MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regimes of Classical Simulability for Noisy Gaussian Boson Sampling

2020· article· en· W2947931041 on OpenAlexaff
Haoyu Qi, Daniel J. Brod, Nicolás Quesada, Raúl García−Patrón

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsXanadu Quantum Technologies (Canada)
FundersInstituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia de Informação QuânticaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsBosonGaussianPhotonQuantumLimit (mathematics)DetectorStatistical physicsGaussian noisePhysicsExploitIntuitionComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsAlgorithmMathematicsOpticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a promising candidate for exhibiting quantum computational supremacy, Gaussian boson sampling (GBS) is designed to exploit the ease of experimental preparation of Gaussian states. However, sufficiently large and inevitable experimental noise might render GBS classically simulable. In this work, we formalize this intuition by establishing a sufficient condition for approximate polynomial-time classical simulation of noisy GBS-in the form of an inequality between the input squeezing parameter, the overall transmission rate, and the quality of photon detectors. Our result serves as a nonclassicality test that must be passed by any quantum computational supremacy demonstration based on GBS. We show that, for most linear-optical architectures, where photon loss increases exponentially with the circuit depth, noisy GBS loses its quantum advantage in the asymptotic limit. Our results thus delineate intermediate-sized regimes where GBS devices might considerably outperform classical computers for modest noise levels. Finally, we find that increasing the amount of input squeezing is helpful to evade our classical simulation algorithm, which suggests a potential route to mitigate photon loss.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

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

Citations85
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207