Uncertain fate of fair sampling in quantum annealing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, it was demonstrated both theoretically and experimentally on the D-Wave quantum annealer that transverse-field quantum annealing does not find all ground states with equal probability. In particular, it was proposed that more complex driver Hamiltonians beyond transverse fields might mitigate this shortcoming. Here, we investigate the mechanisms of (un)fair sampling in quantum annealing. While higher-order terms can improve the sampling for selected small problems, we present multiple counterexamples where driver Hamiltonians that go beyond transverse fields do not remove the sampling bias. Using perturbation theory we explain why this is the case. In addition, we present large-scale quantum Monte Carlo simulations for spin glasses with known degeneracy in two space dimensions and demonstrate that the fair-sampling performance of quadratic driver terms is comparable to standard transverse-field drivers. Our results suggest that quantum annealing machines are not well suited for sampling applications, unless postprocessing techniques to improve the sampling are applied.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it