MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945680873 · doi:10.1002/qute.201900070

Expressibility and Entangling Capability of Parameterized Quantum Circuits for Hybrid Quantum‐Classical Algorithms

2019· article· en· W2945680873 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Quantum Technologies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersArmy Research Office
KeywordsQuantum circuitParameterized complexityElectronic circuitQubitQuantum gateCircuit designMeasure (data warehouse)QuantumQuantum algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Parameterized quantum circuits (PQCs) play an essential role in the performance of many variational quantum algorithms. One challenge in implementing such algorithms is choosing an effective circuit that well represents the solution space while maintaining a low circuit depth and parameter count. To characterize and identify expressible, yet compact, circuits, several descriptors are proposed, including expressibility and entangling capability, that are statistically estimated from classical simulations. These descriptors are computed for different circuit structures, varying the qubit connectivity and selection of gates. From these simulations, circuit fragments that perform well with respect to the descriptors are identified. In particular, a substantial improvement in performance of two‐qubit gates in a ring or all‐to‐all connected arrangement, compared to that of those on a line, is observed. Furthermore, improvement in both descriptors is achieved by sequences of controlled X‐rotation gates compared to sequences of controlled Z‐rotation gates. In addition, it is investigated how expressibility “saturates” with increased circuit depth, finding that the rate and saturated value appear to be distinguishing features of a PQC. While the correlation between each descriptor and algorithm performance remains to be investigated, methods and results from this study can be useful for algorithm development and design of experiments.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations797
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Quantum TechnologiesSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207