Semantics for a higher-order functional programming language for quantum computation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this thesis is to develop a semantics for higher-order quantum information. Following the work done in the author's M.Sc. thesis, we study a lambda calculus for quantum computation with classical control. The language features two important properties. The first one, arising from the so-called no-cloning theorem of quantum computation, is the need for a distinction between duplicable and non-duplicable elements. For keeping track of duplicability at higher order, we use a type system inspired by the resource-sensitive linear logic. The second important aspect is the probability inherent to measurement, the only operation for retrieving classical data from quantum data. This forces us into choosing a reduction strategy for being able to define an operational semantics. We address the question of a denotational semantics in two respects. First, we restrict the study to the strictly linear aspect of the language. Doing so, we suppress the need for distinguishing between duplicable and non-duplicable elements and we can focus on the description of quantum features at higher order. Using the category of completely positive maps as a framework, we build a fully abstract denotational model of the strictly linear fragment of the language. The study of the full language is more demanding. For dealing with the probabilistic aspect of the language, we use a method inspired by Moggi and build a computational model with a distinction between values and computations. For the distinction between duplicability and non-duplicability in the calculus, we adapt Bierman's linear category, where the duplication is considered as a comonad with specific properties. The resulting model is what we call a linear category for duplication. Finally, we only focus on the fragment of the language that contains the aforementioned elements, and remove the classical Boolean and quantum Boolean features to get a generic computational linear lambda-calculus. In this idealized setting, we show that such a language have a full and complete interpretation in a linear category for duplication.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".