MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770397365 · doi:10.1103/physreva.97.022337

Improved quantum backtracking algorithms using effective resistance estimates

2018· article· en· W2770397365 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Jarret, Kianna Wan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooPerimeter Institute
FundersOntario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
KeywordsCombinatoricsVertex (graph theory)MathematicsUpper and lower boundsQuantum algorithmBacktrackingTree (set theory)AlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsQuantumPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate quantum backtracking algorithms of the type introduced by Montanaro (Montanaro, arXiv:1509.02374). These algorithms explore trees of unknown structure and in certain settings exponentially outperform their classical counterparts. Some of the previous work focused on obtaining a quantum advantage for trees in which a unique marked vertex is promised to exist. We remove this restriction by recharacterizing the problem in terms of the effective resistance of the search space. In this paper, we present a generalization of one of Montanaro's algorithms to trees containing $k$ marked vertices, where $k$ is not necessarily known a priori. Our approach involves using amplitude estimation to determine a near-optimal weighting of a diffusion operator, which can then be applied to prepare a superposition state with support only on marked vertices and ancestors thereof. By repeatedly sampling this state and updating the input vertex, a marked vertex is reached in a logarithmic number of steps. The algorithm thereby achieves the conjectured bound of $\stackrel{\ifmmode \tilde{}\else \~{}\fi{}}{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{T{R}_{\mathrm{max}}})$ for finding a single marked vertex and $\stackrel{\ifmmode \tilde{}\else \~{}\fi{}}{\mathcal{O}}(k\sqrt{T{R}_{\mathrm{max}}})$ for finding all $k$ marked vertices, where $T$ is an upper bound on the tree size and ${R}_{\mathrm{max}}$ is the maximum effective resistance encountered by the algorithm. This constitutes a speedup over Montanaro's original procedure in both the case of finding one and the case of finding multiple marked vertices in an arbitrary tree.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207