Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consider a Boolean function $\chi: X \to \{0,1\}$ that partitions set $X$ between its good and bad elements, where $x$ is good if $\chi(x)=1$ and bad otherwise. Consider also a quantum algorithm $\mathcal A$ such that $A |0\rangle= \sum_{x\in X} \alpha_x |x\rangle$ is a quantum superposition of the elements of $X$, and let $a$ denote the probability that a good element is produced if $A |0\rangle$ is measured. If we repeat the process of running $A$, measuring the output, and using $\chi$ to check the validity of the result, we shall expect to repeat $1/a$ times on the average before a solution is found. *Amplitude amplification* is a process that allows to find a good $x$ after an expected number of applications of $A$ and its inverse which is proportional to $1/\sqrt{a}$, assuming algorithm $A$ makes no measurements. This is a generalization of Grover's searching algorithm in which $A$ was restricted to producing an equal superposition of all members of $X$ and we had a promise that a single $x$ existed such that $\chi(x)=1$. Our algorithm works whether or not the value of $a$ is known ahead of time. In case the value of $a$ is known, we can find a good $x$ after a number of applications of $A$ and its inverse which is proportional to $1/\sqrt{a}$ even in the worst case. We show that this quadratic speedup can also be obtained for a large family of search problems for which good classical heuristics exist. Finally, as our main result, we combine ideas from Grover's and Shor's quantum algorithms to perform amplitude estimation, a process that allows to estimate the value of $a$. We apply amplitude estimation to the problem of *approximate counting*, in which we wish to estimate the number of $x\in X$ such that $\chi(x)=1$. We obtain optimal quantum algorithms in a variety of settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".