Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Dynamical model selection near the quantum-classical boundary
arXiv
Authors: Jason F. Ralph, Marko Toroš, Simon Maskell, Kurt Jacobs, Muddassar Rashid, Ashley J. Setter, Hendrik Ulbricht
Year
2017
Paper ID
24898
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
98
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We discuss a general method of model selection from experimentally recorded time-trace data. This method can be used to distinguish between quantum and classical dynamical models. It can be used in post-selection as well as for real-time analysis, and offers an alternative to statistical tests based on state-reconstruction methods. We examine the conditions that optimize quantum hypothesis testing, maximizing one's ability to discriminate between classical and quantum models. We set upper limits on the temperature and lower limits on the measurement efficiencies required to explore these differences, using a novel experiment in levitated optomechanical systems as an example.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2017 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We discuss a general method of model selection from experimentally recorded time-trace data.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.