MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards Low Overhead Magic State Distillation

2019· article· en· W2900580483 on OpenAlexafffund
Anirudh Krishna, Jean–Pierre Tillich

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesSeventh Framework ProgrammeAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsDistillationMAGIC (telescope)Prime (order theory)ConjectureDimension (graph theory)Prime factorOverhead (engineering)State (computer science)Quantum computerPhysicsBounded functionCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsQuantumMathematicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsAlgorithmMathematical analysisChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magic-state distillation is a resource intensive subroutine for quantum computation. The ratio of noisy input states to output states with an error rate at most ε scales as O(log^{γ}(1/ε)) [S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic-state distillation with low overhead, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052329 (2012)10.1103/PhysRevA.86.052329]. In a breakthrough paper, Hastings and Haah [Distillation with Sublogarithmic Overhead, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 050504 (2018)10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.050504] showed that it is possible to construct distillation routines with a sublogarithmic overhead, achieving γ≈0.6779 and falsifying a conjecture that γ is lower bounded by 1. They then ask whether γ can be made arbitrarily close to 0. We answer this question in the affirmative for magic-state distillation routines using qudits of prime dimension (d dimensional quantum systems for prime d).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations67
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207