Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Quantum Machine Learning [pdf] (arxiv.org)
53 points by drdre2001 11 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 14 comments



This is paper was published in Nature last month [0]. It mainly focuses on machine learning algorithms for near-term universal quantum computers (tens to hundreds of qubits). It also talks about machine learning algorithms for quantum annealers like D-Wave's.

[0]:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v549/n7671/full/nature2...


Meanwhile Google already has their Quantum AI lab. They're busy with Numerics Flow, a Tensor Flow-like quantum machine learning framework which looks great. Anybody else active in this field?


>They're busy with Numerics Flow, a Tensor Flow-like quantum machine learning framework

I wasn't able to find anything about Google's Numerics flow. Would you provide a reference?

> Anybody else active in this field?

Yes. Rigetti Computing has also been working in this area. https://medium.com/rigetti/rigetti-partners-with-cdl-to-driv...


Why is a summary of what actual scientists are doing important enough to get published? I'm not quite sure what this paper is doing but maybe I don't get it as the scientists all seem very smart.


It is called a review article. Such a paper is meant to summarize the current understanding in an ongoing field of research. It is useful for researches who are not (yet) intimately familiar with that field. They might want to add contributions of their own in that area or they might find that they can transfer some ideas to their own fields of research. For people working in that area themselves a review paper is also useful to find citations and discussions of recent research papers.


You might notice this was written by actual researchers working in the field, and that it was published in the Reviews section of Nature.

Not sure what your issue with the article is. Review papers are among the most cited and important publications in science. There are entire journals dedicated to them, and their impact factor is often an order of magnitude higher than that of original research journals.


Who is taking an issue with anything? I just asked an honest question and didn't denigrate anyone. Maybe in the age of Trump tweets its difficult for you not to take instant offense?


Hey, I took your original comment to take issue with the article [1]. If it wasn't meant that way I am sorry for misreading your question and the tone of my answer. I think I and several other adequately answered your question.

[1] Just to explain how I read it: You draw an incorrect distinction between the authors doing the summarizing and "actual scientists". The review is in fact written by "actual scientists". I consequently interpreted your statement "maybe I don't get it, the scientists all seem very smart", as snarky.


From quantum machine learning to Trump in 4 comments lol. Maybe everyone is a little touchy. :)


lol All roads lead to Trump? shivers


If you tried to be as smart as them you'd quickly appreciate the utility of review articles. We can't really have an apprenticeship style of education so we who cannot physically study under the scientists rely on their publications, including the more accessible review papers...

Admittedly maybe getting it out in nature is a bit of an eyeball grabber but.. Still useful.


Plenty of review papers in Nature, actually! Not really surprising or eyeball-grabbing to see one.


How can you try to be smarter than someone? lol


The reason is that review papers offer a roadmap of the field allowing new researchers or generally anyone interested to understand what has been studied and what still remains to be examined. It's incredibly useful because otherwise you would have to manually read hundreds of research papers and synthesize that information manually into a clear picture (which they do for you).




Applications are open for YC Winter 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: