MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376269743 · doi:10.1142/s0129055x23500162

On Tsirelson pairs of C*-algebras

2023· review· en· W4376269743 on OpenAlexaff
Isaac Goldbring, Bradd Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Mathematical Physics · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Operator Algebra Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTensor productMathematicsClass (philosophy)Tensor product of Hilbert spacesClosure (psychology)Tensor (intrinsic definition)Product (mathematics)Space (punctuation)Pure mathematicsTensor product of algebrasAlgebra over a fieldQuantumDiscrete mathematicsTensor contractionQuantum mechanicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce the notion of a Tsirelson pair of C*-algebras, which is a pair of C*-algebras for which the space of quantum strategies obtained by using states on the minimal tensor product of the pair is dense in the space of quantum strategies obtained by using states on the maximal tensor product. We exhibit a number of examples of such pairs that are “nontrivial” in the sense that the minimal tensor product and the maximal tensor product of the pair are not isomorphic. For example, we prove that any pair containing a C*-algebra with Kirchberg’s QWEP property is a Tsirelson pair. We then introduce the notion of a C*-algebra with the Tsirelson property (TP) and establish a number of closure properties for this class. We also show that the class of C*-algebras with the TP forms an elementary class (in the sense of model theory), but that this class does not admit an effective axiomatization.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Mathematical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Operator Algebra ResearchFrench-language works237,207