Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many natural problems in quantum computing involve constructing a quantum state or implementing a unitary transformation. However, relatively little is known about the computational complexity of these problems compared to that of computing boolean functions. In this thesis we do the following:• We prove upper bounds on the complexity of constructing arbitrary states and implementing arbitrary unitaries with the help of a classical oracle. • We prove bounds on the complexity of computing parity in QAC0, a quantum analogue of AC0, by way of a reduction to the task of constructing a certain type of state. • We prove upper bounds on the circuit size and depth required to construct arbitrary states and implement arbitrary unitaries, in various quantum circuit models. Many of these bounds are tight. • We define models of interactive proofs for constructing states and implementing unitaries with the help of an untrusted prover. We prove a quantum state analogue of the inclusion PSPACE ⊆ QIP, and obtain somewhat analogous results for unitaries and with multiple entangled provers. • We present barriers to improving several of the above results.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".