Machine learning method for state preparation and gate synthesis on photonic quantum computers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We show how techniques from machine learning and optimization can be used to find circuits of photonic quantum computers that perform a desired transformation between input and output states. In the simplest case of a single input state, our method discovers circuits for preparing a desired quantum state. In the more general case of several input and output relations, our method obtains circuits that reproduce the action of a target unitary transformation. We use a continuous-variable quantum neural network as the circuit architecture. The network is composed of several layers of optical gates with variable parameters that are optimized by applying automatic differentiation using the TensorFlow backend of the Strawberry Fields photonic quantum computer simulator. We demonstrate the power and versatility of our methods by learning how to use short-depth circuits to synthesize single photons, Gottesman–Kitaev–Preskill states, NOON states, cubic phase gates, random unitaries, cross-Kerr interactions, as well as several other states and gates. We routinely obtain high fidelities above 99% using short-depth circuits, typically consisting of a few hundred gates. The circuits are obtained automatically by simply specifying the target state or gate and running the optimization algorithm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".