MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Determination of Ramsey Numbers

2013· article· en· W2069661173 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

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsD-Wave Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationRamsey's theoremAdiabatic processOrder (exchange)Quantum computerAdiabatic quantum computationQubitRamsey theoryStatistical physicsQuantumComputer sciencePhysicsQuantum mechanicsAlgorithmMathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ramsey theory is a highly active research area in mathematics that studies the emergence of order in large disordered structures. Ramsey numbers mark the threshold at which order first appears and are extremely difficult to calculate due to their explosive rate of growth. Recently, an algorithm that can be implemented using adiabatic quantum evolution has been proposed that calculates the two-color Ramsey numbers R(m,n). Here we present results of an experimental implementation of this algorithm and show that it correctly determines the Ramsey numbers R(3,3) and R(m,2) for 4≤m≤8. The R(8,2) computation used 84 qubits of which 28 were computational qubits. This computation is the largest experimental implementation of a scientifically meaningful adiabatic evolution algorithm that has been done to date.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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