MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rydberg-atom experiment for the integer factorization problem

2024· article· en· W4399321676 on OpenAlexaff
Juyoung Park, Seokho Jeong, Minhyuk Kim, Kangheun Kim, Andrew Byun, Louis Vignoli, Louis-Paul Henry, Loïc Henriet, Jaewook Ahn

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersSamsung Science and Technology Foundation
KeywordsQuantum computerRydberg atomFactorizationAtom (system on chip)Rydberg formulaPhysicsDiscrete mathematicsMathematicsQuantumArithmeticCombinatoricsQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceAlgorithmParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The task of factoring integers poses a significant challenge in modern cryptography, and quantum computing holds the potential to efficiently address this problem compared to classical algorithms. Thus, it is crucial to develop quantum computing algorithms to address this problem. This study introduces a quantum approach that utilizes Rydberg atoms to tackle the factorization problem. Experimental demonstrations are conducted for the factorization of small composite numbers such as 6 = 2 × 3 , 15 = 3 × 5 , and 35 = 5 × 7 . This approach involves employing Rydberg-atom graphs to algorithmically program binary multiplication tables, yielding many-body ground states that represent superpositions of factoring solutions. Subsequently, these states are probed using quantum adiabatic computing. Limitations of this method are discussed, specifically addressing the scalability of current Rydberg quantum computing for the intricate computational problem. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ResearchSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207