Fast quantum circuit cutting with randomized measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a new method to extend the size of a quantum computation beyond the number of physical qubits available on a single device. This is accomplished by randomly inserting measure-and-prepare channels to express the output state of a large circuit as a separable state across distinct devices. Our method employs randomized measurements, resulting in a sample overhead that is O~(4k/ε2) , where ε is the accuracy of the computation and k the number of parallel wires that are "cut" to obtain smaller sub-circuits. We also show an information-theoretic lower bound of Ω(2k/ε2) for any comparable procedure. We use our techniques to show that circuits in the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) with p entangling layers can be simulated by circuits on a fraction of the original number of qubits with an overhead that is roughly 2O(pκ) , where κ is the size of a known balanced vertex separator of the graph which encodes the optimization problem. We obtain numerical evidence of practical speedups using our method applied to the QAOA, compared to prior work. Finally, we investigate the practical feasibility of applying the circuit cutting procedure to large-scale QAOA problems on clustered graphs by using a 30 -qubit simulator to evaluate the variational energy of a 129 -qubit problem as well as carry out a 62 -qubit optimization.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".