Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quantum computer exhibits quantum advantage when it can perform a calculation that a classical computer is unable to complete. It follows that a company with a quantum computer would be a monopolist in the market for such a calculation if its only competitor was a company with a classical computer. Conversely, economic outcomes are unclear if quantum computers do not exhibit a quantum advantage, but classical and quantum computers have different cost structures. We model a Cournot duopoly where a quantum computing company competes against a classical computing company. The model features an asymmetric variable cost structure between the two companies and the potential for an asymmetric fixed cost structure, where each firm can invest in scaling its hardware to expand its respective market. We find that even if (1) the companies can complete identical calculations, and thus there is no quantum advantage, and (2) it is more expensive to scale the quantum computer, the quantum computing company may be more profitable and also invest more in market creation due to efficiency gains from using quantum algorithms. Finally, we provide examples of settings where the classical computer can also perform a calculation, but not in a cost-effective enough manner to be commercially viable. In such a setting, the quantum computing company becomes a monopolist despite exhibiting no quantum advantage. Taken together, quantum computers may not need to display a quantum advantage to be able to generate a quantum economic advantage for the companies that deploy them. This paper was accepted by D. J. Wu, information systems. Funding: R. G. Melko is supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Canada Research Chair program, and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Research at the Perimeter Institute is supported in part by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. A. Goldfarb is supported by the Sloan Foundation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4578 .
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 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".