MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569934227 · doi:10.1145/2493252.2493256

Quantum rejection sampling

2013· article· en· W2569934227 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

VenueACM Transactions on Computation Theory · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersArmy Research OfficeDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsQuantum algorithmMathematicsQuantum stateQuantum sortQuantumQuantum phase estimation algorithmQuantum operationAlgorithmComputer scienceQuantum error correctionOpen quantum systemQuantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rejection sampling is a well-known method to sample from a target distribution, given the ability to sample from a given distribution. The method has been first formalized by von Neumann [1951] and has many applications in classical computing. We define a quantum analogue of rejection sampling: given a black box producing a coherent superposition of (possibly unknown) quantum states with some amplitudes, the problem is to prepare a coherent superposition of the same states, albeit with different target amplitudes. The main result of this article is a tight characterization of the query complexity of this quantum state generation problem. We exhibit an algorithm, which we call quantum rejection sampling, and analyze its cost using semidefinite programming. Our proof of a matching lower bound is based on the automorphism principle that allows to symmetrize any algorithm over the automorphism group of the problem. Our main technical innovation is an extension of the automorphism principle to continuous groups that arise for quantum state generation problems where the oracle encodes unknown quantum states, instead of just classical data. Furthermore, we illustrate how quantum rejection sampling may be used as a primitive in designing quantum algorithms, by providing three different applications. We first show that it was implicitly used in the quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations by Harrow et al. [2009]. Second we show that it can be used to speed up the main step in the quantum Metropolis sampling algorithm by Temme et al. [2011]. Finally, we derive a new quantum algorithm for the hidden shift problem of an arbitrary Boolean function and relate its query complexity to “water-filling” of the Fourier spectrum.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.243 · 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