MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963006036 · doi:10.1142/s0219749908003724

LIMITATIONS OF SOME SIMPLE ADIABATIC QUANTUM ALGORITHMS

2008· article· en· W2963006036 on OpenAlex
Lawrence M. Ioannou, Michele Mosca

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Quantum Information · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHadamard transformDiagonalAdiabatic processAdiabatic quantum computationHamiltonian (control theory)QubitBasis (linear algebra)MathematicsSimple (philosophy)Quantum algorithmQuantumQuantum mechanicsQuantum computerAlgorithmCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsPhysicsMathematical optimizationGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let H(t) = (1 - t/T)H 0 + (t/T)H 1 , t ∈ [0,T], be the Hamiltonian governing an adiabatic quantum algorithm, where H 0 is diagonal in the Hadamard basis and H 1 is diagonal in the computational basis. We prove that H 0 and H 1 must each have at least two large mutually-orthogonal eigenspaces if the algorithm's running time is to be subexponential in the number of qubits. We also reproduce the optimality proof of Farhi and Gutmann's search algorithm in the context of this adiabatic scheme; because we only consider initial Hamiltonians that are diagonal in the Hadamard basis, our result is slightly stronger than the original.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.219 · 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