MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386257128 · doi:10.22331/q-2023-08-29-1097

A Quadratic Speedup in the Optimization of Noisy Quantum Optical Circuits

2023· article· en· W4386257128 on OpenAlexaff
Robbe De Prins, Yuan Yao, Anuj Apte, Filippo M. Miatto

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsXanadu Quantum Technologies (Canada)
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeUniversiteit GentFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekEuropean Commission
KeywordsAlgorithmQuantum decoherenceComputer scienceQuantum computerPhysicsQuantumQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linear optical quantum circuits with photon number resolving (PNR) detectors are used for both Gaussian Boson Sampling (GBS) and for the preparation of non-Gaussian states such as Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP), cat and NOON states. They are crucial in many schemes of quantum computing and quantum metrology. Classically optimizing circuits with PNR detectors is challenging due to their exponentially large Hilbert space, and quadratically more challenging in the presence of decoherence as state vectors are replaced by density matrices. To tackle this problem, we introduce a family of algorithms that calculate detection probabilities, conditional states (as well as their gradients with respect to circuit parametrizations) with a complexity that is comparable to the noiseless case. As a consequence we can simulate and optimize circuits with twice the number of modes as we could before, using the same resources. More precisely, for an <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math>-mode noisy circuit with detected modes <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math> and undetected modes <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math>, the complexity of our algorithm is <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:munder><mml:mo>&amp;#x220F;</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.111em"/><mml:mo>&amp;#x2208;</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.111em"/><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:munder><mml:mo>&amp;#x220F;</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.111em"/><mml:mo>&amp;#x2208;</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.111em"/><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:math>, rather than <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:munder><mml:mo>&amp;#x220F;</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mml:mspace width="0.111em"/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.111em"/><mml:mo>&amp;#x2208;</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.111em"/><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.167em"/><mml:mo>&amp;#x222A;</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.167em"/><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:math>, where <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math> is the Fock cutoff of mode <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math>. As a particular case, our approach offers a full quadratic speedup for calculating detection probabilities, as in that case all modes are detected. Finally, these algorithms are implemented and ready to use in the open-source photonic optimization library MrMustard.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantumSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207