MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184665873 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_9

Constructing SAT Filters with a Quantum Annealer

2015· book-chapter· en· W2184665873 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

VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsD-Wave Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConstraint satisfaction problemContext (archaeology)Filter (signal processing)Constraint satisfactionFlexibility (engineering)Bloom filterAlgorithmConstraint (computer-aided design)Set (abstract data type)Theoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SAT filters are a novel and compact data structure that can be used to quickly query a word for membership in a fixed set. They have the potential to store more information in a fixed storage limit than a Bloom filter. Constructing a SAT filter requires sampling diverse solutions to randomly constructed constraint satisfaction instances, but there is flexibility in the choice of constraint satisfaction problem. Presented here is a case study of SAT filter construction with a focus on constraint satisfaction problems based on MAX-CUT clauses (Not-all-equal 3-SAT, 2-in-4-SAT, etc.) and frustrated cycles in the Ising model. Solutions are sampled using a D-Wave quantum annealer, and results are measured against classical approaches. The SAT variants studied are of interest in the context of SAT filters, independent of the solvers used.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0040.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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