Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address how one can empirically infer properties of quantum states generated by dynamics involving measurements. Our focus is on many-body settings where the number of measurements is extensive, making brute-force approaches based on postselection intractable due to their exponential sample complexity. We introduce a general-purpose scheme that can be used to infer any property of the postmeasurement ensemble of states (e.g., the average entanglement entropy, or frame potential) using a scalable number of experimental repetitions. We first identify a general class of “estimable properties” that can be directly extracted from experimental data. Then, based on empirical observations of such quantities, we show how one can indirectly infer information about any particular given nonestimable quantity of interest through classical postprocessing. Our approach is based on an optimization task, where one asks what are the minimum and maximum values that the desired quantity could possibly take, while ensuring consistency with observations. The true value of this quantity must then lie within a feasible range between these extrema, resulting in two-sided bounds. Narrow feasible ranges can be obtained by using a classical simulation of the device to determine which estimable properties one should measure. Even in cases where this simulation is inaccurate, unambiguous information about the true value of a given quantity realized on the quantum device can be learned. As an immediate application, we show that our method can be used to verify the emergence of quantum state designs in experiments. We identify some fundamental obstructions that in some cases prevent sharp knowledge of a given quantity from being inferred, and discuss what can be learned in cases where classical simulation is too computationally demanding to be feasible. In particular, we prove that any observer who cannot perform a classical simulation cannot distinguish the output states from those sampled from a maximally structureless ensemble. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".