MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753021805 · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aab6ba

Viewing vanilla quantum annealing through spin glasses

2018· article· en· W2753021805 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

VenueQuantum Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsQLT (Canada)
FundersIntelligence Advanced Research Projects ActivityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsQuantum annealingQubitHeuristicsQuantum computerComputer scienceQuantumSimulated annealingScope (computer science)Quadratic unconstrained binary optimizationComputer engineeringSpin glassPhysicsAlgorithmQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantum annealing promises to solve complex combinatorial optimization problems faster than current transistor-based computer technologies. Although to date only one commercially-available quantum annealer is procurable, one can already start to map out the application scope of these novel optimization machines. These mid-scale programmable analog special-purpose devices could, potentially, revolutionize optimization. However, their disruptive application domain remains to be found. While the commercial analog quantum optimization machine by D-Wave Systems Inc. already exceeds 1000 qubits, here it is argued that maybe smaller devices with better quality qubits, higher connectivity, and more tunability might be better suited to answer if quantum annealing will ever truly outperform specialized silicon technology combined with efficient heuristics for optimization and sampling applications.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.264 · 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