MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415802130 · doi:10.1063/5.0292230

Qubit encodings for lattices of dipolar planar rotors

2025· article· en· W4415802130 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad Shaeer Moeed, James Brown, Alexander Ibrahim, Estêvão V. B. de Oliveira, Pierre–Nicholas Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanada Foundation for InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsQubitPlanarUnary operationHilbert spaceEmbeddingHamiltonian (control theory)QuantumPhase spaceLattice (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Near term quantum devices have recently garnered significant interest as promising candidates for investigating difficult-to-probe regimes in many-body physics. To this end, various qubit encoding schemes targeting second quantized Hamiltonians have been proposed and optimized. In this study, we investigate two qubit representations of the planar rotor lattice Hamiltonian. The first representation is realized by decomposing the rotor Hamiltonian projectors in binary and mapping them to spin-1/2 projectors. The second approach relies on embedding the planar rotor lattice Hilbert space in a larger space and recovering the relevant qubit encoded system as a quotient space projecting down to the physical degrees of freedom. This is typically called the unary mapping and is used for bosonic systems. We establish the veracity of the two encoding approaches using sparse diagonalization on small chains and discuss quantum phase estimation resource requirements to simulate small planar rotor lattices on near-term quantum devices. We also examine the utility of variational approaches for simulating planar rotor chains using these encodings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicQuantum many-body systemsFrench-language works237,207