MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794528644 · doi:10.1103/physreva.98.012322

Quantum approximate optimization with Gaussian boson sampling

2018· article· en· W2794528644 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

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsXanadu Quantum Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimulated annealingGaussianStochastic optimizationMathematical optimizationSampling (signal processing)Quantum annealingRandom searchComputer scienceOptimization problemAlgorithmBosonQuantumMathematicsQuantum computerQuantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hard optimization problems are often approached by finding approximate solutions. Here, we highlight the concept of proportional sampling and discuss how it can be used to improve the performance of stochastic algorithms for optimization. We introduce an NP-Hard problem called Max-Haf and show that Gaussian boson sampling (GBS) can be used to enhance any stochastic algorithm for this problem. These results are applied by enhancing the random search, simulated annealing, and greedy algorithms. With numerical simulations, we confirm that all algorithms are improved when employing GBS, and that a GBS-enhanced random search performs the best despite being the one with the simplest underlying classical routine.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.315 · 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