MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Simulating quantum dynamics on a quantum computer

2011· article· en· W2053993705 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothnessQuantum phase estimation algorithmQuantumUnitary stateRepresentation (politics)Quantum computerQuantum algorithmConstant (computer programming)Upper and lower bounds

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present efficient quantum algorithms for simulating time-dependent Hamiltonian evolution of general input states using an oracular model of a quantum computer. Our algorithms use either constant or adaptively chosen time steps and are significant because they are the first to have time-complexities that are comparable to the best known methods for simulating time-independent Hamiltonian evolution, given appropriate smoothness criteria on the Hamiltonian are satisfied. We provide a thorough cost analysis of these algorithms that considers discretizion errors in both the time and the representation of the Hamiltonian. In addition, we provide the first upper bounds for the error in Lie-Trotter-Suzuki approximations to unitary evolution operators, that use adaptively chosen time steps.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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