Progress toward scalable tomography of quantum maps using twirling-based methods and information hierarchies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present in a unified manner the existing methods for scalable partial quantum process tomography. We focus on two main approaches: the one presented in Bendersky et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 190403 (2008)] and the ones described, respectively, in Emerson et al. [Science 317, 1893 (2007)] and L\'opez et al. [Phys. Rev. A 79, 042328 (2009)], which can be combined together. The methods share an essential feature: They are based on the idea that the tomography of a quantum map can be efficiently performed by studying certain properties of a twirling of such a map. From this perspective, in this paper we present extensions, improvements, and comparative analyses of the scalable methods for partial quantum process tomography. We also clarify the significance of the extracted information, and we introduce interesting and useful properties of the $\ensuremath{\chi}$-matrix representation of quantum maps that can be used to establish a clearer path toward achieving full tomography of quantum processes in a scalable way.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".