A Brief Review on Mathematical Tools Applicable to Quantum Computing for Modelling and Optimization Problems in Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its emergence, quantum computing has enabled a wide spectrum of new possibilities and advantages, including its efficiency in accelerating computational processes exponentially. This has directed much research towards completely novel ways of solving a wide variety of engineering problems, especially through describing quantum versions of many mathematical tools such as Fourier and Laplace transforms, differential equations, systems of linear equations, and optimization techniques, among others. Exploration and development in this direction will revolutionize the world of engineering. In this manuscript, we review the state of the art of these emerging techniques from the perspective of quantum computer development and performance optimization, with a focus on the most common mathematical tools that support engineering applications. This review focuses on the application of these mathematical tools to quantum computer development and performance improvement/optimization. It also identifies the challenges and limitations related to the exploitation of quantum computing and outlines the main opportunities for future contributions. This review aims at offering a valuable reference for researchers in fields of engineering that are likely to turn to quantum computing for solutions. Doi: 10.28991/ESJ-2023-07-01-020 Full Text: PDF
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".