MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071427315 · doi:10.1142/s0129054103002023

QUANTUM SOFTWARE REUSABILITY

2003· article· en· W2071427315 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Klappenecker, Martin Rötteler

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceQuantum circuitQuantum Fourier transformQuantum algorithmQuantum phase estimation algorithmQuantum networkTheoretical computer scienceQuantum gateQuantumQuantum computerQuantum error correctionAlgorithmMathematicsTopology (electrical circuits)Quantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of efficient quantum circuits is an important issue in quantum computing. It is in general a formidable task to find a highly optimized quantum circuit for a given unitary matrix. We propose a quantum circuit design method that has the following unique feature: It allows to construct efficient quantum circuits in a systematic way by reusing and combining a set of highly optimized quantum circuits. Specifically, the method realizes a quantum circuit for a given unitary matrix by implementing a linear combination of representing matrices of a group, which have known fast quantum circuits. We motivate and illustrate this method by deriving extremely efficient quantum circuits for the discrete Hartley transform and for the fractional Fourier transforms. The sound mathematical basis of this design method allows to give meaningful and natural interpretations of the resulting circuits. We demonstrate this aspect by giving a natural interpretation of known teleportation circuits.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer ScienceSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207