Clustering bike sharing stations using Quantum Machine Learning: A case study of Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum Machine Learning (QML) is a field that combines the principles of Quantum Computing (QC) and Machine Learning (ML). QC works by taking advantage of the properties of quantum physics, such as superposition and entanglement. To fully realize the potential of this technology, more research is necessary, as the field of QML is still in its early stages. Since QC technologies and devices continue to develop quickly, it is important to identify the use cases and applications that benefit the most. This paper investigates the potentials of QC, and more specifically, Quantum Annealing (QA), for clustering real-world data in transportation systems. The Bike Sharing System (BSS) is used as a case study applying a clustering model on QA computers. The main contribution of this research is to introduce a hybrid model to cluster stations in a BSS by solving it as a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) problem with different methods on a QA computer using a real-time dataset. In addition to the practical contribution, this research also offers theoretical advancements in the field of computational optimization by defining a new topology for the input data that is compatible with QC topology (e.g., Chimera topology). The goal of real-time clustering BSS stations based on dynamic and static datasets is, in fact, to assist decision-makers in better managing and minimizing the risk of bike unavailability at each station and rebalancing bikes shared. Three different methods have been used to determine the number of clusters, and Euclidean, Manhattan, Pearson, and Spearman dissimilarity functions have been applied to cluster the stations. The evaluation is done using the magnitude vs. cardinality approach. The distribution of the stations, magnitude, and cardinality of the results indicate the potential to use QC for clustering for a real-world application, e.g., BSS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".