Conceptual and formal groundwork for the study of resource dependence relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A resource theory imposes a preorder over states, with one state being above another if the first can be converted to the second by a free operation, and where the set of free operations defines the notion of resourcefulness under study. In general, the location of a state in the preorder of one resource theory can constrain its location in the preorder of a different resource theory. It follows that there can be nontrivial dependence relations between different notions of resourcefulness. In this article, we lay out the conceptual and formal groundwork for the study of resource dependence relations. In particular, we note that the relations holding among a set of monotones that includes a complete set for each resource theory provides a full characterization of resource dependence relations. As an example, we consider three resource theories concerning the about-face asymmetry properties of a qubit along three mutually orthogonal axes on the Bloch ball, where about-face symmetry refers to a representation of $\mathbb{Z}_2$, consisting of the identity map and a $π$ rotation about the given axis. This example is sufficiently simple that we are able to derive a complete set of monotones for each resource theory and to determine all of the relations that hold among these monotones, thereby completely solving the problem of determining resource dependence relations. Nonetheless, we show that even in this simplest of examples, these relations are already quite nuanced.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".