Quantum-classical tradeoffs and multi-controlled quantum gate decompositions in variational algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The computational capabilities of near-term quantum computers are limited by the noisy execution of gate operations and a limited number of physical qubits. Hybrid variational algorithms are well-suited to near-term quantum devices because they allow for a wide range of tradeoffs between the amount of quantum and classical resources used to solve a problem. This paper investigates tradeoffs available at both the algorithmic and hardware levels by studying a specific case – applying the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) to instances of the Maximum Independent Set (MIS) problem. We consider three variants of the QAOA which offer different tradeoffs at the algorithmic level in terms of their required number of classical parameters, quantum gates, and iterations of classical optimization needed. Since MIS is a constrained combinatorial optimization problem, the QAOA must respect the problem constraints. This can be accomplished by using many multi-controlled gate operations which must be decomposed into gates executable by the target hardware. We study the tradeoffs available at this hardware level, combining the gate fidelities and decomposition efficiencies of different native gate sets into a single metric called the gate decomposition cost .
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".