Quantum Similarity Testing with Convolutional Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The task of testing whether two uncharacterized quantum devices behave in the same way is crucial for benchmarking near-term quantum computers and quantum simulators, but has so far remained open for continuous variable quantum systems. In this Letter, we develop a machine learning algorithm for comparing unknown continuous variable states using limited and noisy data. The algorithm works on non-Gaussian quantum states for which similarity testing could not be achieved with previous techniques. Our approach is based on a convolutional neural network that assesses the similarity of quantum states based on a lower-dimensional state representation built from measurement data. The network can be trained off-line with classically simulated data from a fiducial set of states sharing structural similarities with the states to be tested, with experimental data generated by measurements on the fiducial states, or with a combination of simulated and experimental data. We test the performance of the model on noisy cat states and states generated by arbitrary selective number-dependent phase gates. Our network can also be applied to the problem of comparing continuous variable states across different experimental platforms, with different sets of achievable measurements, and to the problem of experimentally testing whether two states are equivalent up to Gaussian unitary transformations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".