CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Pattern recognition techniques for Boson Sampling validation

Agresti, Iris, Viggianiello, Niko, Flamini, Fulvio, Spagnolo, Nicolò, Crespi, Andrea, Osellame, Roberto, Wiebe, Nathan, Sciarrino, Fabio·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1712.06863arXiv 1712.06863
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The difficulty of validating large-scale quantum devices, such as Boson Samplers, poses a major challenge for any research program that aims to show quantum advantages over classical hardware. To address this problem, we propose a novel data-driven approach wherein models are trained to identify common pathologies using unsupervised machine learning methods. We illustrate this idea by training a classifier that exploits K-means clustering to distinguish between Boson Samplers that use indistinguishable photons from those that do not. We train the model on numerical simulations of small-scale Boson Samplers and then validate the pattern recognition technique on larger numerical simulations as well as on photonic chips in both traditional Boson Sampling and scattershot experiments. The effectiveness of such method relies on particle-type-dependent internal correlations present in the output distributions. This approach performs substantially better on the test data than previous methods and underscores the ability to further generalize its operation beyond the scope of the examples that it was trained on.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1712.06863

Cites

Statistics

Figures

FIG. 1 Validation of boson-sampling experiments. An agent has to discriminate whether a finite sample obtained from an unknown device has been generated by a quantum device implementing the boson-sampling problem or by an alternative sampler.
FIG. 1 Validation of boson-sampling experiments. An agent has to discriminate whether a finite sample obtained from an unknown device has been generated by a quantum device implementing the boson-sampling problem or by an alternative sampler.CC-BY · From the PDF
FIG. 2 Pattern-recognition techniques for validation. (a) A sample is drawn from each of the two boson samplers to be compared. The events belonging to one of the two samples are partitioned according to the criteria of the pattern-recognition technique. (b),(c) Bubble clustering sorts the events according to their observation frequency, and the state with the highest frequency is chosen as the center of the first cluster: All events with a distance from the center smaller than a cutoff radius ρ 1 are included in this cluster (b). Then, starting from the unassigned events, this procedure is iterated until all of the observed events are included in some bubble. At this point, each cluster is characterized by a center and a radius (c). (d) The observed events belonging to the second sample are classified by using the structure tailored from the first sample: Each event belongs to the cluster with the nearest center. (e) A χ 2 test with ν ¼ N bubbles -1 d.o.f. is performed (here using K means) to compare the number of events belonging to each of the two samples [green, quantum (Q) with indistinguishable photons; orange, classical (C) with distinguishable photons; purple, mean-field state] by using the obtained cluster structure. This variable quantifies the compatibility between the samples.
FIG. 2 Pattern-recognition techniques for validation. (a) A sample is drawn from each of the two boson samplers to be compared. The events belonging to one of the two samples are partitioned according to the criteria of the pattern-recognition technique. (b),(c) Bubble clustering sorts the events according to their observation frequency, and the state with the highest frequency is chosen as the center of the first cluster: All events with a distance from the center smaller than a cutoff radius ρ 1 are included in this cluster (b). Then, starting from the unassigned events, this procedure is iterated until all of the observed events are included in some bubble. At this point, each cluster is characterized by a center and a radius (c). (d) The observed events belonging to the second sample are classified by using the structure tailored from the first sample: Each event belongs to the cluster with the nearest center. (e) A χ 2 test with ν ¼ N bubbles -1 d.o.f. is performed (here using K means) to compare the number of events belonging to each of the two samples [green, quantum (Q) with indistinguishable photons; orange, classical (C) with distinguishable photons; purple, mean-field state] by using the obtained cluster structure. This variable quantifies the compatibility between the samples.CC-BY · From the PDF
TABLE IV. Efficacy of K means++ for large-size boson sampling [cross-validation stage, step (ii.b)]. The algorithm is highly effective to discern quantum ( Q ) boson samplers from classical ( C ) and mean-field states ( MF ), even for a large number of photons n and modes m and using very small sample sizes ( N ) as compared to the number of output combinations. For all probed ( n , m ), K means correctly identifies the nature of the Q sample, while, when tested with adversarial samples, it still correctly identifies all their instances after proper training. K means is initialized by K means++, with optimized hyperparameters and majority voting. Numerical samples of bona fide boson samplers are generated using the algorithm by Clifford and Clifford [58].
TABLE IV. Efficacy of K means++ for large-size boson sampling [cross-validation stage, step (ii.b)]. The algorithm is highly effective to discern quantum ( Q ) boson samplers from classical ( C ) and mean-field states ( MF ), even for a large number of photons n and modes m and using very small sample sizes ( N ) as compared to the number of output combinations. For all probed ( n , m ), K means correctly identifies the nature of the Q sample, while, when tested with adversarial samples, it still correctly identifies all their instances after proper training. K means is initialized by K means++, with optimized hyperparameters and majority voting. Numerical samples of bona fide boson samplers are generated using the algorithm by Clifford and Clifford [58].CC-BY · From the PDF
FIG. 3 Test accuracy versus number of clusters and sample size. The compatibility test based on K means improves its accuracy (ratio of correct assessments) with the number of samples N and clusters K . Hence, instead of fine-tuning K for each ( n , m ), we can directly set the hyperparameter to a large value, say, ð m= 2 Þ ≤ K ≤ m , with negligible computational overhead [56]. This feature is investigated by numerically sampling N ¼ 5 × 10 3 (a) or N ¼ 10 4 (b) photonic states with n ¼ 6 , 8, 10 photons in m ¼ n 2 modes. Accuracies are estimated by applying the test to numerically simulated experiments with both indistinguishable and distinguishable photons from 200 Haar-random unitary transformations. Points are connected for the sake of clarity. (c) Contour plot for the accuracy in excluding classical boson sampling in the harder instance of n ¼ 3 distinguishable photons in m ¼ 100 modes, for different values of K and N . Colors describe the efficacy of the test, from red (poor) to green (perfect). All tests are performed considering a significance level of 5% for the χ 2 test and using K means.
FIG. 3 Test accuracy versus number of clusters and sample size. The compatibility test based on K means improves its accuracy (ratio of correct assessments) with the number of samples N and clusters K . Hence, instead of fine-tuning K for each ( n , m ), we can directly set the hyperparameter to a large value, say, ð m= 2 Þ ≤ K ≤ m , with negligible computational overhead [56]. This feature is investigated by numerically sampling N ¼ 5 × 10 3 (a) or N ¼ 10 4 (b) photonic states with n ¼ 6 , 8, 10 photons in m ¼ n 2 modes. Accuracies are estimated by applying the test to numerically simulated experiments with both indistinguishable and distinguishable photons from 200 Haar-random unitary transformations. Points are connected for the sake of clarity. (c) Contour plot for the accuracy in excluding classical boson sampling in the harder instance of n ¼ 3 distinguishable photons in m ¼ 100 modes, for different values of K and N . Colors describe the efficacy of the test, from red (poor) to green (perfect). All tests are performed considering a significance level of 5% for the χ 2 test and using K means.CC-BY · From the PDF
FIG. 4 Experimental validation of boson-sampling experiments. Experimental setups for an n ¼ 3 standard (a) and scatter-shot (b) boson-sampling experiments in an integrated m ¼ 13 interferometer (see Supplemental Material [53]). Bottom insets: The corresponding success probabilities of the compatibility test between inputs with indistinguishable and distinguishable photons for different sample sizes. (a) Black and orange dots refer, respectively, to K means++ with majority voting and bubble clustering. The discrepancy from the numerical results in Table III is due to the nonideal indistinguishability of the injected photons [60]. (b) Input states are generated probabilistically by six independent parametric down-conversion sources (represented as boxes) in three different BBO crystals Ci (see the inset). Experimental data correspond to eight different inputs. The number of events for all input states randomly varies for each sample size drawn from the complete data set. The clustering algorithm is K means, initialized by K means++, with majority voting. In both panels: BBO, beta barium borate crystal; IF, interferential filter; PBS, polarizing beam splitter; PC, polarization controller; FA, fiber array. Tests are performed with a significance level of 5% and using d ¼ L 2 .
FIG. 4 Experimental validation of boson-sampling experiments. Experimental setups for an n ¼ 3 standard (a) and scatter-shot (b) boson-sampling experiments in an integrated m ¼ 13 interferometer (see Supplemental Material [53]). Bottom insets: The corresponding success probabilities of the compatibility test between inputs with indistinguishable and distinguishable photons for different sample sizes. (a) Black and orange dots refer, respectively, to K means++ with majority voting and bubble clustering. The discrepancy from the numerical results in Table III is due to the nonideal indistinguishability of the injected photons [60]. (b) Input states are generated probabilistically by six independent parametric down-conversion sources (represented as boxes) in three different BBO crystals Ci (see the inset). Experimental data correspond to eight different inputs. The number of events for all input states randomly varies for each sample size drawn from the complete data set. The clustering algorithm is K means, initialized by K means++, with majority voting. In both panels: BBO, beta barium borate crystal; IF, interferential filter; PBS, polarizing beam splitter; PC, polarization controller; FA, fiber array. Tests are performed with a significance level of 5% and using d ¼ L 2 .CC-BY · From the PDF
FIG. 5 Analysis of the structure of the distributions. (a),(b) Probability distributions for a fixed unitary U in the case of indistinguishable (blue) and distinguishable (red) photons. (a) n ¼ 4 , m ¼ 40 and (b) n ¼ 5 , m ¼ 50 . The distributions are sorted by following the same ordering so as to have decreasing probability values for the indistinguishable distribution Pi . Inset: Enlargement corresponding to the 1000 most probable output states. (c) Cumulative distributions for indistinguishable (blue) and distinguishable (red) photons, by following the same ordering as (a),(b). Solid lines, n ¼ 4 , m ¼ 40 . Dashed lines, n ¼ 5 , m ¼ 50 . Black lines highlight the levels corresponding to 50% and 80% of the overall probability, which require approximately twice the number of output states in the distinguishable case. Inset: Enlargement corresponding to the 0.01% most probable output states. (d),(e) In the m -dimensional vector space where K means is performed on quantum (Q) and classical (C) samples, centroids tend to be located where the output modes have a high probability averaged over the input modes. This property is signaled by a vector with one coordinate, out of m for a Fock state, significantly higher than the others. Zeroing the small ones out yields a plot analogous to the one shown here for ten clusters with (d) n ¼ 4 , m ¼ 40 and (e) n ¼ 5 , m ¼ 50 . (f) -(k) Histograms of the ratios Rp ð k Þ (cyan) and Rq ð k Þ (orange) between the overall probability included within a sphere of L 1 -norm ≤ k . (f),(h) n ¼ 4 , m ¼ 40 . (i) -(k) n ¼ 5 , m ¼ 50 . Vertical lines correspond to the averages h Rx ð k Þi , with x ¼ p (blue) and x ¼ q (red). (f),(i) k ¼ 2 , (g),(j) k ¼ 4 , and (h),(k) k ¼ 6 . Insets: Schematic view of the spheres at a distance ≤ k , represented by concentric circles, where states are represented by brown points.
FIG. 5 Analysis of the structure of the distributions. (a),(b) Probability distributions for a fixed unitary U in the case of indistinguishable (blue) and distinguishable (red) photons. (a) n ¼ 4 , m ¼ 40 and (b) n ¼ 5 , m ¼ 50 . The distributions are sorted by following the same ordering so as to have decreasing probability values for the indistinguishable distribution Pi . Inset: Enlargement corresponding to the 1000 most probable output states. (c) Cumulative distributions for indistinguishable (blue) and distinguishable (red) photons, by following the same ordering as (a),(b). Solid lines, n ¼ 4 , m ¼ 40 . Dashed lines, n ¼ 5 , m ¼ 50 . Black lines highlight the levels corresponding to 50% and 80% of the overall probability, which require approximately twice the number of output states in the distinguishable case. Inset: Enlargement corresponding to the 0.01% most probable output states. (d),(e) In the m -dimensional vector space where K means is performed on quantum (Q) and classical (C) samples, centroids tend to be located where the output modes have a high probability averaged over the input modes. This property is signaled by a vector with one coordinate, out of m for a Fock state, significantly higher than the others. Zeroing the small ones out yields a plot analogous to the one shown here for ten clusters with (d) n ¼ 4 , m ¼ 40 and (e) n ¼ 5 , m ¼ 50 . (f) -(k) Histograms of the ratios Rp ð k Þ (cyan) and Rq ð k Þ (orange) between the overall probability included within a sphere of L 1 -norm ≤ k . (f),(h) n ¼ 4 , m ¼ 40 . (i) -(k) n ¼ 5 , m ¼ 50 . Vertical lines correspond to the averages h Rx ð k Þi , with x ¼ p (blue) and x ¼ q (red). (f),(i) k ¼ 2 , (g),(j) k ¼ 4 , and (h),(k) k ¼ 6 . Insets: Schematic view of the spheres at a distance ≤ k , represented by concentric circles, where states are represented by brown points.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. P. W. Shor, Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Fac- torization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Com- puter, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 26, 1484 (1997). · DOI · Paper page
  2. M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, An Introduction to Quantum Machine Learning, Contemp. Phys. 56, 172 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  3. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and J. Biamonte, Quantum Machine Learning, Nature (London) 549, 195 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  4. R. Feynman, Simulating Physics with Computers, J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982). · DOI · Paper page
  5. S. Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996). · DOI · Paper page
  6. M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. J. Shepherd, Average- Case Complexity versus Approximate Simulation of Com- muting Quantum Computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 080501 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  7. M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. Shepherd, Achieving Quantum Supremacy with Sparse and Noisy Commuting Quantum Computations, Quantum 1, 8 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  8. X. Gao, S.-T. Wang, and L.-M. Duan, Quantum Supremacy for Simulating a Translation-Invariant Ising Spin Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 040502 (2017). · DOI
  9. J. Bermejo-Vega, D. Hangleiter, M. Schwarz, R. Raussendorf, and J. Eisert, Architectures for Quantum Simulation Showing a Quantum Speedup, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021010 (2018). · DOI
  10. S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Characterizing Quantum Supremacy in Near-Term Devi- ces, Nat. Phys. 14, 595 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  11. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complex- ity of linear optics, in Proceedings of the Forty-third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '11, San Jose, California (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2011), pp. 333-342.
  12. M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, S. Rahimi-Keshari, J. Dove, S. Aaronson, T. C. Ralph, and A. G. White, Photonic Boson Sampling in a Tunable Circuit, Science 339, 794 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  13. J. B. Spring, B. J. Metcalf, P. C. Humphreys, W. S. Kolthammer, X.-M. Jin, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, N. Thomas- Peter, N. K. Langford, D. Kundys, J. C. Gates, B. J. Smith, P. G. R. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Boson Sampling on a Photonic Chip, Science 339, 798 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  14. M. Tillmann, B. Dakic, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Szameit, and P. Walther, Experimental Boson Sampling, Nat. Pho- tonics 7, 540 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  15. A. Crespi, R. Osellame, R. Ramponi, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galvao, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, E. Maiorino, P. Mataloni, and F. Sciarrino, Integrated Multimode Interferometers with Arbitrary Designs for Photonic Boson Sampling, Nat. Photonics 7, 545 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  16. N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Sansoni, E. Maiorino, P. Mataloni, F. Sciarrino, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galvao, A. Crespi, R. Ramponi, and R. Osellame, General Rules for Bosonic Bunching in Multimode Interferometers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 130503 (2013). · DOI
  17. N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, M. Bentivegna, D. J. Brod, A. Crespi, F. Flamini, S. Giacomini, G. Milani, R. Ramponi, P. Mataloni, R. Osellame, E. F. Galvao, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental Validation of Photonic Boson Sampling, Nat. Photonics 8, 615 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  18. J. Carolan, J. D. A. Meinecke, P. J. Shadbolt, N. J. Russell, N. Ismail, K. Worhoff, T. Rudolph, M. G. Thompson, J. L. O'Brien, J. C. F. Matthews, and A. Laing, On the Exper- imental Verification of Quantum Complexity in Linear Optics, Nat. Photonics 8, 621 (2014). · DOI
  19. A. P. Lund, A. Laing, S. Rahimi-Keshari, T. Rudolph, J. L. OBrien, and T. C. Ralph, Boson Sampling from a Gaussian State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 100502 (2014). · DOI
  20. M. Bentivegna, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, F. Flamini, N. Viggianiello, L. Latmiral, P. Mataloni, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galvao, A. Crespi, R. Ramponi, R. Osellame, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental Scattershot Boson Sampling, Sci. Adv. 1, e1400255 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  21. J. Carolan, C. Harrold, C. Sparrow, E. Martin-Lopez, N. J. Russell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Matsuda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh, G. D. Marshall, M. G. Thompson, J. C. F. Matthews, T. Hashimoto, J. L. O'Brien, and A. Laing, Universal Linear Optics, Science 349, 711 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  22. J. C. Loredo, M. A. Broome, P. Hilaire, O. Gazzano, I. Sagnes, A. Lemaitre, M. P. Almeida, P. Senellart, and A. G. White, Boson Sampling with Single-Photon Fock States from a Bright Solid-State Source, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 130503 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Y. He, X. Ding, Z.-E. Su, H.-L. Huang, J. Qin, C. Wang, S. Unsleber, C. Chen, H. Wang, Y.-M. He, X.-L. Wang, W.-J. Zhang, S.-J. Chen, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, L.-X. You, Z. Wang, S. Hofling, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Time-Bin- Encoded Boson Sampling with a Single-Photon Device, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 190501 (2017). · DOI
  24. H. Wang, Y. He, Y.-H. Li, Z.-E. Su, B. Li, H.-L. Huang, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, C. Liu, J. Qin, J.-P. Li, Y.-M. He, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, C.-Z. Peng, S. Hofling, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, High-Efficiency Multiphoton Boson Sampling, Nat. Photonics 11, 361 (2017). · DOI
  25. H. Wang, W. Li, X. Jiang, Y.-M. He, Y.-H. Li, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, J. Qin, C.-Z. Peng, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, L.-X. You, Z. Wang, J. P. Dowling, S. Hofling, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Toward Scalable Boson Sampling with Photon Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 230502 (2018). · DOI
  26. C. Shen, Z. Zhang, and L. M. Duan, Scalable Implementa- tion of Boson Sampling with Trapped Ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 050504 (2014). · DOI
  27. C. Gogolin, M. Kliesch, L. Aolita, and J. Eisert, Boson- Sampling in the Light of Sample Complexity, arXiv: 1306.3995. · arXiv
  28. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, Boson Sampling Is Far from Uniform, Quantum Inf. Comput. 14, 1383 (2014).
  29. N. Wiebe, Using Quantum Computing to Learn Physics, Bull. EATCS 112, 1 (2014).
  30. L. Aolita, C. Gogolin, M. Kliesch, and J. Eisert, Reliable Quantum Certification of Photonic State Preparations, Nat. Commun. 6, 8498 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  31. C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of Subpicosecond Time Intervals between Two Photons by Interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987). · DOI · Paper page
  32. A. J. Menssen, A. E. Jones, B. J. Metcalf, M. C. Tichy, S. Barz, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Distinguish- ability and Many-Particle Interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 153603 (2017). · DOI
  33. M. Bentivegna, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, D. J. Brod, A. Crespi, F. Flamini, R. Ramponi, P. Mataloni, R. Osellame, E. F. Galvao, and F. Sciarrino, Bayesian Approach to Boson Sampling Validation, Int. J. Quantum. Inform. 12, 1560028 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  34. N. Viggianiello, F. Flamini, M. Bentivegna, N. Spagnolo, A. Crespi, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galvao, R. Osellame, and F. Sciarrino, Optimal Photonic Indistinguishability Tests in Multimode Networks, Sci. Bull. 63, 1470 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  35. V. S. Shchesnovich, Universality of Generalized Bunching and Efficient Assessment of Boson Sampling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 123601 (2016). · DOI
  36. M. Walschaers, J. Kuipers, J.-D. Urbina, K. Mayer, M. C. Tichy, K. Richter, and A. Buchleitner, Statistical Benchmark for Boson Sampling, New J. Phys. 18, 032001 (2016). · DOI
  37. M. Bentivegna, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Is My Boson Sampler Working?, New J. Phys. 18, 041001 (2016). · DOI
  38. K. Liu, A. P. Lund, Y.-J. Gu, and T. C. Ralph, A Certifi- cation Scheme for the Boson Sampler, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 33, 1835 (2016). · DOI
  39. T. Giordani, F. Flamini, M. Pompili, N. Viggianiello, N. Spagnolo, A. Crespi, R. Osellame, N. Wiebe, M. Walschaers, A. Buchleitner, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental Statistical Signature of Many-Body Quantum Interference, Nat. Pho- tonics 12, 173 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  40. C. Dittel, R. Keil, and G. Weihs, Many-Body Quantum Interference on Hypercubes, Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 1 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  41. C. Dittel, G. Dufour, M. Walschaers, G. Weihs, A. Buchleitner, and R. Keil, Totally Destructive Many-Particle Interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 240404 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  42. N. Viggianiello, F. Flamini, L. Innocenti, D. Cozzolino, M. Bentivegna, N. Spagnolo, A. Crespi, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galvao, R. Osellame, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental Generalized Quantum Suppression Law in Sylvester Inter- ferometers, New J. Phys. 20, 033017 (2018). · DOI
  43. M. C. Tichy, K. Mayer, A. Buchleitner, and K. Molmer, Stringent and Efficient Assessment of Boson-Sampling Devices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020502 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  44. A. Crespi, Suppression law for Multiparticle Interference in Sylvester Interferometers, Phys. Rev. A 91, 013811 (2015). · DOI
  45. A. Crespi, R. Osellame, R. Ramponi, M. Bentivegna, F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, N. Viggianiello, L. Innocenti, P. Mataloni, and F. Sciarrino, Suppression Law of Quantum States in a 3D Photonic Fast Fourier Transform Chip, Nat. Commun. 7, 10469 (2016). · DOI
  46. S. T. Wang and L.-M. Duan, Certification of Boson Sam- pling Devices with Coarse-Grained Measurements, arXiv: 1601.02627. · arXiv
  47. L. G. Valiant, The Complexity of Computing the Permanent, Theor. Comput. Sci. 8, 189 (1979). · DOI · Paper page
  48. S. Scheel, Permanent in Linear Optical Networks, arXiv: quant-ph/0406127. · arXiv
  49. P. Simon, Too Big to Ignore: The Business Case for Big Data (Wiley, New York, 2013).
  50. C. M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Springer, New York, 2006).
  51. K. P. Murphy, Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspec- tive (MIT, Cambridge, MA, 2012).
  52. L. Rokach and O. Maimon, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook (Springer, New York, 2005), Chap. Clustering Methods.
  53. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/ supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011013 for more details on the validation algorithm, on the data analysis, and on the experimental apparatus. · DOI · Paper page
  54. J. MacQueen, Some Methods for Classification and Analy- sis of Multivariate Observations, in Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Prob- ability (University of California, Berkeley, 1967), Vol. 1, pp. 281-297.
  55. E. W. Forgy, Cluster Analysis of Multivariate Data: Effi- ciency versus Interpretability of Classifications, Biometrics 21, 768 (1965).
  56. S. P. Lloyd, Least squares quantization in PCM, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 28, 129 (1982). · DOI · Paper page
  57. P. Clifford and R. Clifford, The Classical Complexity of Boson Sampling, in SODA '18: Proceedings of the 29th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SIAM (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2018), pp. 146-155.
  58. R. Gattass and E. Mazur, Femtosecond Laser Micromachin- ing in Transparent Materials, Nat. Photonics 2, 219 (2008). · DOI
  59. N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, L. Aparo, P. Mataloni, F. Sciarrino, A. Crespi, R. Osellame, and R. Ramponi, Three-Photon Bosonic Coalescence in an Integrated Tritter, Nat. Com- mun. 4, 1606 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  60. S. Aaronson and D. J. Brod, Boson Sampling with Lost Photons, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012335 (2016). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Agresti, I., Viggianiello, N., Flamini, F., Spagnolo, N., Crespi, A., Osellame, R., Wiebe, N., & Sciarrino, F.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1712.06863
arXiv
1712.06863
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review