MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131668791

On entropy production of repeated quantum measurements II. Examples

2020· article· en· W3131668791 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCentre International de Mathématiques et Informatique de ToulouseAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsEntropy productionStatistical physicsMathematicsQuantum relative entropyJoint quantum entropyMarkov chainQuantumGravitational singularityMarkov processEntropy (arrow of time)Entropy rateRate functionQuantum probabilityCentral limit theoremLarge deviations theoryMarkov propertyQuantum processPrinciple of maximum entropyQuantum discordQuantum mechanicsQuantum entanglementPhysicsMathematical analysisMarkov modelQuantum dynamicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We illustrate the mathematical theory of entropy production in repeated quantum measurement processes developed in a previous work by studying examples of quantum instruments displaying various interesting phenomena and singularities. We emphasize the role of the thermodynamic formalism, and give many examples of quantum instruments whose resulting probability measures on the space of infinite sequences of outcomes (shift space) do not have the (weak) Gibbs property. We also discuss physically relevant examples where the entropy production rate satisfies a large deviation principle but fails to obey the central limit theorem and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Throughout the analysis, we explore the connections with other, a priori unrelated topics like functions of Markov chains, hidden Markov models, matrix products and number theory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical MechanicsFrench-language works237,207