Fast Estimation of Outcome Probabilities for Quantum Circuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present two classical algorithms for the simulation of universal quantum circuits on n qubits constructed from c instances of Clifford gates and t arbitrary-angle Z-rotation gates such as T gates.Our algorithms complement each other by performing best in different parameter regimes.The ESTIMATE algorithm produces an additive precision estimate of the Born-rule probability of a chosen measurement outcome with the only source of run-time inefficiency being a linear dependence on the stabilizer extent (with scaling approximately equal to 1.17 t for T gates).Our algorithm is state of the art for this task: as an example, in approximately 13 h (on a standard desktop computer), we estimate the Born-rule probability to within an additive error of 0.03, for a 50-qubit, 60 non-Clifford gate quantum circuit with more than 2000 Clifford gates.Our second algorithm, COMPUTE, calculates the probability of a chosen measurement outcome to machine precision with run time O 2 t-r t , where r is an efficiently computable, circuit-specific quantity.With high probability, r is very close to min {t, n -w} for random circuits with many Clifford gates, where w is the number of measured qubits.COMPUTE can be effective in surprisingly challenging parameter regimes, e.g., we can randomly sample Clifford+T circuits with n = 55, w = 5, c = 10 5 , and t = 80 T gates, and then compute the Born-rule probability with a run time consistently less than 10 min using a single core of a standard desktop computer.We provide a C+Python implementation of our algorithms and benchmark them using random circuits, the hidden-shift algorithm, and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".