Recent comments from SciRate

Matt Hastings May 28 2014 15:46 UTC

This does seem to be a rather strong notion of approximation (to within exponential accuracy).

Zoltán Zimborás May 28 2014 04:42 UTC

It's a bit funny to look at a formally verified proof of the CLT :), here it is online:
https://github.com/avigad/isabelle.

Jaiden Mispy May 23 2014 08:01 UTC

There's a nice summary of the context for this paper here: http://fioraaeterna.tumblr.com/post/56556056152/quasistars-a-real-life-black-hole-sun

Gerardo Adesso May 22 2014 06:38 UTC

This is not new. The same measure has been defined here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.1472

Omar Shehab May 13 2014 17:06 UTC

I am confused about the last paragraph of the section 2. To my knowledge Cleve et. al introduced the CHSH game. Clause et. al introduced only the inequality.

Juani Bermejo-Vega May 12 2014 13:15 UTC

+1 to MB

Or "Alan" and "Barbara", and then we have both Turing and a Turing Award recipient.

Independently, those of us who still use "Alice" and "Bob" could agree on replacing "Eve" (which has never been gender neutral) by "Elsevier".

Omar Shehab May 11 2014 15:50 UTC

It would have been nice if a measurement of randomness were presented.

M. B. Ruskai May 10 2014 01:57 UTC

By now someone should have told Yuen that Adam and Babe is sexist.

Why not Adam and Barbara?

Mark M. Wilde May 08 2014 08:59 UTC

"Adam" and "Babe" have been featured in previous papers of Horace Yuen.

Marco Tomamichel May 05 2014 06:42 UTC

One would think that repeating an old argument does not make it righter ;-) But at least this edition introduces Adam and Babe, an interesting variation on Alice and Bob.

Spiros May 02 2014 01:47 UTC

Dear Jaeyoon,

This is a very nice result. Condition 1 is reminiscent of the Local-TQO condition necessary for stability of frustration-free gapped Hamiltonians (see Corollary 3 and 4 in http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.1588). Local-TQO is supposed to be generic (see Section VI in http://arxiv.org/1306.4

...(continued)
Piotr Migdał Apr 18 2014 18:43 UTC

A podcast summarizing this paper, by Geoff Engelstein: [The Dice Tower # 351 - Dealing with the Mockers (43:55 - 50:36)](http://dicetower.coolstuffinc.com/tdt-351-dealing-with-the-mockers), and [an alternative link on the BoardGameGeek](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamepodcastepisode/117163/tdt-351

...(continued)
Matt Hastings Apr 09 2014 01:35 UTC

Glad the coarse-graining is clear now. Regarding separating out a qubit, my claim is not just that if sites 1,N are in a pure state one can separate out a qubit. I also claim that even if sites 1,N are in a mixed state of the form $\sum_{\text{correctable errors} E_1 \text{and} E_2} p(E_1,E_2) E_1

...(continued)
Ari Mizel Apr 08 2014 21:52 UTC

Thanks for clearing things up about the definition of coarse-graining; I guess I thought the name suggested some kind of real-space renormalization.

About separating out a qubit: I wrote that one expects "the result to be close to a mixed state like $∑_{\text{correctable errors } E_1 \text{ and }

...(continued)
Matt Hastings Apr 08 2014 00:09 UTC

Hi Ari, let me reply to your second point first, since I think there may be a misunderstanding about "coarse-graining". If we mistakenly treated the polylog chains as a single spin-1/2 chain, this would give an incorrect result, but I certainly did not suggest doing anything like that. Instead,if

...(continued)
Ari Mizel Apr 07 2014 21:19 UTC

Matt, I still take issue with the coarse-graining approach.

1) You wrote "When we say "close to maximal entanglement", we mean we can separate out a qubit from coarse-grained spin 1 and a qubit from coarse-grained spin N (let me stick to my notation) and those two qubits are close to maximally enta

...(continued)
Matt Hastings Apr 04 2014 21:34 UTC

One can indeed always ask this coarse-graining question, and one important issue is how strong the resulting interactions are. The coarse-graining itself is definitely well-defined, the question is whether one correctly treats the resulting 1d system. In this case, there is a variational argument

...(continued)
Ari Mizel Apr 04 2014 18:43 UTC

You raise an interesting question. It can perhaps be simplified slightly by imagining a quantum circuit that initializes 2 qubits to |0>, generates an EPR pair between qubits 1 and 2, then applies N-1 identity gates to qubit 2. The circuit can be turned into a fault-tolerant version of itself, and

...(continued)
Matt Hastings Apr 03 2014 18:32 UTC

I am curious about the following setting. Consider a quantum circuit that initializes N qubits to |0>, then generates an EPR pair in qubits 1 and 2, and then applies SWAPs to move the qubit from 2 to 3 to 4 to ... to N, leaving ultimately an EPR pair between 1 and N. This can be turned into some f

...(continued)
Jarrod McClean Apr 02 2014 18:33 UTC

Ryan is exactly correct. The method would work with any of the clock constructions, however we decided that the machinery they developed to make sure it was implementable in qubits was unnecessary overhead for a classical implementation, where having a qudit with large d does not present a great ch

...(continued)
Ari Mizel Apr 02 2014 18:04 UTC

Thanks for the remark, Steve. I do not have additional numerics, but I don't think that the translational invariance plays an important role in the spin-wave form of the excitations. I think that the local excitations approximately satisfy a tight-binding Hamiltonian with hopping between adjacent

...(continued)
Ari Mizel Apr 02 2014 17:58 UTC

Thanks for raising the issue, Aram. I think that Matt gave a good answer.

Reference [26] is just cited for the definition of the local stochastic fault model. Reference [25] is the relevant one for the issue you mention. I am confused as to why you say that reference [25] uses measurement. Th

...(continued)
Ari Mizel Apr 02 2014 17:50 UTC

Thanks for the comments, Matt. I am sincerely happy to hear about points that need clarification.

Ari Mizel Apr 02 2014 17:30 UTC

Thanks for the comments, Dave! Hope you are enjoying life at Google.

The "local stochastic excitation" error model is mathematically natural for the construction in the paper. Fault-tolerance against this error model is inherited immediately from the fault-tolerance of the standard gate model. (

...(continued)
Steve Flammia Apr 02 2014 02:33 UTC

I'm concerned that the spin-wave ansatz will fail to give a good approximation of the excitations as soon as the Hamiltonian is no longer translation invariant. If I understand correctly, the numerics were done for the T.I. case only. Does the author have non-T.I. numerics as well that support the s

...(continued)
Matt Hastings Apr 01 2014 22:58 UTC

Aram, I believe that the idea is to use the ability to initialize new qubits to a given state partway through the computation to make up for the absence of measurement. Note that in the usual circuit approach with faults, a qubit that is "idle" will still have faults applied to it at each time step

...(continued)
Aram Harrow Apr 01 2014 18:10 UTC

I am very worried about these sentences towards the top of page 3:

> Consider a quantum circuit C,...
> Assume that C involves no measurements and that C is fault-tolerant
> [25] against a local stochastic fault model [26].

We have known for a [long time][1] that FTQC requires either measuri

...(continued)
Dave Bacon Apr 01 2014 15:49 UTC

Great to see Ari continue to tackle this problem (I spent many wonderful hours with arxiv:1002.0846).

After reading this over a few times, I have a few questions about the first error model the paper considers. My understanding of this error model is as follows. Start with a fault-tolerant circ

...(continued)
Piotr Migdał Mar 25 2014 12:25 UTC

Maybe I should not bring political issues here, but the saddest thing here is the affiliation:

> Ward 350 of Evin Prison, Tehran, Iran

Read more on Wikipedia: [Omid Kokabee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omid_Kokabee).

Ryan Babbush Mar 23 2014 19:18 UTC

I'll let Jarrod correct me if he disagrees but I think the point Jarrod is making is that the original clocks of Feynman and Kitaev were designed with physical implementation in mind whereas this proposal is for a classical algorithm and as such, should not be measured by the same considerations (su

...(continued)
Māris Ozols Mar 22 2014 21:32 UTC

This is a significantly revised version of our paper.

The previous version titled ***Finding is as easy as detecting for quantum walks*** had a very subtle mistake, so the updated result is slightly weaker: it holds only for a single marked element. The updated version includes much more details

...(continued)
Omar Shehab Mar 22 2014 04:06 UTC

Jarrod,

Would there be any issue if you had used the original Feynman's clock or Kitaev's clock for simulating quantum systems classically?

Omar Shehab Mar 22 2014 00:28 UTC

Thank you for your quick reply. In that case, as long as we are using qubits for your scheme we should be good. Having said that I am afraid it may jeopardize the local structure recommended by Feynman to some extent.

Jarrod McClean Mar 21 2014 14:16 UTC

Thank you for your interest in our paper! The reason for the apparent discrepancy is that our paper is designed for classical simulation of quantum systems using ideas (namely Feynman's Clock) from quantum computation. When performing the simulation on a classical computer, the underlying qubit st

...(continued)
Omar Shehab Mar 21 2014 00:14 UTC

In equation 7 of the paper, the clock register is different from Feynman's original proposal. According to this paper, for a four clock steps quantum circuit, the sequence of the state of the clock register will be $|00\rangle \to |01\rangle \to |10\rangle \to |11\rangle$. It infers that we will nee

...(continued)
Juan Miguel Arrazola Mar 18 2014 14:27 UTC

It seems to me that for the architecture you propose, loss is a much more worrisome source of error than you make it appear in the paper. For example, in the paper by Rhode and Ralph that discusses sources of error in Boson Sampling, it is argued (roughly) that the interferometer may still be hard t

...(continued)
Omar Shehab Mar 18 2014 02:32 UTC

Is this the first experiment which uses the Eberhard inequality?

Alexander Belov Mar 15 2014 22:04 UTC

In the second version, all missing pieces of the first version are proven, and an explicit construction of the adversary matrix for the collision and the set equality problems is given.

Man-Hong Yung Mar 10 2014 10:14 UTC

I enjoyed reading this paper, which makes an interesting connection between quantum state preparation and Bayesian network; the latter is something I am not familiar with. Although this paper is well written, there is some overlap with the existing literature not covered, in particular the problem o

...(continued)
Man-Hong Yung Mar 10 2014 09:41 UTC

This is a very serious study of the performance of quantum computation for quantum chemistry. I personally believe that quantum chemistry is the "killer application" for quantum simulation; it involves much smaller scale quantum systems, compared with condensed matter systems.

I have one suggestio

...(continued)
Man-Hong Yung Mar 10 2014 09:06 UTC

I have no more excuse for not learning IPython for scientific-graph plotting. Thanks Noon!

Noon van der Silk Mar 08 2014 04:19 UTC

For fun, I created the following IPython notebook replicating the graphs in this paper: http://nbviewer.ipython.org/github/silky/paper_workings/blob/master/arxiv_1403.0069.ipynb.

(Actually, it's on the sagemath cloud, where if you have an account you can probably edit it - https://cloud.sagemath.

...(continued)
Marco Piani Mar 07 2014 14:46 UTC

The author writes "My ideas towards the proof of these results in this paper originates from the observations made by Carlen in [13]". Actually, the first main result is a direct corollary of theorem 2.3 of [13], in the sense of directly applying theorem 2.3 of [13], which regards monotonicity of re

...(continued)
Frédéric Grosshans Mar 05 2014 10:03 UTC

I read this paper as an appendix of an unwritten Fantasy novel, where a 21st century cosmologist is trapped in an alternate Aristotelian 13th century universe ! Thanks for the nice read !

Marco Tomamichel Jan 30 2013 02:49 UTC

Unofficial winner of the Best QIP 2013 Rump Session Talk award!

Marco Tomamichel Feb 05 2013 04:12 UTC

From their webpage: "If you have been dreaming of getting published, we might be able to help."

Marco Tomamichel Jun 25 2013 05:41 UTC

This is a very nice solution to our (very recent) conjecture. We have in the meantime solved the remaining conjectures and will post an update soon.

Nick Menicucci Oct 31 2013 02:49 UTC

Thanks, Seiji.

Yes, the required squeezing is quite high, and GKP states are really challenging to make. But you got the point: a threshold exists.

Therefore, with confidence, theorists can now work toward designing better protocols (which reduce the threshold and employ more practical encodin

...(continued)
Steve Flammia Aug 27 2012 17:49 UTC

I'm very impressed with this experiment! I have a question about how the parameter \epsilon was chosen for the compressed sensing estimator. What was the exact value that was chosen, and how was it chosen in relation to the data?

I'm also very pleased to see the compressed sensing estimator outp

...(continued)
Steve Flammia Feb 01 2013 02:37 UTC

We will look back at this day in history as the moment we hit "peak discord".