MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001847892 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/7/073038

Selective darkening of degenerate transitions for implementing quantum controlled-NOT gates

2012· article· en· W2001847892 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersArmy Research OfficeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsControlled NOT gateQuantum gateDegenerate energy levelsQuantumQuantum circuitQubitCoupling (piping)Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Quantum error correctionLimit (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a theoretical analysis of the selective darkening method for implementing quantum controlled-NOT (CNOT) gates. This method, which we have recently proposed and demonstrated, consists of driving two transversely coupled quantum bits (qubits) with a driving field that is resonant with one of the two qubits. For specific relative amplitudes and phases of the driving field felt by the two qubits, one of the two transitions in the degenerate pair is darkened or, in other words, becomes forbidden by effective selection rules. In these driving conditions, the evolution of the two-qubit state realizes a CNOT gate. The gate speed is found to be limited only by the coupling energy J , which is the fundamental speed limit for any entangling gate. Numerical simulations show that at gate speeds corresponding to 0.48 J and 0.07 J , the gate fidelity is 99% and 99.99%, respectively, and increases further for lower gate speeds. In addition, the effect of higher-lying energy levels and weak anharmonicity is studied, as well as the scalability of the method to systems of multiple qubits. We conclude that in all these respects this method is competitive with existing schemes for creating entanglement, with the added advantages of being applicable for qubits operating at fixed frequencies (either by design or for the exploitation of coherence sweet-spots) and having the simplicity of microwave-only operation.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207