MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal Universal Programming of Unitary Gates

2020· article· en· W3106467701 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungCroucher FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaFoundational Questions Institute
KeywordsUnitary stateQuantum circuitQuantumComputer scienceQuantum informationQuantum gateQuantum Fourier transformQuantum computerLimit (mathematics)Quantum error correctionDiscrete mathematicsQuantum mechanicsPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A universal quantum processor is a device that takes as input a (quantum) program, containing an encoding of an arbitrary unitary gate, and a (quantum) data register, on which the encoded gate is applied. While no perfect universal quantum processor can exist, approximate processors have been proposed in the past two decades. A fundamental open question is how the size of the smallest quantum program scales with the approximation error. Here we answer the question, by proving a bound on the size of the program and designing a concrete protocol that attains the bound in the asymptotic limit. Our result is based on a connection between optimal programming and the Heisenberg limit of quantum metrology, and establishes an asymptotic equivalence between the tasks of programming, learning, and estimating unitary gates.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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