MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416906933 · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65836-3

Artificial intelligence for quantum computing

2025· article· en· W4416906933 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuri Alexeev, Marwa Farag, Taylor L. Patti, M.E. Wolf, Natalia Ares, Alán Aspuru‐Guzik, Simon C. Benjamin, Zhenyu Cai, Shuxiang Cao, Christopher Chamberland, Zohim Chandani, Federico Fedele, Ikko Hamamura, Nicholas Harrigan, Jin-Sung Kim, Elica Kyoseva, Justin G. Lietz, Tom Lubowe, Alexander McCaskey, Roger G. Melko, Kouhei Nakaji, Alberto Peruzzo, Pooja Rao, Bruno Schmitt, Sam Stanwyck, Norm M. Tubman, Hanrui Wang, Timothy Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsVector InstitutePerimeter InstituteUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
FundersResearch Executive AgencyEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilOffice of ScienceEuropean CommissionGovernment of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaUK Research and InnovationInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCounterintuitiveQuantum computerField (mathematics)Applications of artificial intelligenceSoftwareStack (abstract data type)Prime (order theory)Scaling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) advancements over the past few years have had an unprecedented and revolutionary impact across everyday application areas. Its significance also extends to technical challenges within science and engineering, including the nascent field of quantum computing (QC). The counterintuitive nature and high-dimensional mathematics of QC make it a prime candidate for AI's data-driven learning capabilities, and in fact, many of QC's biggest scaling challenges may ultimately rest on developments in AI. However, bringing leading techniques from AI to QC requires drawing on disparate expertise from arguably two of the most advanced and esoteric areas of computer science. Here we aim to encourage this cross-pollination by reviewing how state-of-the-art AI techniques are already advancing challenges across the hardware and software stack needed to develop useful QC - from device design to applications. We then close by examining its future opportunities and obstacles in this space.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207