Quantum resources in Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum algorithms have the ability to reduce runtime for executing tasks beyond the capabilities of classical algorithms. Therefore, identifying the resources responsible for quantum advantages is an interesting endeavour. We prove that nonvanishing quantum correlations, both bipartite and genuine multipartite entanglement, are required for solving nontrivial linear systems of equations in the Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd (HHL) algorithm. Moreover, we find a nonvanishing l1-norm quantum coherence of the entire system and the register qubit which turns out to be related to the success probability of the algorithm. Quantitative analysis of the quantum resources reveals that while a significant amount of bipartite entanglement is generated in each step and required for this algorithm, multipartite entanglement content is inversely proportional to the performance indicator. In addition, we report that when imperfections chosen from Gaussian distribution are incorporated in controlled rotations, multipartite entanglement increases with the strength of the disorder, albeit error also increases while bipartite entanglement and coherence decreases, confirming the beneficial role of bipartite entanglement and coherence in this algorithm.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".