MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410301087 · doi:10.3390/e27050515

Comparing Singlet Testing Schemes

2025· article· en· W4410301087 on OpenAlexafffund
George Cowperthwaite, Adrian Kent

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaGovernment of CanadaUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsStatistical physicsSinglet stateComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compare schemes for testing whether two parties share a two-qubit singlet state. The first, standard, scheme tests Braunstein-Caves (or CHSH) inequalities, comparing the correlations of local measurements drawn from a fixed finite set against the quantum predictions for a singlet. The second, alternative, scheme tests the correlations of local measurements, drawn randomly from the set of those that are θ-separated on the Bloch sphere, against the quantum predictions. We formulate each scheme as a hypothesis test and then evaluate the test power in a number of adversarial scenarios involving an eavesdropper altering or replacing the singlet qubits. We find the 'random measurement' test to be superior in most natural scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.184
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.184
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.684
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.109 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207