Addition and Differentiation of ZX-Diagrams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The ZX-calculus is a powerful framework for reasoning in quantum computing. It provides in particular a compact representation of matrices of interests. A peculiar property of the ZX-calculus is the absence of a formal sum allowing the linear combinations of arbitrary ZX-diagrams. The universality of the formalism guarantees however that for any two ZX-diagrams, the sum of their interpretations can be represented by a ZX-diagram. We introduce a general, inductive definition of the addition of ZX-diagrams, relying on the construction of controlled diagrams. Based on this addition technique, we provide an inductive differentiation of ZX-diagrams.</p>\n\n<p>Indeed, given a ZX-diagram with variables in the description of its angles, one can differentiate the diagram according to one of these variables. Differentiation is ubiquitous in quantum mechanics and quantum computing (e.g. for solving optimization problems). Technically, differentiation of ZX-diagrams is strongly related to summation as witnessed by the product rules.</p>\n\n<p>We also introduce an alternative, non inductive, differentiation technique rather based on the isolation of the variables. Finally, we apply our results to deduce a diagram for an Ising Hamiltonian.</p>
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".