MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104016772 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/9/093028

Universal quantum computation by scattering in the Fermi–Hubbard model

2015· article· en· W3104016772 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum chaos and dynamical systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchSimons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWave packetScatteringQuantumScattering theoryHubbard modelPlanarComputation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hubbard model may be the simplest model of particles interacting on a lattice, but simulation of its dynamics remains beyond the reach of current numerical methods. In this article, we show that general quantum computations can be encoded into the physics of wave packets propagating through a planar graph, with scattering interactions governed by the fermionic Hubbard model. Therefore, simulating the model on planar graphs is as hard as simulating quantum computation. We give two different arguments, demonstrating that the simulation is difficult both for wave packets prepared as excitations of the fermionic vacuum, and for hole wave packets at filling fraction one-half in the limit of strong coupling. In the latter case, which is described by the t - J model, there is only reflection and no transmission in the scattering events, as would be the case for classical hard spheres. In that sense, the construction provides a quantum mechanical analog of the Fredkin–Toffoli billiard ball computer.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum chaos and dynamical systemsFrench-language works237,207