MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring Incompatibility and Clustering Quantum Observables with a Quantum Switch

2023· article· en· W4367293250 on OpenAlexafffund
Ning Gao, Dantong Li, Anchit Mishra, Junchen Yan, Kyrylo Simonov, Giulio Chiribella

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersGovernment of OntarioOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsObservableMeasure (data warehouse)Von Neumann architectureQuantumComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Cluster analysisMetric (unit)PhysicsPOVMStatistical physicsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsQuantum mechanicsAlgorithmOpen quantum systemQuantum operationArtificial intelligenceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence of incompatible observables is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics and a valuable resource in quantum technologies. Here we introduce a measure of incompatibility, called the mutual eigenspace disturbance (MED), which quantifies the amount of disturbance induced by the measurement of a sharp observable on the eigenspaces of another. The MED provides a metric on the space of von Neumann measurements, and can be efficiently estimated by letting the measurement processes act in an indefinite order, using a setup known as the quantum switch, which also allows one to quantify the noncommutativity of arbitrary quantum processes. Thanks to these features, the MED can be used in quantum machine learning tasks. We demonstrate this application by providing an unsupervised algorithm that clusters unknown von Neumann measurements. Our algorithm is robust to noise and can be used to identify groups of observers that share approximately the same measurement context.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207