MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1624997067 · doi:10.1017/s0960129518000051

The quantum walk search algorithm: factors affecting efficiency

2018· article· en· W1624997067 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Structures in Computer Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurse of dimensionalityQuantum walkDimension (graph theory)Symmetry (geometry)QuantumCarry (investment)Current (fluid)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We carry out a numerical study of the quantum walk search algorithm of Shenvi, Kempe and Whaley Shenvi et al. (2003) and the factors that affect its efficiency in finding an individual state from an unsorted set. Previous work has focused purely on the effects of the dimensionality of the dataset to be searched. In the current paper we consider the effects of interpolating between dimensions, the connectivity of the dataset and the possibility of disorder in the underlying substrate: all these factors affect the efficiency of the search algorithm. We show that in addition to the strong dependence on the spatial dimension of the structure to be searched, there are also secondary dependencies on the connectivity and symmetry of the lattice, with greater connectivity providing a more efficient algorithm. We also show that the algorithm can tolerate a non-trivial level of disorder in the underlying substrate.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it