MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086342673 · doi:10.1103/physreva.75.012331

Using error correction to determine the noise model

2007· article· en· W2086342673 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

VenuePhysical Review A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersArmy Research OfficeNational Security Agency
KeywordsQuantum error correctionError detection and correctionQubitNoise (video)AlgorithmCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Computer scienceQuantum noiseQuantum computerQuantumPhysicsQuantum mechanicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum error correcting codes have been shown to have the ability of making quantum information resilient against noise. Here we show that we can use quantum error correcting codes as diagnostics to characterize noise. The experiment is based on a three-bit quantum error correcting code carried out on a three-qubit nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) quantum information processor. Utilizing both engineered and natural noise, the degree of correlations present in the noise affecting a two-qubit subsystem was determined. We measured a correlation factor of $c=0.5\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.2$ using the error correction protocol, and $c=0.3\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.2$ using a standard NMR technique based on coherence pathway selection. Although the error correction method demands precise control, the results demonstrate that the required precision is achievable in the liquid-state NMR setting.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.297 · 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