MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412565501 · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/adf307

Conceptual and formal groundwork for the study of resource dependence relations

2025· article· en· W4412565501 on OpenAlexafffund
Yìlè Yīng, Tomáš Gonda, Robert W. Spekkens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsResource (disambiguation)Computer scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Different properties of a state may make it resourceful for different purposes, and the value taken by one or more of these properties may constrain the values that can be taken by the rest. For example, the phenomenon known as the monogamy of entanglement, which plays a crucial role in quantum cryptography and communication, describes a trade-off among different entanglement properties of a multipartite state. In this article, we lay out the conceptual and formal groundwork for the study of resource dependence relations, and we illustrate how to fully characterize them with a concrete 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 the about-face symmetry group consists of the identity map and a π rotation about the given axis. We derive a complete set of monotones for each of these resource theories and determine all of the relations that hold among them, thereby fully characterizing the resource dependence relations. In spite of the relative simplicity of the individual resource orderings in this example, 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207