MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794488470 · doi:10.1103/physreva.97.032344

Quantum speedup in solving the maximal-clique problem

2018· article· en· W2794488470 on OpenAlexaff
Weng-Long Chang, Qi Yu, Zhaokai Li, Jiahui Chen, Xinhua Peng, Mang Feng

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCliqueClique graphClique problemCombinatoricsQuantum walkQuantum computerSpeedupQuantum algorithmMathematicsQuantumGraphDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsPhysicsGraph powerLine graphPathwidth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maximal-clique problem, to find the maximally sized clique in a given graph, is classically an NP-complete computational problem, which has potential applications ranging from electrical engineering, computational chemistry, and bioinformatics to social networks. Here we develop a quantum algorithm to solve the maximal-clique problem for any graph $G$ with $n$ vertices with quadratic speedup over its classical counterparts, where the time and spatial complexities are reduced to, respectively, $O(\sqrt{{2}^{n}})$ and $O({n}^{2})$. With respect to oracle-related quantum algorithms for the NP-complete problems, we identify our algorithm as optimal. To justify the feasibility of the proposed quantum algorithm, we successfully solve a typical clique problem for a graph $G$ with two vertices and one edge by carrying out a nuclear magnetic resonance experiment involving four qubits.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.335
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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