MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975390844 · doi:10.1560/ijc_46_4_371

Optimal Algorithmic Cooling of Spins

2006· article· en· W1975390844 on OpenAlexaff
Yuval Elias, José M. Fernandez, Tal Mor, Yossi Weinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueIsrael Journal of Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinsChemistryMoleculeEntropy (arrow of time)Spin (aerodynamics)Statistical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsThermodynamicsCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Algorithmic cooling (AC)is a recent spin‐cooling approach that employs entropy compression methods inopen systems. AC reduces the entropy of spins on suitable molecules beyond Shannon's bound on the degree of entropy compression by reversible manipulations. Remarkably, AC makes use of thermalization, a generally destructive facet of spin systems, as an integral part of the cooling scheme. AC is capable of cooling spins to very low temperatures and provides significant cooling for molecules containing as few as 5–7 spins. Application of AC to slightly larger molecules could lead to breakthroughs in high‐sensitivity NMR spectroscopy in the near future. Furthermore, AC may be germane to the development of scalable NMR quantum computers. We introduce here a new practicable algorithm, “PAC3”, and several new exhaustive cooling algorithms, such as the Tribonacci andk‐bonacci algorithms. In particular, we present the “all‐bonacci” algorithm, which appears to reach the maximal degree of cooling obtainable by the optimal AC approach. AC is potentially beneficial for NMR‐derived biomedical applications, which involve bio‐molecules with isotope enrichments, such as 13 C‐ and 15 N‐labeled amino acids. We briefly survey AC experiments, including a recent 3‐spin experiment in which Shannon's bound was bypassed. The difficulties associated with cooling molecules bearing a greater number of spins are explained. Finally, the potential of selected cooling algorithms (practicable, exhaustive, and optimal algorithms) is illustrated with regard to a highly relevant bio‐medical target— 13 C‐labeled glucose.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsrael Journal of ChemistrySame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207