MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386724119 · doi:10.1103/physreva.108.032606

Pauli-based model of quantum computation with higher-dimensional systems

2023· article· en· W4386724119 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Filipa C. R. Peres

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsPauli exclusion principleQubitQuantum computerPhysicsComputationOmegaQuantum mechanicsQuantumDiscrete mathematicsTopology (electrical circuits)CombinatoricsComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pauli-based computation (PBC) is a universal model for quantum computation with qubits where the input state is a magic (resource) state and the computation is driven by a sequence of adaptively chosen and compatible multiqubit Pauli measurements. Here we generalize PBC for odd-prime-dimensional systems and demonstrate its universality. Additionally, we discuss how any qudit-based PBC can be implemented on actual, circuit-based quantum hardware. Our results show that we can translate a PBC on $n\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}p$-dimensional qudits to adaptive circuits on $n+1$ qudits with $O\left(p{n}^{2}/2\right)$ sum gates and depth. Alternatively, we can carry out the same computation with $O\left(pn/2\right)$ depth at the expense of an increased circuit width. Finally, we show that the sampling complexity associated with simulating a number $k$ of virtual qudits is related to the robustness of magic of the input states. Computation of this magic monotone for qutrit and ququint states leads to sampling complexity upper bounds of, respectively, $O({3}^{1.0848k}{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}^{\ensuremath{-}2})$ and $O({5}^{1.4022k}{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}^{\ensuremath{-}2})$, for a desired precision $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$. We further establish lower bounds to this sampling complexity for qubits, qutrits, and ququints: $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}({2}^{0.5431k}{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}^{\ensuremath{-}2})$, $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}({3}^{0.7236k}{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}^{\ensuremath{-}2})$, and $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}({5}^{0.8544k}{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}^{\ensuremath{-}2})$, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207