MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390766164 · doi:10.2172/2280557

Quantum-centric Supercomputing for Materials Science: A Perspective on Challenges and Future Directions

2023· report· en· W4390766164 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yuri Alexeev, Stephan Eidenbenz, Antonio Mezzacapo, Scott Pakin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectronic and Structural Properties of Oxides
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryOffice of ScienceLos Alamos National LaboratoryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Nuclear Security AdministrationEuropean CommissionOak Ridge National LaboratoryCERNU.S. Department of EnergyEusko JaurlaritzaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSupercomputerComputer scienceQuantum computerPerspective (graphical)Computational scienceIdentification (biology)Data scienceQuantumComputational modelFace (sociological concept)Parallel computingSimulationArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational models are an essential tool for the design, characterization, and discovery of novel materials.Hard computational tasks in materials science stretch the limits of existing highperformance supercomputing centers, consuming much of their simulation, analysis, and data resources.Quantum computing, on the other hand, is an emerging technology with the potential to accelerate many of the computational tasks needed for materials science.In order to do that, the quantum technology must interact with conventional high-performance computing in several ways: approximate results validation, identification of hard problems, and synergies in quantum-centric supercomputing.In this paper, we provide a perspective on how quantum-centric supercomputing can help address critical computational problems in materials science, the challenges to face in order to solve representative use cases, and new suggested directions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectronic and Structural Properties of OxidesFrench-language works237,207