MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208651741 · doi:10.1109/ims19712.2021.9574852

Quantum Method for Finite Element Simulation of Electromagnetic Problems

2021· article· en· W3208651741 on OpenAlexaff
Jianan Zhang, Feng Feng, Qi‐Jun Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodSmoothed finite element methodMixed finite element methodApplied mathematicsExtended finite element methodComputer scienceQuantum computerhp-FEMQuantum algorithmMathematical optimizationComputational scienceFinite element limit analysisQuantumMathematicsAlgorithmBoundary knot methodPhysicsQuantum mechanicsBoundary element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum simulation of electromagnetic (EM) structures is still in its infancy. In this paper, we investigate the possibility of applying quantum computing to solve the finite element equations for EM problems. Specifically, we propose to leverage a milestone in quantum computing, i.e., the Harrow/Hassidim/Lloyd (HHL) algorithm, to solve the finite element equations in the EM domain. To do this, we first present a systematic method to reformulate the finite element equations into quantum computation format and apply the HHL algorithm to solve the new equations. Taking advantage of the special properties of finite element matrices in EM problems, we then devise a stepwise algorithm to efficiently determine the suitable values for the hyperparameters of HHL. The proposed method can in theory solve the EM finite element equations in logarithmic time relative to the size of the finite element matrix. This is exponentially faster than that achievable by classical computation as the matrix size increases. A two-dimensional EM example is used to illustrate how the proposed method can be used to find the solutions to EM problems through quantum computation.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207