MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925571463 · doi:10.17632/gf2s8jkdjf

QF-LCA Dataset for Quantum Double-field Model, Game and Application

2024· dataset· en· W6925571463 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMendeley Data · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGeography and Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntropy (arrow of time)Coding (social sciences)Field (mathematics)Data collectionState (computer science)Statistical modelQuantum entanglementStatistical hypothesis testingQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data on this repository are for the DIB article entitled: "QF-LCA dataset: Quantum field lens coding algorithm for system state simulation and strong predictions" by P. B. Alipour and T. A. Gulliver. The dataset presents an overall preview of the method used for [1, 5] that produce the dataset. QDF measurement data are acquired from IBMQ and QInspire platforms, and stored as an internal data collection, so to compare it to the data collected from measurement variables manually calculated and presented in the QDF articles [1, 3, 4] as *.pdf, *.pptx, *.txt, *.nb, …, and image files. The QDF system model is simulated to generate an external data collection stored on IBMQ, QInspire, or on this repository, as a QDF dataset. The dataset is examined to validate QDF state correlation and entanglement entropy (EE) relative to uncertainty measures (errors) discussed in the QDF’s method article [1]. The data are examined based on QDF’s four-main variables, defined and discussed in the QDF model article [4]. System energy states were profiled as the weighted statistical data for an intelligent decision simulator (IDS) in ‎[1]. This dataset was proposed for a quantum AI (QAI) method to classify states, and make a strong prediction of the next system state. The IDS uses the dataset to further analyze and classify states based on the expected success probability values 〈P_success〉 ≥ 2/3 (doubling the probability space from at least P ≥ 1/3 to P ≥ 2/3), for a strong system state prediction. Other statistical and probability data are based on classical and QDF computations using simulators like Mathematica and IBMQ, uploaded onto this repository, which contains the QDF circuit simulation and its datasets. The file structure is presented in Fig. 1, e.g., *.cq, *.csv, *.htm, *.ipynb, *.png, *.py, …, of the DIB article, each referring to a statistical methodology of QDF vs. classical states by the QFLCA programs. The file content and the corresponding methodology are summarized in Table 1 of the DIB article. The QFLCA datasets are further validated by classifying energy states and generate a QAI map to make a strong prediction based on weighted probabilities of quantum vs. classical states in a quantum game called: “Alice & Bob’s Quantum Doubles” written in Python as a QDF game [1, 4]. The QFLCA website documentation and demo files in *.mp4 under the directory show how to run the game and the QFLCC program. The manual calculation of the QDF model was conducted via Wolfram Alpha online based on the measurement data compared between ES and GS states as a P indicator generated for measurement samples. Small dataset samples denote: a. A particle pair’s energy state in a QDF (different GS states or sublevels of a GS, or see Table 2), b. a particle state in an SF, an ES relative to a GS from (a.) prior to a field transformation, and, c. the expected transformation of fields (ES ←→GS) and ⟨M(P, ψ_ij)⟩, as in Table 2.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.254 · 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