MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590232898 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab2a9e

Quantum gradient descent and Newton’s method for constrained polynomial optimization

2019· preprint· en· W2590232898 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Rebentrost, Maria Schuld, Leonard Wossnig, Francesco Petruccione, Seth Lloyd

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsXanadu Quantum Technologies (Canada)
FundersArmy Research OfficeMinistry of Education - SingaporeNational Research Foundation SingaporeNational Research Foundation
KeywordsGradient descentMathematical optimizationMaxima and minimaQuantum phase estimation algorithmQuantumMathematicsDimension (graph theory)Quantum algorithmConvergence (economics)Descent directionComputer scienceNewton's method in optimizationOptimization problemQuantum computerAlgorithmIterative methodApplied mathematicsLocal convergenceQuantum error correctionArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Optimization problems in disciplines such as machine learning are commonly solved with iterative methods. Gradient descent algorithms find local minima by moving along the direction of steepest descent while Newton’s method takes into account curvature information and thereby often improves convergence. Here, we develop quantum versions of these iterative optimization algorithms and apply them to polynomial optimization with a unit norm constraint. In each step, multiple copies of the current candidate are used to improve the candidate using quantum phase estimation, an adapted quantum state exponentiation scheme, as well as quantum matrix multiplications and inversions. The required operations perform polylogarithmically in the dimension of the solution vector and exponentially in the number of iterations. Therefore, the quantum algorithm can be useful for high-dimensional problems where a small number of iterations is sufficient.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.277
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207