Papers › Estimating the Percentage of GBS Advantage in Gaussian Expectation Problems
Estimating the Percentage of GBS Advantage in Gaussian Expectation Problems
Jørgen Ellegaard Andersen, Shan Shan
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Gaussian Boson Sampling (GBS), which can be realized with a photonic quantum computing model, perform some special kind of sampling tasks. In [4], we introduced algorithms that use GBS samples to approximate Gaussian expectation problems. We found a non-empty open subset of the problem space where these algorithms achieve exponential speedup over the standard Monte Carlo (MC) method. This speedup is defined in terms of the guaranteed sample size to reach the same accuracy ϵ and success probability δ under the (ϵ, δ) multiplicative error approximation scheme. In this paper, we enhance our original approach by optimizing the average photon number in the GBS distribution to match the specific Gaussian expectation problem. We provide updated estimates of the guaranteed sample size for these improved algorithms and quantify the proportion of problem space where they outperform MC. Numerical results indicate that the proportion of the problem space where our improved algorithms have an advantage is substantial, and the advantage gained is significant. Notably, for certain special cases, our methods consistently outperform MC across nearly 100\% of the problem space.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections