Bibliographic record
Abstract
We give new bounds on the circuit complexity of the quantum Fourier transform (QFT). We give an upper bound of O(log n + log log (1/epsilon)) on the circuit depth for computing an approximation of the QFT with respect to the modulus 2^n with error bounded by epsilon. Thus, even for exponentially small error, our circuits have depth O(log n). The best previous depth bound was O(n), even for approximations with constant error. Moreover, our circuits have size O(n log (n/epsilon)). We also give an upper bound of O(n (log n)^2 log log n) on the circuit size of the exact QFT modulo 2^n, for which the best previous bound was O(n^2). As an application of the above depth bound, we show that Shor's factoring algorithm may be based on quantum circuits with depth only O(log n) and polynomial-size, in combination with classical polynomial-time pre- and post-processing. In the language of computational complexity, this implies that factoring is in the complexity class ZPP^BQNC, where BQNC is the class of problems computable with bounded-error probability by quantum circuits with poly-logarithmic depth and polynomial size. Finally, we prove an Omega(log n) lower bound on the depth complexity of approximations of the QFT with constant error. This implies that the above upper bound is asymptotically optimal (for a reasonable range of values of epsilon).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".