Exploring Quantum Active Learning for Materials Design and Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The meeting of artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing is already a reality; quantum machine learning (QML) promises the design of better regression models. In this work, we extend our previous studies of materials discovery using classical active learning (AL), which showed remarkable economy of data, to explore the use of quantum algorithms within the AL framework (QAL) as implemented in the MLChem4D and QMLMaterials codes. The proposed QAL uses quantum support vector regressor (QSVR) or a quantum Gaussian process regressor (QGPR) with various quantum kernels and different feature maps. Data sets include perovskite properties (piezoelectric coefficient, band gap, energy storage) and the structure optimization of a doped nanoparticle (3Al@Si11) chosen to compare with classical AL results. Our results revealed that the QAL method improved the searches in most cases, but not all, seemingly correlated with the “roughness” of the data. QAL has the potential of finding optimum solutions, within chemical space, in materials science and elsewhere in chemistry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".