MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140827421 · doi:10.1002/rsa.70030

Sampling Matrices From Harish‐Chandra–Itzykson–Zuber Densities With Applications to Quantum Inference and Differential Privacy

2025· article· en· W3140827421 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Leake, Colin McSwiggen, Nisheeth K. Vishnoi

Bibliographic record

VenueRandom Structures and Algorithms · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersJapan Science and Technology AgencyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Science FoundationNational Science and Technology Council
KeywordsLambdaHermitian matrixRandom matrixHaar measureUnitary matrixEigenvalues and eigenvectorsDistribution (mathematics)Matrix (chemical analysis)CombinatoricsMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsPhysicsUnitary statePure mathematicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Given two Hermitian matrices and , the Harish‐Chandra–Itzykson–Zuber (HCIZ) distribution is given by the density with respect to the Haar measure on the unitary group. Random unitary matrices distributed according to the HCIZ distribution are important in various settings in physics and random matrix theory, but the problem of sampling efficiently from this distribution has remained open. We present two algorithms to sample matrices from distributions that are close to the HCIZ distribution. The first algorithm produces samples that are ‐close in total variation, and the number of arithmetic operations required depends on . The second algorithm comes with a stronger guarantee that the samples are ‐close in infinity divergence; however, its number of arithmetic operations depends polynomially on . Our results have the following applications: (1) an efficient algorithm to sample from complex versions of matrix Langevin distributions studied in statistics, (2) an efficient algorithm to sample from continuous maximum entropy distributions over unitary orbits, which in turn implies an efficient algorithm to sample a pure quantum state from the entropy‐maximizing ensemble representing a given density matrix, and (3) an efficient algorithm for differentially private rank‐ approximation that comes with improved utility bounds for .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRandom Structures and AlgorithmsSame topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207