Quantum computing in geophysics: Algorithms, computational costs, and future applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate modeling of seismic wave propagation in the subsurface of the earth is essential for understanding earthquake dynamics, characterizing seismic hazards on global scales and hydrocarbon reservoir exploration and monitoring on local scales. These are among the most challenging computational problems in geoscience. Despite algorithmic advances and the increasingly powerful computational resources currently available, including fast CPUs, GPUs and large volumes of computer memory, there are still daunting computational challenges in simulating 3D seismic wave propagation in complex earth environments. Recent advances in quantum computing are suggestive that geoscience may soon begin to benefit from this promising field. For example, Finite Difference (FD) modeling is the most widely used method to simulate seismic wave propagation. In the frequency domain, FD methods reduce solutions of the wave equation into systems of linear equations; such systems are just the type that quantum algorithms may be capable of solving with exponential speedup, in comparison with classical algorithms. For the computational geophysicist, to prepare to take advantage of these speed-ups, which could arrive in as few as 5-10 years, the tasks at hand are (1) to become familiar with the logic and concepts associated with quantum computing, and (2) to map our key computational algorithms (e.g., frequency domain FD) to this domain. Presentation Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 Start Time: 1:50:00 PM Location: 204B (Anaheim Convention Center) Presentation Type: Oral
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".