MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6979372928

A complexity theory for non-local quantum computation

2025· article· en· W6979372928 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRandom lasers and scattering media
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaUK Research and InnovationAlfred P. Sloan FoundationAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsComputationClass (philosophy)Complexity classOverhead (engineering)Mathematical proofQuantum complexity theoryQuantum entanglementCommunication complexity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-local quantum computation (NLQC) replaces a local interaction between two systems with a single round of communication and shared entanglement. Despite many partial results, it is known that a characterization of entanglement cost in at least certain NLQC tasks would imply significant breakthroughs in complexity theory. Here, we avoid these obstructions and take an indirect approach to understanding resource requirements in NLQC, which mimics the approach used by complexity theorists: we study the relative hardness of different NLQC tasks by identifying resource efficient reductions between them. Most significantly, we prove that $f$-measure and $f$-route, the two best studied NLQC tasks, are in fact equivalent under $O(1)$ overhead reductions. This result simplifies many existing proofs in the literature and extends several new properties to $f$-measure. For instance, we obtain sub-exponential upper bounds on $f$-measure for all functions, and efficient protocols for functions in the complexity class $\mathsf{Mod}_k\mathsf{L}$. Beyond this, we study a number of other examples of NLQC tasks and their relationships.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicRandom lasers and scattering mediaFrench-language works237,207