Quantum Simulation for High Energy Physics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is for the first time that quantum simulation for high-energy physics (HEP) is studied in the U.S. decadal particle-physics community planning, and in fact until recently, this was not considered a mainstream topic in the community. This fact speaks of a remarkable rate of growth of this subfield over the past few years, stimulated by the impressive advancements in quantum information sciences (QIS) and associated technologies over the past decade, and the significant investment in this area by the government and private sectors in the U.S. and other countries. High-energy physicists have quickly identified problems of importance to our understanding of nature at the most fundamental level, from tiniest distances to cosmological extents, that are intractable with classical computers but may benefit from quantum advantage. They have initiated, and continue to carry out, a vigorous program in theory, algorithm, and hardware co-design for simulations of relevance to the HEP mission. This Roadmap is an attempt to bring this exciting and yet challenging area of research to the spotlight, and to elaborate on what the promises, requirements, challenges, and potential solutions are over the next decade and beyond.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".