X-arability of mixed quantum states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of determining when entanglement is present in a quantum system is one of the most active areas of research in quantum physics. Depending on the setting at hand, different notions of entanglement (or lack thereof) become relevant. Examples include separability (of bosons, fermions, and distinguishable particles), Schmidt number, biseparability, entanglement depth, and bond dimension. In this work, we propose and study a unified notion of separability, which we call X-arability, that captures a wide range of applications including these. For a subset (more specifically, an algebraic variety) of pure states X, we say that a mixed quantum state is X-arable if it lies in the convex hull of X. We develop unified tools and provable guarantees for X-arability, which already give new results for the standard separability problem. Our results include: -- An X-tensions hierarchy of semidefinite programs for X-arability (generalizing the symmetric extensions hierarchy for separability), and a new de Finetti theorem for fermionic separability. -- A hierarchy of eigencomputations for optimizing a Hermitian operator over X, with applications to X-tanglement witnesses and polynomial optimization. -- A hierarchy of linear systems for the X-tangled subspace problem, with improved polynomial time guarantees even for the standard entangled subspace problem, in both the generic and worst case settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".