Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information theory provides tools to predict the performance of a learning algorithm on a given dataset. For instance, the accuracy of learning an unknown parameter can be upper bounded by reducing the learning task to hypothesis testing for a discrete random variable, with Fano's inequality then stating that a small conditional entropy between a learner's observations and the unknown parameter is necessary for successful estimation. This work first extends this relationship by demonstrating that a small conditional entropy is also sufficient for successful learning, thereby establishing an information-theoretic lower bound on the accuracy of a learner. This connection between information theory and learning suggests that we might similarly apply quantum information theory to characterize learning tasks involving quantum systems. Observing that the fidelity of a finite-dimensional quantum system with a maximally entangled state (the singlet fraction) generalizes the success probability for estimating a discrete random variable, we introduce an entanglement manipulation task for infinite-dimensional quantum systems that similarly generalizes classical learning. We derive information-theoretic bounds for succeeding at this task in terms of the maximal singlet fraction of an appropriate finite-dimensional discretization. As classical learning is recovered as a special case of this task, our analysis suggests a deeper relationship at the interface of learning, entanglement, and information.
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 | 0.025 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".