MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964229111 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.09025

Online Learning of Quantum States

2018· article· en· W2964229111 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Aaronson, Xinyi Chen, Elad Hazan, Satyen Kale

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimension (graph theory)LearnabilityQuantum decoherenceQubitQuantum stateState (computer science)Convex optimizationMathematicsWeak measurementQuantumMeasure (data warehouse)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmRegular polygonCombinatoricsArtificial intelligencePhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suppose we have many copies of an unknown $n$-qubit state $ρ$. We measure some copies of $ρ$ using a known two-outcome measurement $E_{1}$, then other copies using a measurement $E_{2}$, and so on. At each stage $t$, we generate a current hypothesis $σ_{t}$ about the state $ρ$, using the outcomes of the previous measurements. We show that it is possible to do this in a way that guarantees that $|\operatorname{Tr}(E_{i} σ_{t}) - \operatorname{Tr}(E_{i}ρ) |$, the error in our prediction for the next measurement, is at least $\varepsilon$ at most $\operatorname{O}\!\left(n / \varepsilon^2 \right) $ times. Even in the "non-realizable" setting---where there could be arbitrary noise in the measurement outcomes---we show how to output hypothesis states that do significantly worse than the best possible states at most $\operatorname{O}\!\left(\sqrt {Tn}\right) $ times on the first $T$ measurements. These results generalize a 2007 theorem by Aaronson on the PAC-learnability of quantum states, to the online and regret-minimization settings. We give three different ways to prove our results---using convex optimization, quantum postselection, and sequential fat-shattering dimension---which have different advantages in terms of parameters and portability.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207