MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309986995 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2129454/v1

Non-convex Quadratic Programming Using Coherent Optical Networks

2022· preprint· en· W4309986995 on OpenAlexafffund
Pooya Ronagh, Farhad Khosravi, Uğur Yıldız, Artur Scherer

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsQLT (Canada)Perimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueGovernment of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRegular polygonQuadratic programmingQuadratic equationQuadratically constrained quadratic programSecond-order cone programmingConvex optimizationComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate the possibility of solving continuous non-convex optimization problems using a network of interacting quantum optical oscillators. We propose a native encoding of continuous variables in analog signals associated with the quadrature operators of a set of quantum optical modes. Optical coupling of the modes and noise introduced by vacuum fluctuations from external reservoirs or by weak measurements of the modes are used to optically simulate a diffusion process on a set of continuous random variables. The process is run sufficiently long for it to relax into the steady state of an energy potential defined on a continuous domain. As a first demonstration, we numerically benchmark solving box-constrained quadratic programming (BoxQP) problems using these settings. We consider delay-line and measurement-feedback variants of the experiment. Our benchmarking results demonstrate that in both cases the optical network is capable of solving BoxQP problems over three orders of magnitude faster than a state-of-the-art classical heuristic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.007
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicOptical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207