MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951945888 · doi:10.26421/qic9.9-10-8

Complete characterization of mixing time for the continuous quantum walk on the hypercube with Markovian decoherence model

2009· preprint· en· W2951945888 on OpenAlexaff
Milosh Drezgich, Andrew P. Hines, Mohan Sarovar, Shankar Sastry

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantum Information and Computation · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsPacific Institute for the Mathematical SciencesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum decoherenceMixing (physics)Quantum walkQubitHypercubeStatistical physicsMarkov processQuantumRandom walkPhysicsQuantum computerQuantum mechanicsMathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The n-dimensional hypercube quantum random walk (QRW) is a particularily appealing example of a quantum walk because it has a natural implementation on a register on n qubits. However, any real implementation will encounter decoherence effects due to interactions with uncontrollable degrees of freedom. We present a complete characterization of the mixing properties of the hypercube QRW under a physically relevant Markovian decoherence model. In the local decoherence model considered the non-unitary dynamics are modeled as a sum of projections on individual qubits to an arbitrary direction on the Bloch sphere. We prove that there is always classical (asymptotic) mixing in this model and specify the conditions under which instantaneous mixing always exists. And we show that the latter mixing property, as well as the classical mixing time, depend heavily on the exact environmental interaction and its strength. Therefore, algorithmic applications of the QRW on the hypercube, if they intend to employ mixing properties, need to consider both the walk dynamics and the precise decoherence model.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantum Information and ComputationSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207