Factoring semi-primes with (quantum) SAT-solvers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The computational difficulty of factoring large integers forms the basis of security for RSA public-key cryptography. The best-known factoring algorithms for classical computers run in sub-exponential time. The integer factorization problem can be reduced to the Boolean Satisfiability problem (SAT). While this reduction has proved to be useful for studying SAT solvers, large integers have not been factored via such a reduction. Shor's quantum factoring algorithm factors integers in expected polynomial time. Large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computers capable of implementing Shor's algorithm are not yet available, preventing relevant benchmarking experiments. Recently, several authors have attempted quantum factorizations via reductions to SAT or similar NP-hard problems. While this approach may shed light on algorithmic approaches for quantum solutions to NP-hard problems, in this paper we study and question its practicality. We find no evidence that this is a viable path toward factoring large numbers, even for scalable fault-tolerant quantum computers, as well as for various quantum annealing or other special purpose quantum hardware.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".