Quantitative robustness analysis of quantum programs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum computation is a topic of significant recent interest, with practical advances coming from both research and industry. A major challenge in quantum programming is dealing with errors (quantum noise) during execution. Because quantum resources (e.g., qubits) are scarce, classical error correction techniques applied at the level of the architecture are currently cost-prohibitive. But while this reality means that quantum programs are almost certain to have errors, there as yet exists no principled means to reason about erroneous behavior. This paper attempts to fill this gap by developing a semantics for erroneous quantum while-programs, as well as a logic for reasoning about them. This logic permits proving a property we have identified, called є-robustness, which characterizes possible “distance” between an ideal program and an erroneous one. We have proved the logic sound, and showed its utility on several case studies, notably: (1) analyzing the robustness of noisy versions of the quantum Bernoulli factory (QBF) and quantum walk (QW); (2) demonstrating the (in)effectiveness of different error correction schemes on single-qubit errors; and (3) analyzing the robustness of a fault-tolerant version of QBF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it