MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4224979555 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.11886

Mutually Unbiased Measurements, Hadamard Matrices, and Superdense Coding

2022· preprint· en· W4224979555 on OpenAlexaff
Máté Farkas, Jędrzej Kaniewski, Ashwin Nayak

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMutually unbiased basesHadamard transformCoding (social sciences)Complementarity (molecular biology)ConjectureMathematicsHilbert spaceQuantum entanglementComputer scienceQuantumDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsGeneticsPhysicsBiologyQuantum mechanicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutually unbiased bases (MUBs) are highly symmetric bases on complex Hilbert spaces, and the corresponding rank-1 projective measurements are ubiquitous in quantum information theory. In this work, we study a recently introduced generalization of MUBs called mutually unbiased measurements (MUMs). These measurements inherit the essential property of complementarity from MUBs, but the Hilbert space dimension is no longer required to match the number of outcomes. This operational complementarity property renders MUMs highly useful for device-independent quantum information processing. It has been shown that MUMs are strictly more general than MUBs. In this work we provide a complete proof of the characterization of MUMs that are direct sums of MUBs. We then proceed to construct new examples of MUMs that are not direct sums of MUBs. A crucial technical tool for these construction is a correspondence with quaternionic Hadamard matrices, which allows us to map known examples of such matrices to MUMs that are not direct sums of MUBs. Furthermore, we show that -- in stark contrast with MUBs -- the number of MUMs for a fixed outcome number is unbounded. Next, we focus on the use of MUMs in quantum communication. We demonstrate how any pair of MUMs with d outcomes defines a d-dimensional superdense coding protocol. Using MUMs that are not direct sums of MUBs, we disprove a recent conjecture due to Nayak and Yuen on the rigidity of superdense coding for infinitely many dimensions. The superdense coding protocols arising in the refutation reveal how shared entanglement may be used in a manner heretofore unknown.

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)0.008
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.089 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicQuantum Information and Cryptography→French-language works237,207→