This dataset is now available as a pandas DataFrame here: https://github.com/QAOAKit/QAOAKit
Example use: https://github.com/QAOAKit/QAOAKit/blob/master/examples/Tackling%20open%20problems.ipynb
This dataset is now available as a pandas DataFrame here:
https://github.com/QAOAKit/QAOAKitExample use:
https://github.com/QAOAKit/QAOAKit/blob/master/examples/Transferability%20to%20unseen%20instances.ipynb
I wrote a short summary on the arXiv wiki: https://arxiv.wiki/abs/2108.12477
Thank you very much for posting the code that goes along with this paper. In your "Code and Data" section, you link to https://github.com/LBNL-HEP-QIS/activereadouterrors when it should be https://github.com/LBNL-HEP-QIS/ReadoutErrors.
...(continued)Indeed, thanks for clarifying this. Going a bit off-topic, let me briefly summarise the important points: Being a group is very restrictive for a unitary design, as e.g. there is a only one finite group $t$-design for $t\geq 4$ which is in dimension $d=2$ for $t=5$. For quantum info purposes, even $
...(continued)Thanks, Markus, for spreading the word about the Bannai et al. paper (I was very surprised by it when it was brought to my attention by Jonas Helsen). Just in case somebody reads this without having a look at one of the papers afterwards: Bannai et al. enumerate all t-designs **that are also finite
...(continued)Dear Markus,
Thank you for alerting us to Banai's work and your translation of the key implications for quantum information. We will modify the "folklore" statement in the introduction and add a statement that we provide an explicit, self-contained, and intuitive proof, which is useful because th
...(continued)As the authors point out, there is indeed some confusion in the community about why the distinction between prime and non-prime dimension is important when dealing with the Clifford group (and, in fact, the stabiliser formalism overall). In fact, one has to be very careful when dealing with the non-
Intriguing result! I'm curious as to the hint in the outline of the paper at the existence of a conclusion with "open research problems," but I can't seem to find it. Did it perhaps get left out? Or maybe the open questions got resolved by the final draft? :)
...(continued)Hi Wojciech! Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
I think both of the points you raise are valid. Regarding the first point, it might indeed be possible to escape my trilemma in IVC using an argument along the lines of the one you suggest. However, it raises the question of what it means to say "t
https://journals.aps.org/prapplied/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.15.044033
...(continued)Hi Igor,
I am not sure you or your coauthors will read this message. Anyway, very nice work!
I think I agree with all your arguments and your way of reasoning. In fact, considering also the thesis of Baym and Ozawa [10], we also did not claim that the Gedankenexperiment in our work [9] was a
This work is now published. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ac0755
Just before posting we realised Sandy Irani and Dorit Aharonov found similar results to ours independently. Their work is posted simultaneously here: https://scirate.com/arxiv/2107.06201
...(continued)There is a new version of this work in which we consider, additionally to the routing protocol, a BB84-like single qubit protocol for position verification and prove that it is secure under the same conditions as the routing protocol (Section 4). Both protocols have their pros and cons regarding app
...(continued)Dear Jacques,
It is - as usually - a huge and tasty piece of food for thought! As for now I have 2 comments I dare to leave here:
First, the line of reasoning from IVC seems misleading - or rather, it is not a dead-end corridor as you seem to picture it. Let me recapitulate IVC in the light o
...(continued)You have done some actions - and those had to be done *by yourself* - so now sth exists. Could this meet ,,one of the common [sic] definitions of solipsism''?
BTW, what if such things with arXiv are not just some trivial arXiv-engine bugs but a kind of truly profound glitches? Perhaps a sign that
...(continued)No, it'll surely fail to spot it. It isn't even capable to consistently spot arxiv citations in bibliographies. For instance, [arXiv:2006.02790][1] had cited [arXiv:1810.13401][2] and [arXiv:1912.07554][3] but Google Scholar didn't spot that.
[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.02790
[2]: http
This will be an interesting test case for Google Scholar: Will it be clever enough to spot the pointer to [arXiv:2107.00670](https://scirate.com/arxiv/2107.00670) that is given in the text but not the bibliography?
...(continued)Well, regarding the possibility we have become smarter I have plenty of evidence to the contrary (for both of us!)
Whats going on in terms of the explicit constructions we use is simple enough I'm reasonably sure its correct. But when I think of viewing this kind of computation from 30000 feet
But suppose that you have become even smarter in the last 15 years. Then your old conjecture was correct! Does this really prove "STP=BQP"? If so, amazing!
We've revisted this Matt and shown that even with only a source of maximally mixed single qubit states its possible to generate a resource sufficient for the rest of our construction to go through: https://scirate.com/arxiv/2107.03239
Sometimes, if you're quick, you can catch the paper before it's been compiled by arXiv (I think they do it at least partially on-demand); but I've never seen a true error before (pretty good comment on the arXiv's technical implementation, to be honest!)
I couldn't compile it from arXiv either, but arXiv vanity worked: https://arxiv-vanity.com/papers/2107.00670. Now the PDF works too! I think I might have seen this before but I forget when/where.
When I first tried to open this, the arXiv gave me a "could not compile the LaTeX" error message that I'd never seen before. I downloaded the source myself and compiled it to PDF without any trouble, and it seems to be working on the arXiv now too. Has anyone seen an error like that before?
...(continued)Hi Michal,
Thank you very much for sharing your great work, which we were unfortunately not aware of. The route you followed towards universality by studying fermionic linear optics + non-quadratic Hamiltonian is one we actually considered initially before deciding to shift strategies, so this is
...(continued)A very interesting work! I wanted to point out however that in
https://scirate.com/arxiv/1705.11188
we studied generic universal gate sets for particle-conserving fermionic unitaries. In particular, we classified all unitary transformations that promote the so-called passive fermionic linear
Beautiful work, bravo!
Glad I could bring a little fun to your day! :-)
Thanks for sharing your notes Blake! It's always fun to read you ;)
I'd had some notes kicking around a bit before someone mentioned that *Helgoland* had been translated into English and said some pertinent things. Maybe the book was a nudge for them, too.
But this time it seems there could be a pretty obvious - even if hidden - (Reichenbachian) common cause: Helgoland (esp. its recent English edition) by Rovelli. No mysterious synchronicity in here...
...(continued)Hey, nice work! I'd like to advertise to the community a little cute fact, first found in https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00220-021-03988-1 and re-discovered here (with credit given to the above paper): *feed into a 50:50 beam splitter a product state -- any product state; trace out one o
Well, this is a fun bit of synchronicity! On Wednesday, I had posted some [informal notes about RQM](https://www.sunclipse.org/?p=3016) that grew out of a recent discussion group. The issues of consistency between observers and of how to define measurement timing stuck out to me.
...(continued)In that paper we conjectured:
*It is possible that via a smarter encoding than these authors are capable of finding, it might be possible to perform quantum computation with J-measurements and only one or two different types of initial state.*It wouldn't surprise me if this model isn't equiv
Link to github: [https://github.com/saforem2/l2hmc-qcd](https://github.com/saforem2/l2hmc-qcd)
Thanks for that reference. It relies on having a source of many copies of 3 different states. It is much closer to our model, but still seems not to answer the question.
Yes definitely different than the exchange interaction only work (though clearly the representation theory of the symmetric group is both our friend). But doesn’t this paper answer the question about the power of the model https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503151 ?
This time no fisherman's story?
Thank you for the reference, btw. We used in our paper a particular encoding of a qubit as part of proving PostSTP=PostBQP, but perhaps the reference you mentioned gives another encoding that can be used as well. I need to look at it in more detail.
Hi Matt, yes, right, thanks for clarifying.
...(continued)If I understand correctly, that paper considers unitary evolution under the exchange interaction with controllable time-dependent couplings. In particular, unitary gates exp(i J \vec S_1 \cdot \vec S_2), with J controllable. We consider only a much smaller set of operations: just measuring in s/t
There are early papers which show that the SU(2)-invariant exchange interaction suffices for universal QC (and measuring in the singlet-triplet basis), see https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0005116.pdf so would that work not answer the conjecture?
What a fantastically written review! Very much enjoyed reading this.
This has been an incredibly helpful guide! I very much recommend it.
Makes sense, thanks! In the future I expect we'll try to publish some more code for using and analyzing the THC qubitization approach via OpenFermion, in order to at least make that technique a bit more accessible.
...(continued)I recently came across this interesting paper (and subsequent work by Aharonov et al. on quantum algorithmic measurements). I wonder if the idea (in this 1610.09619) is in any way similar to the theory in Higgins et al., Nature 450, 393 (2007) (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06257), which als
Braneshop, and
the US National Science Foundation.
SciRate