MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788451989 · doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ab3988

Online learning of quantum states*

2019· article· en· W2788451989 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

VenueJournal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)State (computer science)Quantum stateQuantumQuantum measurementQuantum error correctionQuantum informationQuantum algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Suppose we have many copies of an unknown n -qubit state . We measure some copies of using a known two-outcome measurement E 1 , then other copies using a measurement E 2 , and so on. At each stage t , we generate a current hypothesis about the state , using the outcomes of the previous measurements. We show that it is possible to do this in a way that guarantees that , the error in our prediction for the next measurement, is at least at most times. Even in the ‘non-realizable’ setting—where there could be arbitrary noise in the measurement outcomes—we show how to output hypothesis states that incur at most excess loss over the best possible state on the first T measurements. These results generalize a 2007 theorem by Aaronson on the PAC-learnability of quantum states, to the online and regret-minimization settings. We give three different ways to prove our results—using convex optimization, quantum postselection, and sequential fat-shattering dimension—which have different advantages in terms of parameters and portability.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.376 · 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