Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we explore the power of quantum computers with restricted transition amplitudes. In 1997 Adleman, DeMarrais, and Huang showed that quantum Turing machines (QTMs) with the amplitudes from [Formula: see text] are computationally equivalent to ones with the polynomial-time computable amplitudes as machines implementing bounded-error polynomial-time algorithms. We show that QTMs with the amplitudes from [Formula: see text] is polynomial-time equivalent to deterministic Turing machines as machines implementing exact algorithms, i.e., algorithms that output correct answers with certainty. By extending this result, it is shown that exact quantum computers with rational biased coins are equivalent to classical computers. Moreover, we discuss the computational power of exact quantum computers with multiple types of coins. We also show that, from the viewpoint of zero-error polynomial-time algorithms, [Formula: see text] is not more powerful than [Formula: see text] as the set of amplitudes taken by QTMs; however, it is sufficient to solve the factoring problem.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".