MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890217530 · doi:10.1103/physreva.100.032306

Quantum algorithm for nonhomogeneous linear partial differential equations

2019· article· en· W2890217530 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Miguel Arrazola, Timjan Kalajdzievski, Christian Weedbrook, Seth Lloyd

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsXanadu Quantum Technologies (Canada)
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchArmy Research OfficeMultidisciplinary University Research InitiativeIntelligence Advanced Research Projects ActivityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsPartial differential equationHamiltonian (control theory)AlgorithmPartial derivativeQuantum gateQuantum algorithmApplied mathematicsQuantumMathematical analysisMathematical optimizationQuantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a quantum algorithm for preparing states that encode solutions of nonhomogeneous linear partial differential equations. The algorithm is a continuous-variable version of matrix inversion: it efficiently inverts differential operators that are polynomials in the variables and their partial derivatives. The output is a quantum state whose wave function is proportional to a specific solution of the nonhomogeneous differential equation, which can be measured to reveal features of the solution. The algorithm consists of three stages: preparing fixed resource states in ancillary systems, performing Hamiltonian simulation, and measuring the ancilla systems. The algorithm can be carried out using standard methods for gate decompositions, but we improve this in two ways. First, we show that for a wide class of differential operators, it is possible to derive exact decompositions for the gates employed in Hamiltonian simulation. This avoids the need for costly commutator approximations, reducing gate counts by orders of magnitude. Additionally, we employ methods from machine learning to find explicit circuits that prepare the required resource states. We conclude by studying two example applications of the algorithm: solving Poisson's equation in electrostatics and performing one-dimensional integration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207