Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum signal processing (QSP) relies on a historically costly pre-processing step, "QSP-processing/phase-factor finding." QSP-processing is now a developed topic within quantum algorithms literature, and a beginner accessible review of QSP-processing is overdue. This work provides a whirlwind tour through QSP conventions and pre-processing methods, beginning from a pedagogically accessible QSP convention. We then review QSP conventions associated with three common polynomial types: real polynomials with definite parity, sums of reciprocal/anti-reciprocal Chebyshev polynomials, and complex polynomials. We demonstrate how the conventions perform with respect to three criteria: circuit length, polynomial conditions, and pre-processing methods. We then review the recently introduced Wilson method for QSP-processing and give conditions where it can succeed with bound error. Although the resulting bound is not computationally efficient, we demonstrate that the method succeeds with linear error propagation for relevant target polynomials and precision regimes, including the Jacobi-Anger expansion used in Hamiltonian simulation algorithms. We then apply our benchmarks to three QSP-processing methods for QSP circuits and show that a method introduced by Berntson and Sünderhauf outperforms both the Wilson method and the standard optimization strategy for complex polynomials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.043 |
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".