Recent comments from SciRate

Thanks for pointing this out, this is an unintended omission and we will certainly fix it. I thought Koashi was first to use entropic uncertainty relations for QKD but apparently I was wrong.

Nice work, congratulations!
Please correct me if I am wrong, but there seems to be an important reference missing in the manuscript, the 2003 paper by Frederic Grosshans and Nicolas Cerf using uncertainty relations to prove the security of individual attacks against CV-QKD: arXiv:quant-ph/0311006

Okay, so my scite should not be considered as an endorsement. The only interesting part of this paper is Table I and II (minus the caption, which is wrong).

Feels a bit like numerology, but the simple point that the setting choices are far from uniform is worrisome.

And looking forward to the response as well!

This resolves an open problem of whether the procedure of Emms et al (2006), which is based on quantum walks, can distinguish all non-isomorphic strongly regular graphs. Their conclusion: no, because they came up with an example where the procedure fails.

Nice work !

This paper answers a question which has obsessed me since 2002, and I’m more than happy to see that the answer is the one I would have guessed since 2004, but with no way to prove it! (Some people kept thinking I’m a bit too much obsessed by these 1.44 bits ;-) )

At that time ( ht

...(continued)

clearly that should be the last TODO to be removed.

There's a TODO note missing on page 24 saying: "Remove TODO notes"

Let's keep in mind that the problem we are worried about is excessive reviewer group-think, which is not something that requires scrupulous ethical precautions to avoid.

Typically a reviewer will have access to many other sources of information and discussion, and regardless of whether some of th

...(continued)

> However, I still think that reviews, if are to be made public, should be made after the editor's decision.

This is a very good suggestion and I would be happy to use it as a guideline. The only problem is that I don't know of any good way of finding out when editor's decision has been made. Typ

...(continued)

Yes, you are right, this was indeed last QIP. I messed up which I was reviewing for what. My apologies. However, I still think that reviews, if are to be made public, should be made after the editor's decision.

I think reviewer self-restraint (from reading other reviews before writing their own) is the best policy. On easychair you can always write a one-line review, then get access to the other reviews, and then change your own review, if that's what you really want to do. I view the hiding-reviews-befo

...(continued)

This discussion is very interesting. Three minor comments:

a) Platypus open-reviewing experiment seems to be fine with the current moderation guidelines of SciRate [\[1\]][1] [\[2\]][2] (expanded below) but one can discuss if a policy is needed.

b) As Mario said, there are too many big conferences

...(continued)

Dear Alexander,

This result appeared in [**last year's**][1] QIP. My review is for a journal.

I agree that posting reviews publicly can influence other reviewers, which might be a problem. However, I think it is unlikely in this particular case (I don't know how many reminders a typical review

...(continued)

The Platypus speaks of "publication", so maybe he/she is just a reviewer for a journal? Besides the submission to the journal, the paper could be submitted to a number of conferences (even beyond QIP): should the Platypus wait for a minimum amount of time (1 year from submission to the arXiv? more?)

...(continued)

Perplexed Platypus, don't you know that other reviewers should not see your review beforehand? Couldn't you wait until after the list of accepted papers for QIP is out there?

This work provides new constructions of unitary 2-designs that are exactly implementable with a nearly linear number of quantum gates. These constructions rely on unitaries from the Clifford group to mix Pauli matrices. Typically Clifford unitaries are represented by $2n \times 2n$ symplectic transf

...(continued)

Apologies for the delayed reply.

No worries with regards to the code - when it does get released, would you mind pinging me? You can find me on [GitHub](https://github.com/Travis-S).

I believe this work should mention the paper of Griffiths et al, "Atemporal diagrams for quantum circuits", PRA 73, 052309 (2006) http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.052309, arXiv:quant-ph/0507215 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507215. It is similar in flavour.

A new version is updated.

Hi Travis

Yes, that code is related to the work we did and that is my repo. However it is quite outdated. I used that repo for sharing the code with my collaborators. Now we are working for providing a human friendly version, commented and possibly optimized. If you would like to have a working

...(continued)

We noticed that our theorem 2 is the same as theorem 2 in http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.80.052306. We will revise our draft accordingly.

Thank you for the kind comments, I'm glad that our paper, source code, and tutorial are useful!

Has anyone found some source code for the SGD referenced in this paper? I came across a [GitHub repository](https://github.com/nicaiola/thesisproject) from Nicola Pancotti (at least, I think that is his username, and the code seems to fit with the kind of work described in the paper!). I am not sure

...(continued)

This was a really well-written paper! Am very glad to see this kind of work being done.

In addition, the openness about source code is refreshing. By explicitly relating the work to [QInfer](https://github.com/csferrie/python-qinfer), this paper makes it more easy to check the authors' work. Furthe

...(continued)

I can only quote Derrick Stolee: 'Terry Tao just dropped a bomb'. :)

Ha!

For some background:

http://schroedingersrat.blogspot.fr/2014/07/letter-to-european-research-council.html

Great Acknowledgements.

As a quick addendum, please note that the [supplementary video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ejRV0Kx2g) for this work is available [on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ejRV0Kx2g). Thank you!

Very interesting! After looking a bit more into this, it seems like there are actually quite a few websites with such functionality. Most notably, [Publons][1] where reviewers can post their reviews publicly as well as get credit for them.

[1]: https://publons.com/

The last site in your comment [PubPeer][1] seems to be a good place to have open research discussions online. There is an intense discussion about this paper there already.

By the way, this PubPeer site has an option that could be interesting to have in SciRate as well: one can review papers and/o

...(continued)

This preprint has already generated lots of coverage on various popular websites. Here are some links you can take a look at.

**Popular coverage**

- [Nature][1]
- [FQXi][2]
- [New Scientist][3]
- [Forbes][4]
- [SienceNews][5]
- [Phys.org][6]

**Discussions**

- [ Physics Forums

...(continued)

@John Bryden. Could you use quotes "" or bloquotes > when citing? It improves readability and avoids potential misunderstandings.

Note that it's not possible to submit papers to SciRate directly; this site simply aggregates information from other sites. However, I've added an issue relating to potentially marking withdrawn papers - https://github.com/scirate/scirate/issues/318.

Aside from the comment above there are other comments that should be made.

A very important comment is this. The fraudulent paper of Ntatin, is quite simply NOT correct.
By this I mean the following: In 1999 Florian Deloup and I began a project that we called "The linking form conjecture for 3-m

...(continued)

This article submitted by B. Ntatin and W. Glunt was published in a new Journal called Advances in Pure Mathematics (APM for short) in September of 2013. In July 2014 the Journal APM RETRACTED this article. The reason that APM retracted this article to quote the Journal is :

The following arti

...(continued)

Dear Referee,

I found your suggestion of exploring search on a weighted graph to be interesting, so I worked it out with one marked vertex: https://scirate.com/arxiv/1507.07590

Besides the speedup, the new methods are important; I extended degenerate perturbation theory in a couple ways that s

...(continued)

Sorry. Is it just quantum contextuality?

fyi: our quantum implications are presented in Subsection 2.2 (pp 7-9).

Dear Tom,

Thank you again for engaging in this conversation. It definitely helped me to understand your paper and your point of view much better and hence provide a more accurate review. Unfortunately, not all of your arguments were convincing to me. Even though they improved my understanding, th

...(continued)

I am no expert at all on strongly correlated systems or topological order, but since you refer to information theory in your abstract, let me still ask you: What is the justification for using $I_2(A:B) = H_2(A) + H_2(B) - H_2(AB)$ for the Rényi mutual information? This quantity has no information-t

...(continued)

Dear Perplexed Platypus,

Thanks for taking the extra effort to engage with me during the review process, and I'm glad that we see more similarly now. I hope you don't mind me clarifying a little more, since it may also help others. Feel free to ignore my comments below since you need to wrap up t

...(continued)

Dear Tom,

Thanks again for responding to my comments, I understand your point of view much better now.

> But this means it's actually a quantum walk on a different graph.
> Thus it is a different search problem from the one considered in this manuscript, which focuses on the unweighted “simpl

...(continued)

I guess they just enabled it. I got a bunch of emails about these comments all at once.

It seems that email notifications of comments still doesn't work, as was discussed by Perplexed Platypus, Ashley Montenaro, and Aram Harrow (https://scirate.com/arxiv/1408.1816#456). Perhaps this should be added to the project's GitHub issue list? Or are they already working on it?

Dear Perplexed Platypus,

>Thanks a lot for your prompt response and also for engaging in this experiment to asses whether SciRate can be a feasible platform for reviewing papers publicly while engaging with the authors during the process.

You're welcome. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss

...(continued)

You can always make suggestions on the GitHub project pages' [issue list](https://github.com/scirate/scirate/issues). I've included this one here: https://github.com/scirate/scirate/issues/315.

I agree and I might do that in the future. However, for the time being I prefer to have a single identity, otherwise it can get confusing which platypus is which...

p.s. It might be useful to have a "meta" thread in SciRate where people can discuss matters that are not related to a particular art

...(continued)

@Perplexed Platypus: I like your experiment of reviewing papers on SciRate. To ensure single-blindness of the reviewing process I'd recommend using a *new* anonymous account every time you review a new paper.