MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921097798 · doi:10.1007/s00165-019-00480-5

A modeling and verification framework for optical quantum circuits

2019· article· en· W2921097798 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

VenueFormal Aspects of Computing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of computationComputer scienceElectronic circuitQuantumTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languagePhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantum computing systems promise to increase the capabilities for solving problems which classical computers cannot handle adequately, such as integers factorization. In this paper, we present a formal modeling and verification approach for optical quantum circuits, where we build a rich library of optical quantum gates and develop a proof strategy in higher-order logic to reason about optical quantum circuits automatically. The constructed library contains a variety of quantum gates ranging from 1-qubit to 3-qubit gates that are sufficient to model most existing quantum circuits. As real world applications, we present the formal analysis of several quantum circuits including quantum full adders and the Grover’s oracle circuits, for which we have proved the behavioral correctness and calculated the operational success rate, which has never been provided in the literature. We show through several case studies the efficiency of the proposed framework in terms of the scalability and modularity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · 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