Optimized Detection of High-Dimensional Entanglement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entanglement detection is one of the most conventional tasks in quantum information processing. While most experimental demonstrations of high-dimensional entanglement rely on fidelity-based witnesses, these are powerless to detect entanglement within a large class of entangled quantum states, the so-called unfaithful states. In this Letter, we introduce a highly flexible automated method to construct optimal tests for entanglement detection given a bipartite target state of arbitrary dimension, faithful or unfaithful, and a set of local measurement operators. By restricting the number or complexity of the considered measurement settings, our method outputs the most convenient protocol which can be implemented using a wide range of experimental techniques such as photons, superconducting qudits, cold atoms, or trapped ions. With an experimental quantum optics setup that can prepare and measure arbitrary high-dimensional mixed states, we implement some three-setting protocols generated by our method. These protocols allow us to experimentally certify two- and three-unfaithful entanglement in four-dimensional photonic states, some of which contain well above 50% of noise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".