Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum query complexity has several nice properties with respect to composition. First, bounded-error quantum query algorithms can be composed without incurring log factors through error reduction e x a c t n e s s . Second, through careful accounting t h r i f t i n e s s , the total query complexity is smaller if subroutines are mostly run on cheaper inputs -- a property that is much less obvious in quantum algorithms than in their classical counterparts. While these properties were previously seen through the model of span programs (alternatively, the dual adversary bound), a recent work by two of the authors (Belovs, Yolcu 2023) showed how to achieve these benefits without converting to span programs, by defining quantum Las Vegas query complexity . Independently, recent works, including by one of the authors (Jeffery 2022), have worked towards bringing thriftiness to the more practically significant setting of quantum t i m e complexity.In this work, we show how to achieve both exactness and thriftiness in the setting of time complexity. We generalize the quantum subroutine composition results of Jeffery 2022 so that, in particular, no error reduction is needed. We give a time complexity version of the well-known result in quantum query complexity, Q ( f ∘ g ) = O ( Q ( f ) ⋅ Q ( g ) ) , without log factors.We achieve this by employing a novel approach to the design of quantum algorithms based on what we call t r a n s d u c e r s , and which we think is of large independent interest. While a span program is a completely different computational model, a transducer is a direct generalisation of a quantum algorithm, which allows for much greater transparency and control. Transducers naturally characterize general state conversion, rather than only decision problems; provide a very simple treatment of other quantum primitives such as quantum walks; and lend themselves well to time complexity analysis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".