MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169147494 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/1/013024

Improved error-scaling for adiabatic quantum evolutions

2012· article· en· W2169147494 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan Wiebe, Nathan S. Babcock

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsAdiabatic processPhysicsQuadratic growthScalingQuadratic equationQubitStatistical physicsQuantumMathematical proofAdiabatic quantum computationQuantum mechanicsReduction (mathematics)Quantum computerAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new technique that improves the scaling of the error in the adiabatic approximation with respect to the evolution duration, thereby permitting faster transfer at a fixed error tolerance. Our method is conceptually different from previously proposed techniques: it exploits a commonly overlooked phase interference effect that occurs predictably at specific evolution times, suppressing transitions away from the adiabatically transferred eigenstate. Our method can be used in concert with existing adiabatic optimization techniques, such as local adiabatic evolutions or boundary cancelation methods. We perform a full error analysis of our phase interference method along with existing boundary cancelation techniques and show a tradeoff between error-scaling and experimental precision. We illustrate these findings using two examples, showing improved error-scaling for an adiabatic search algorithm and a tunable two-qubit quantum logic gate.

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)0.011
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations72
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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