MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936032794 · doi:10.22331/q-2019-08-12-173

A polar decomposition for quantum channels (with applications to bounding error propagation in quantum circuits)

2019· article· en· W2936032794 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of Waterloo
FundersArmy Research OfficeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of OntarioCanada First Research Excellence FundIndustry CanadaGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsQuantumUnitary stateBounding overwatchFidelityFactorizationPolarLeverage (statistics)Quantum error correctionQuantum circuitProcess (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inevitably, assessing the overall performance of a quantum computer must rely on characterizing some of its elementary constituents and, from this information, formulate a broader statement concerning more complex constructions thereof. However, given the vastitude of possible quantum errors as well as their coherent nature, accurately inferring the quality of composite operations is generally difficult. To navigate through this jumble, we introduce a non-physical simplification of quantum maps that we refer to as the leading Kraus (LK) approximation. The uncluttered parameterization of LK approximated maps naturally suggests the introduction of a unitary-decoherent polar factorization for quantum channels in any dimension. We then leverage this structural dichotomy to bound the evolution -- as circuits grow in depth -- of two of the most experimentally relevant figures of merit, namely the average process fidelity and the unitarity. We demonstrate that the leeway in the behavior of the process fidelity is essentially taken into account by physical unitary operations.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantumSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207