[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)