Is Quantum Advantage the Right Goal for Quantum Machine Learning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning is frequently listed among the most promising applications for quantum computing. This is in fact a curious choice: the machine-learning algorithms of today are notoriously powerful in practice but remain theoretically difficult to study. Quantum computing, in contrast, does not offer practical benchmarks on realistic scales and theory is the main tool we have to judge whether it could become relevant for a problem. In this perspective, we explain why it is so difficult to say something about the practical power of quantum computers for machine learning with the tools we are currently using. We argue that these challenges call for a critical debate on whether quantum advantage and that the narrative of “beating” classical machine learning should continue to dominate the literature in the way it does, and highlight examples for how other perspectives in existing research provide an important alternative to the focus on advantage.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".