Tight bounds on Pauli channel learning without entanglement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum entanglement is a crucial resource for learning properties from nature, but a precise characterization of its advantage can be challenging. In this work, we consider learning algorithms without entanglement to be those that only utilize states, measurements, and operations that are separable between the main system of interest and an ancillary system. Interestingly, we show that these algorithms are equivalent to those that apply quantum circuits on the main system interleaved with mid-circuit measurements and classical feedforward. Within this setting, we prove a tight lower bound for Pauli channel learning without entanglement that closes the gap between the best-known upper and lower bound. In particular, we show that $Θ(2^n\varepsilon^{-2})$ rounds of measurements are required to estimate each eigenvalue of an $n$-qubit Pauli channel to $\varepsilon$ error with high probability when learning without entanglement. In contrast, a learning algorithm with entanglement only needs $Θ(\varepsilon^{-2})$ copies of the Pauli channel. The tight lower bound strengthens the foundation for an experimental demonstration of entanglement-enhanced advantages for Pauli noise characterization.
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 | 0.011 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".