MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307641340 · doi:10.1103/physreva.106.042443

Optimization of variational-quantum-eigensolver measurement by partitioning Pauli operators using multiqubit Clifford gates on noisy intermediate-scale quantum hardware

2022· article· en· W4307641340 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Jena, Scott N. Genin, Michele Mosca

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPauli exclusion principleSpeedupQuantumQuantum algorithmQuantum numberQuantum statePhysicsQuantum mechanicsPauli matricesQuantum computerAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring the expectation value of Pauli operators on prepared quantum states is a fundamental task in a multitude of quantum algorithms. Simultaneously measuring sets of Pauli operators allows for fewer measurements and an overall speedup of the measurement process. Using results from coloring random graphs, we give evidence for an upper bound on the expected minimum number of simultaneously measurable parts necessary to partition a set of Pauli operators. By expanding our gate set to allow multiqubit Clifford gates before measurement, we were able to cut down the number of measurements considerably compared to previous approaches. We conjecture that this improvement is, in general, linear with respect to the lengths of the Pauli operators. We conclude by demonstrating the feasibility of this approach by implementing the variational quantum eigensolver on the Aspen-4-4Q-A quantum processor unit. In doing so, we calculate the ground-state energies of ${\mathrm{H}}_{2}$ using fewer measurements than is possible with single-qubit gates with no statistically significant difference in accuracy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207