MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770478968 · doi:10.1103/physreve.97.043303

From near to eternity: Spin-glass planting, tiling puzzles, and constraint-satisfaction problems

2018· article· en· W2770478968 on OpenAlexaff
Firas Hamze, Darryl C. Jacob, Andrew J. Ochoa, Dilina Perera, Wenlong Wang, Helmut G. Katzgraber

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsD-Wave Systems (Canada)
FundersOffice of the Director of National IntelligenceIntelligence Advanced Research Projects ActivityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConstraint satisfaction problemMathematicsHamiltonian (control theory)Spin glassIsing modelCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsStatistical physicsQuantum mechanicsProbabilistic logicPhysicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a methodology for generating Ising Hamiltonians of tunable complexity and with a priori known ground states based on a decomposition of the model graph into edge-disjoint subgraphs. The idea is illustrated with a spin-glass model defined on a cubic lattice, where subproblems, whose couplers are restricted to the two values {-1,+1}, are specified on unit cubes and are parametrized by their local degeneracy. The construction is shown to be equivalent to a type of three-dimensional constraint-satisfaction problem known as the tiling puzzle. By varying the proportions of subproblem types, the Hamiltonian can span a dramatic range of typical computational complexity, from fairly easy to many orders of magnitude more difficult than prototypical bimodal and Gaussian spin glasses in three space dimensions. We corroborate this behavior via experiments with different algorithms and discuss generalizations and extensions to different types of graphs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207