MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056727876 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/5/053015

Experimental realization of post-selected weak measurements on an NMR quantum processor

2014· article· en· W2056727876 on OpenAlexaff
Dawei Lu, Aharon Brodutch, Jun Li, Hang Li, Raymond Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsWeak measurementRealization (probability)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsSelection (genetic algorithm)Range (aeronautics)Context (archaeology)QuantumQuantum information processingScheme (mathematics)Statistical physicsTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to post-select the outcomes of an experiment is a useful theoretical concept and experimental tool. In the context of weak measurements, post-selection can lead to surprising results such as complex weak values outside the range of eigenvalues. Usually post-selection is realized by a projective measurement, which is hard to implement in ensemble systems such as NMR. We demonstrate the first experiment of a weak measurement with post-selection on an NMR quantum information processor. Our setup is used for measuring complex weak values and weak values outside the range of eigenvalues. The scheme for overcoming the problem of post-selection in an ensemble quantum computer is general and can be applied to any circuit-based implementation. This experiment paves the way for studying and exploiting post-selection and weak measurements in systems where projective measurements are hard to realize experimentally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations38
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207