[HN Gopher] Quantum computing's reproducibility crisis: Majorana...
___________________________________________________________________
Quantum computing's reproducibility crisis: Majorana fermions
Author : pseudolus
Score : 108 points
Date : 2021-04-12 17:07 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| nightcracker wrote:
| Damnit, after the mistake of calling the study of computation
| 'computer science', I had thought we'd avoided the issue with
| 'quantum computing'. But no, even this term seems to get muddied
| by things that aren't computation.
|
| There is no reproducibility crisis in quantum computing, there is
| in experimental quantum physics with quantum *computer*
| applications.
|
| To give a classical analogy, you could claim there would be a
| crisis in computer science because electrical engineers struggle
| with making a specific kind of transistor.
| de6u99er wrote:
| The problem with your analogy is, that we already have
| functioning hardware while quantum computers are nowhere near
| being practicable.
| bawolff wrote:
| I think OP is being needlessly pedantic, but in fairness you
| can do all sorts without quantum hardware. Making quantum
| algorithms (shor did not have a quantum computer), quantum
| complexity theory, etc.
| andi999 wrote:
| Yes, you can also practice swimming without water.
| bawolff wrote:
| "[Computer science] is not really about computers -- and
| it's not about computers in the same sense that physics
| is not really about particle accelerators, and biology is
| not about microscopes and Petri dishes...and geometry
| isn't really about using surveying instruments. Now the
| reason that we think computer science is about computers
| is pretty much the same reason that the Egyptians thought
| geometry was about surveying instruments: when some field
| is just getting started and you don't really understand
| it very well, it's very easy to confuse the essence of
| what you're doing with the tools that you use." -- Hal
| Abelson (1986)
| Delk wrote:
| I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison. You can
| design algorithms and prove things about them without
| hardware, and the algorithms and their properties will be
| valid in and of themselves. You don't get to "swim", but
| the algorithms will be there. One could argue that
| "computer science" is the study of the logical processes
| involved in computation.
| enkid wrote:
| Computer Science and Computer Engineering are two different
| things. Is there any reason that quantum computing wouldn't be
| defined to include both the physical and theoretical computing?
| FabHK wrote:
| A bit disheartening that there is a reproducibility crisis not
| only in psychology (and maybe social sciences in general?), but
| also physics...
|
| On the other hand, after the breakthroughs in physics in the
| first half (third?) of the 20th century and the stagnation in the
| latter half of that century, it seems to me (as a layperson) that
| the number of anomalies in physics seems to be increasing, so
| that maybe we'll transition from a period of "normal" science to
| a scientific revolution again soon (in Kuhnian terms). Exciting!
| fpoling wrote:
| The problem is not reproducibility, but rather omission of data
| and details without which it is not apparent that alternative
| explanations are possible.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| AFAIK the crisis in psychology applies generally, but this is
| just QC? Are there other physics-based reproducibility issues?
| klyrs wrote:
| One big one comes to mind... nobody else has an LHC. It's not
| hard to imagine a systematic issue in an experiment producing
| a wrong "5 sigma" result that isn't caught until the world
| has an equivalent / higher energy beam to play with.
|
| This particular issue seems to be of a similar nature. You've
| got a research group who made and tested a device, and nobody
| else has duplicated that (not sure -- but if there's patents
| covering their fab, there could be Problems for anybody
| seeking to reproduce the result).
| evanb wrote:
| For very big and expensive projects that have an
| infrastructure part and a science part, like the LHC's
| tunnel vs detectors, we try to avoid this by having
| multiple, separately-designed detectors at different
| intersection points. Hence the CMS and ATLAS detectors.
| Even though they share a beam, the rest of their
| systematics should be independent. They even unblinded
| their Higgs results together, to ensure neither used the
| other's result as prior knowledge.
| andi999 wrote:
| I don't know about lhc, but at Hera they had two
| independent groups running similiar experiments at
| different sides of the ring without talking to each other.
| This was exactly to adress the problem you mentioned.
| pa7x1 wrote:
| It's the same in LHC there are two experiments that run
| independently, ATLAS and CMS. For exactly this reason.
|
| The Higgs was discovered by both independently with
| higher than 5 sigma each. The combined sigma of the 2
| experiments was 7-ish if my memory serves correct.
|
| EDIT: My memory serves correct because sqrt(5^2 + 5^2) ~
| 7
| api wrote:
| You get what you incentivize. We incentivize quantity of papers
| and gaming the citation system, and that's going to drive down
| quality.
| neuronic wrote:
| We incentivize anything that gets grants approved. It's $$$
| all the way.
| Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL wrote:
| Off-topic: I submitted the exact same article only a few hours
| before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26777030 ; I thought
| someone else submitting the same thing would end up being a
| simple upvote on my submission instead of a separate submission?
|
| I don't care about the points or credit, glad it's on front page.
| But apparently there's something I don't know about the workings
| of HN? Thankful for someone clearing that one up and sorry for
| taking up the space.
| dang wrote:
| That's true for 8 hours, but this one was submitted 9 hours
| after yours.
| Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL wrote:
| Thank you for answering ; good to know.
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps they submitted it before you and then changed the
| submission (e.g. title)? Just a guess.
| pseudolus wrote:
| I submitted the article in question and didn't make any
| alterations to either the title or the link. It's possible
| (just a guess) that the link I submitted was slightly
| different from the link that the OP submitted as I tend to
| strip out extraneous parts of the URL. After that the
| submission was likely then just fortuitously upvoted.
| Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL wrote:
| had the same idea, but I do so as well and link is exactly
| the same.
|
| edit: it doesn't really matter I guess. HN has some
| mechanisms which aren't public afaik. How downvoting works
| exactly, how flagging works, who can, what the algorithms
| are for sorting. This account I'm using hadn't a successful
| submission before, but it's not that I spam submissions
| either. Four submissions in total and the account is 8
| months old. But I guess it's just some automatic behavior
| of the site, well... _shrug_.
| hardtke wrote:
| When I was in physics, I always read "a typical example of the
| data from an experimental run is shown in figure 1" as "we have
| carefully selected the best data, shown in figure 1." It sounds
| like that is the case here.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Perhaps worryingly the same is true in CS papers also.
|
| I genuinely think there should be a "No code? No Data? No
| Paper" rule instated from the top.
| [deleted]
| Greek0 wrote:
| Brief summary:
|
| Majorana fermions are particles can potentially be created under
| stringent laboratory conditions. Whether this has been achieved
| in practice is unclear: many scientific papers purport to show
| evidence of Majorana particles, but there are other explanations
| that could explain to the observed data as well. New research is
| frequently published that claims Majorana production, but most
| often doesn't even acknowledge potential problems or alternative
| explanations. These sloppy practices cast doubt over the whole
| field, despite the large impact Majorana particles could have for
| quantum computing applications.
|
| We need:
|
| * More stringent data reporting: raw data, full data (not only
| the small subset supporting the hypothesis)
|
| * More critical evaluation of other explanations for the observed
| data
|
| * Transparent publication processes, that prevent a paper that
| was rejected by one journal on scientific grounds appear in
| another journal unchanged
| nxpnsv wrote:
| Thanks, this is truly helpful
| scythmic_waves wrote:
| Yeah I would pay money to have one of these at the top of
| every article I read.
| raziel2701 wrote:
| I'd love to see the back and forth between the reviewers
| and the authors, there's tons of information and nuance
| there that goes unpublished.
| Guest42 wrote:
| I think most people would, a lot of times clicking the
| links results in a paywall or having to spend too long to
| organize the info and I'll hope the top comment alleviates
| that. Perhaps there could be an accurate synopsis badge
| that comments can be awarded and sent to the top.
| dataflow wrote:
| > Transparent publication processes, that prevent a paper that
| was rejected by one journal on scientific grounds appear in
| another journal unchanged
|
| This is great when reviewers are reviewing properly. But when
| you run into reviewers that literally don't read some parts of
| the paper and then object to things already addressed there, it
| starts backfiring. I don't know how to address this, but I'm
| thinking maybe making reviewer comments public without
| necessarily requiring a change to publish elsewhere would
| tackle both issues? It would seem to encourage both high
| quality reviews and the addressing of those reviews.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Related: Is Quantum Computing bullshit?
| https://www.wired.com/story/revolt-scientists-say-theyre-sic...
|
| I thought this was pretty hilarious.
| tabtab wrote:
| Cutting edge does often cut.
| nerdponx wrote:
| "Sick of the hype" is not equivalent to "it is bullshit".
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I didn't make it clear, obviously the entire field isn't
| bullshit. The wired article is talking about a Twitter
| account that judges if some QC news or paper is bullshit or
| not.
| pomian wrote:
| Very good article. Clear and concise. It pertains not just to
| this field of study, but to most scientific research. We have
| seen many of these issues discussed (scientific reporting,
| publishing) on HN, but this writer summarises a few very good
| solutions, towards the end of the article. How to achieve
| reproducibility, establishing shared experimental techniques,
| editorial ownership, are examples.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-12 23:00 UTC)