Bibliographic record
Abstract
QAC circuits are quantum circuits with one-qubit gates and Toffoli gates of arbitrary arity. QAC$^0$ circuits are QAC circuits of constant depth, and are quantum analogues of AC$^0$ circuits. We prove the following: $\bullet$ For all $d \ge 7$ and $\varepsilon>0$ there is a depth-$d$ QAC circuit of size $\exp(\mathrm{poly}(n^{1/d}) \log(n/\varepsilon))$ that approximates the $n$-qubit parity function to within error $\varepsilon$ on worst-case quantum inputs. Previously it was unknown whether QAC circuits of sublogarithmic depth could approximate parity regardless of size. $\bullet$ We introduce a class of "mostly classical" QAC circuits, including a major component of our circuit from the above upper bound, and prove a tight lower bound on the size of low-depth, mostly classical QAC circuits that approximate this component. $\bullet$ Arbitrary depth-$d$ QAC circuits require at least $Ω(n/d)$ multi-qubit gates to achieve a $1/2 + \exp(-o(n/d))$ approximation of parity. When $d = Θ(\log n)$ this nearly matches an easy $O(n)$ size upper bound for computing parity exactly. $\bullet$ QAC circuits with at most two layers of multi-qubit gates cannot achieve a $1/2 + \exp(-o(n))$ approximation of parity, even non-cleanly. Previously it was known only that such circuits could not cleanly compute parity exactly for sufficiently large $n$. The proofs use a new normal form for quantum circuits which may be of independent interest, and are based on reductions to the problem of constructing certain generalizations of the cat state which we name "nekomata" after an analogous cat yōkai.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".