Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".