa-tion theory. Shannon’s original application of the entropy power inequality is a lower bound on the capacity of an additive (but potentially non-Gaussian) noise channel [27, Theorem 18]. However, the usefulness of the entropy power inequality is especially evident in multi-terminal information theory. Among the most well-known applications are the characterization of the Gaussian broadcast channel by Bergman [4], the Gaussian two-description problem by Ozarow [25] and the quadratic Gaussian CEO problem by Oohama [24]. In these multi-user settings, Fano’s inequality by itself is insufficient to characterize different tradeoffs. A more recent application proposed by Liu and Viswanath [23] uses entropy power inequalities to solve certain optimization problems. The entropy power inequality lower bounds the differential entropy of the convolution of two independent random variables X, Y taking values in Rn. Its covariance-preserving version states that H( λX + 1 − λY) ≥ λH(X) + (1 − λ)H(Y) for all 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1. (1) Eq. (1) can be shown [22, 32] to be equivalent to the more commonly used statement e2H(X+Y)/n ≥ e2H(X)/n + e2H(Y)/n. The latter explains the terminology as e2H(X)/n is the power, i.e., variance of a Gaussian ran-dom variable with identical entropy as H(X). Inequalities such as (1) are closely related to Log-Sobolev inequalities (see e.g., [31]) as well as Brunn-Minkowski-type inequalities [6]. Gen-eralizations to free probability [30] and quantum states have been considered. 1 ar

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207