Linear Cross-Entropy Certification of Quantum Computational Advantage in Gaussian Boson Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Validation of quantum advantage claims in the context of Gaussian boson sampling (GBS) currently relies on providing evidence that the experimental samples genuinely follow their corresponding ground truth, i.e., the theoretical model of the experiment that includes all the possible losses that the experimenters can account for. This approach to verification has an important drawback: it is necessary to assume that the ground truth distributions are computationally hard to sample, that is, that they are sufficiently close to the distribution of the ideal, lossless experiment, for which there is evidence that sampling, either exactly or approximately, is a computationally hard task. This assumption, which cannot be easily confirmed, opens the door to classical algorithms that exploit the noise in the ground truth to efficiently simulate the experiments, thus undermining any quantum advantage claim. In this work, we argue that one can avoid this issue by validating GBS implementations using their corresponding ideal distributions directly. We explain how to use a modified version of the linear cross-entropy, a quantity that we call the LXE score, to find reference values that help us assess how close a given GBS implementation is to its corresponding ideal model. Finally, we analytically compute the score that would be obtained by a lossless GBS implementation. 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 | 0.021 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".