Quantum complementarity: A novel resource for unambiguous exclusion and encryption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complementarity is a phenomenon explaining several core features of quantum theory, such as the well-known uncertainty principle. Roughly speaking, two objects are said to be complementary if being certain about one of them necessarily forbids useful knowledge about the other. Two quantum measurements that do not commute form an example of complementary measurements, and this phenomenon can also be defined for ensembles of states. Although a key quantum feature, it is unclear whether complementarity can be understood more operationally, as a necessary resource in some quantum information task. Here we show this is the case, and relates to a novel task which we term $η$-unambiguous exclusion. As well as giving complementarity a clear operational definition, this also uncovers the foundational underpinning of unambiguous exclusion tasks for the first time. We further show that a special type of measurement complementarity is equivalent to advantages in certain encryption tasks. Finally, our analysis suggest that complementarity of measurement and state ensemble can be interpreted as strong forms of measurement incompatibility and quantum steering, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".