MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Geometric quantum machine learning with horizontal quantum gates

2025· article· en· W4407319397 on OpenAlexaff
Roeland Wiersema, A. F. Kemper, Bojko Bakalov, Nathan Killoran

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSimons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsQuantumPhysicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current framework of geometric quantum machine learning, the canonical method for constructing a variational ansatz that respects the symmetry of some group action is by forcing the circuit to be equivariant, i.e., to commute with the action of the group. This can, however, be an overzealous constraint that greatly limits the expressivity of the circuit, especially in the case of continuous symmetries. We propose an alternative paradigm for the symmetry-informed construction of variational quantum circuits, based on homogeneous spaces, relaxing the overly stringent requirement of equivariance. We achieve this by introducing horizontal quantum gates, which only transform the state with respect to the directions orthogonal to those of the symmetry. We show that horizontal quantum gates are much more expressive than equivariant gates, and thus can solve problems that equivariant circuits cannot. For instance, a circuit comprised of horizontal gates can find the ground state of an <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <a:mrow> <a:mi>SU</a:mi> <a:mo>(</a:mo> <a:mn>2</a:mn> <a:mo>)</a:mo> </a:mrow> </a:math> -symmetric model where the ground state spin sector is unknown—a task where equivariant circuits fall short. Moreover, for a particular subclass of horizontal gates based on symmetric spaces, we can obtain efficient circuit decompositions for our gates through the KAK theorem. Finally, we highlight a particular class of horizontal quantum gates that behave similarly to general <b:math xmlns:b="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <b:mrow> <b:mi>SU</b:mi> <b:mo>(</b:mo> <b:mn>4</b:mn> <b:mo>)</b:mo> </b:mrow> </b:math> gates, while achieving a quadratic reduction in the number of parameters for a generic problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ResearchSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207