Reducing depth and measurement weights in Pauli-based computation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pauli-based computation (PBC) is a universal measurement-based quantum computation model steered by an adaptive sequence of independent and compatible Pauli measurements on separable magic-state qubits. Here, we propose several new techniques for reducing the weight of the Pauli measurements and their associated \textsc{cnot} complexity; we also demonstrate how to decrease this model's computational depth. We start by proving new upper bounds on the required weights and computational depth, obtained via a pre-compilation step. We also propose a heuristic algorithm that can contribute reductions of over 30\% to the average weight of Pauli measurements (and associated \textsc{cnot} count) when simulating and compiling Clifford-dominated random quantum circuits with up to 22 $T$ gates and over 20\% for instances with larger $T$ counts. This PBC-compilation scheme, boosted by the heuristic algorithm, outperforms state-of-the-art compilers for the former circuits, reducing the \textsc{cnot} count by 18\% to 96\% compared with the values achieved by other techniques. In contrast, for the latter circuits with larger $T$ counts, it leads to a number of \textsc{cnot}s roughly 30\% larger. Finally, inspired by known state-transfer methods, we introduce incPBC, a universal model for quantum computation requiring a larger number of (now incompatible) Pauli measurements of weight at most 2.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".