Entanglement, loss, and quantumness: When balanced beam splitters are best
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum optics routinely uses beam splitters to generate entanglement, including in pioneering experiments conducted by Hanbury-Brown and Twiss and Hong, Ou, and Mandel. The quantum interference at beam splitters lies at the heart of what makes boson sampling hard to emulate by classical computers and is a vital component of quantum computation with light. Yet, despite overwhelming positive evidence, the conjecture that beam splitters with equal reflection and transmission probabilities generate the most entanglement for any state interfered with the vacuum has remained unproven for almost two decades [Asbóth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 173602 (2005)]. We prove this conjecture for ubiquitous entanglement monotones including mixed-state generalizations of entanglement entropy and purity by uncovering monotonicity and convexity with respect to photon loss for these monotones. At the same time, we highlight an infinite class of lesser-used monotones for which the conjecture fails. Because beam splitters are so fundamental, our results yield numerous corollaries for quantum optics, including proof of a recent conjecture for the evolution of a measure of quantumness through loss and a more efficient computational strategy for optimizing entanglement generation over linear optics. These results justify the value of seeking mathematical rigour behind commonly accepted facts and the danger of trusting them unconditionally.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".