MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385409095 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2023-0142

Entanglement entropy of Compton scattering with a witness

2023· article· en· W4385409095 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shanmuka Shivashankara

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersColgate University
KeywordsPhysicsCompton scatteringUnitarityQuantum entanglementScatteringPhotonQuantum mechanicsElectronVon Neumann entropyEntropy (arrow of time)Quantum electrodynamicsQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unitarity and the optical theorem are used to derive the reduced density matrices of Compton scattering in the presence of a witness particle. Two photons are initially entangled wherein one photon participates in Compton scattering, while the other is a witness, i.e., does not interact with the electron. Unitarity is shown to require that the entanglement entropy of the witness photon does not change after its entangled partner undergoes scattering. The final mutual information of the electron's and witness particle’s polarizations is shown to be nonzero for low-energy Compton scattering. This indicates that the two particles became correlated in spite of no direct interaction. Assuming an initial maximally entangled state, the change in entanglement entropy of the scattered photon’s polarization is calculated in terms of Stokes parameters. A common ratio of areas occurs in the final reduced density matrix elements, von Neumann entropies, Stokes parameter, and mutual information. This common ratio consists of the Thomson scattering cross-section and an accessible regularized scattering area.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207