Posts

Posted on

Hoisted From the Comments: Funded Research

A while back Michael Nielsen posted a comment in one of my blog posts that I’ve been thinking a lot about lately:

Re your last two paragraphs: a few years ago I wrote down a list of the ten papers I most admired in quantum computing. So far as I know, not a single one of them was funded, except in the broadest possible sense (e.g., undirected fellowship money, that kind of thing). Yet the great majority of work on quantum computing is funded projects, often well funded. My conclusion was that if you’re doing something fundable, then it’s probably not very interesting. (This applies less so to experimental work.)

This, of course, is quite a depressing idea: that the best work is funded at best indirectly by the powers that be.  But it hadn’t occurred to me until much more recently that I, as someone who regularly applies for funding can do something about this problem:  “My good ideas (all two of them)?  Sorry Mr. Funding Agency, I’m not going to let you fund them!”  And there is a bonus that if you submit something to an agency and they won’t fund it: well you can live under the illusion that you are doing might make the list of really important research.
Actually I’ve very proud of one research proposal I wrote that got rejected.  The reviewers said “this work raises interesting questions” and then “but it’s just too crazy for us.”  I mean it sucks to get rejected, but if you’re getting rejected because you’re just too crazy, well then at least you’re eccentric!  (A similar story was my dream of becoming a ski bum after getting my Ph.D. in theoretical physics.  I mean anyone can be a liftie, but a liftie with a degree in physics?  Now that would set you apart!  Lifties with Ph.D.s in physics please leave a note in the comment section of this blog 🙂 )

Posted on

Mandelbrot 1924-2010

Benoît B. Mandelbrot, a mathematical maverick and curmudgeon extraordinaire has passed away at the age of 85 (NYTimes obit.)  Mandelbrot is most well known for coining the word “fractal” and studying the set which now bears his name, but was also one of the first people to recognize that price changes empirically are not well described by a Gaussian distribution.  Mandlebrot’s middle initial was self-assigned and, apparently, didn’t stand for anything.  However, I’ve always like to imagine that, actually, the “B” stood for “Benoît B. Mandelbrot”.
Like many I’m sure my first encounter with the Mandelbrot set was through a Scientific American by  A.K. Dewdney (who, I’m sad to report, is now a 9/11 doubter.)  For many years, the Mandelbrot set was the first program I’d write when encountering a new computer or was learning a new programming language.   One could get an idea of the speed of the computer by doing this in a few short lines of code, but also you got to test out the number of colors on the new machine (which included things like figuring out how to cycle the Apple IIGS palette so as to achieve 256 colors…all at the same time!)  Raise your hand if you’ve ever written a Mandelbrot set program for a programmable calculator 🙂
A less well known Mandelbrot story is the one that occurred in the journal Science.  There, David Avnir, Ofer Biham, Daniel Lidar (who I wrote a bunch of papers with in a grad school in a galaxy far far away), and Ofer Malcai wrote a Perspective titled Is the Geometry of Nature Fractal? (sorry pay-walled for those not involved in the racket that is scientific publishing.)  These authors did a survey of fractals presented in the Physical Review journals and looked at how many decades the claimed fractals spanned.  The results, let’s just say, were not very positive for those who wrote books called The Fractal Geometry of Nature.  This invoked a spirited response from Mandelbrot and Peter Pfeifer.  In the annals of catty responses, these documents surely are up there among the top ever written.  My favorite part is where Mandelbrot implies that one of the authors of the original Perspective must implicitly be withdrawing his own work on fractals over a small amount of size by writing the Perspective itself.  Ha, curmudgeon indeed!
Another fact I find fun about Mandelbrot is that he obtained his first tenured position at age 75.  Take that anyone complaining about the modern oligarchy known as academia!

Posted on

QI Positions, Postdocs, Oh My

Well, someday this blog will turn back into a blog where I complain about the awful state of quantum computing (haha), cus you know I’m all about the negative stuff, but in the mean time here are new job postings. First up is a school that was crazy enough to admit me as an undergrad (legacy admit), Caltech:

INSTITUTE FOR QUANTUM INFORMATION
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Postdoctoral Research Positions
The Institute for Quantum Information at the California Institute of
Technology will have postdoctoral scholar positions available beginning
in September 2011. Researchers interested in all aspects of quantum
information science are invited to apply. The appointment is contingent
upon completion of a Ph.D.
Please apply on-line at http://www.iqi.caltech.edu/postdoc_opening.html.
Electronic copies of your curriculum vitae, publication list, statement
of research interests, and three letters of recommendation are required.
The deadline for receipt of all application materials is December 1,
2010.
The California Institute of Technology is an Equal
Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. Women, Minorities, Veterans and
Disabled Persons are encouraged to apply.

Great postdocs if you get them, I mean you can even use them to work on crazy things like time travel. Okay, maybe I blew the limit on that topic, but maybe you could do a postdoc at the IQI and figure out how to use the black hole information paradox to solve problems in PSPACE.
Next up is a job in beautiful Malibu, California. Need I say more?! The job was sent to me by Jim Harrington, who can be reached for information at the job at his email address jim.harrington[this-is-an-at-sign]gmail.com The posting is at this link:

RESEARCH STAFF – Quantum Information Science
Job Type: Full-Time
Location: Malibu, CA
Post Date: 10/12/2010
Job Description:
EDUCATION DESIRED:
Ph.D. in Physics, Computer Science, Applied Mathematics, or Electrical Engineering
ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS:
Analyze and design algorithms, protocols, architectures, and fault tolerance techniques for quantum information science applications. Present ideas and results in effective technical presentations, write technical papers, reports and proposals. Work effectively in a collaborative environment.
EXPERIENCE DESIRED:
Demonstrated research experience in quantum information science, the development and analysis of fault-tolerant quantum and classical error correction codes, and design and analysis of classical and quantum algorithms.
KNOWLEDGE DESIRED:
In depth understanding of multiple areas of quantum information science. Coursework or experience in theoretical computer science. Analysis and/or development of efficient approximation algorithms. Knowledge of discrete mathematics, numerical analysis and scientific computing techniques.
ESSENTIAL PHYSICAL/MENTAL REQUIREMENTS:
Excellent written and verbal communications skills, excellent problem solving skills, ability to work in team environment and to sit for long periods of time at a computer monitor, Ability to travel.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (e.g. driver’s license, special tools or restrictions): U.S. citizenship. Ability to obtain Interim and/or Final Clearances (Post Start); Active DoD Security Clearance is a plus.
We are proud to be an EEO/AA employer M/F/D/V. We maintain a drug-free workplace and perform pre-employment substance abuse testing.

Also postdocs at the IQC in Waterloo that I don’t think I’ve posted:

We are pleased to announce that a number of openings for Postdoctoral Fellowships are available at the Institute for Quantum Computing (www.iqc.ca), a leading-edge research centre at the University of Waterloo, Canada.
Please share the information below with students or postdocs interested in pursuing theoretical or experimental research in quantum information.
Positions Available
IQC Postdoctoral Fellowships:
Successful applicants will join a world-leading team of 17 faculty members and approximately 100 students and postdocs pursuing all aspects of quantum information research, from fundamental theory to implementations. We seek exceptional candidates to help advance understanding of the foundations of quantum information, to develop new quantum applications and algorithms, to implement these ideas in laboratory experiments and engineered systems, and to transfer this knowledge to industry. IQC faculty and students span academic disciplines including Applied Mathematics, Chemistry, Combinatorics and Optimization, Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Physics and Astronomy.
Candidates must have a PhD and proven research abilities, or strong potential for excellence in research. Interested researchers can learn more about these positions and apply online here: http://new.iqc.ca/welcome/positions.
New — Banting Postdoctoral Fellowships:
In addition to IQC’s regular Postdoctoral Fellow positions, we are also seeking applicants for the prestigious Banting Postdoctoral Fellowships Program, recently created by the Canadian government, which provides $70,000 per year for two years. To indicate an interest in pursuing a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship at IQC, please contact us no later than Oct. 15, 2010 by submitting an online pre-application here: https://service.iqc.ca/applications/positions/postdoctoral-fellowships/
Deadlines
Applications received by November 15, 2010, will be given priority.
Note: Applicants interested in the Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship should contact IQC immediately, given its earlier deadline.
For more information, please contact Wendy Reibel at wendy.reibel [here is an at sign] uwaterloo.ca

Posted on

Morphing Science News?

Yesterday I noted that the New York Times article on the Nobel prize award for graphene said that the paper had been rejected by Nature and accepted by Science. Interestingly, today I got an email from a science journalist who noted that this statement doesn’t appear anywhere in the article. And the journalist is right! Since the New York Times isn’t cached by Google I have no way to verify the original statement. Anyone else remember that line from the article? And why does the New York Times not allow access to all versions of an article (like the arXiv!) or at least make a statement that the article has been modified from its original form. Inquiring minds want to know 🙂
Update: Of course, not to be a hypocrite, shouldn’t my blog also have access to all versions, including the ones where I spelled graphene “graphine” and the one where there isn’t this update? Is there a plugin that does this? And also I would like to know if I hallucinated this entire episode (i.e. the last sentences above only make sense if it was my own hallucination 🙂 )

Posted on

Nobel Prize in Physics 2010

The Nobel prize in physics for 2010 goes to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov for their discovery of a method for obtaining samples of graphene, a single atom thick layer of carbon atoms. In case you hadn’t noticed, studying the unusual properties of graphene has taken over large portions of condensed matter physics 🙂 Today, somewhere out there, there is a very very very proud hamster (via Michael and NPR.) Oh, and look at the age of Konstantin Novoselov. Score one for the young’uns!
Oh and note that the original paper describing the method was rejected by Nature but accepted by Science (according to the NYTimes.) I wrote that last sentence only because I find it funny for something to be rejected by nature but accepted by science 🙂

Posted on

It's the QIP Final Countdown

QIP 2011 submissions due October 14, 2010, lah. (Dear readers from Singapore, is there a comma before “lah”?)
Not to be confused with the final sponge down.

===========================
QIP 2011 – Call for submissions
14th workshop on Quantum Information Processing
Tutorials January 8-9, NUS, Singapore
Workshop January 10-14, The Capella, Sentosa Singapore
Conference Website: http://qip2011.quantumlah.org
Paper Submission: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=qip2011
Quantum Information Processing (QIP) is a rapidly developing field of research spanning both physics and computer science. As the name implies, the field extends information processing (including computing and cryptography) to physical regimes where quantum effects become significant.
QIP 2011 is the fourteenth workshop on theoretical aspects of quantum computing, quantum cryptography, and quantum information theory in a series that started in Aarhus in 1998 and was held last year in Zurich. QIP 2011 will feature plenary talks (called invited talks at previous QIP workshops), featured papers (previously called long contributed talks), contributed papers, and a poster session.
Submissions of abstracts for contributed papers are sought in research areas related to quantum information science and quantum information processing. A small number of contributed paper submissions will be selected as featured papers. The submission to QIP should consist of 2-3 pages, containing a non-technical, clear and insightful description of the results and main ideas, their impact, and their importance to quantum information and computation. In addition, the submission should direct the reader to a technical version of the work (this should preferably be online but otherwise can be provided as an attachment). The submission should not consist of a compressed version of the technical exposition of the paper, but instead should facilitate the reading of the technical version and help the program committee assess its importance. In exceptional cases, submissions without technical versions may be accepted.
The 2-3 page abstracts of the accepted contributed papers and featured papers will be posted on the QIP 2011 website. More details will be provided in the acceptance notices.
Submission deadlines
Contributed papers: October 14
Posters: December 1
Notifications of acceptance
Contributed talks: November 17
Posters submitted by November 10: November 17
Posters submitted after November 10: December 8
Programme Committee:
Andris AMBAINIS (University of Latvia)
Steve BARTLETT (University of Sydney)
Sergey BRAVYI (IBM)
Wim van DAM (UC Santa Barbara)
Daniel GOTTESMAN (Perimeter Institute) (chair)
Pawel HORODECKI (Gdansk University of Technology)
Iordanis KERENIDIS (Universite Paris-Sud)
Hirotada KOBAYASHI (National Institute of Informatics)
Robert KOENIG (Caltech)
Barbara KRAUS (University of Innsbruck)
Mio MURAO (University of Tokyo)
Peter SHOR (MIT)
Graeme SMITH (IBM)
Frank VERSTRAETE (University of Vienna)
Michael WOLF (Niels Bohr Institute)
Steering Committee:
Dorit AHARONOV (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Ignacio CIRAC (MPQ, Garching)
Eddie FARHI (MIT)
Renato RENNER (ETH Zurich)
Louis SALVAIL (Universite de Montreal)
Barbara M. TERHAL (IBM T J Watson)
John WATROUS (University of Waterloo)
Andreas WINTER (University of Bristol / CQT, NUS) (chair)
Andrew Chi-Chih YAO (Tsinghua University)
Local Organisers:
Cedric BENY (Poster Session)
Rahul JAIN (Local Arrangement and Social Events)
Hartmut KLAUCK (Tutorials)
KWEK Leong Chuan (Sponsorship)
Darwin GOSAL (Webmaster)
Markus GRASSL (Outreach and Publicity)
Ethan LIM (Webmaster)
Tomasz PATEREK (Rump Session)
Stephanie WEHNER
Andreas WINTER (Coordinator)
Miklos SANTHA (Advisor)

Posted on

2010 MacArthur Awards

The 2010 MacArthur Fellows have been announced. Among them are a physics teacher, a quantum astrophysicist, an optical physicist, a biophysicist, and a computer security expert:

  • Amir Abo-Shaeer Physics Teacher inspiring and preparing public high school students for careers in science and mathematics through an innovative curriculum that integrates applied physics, engineering, and robotics.
  • John Dabiri Biophysicist investigating the hydrodynamics of jellyfish propulsion, which has profound implications for our understanding of evolutionary adaptation and such related issues in fluid dynamics as blood flow in the human heart.
  • Michal Lipson Optical Physicist working at the intersection of fundamental photonics and nanofabrication engineering to design silicon-based photonic circuits that are paving the way for practical optical computing devices.
  • Nergis Mavalvala
    Quantum Astrophysicist linking optics, condensed matter, and quantum mechanics in research that enhances our ability to detect and quantify gravitational radiation.
  • Dawn Song Computer Security Specialist exploring the deep interactions among software, hardware, and networks to increase the stability of computer systems vulnerable to remote attack or interference.

A good year for physics…well if you want to buck the feelings of the old codgers and insist physics does not just equal particle physics. I guess it no longer takes a genius to do particle theory (just a context free grammar generator?) Just kidding fellows 🙂

Posted on

NRC (not really correct?) Graduate School Rankings

The NRC graduate school ranks are due out tomorrow, September 29. For those who don’t know, the last NRC ranking was in 1995 and the latest is much delayed (I.e. the “data” such as it is is already out of date.) Departments have been given access to the data for a week now but have been under embargo. As a blogger it is a moral imperative to search the inter tubes for leaks of this data. Surprisingly there has been little leaked, but today I’m proud to say that my own UW, while not technically breaking the embargo (okay maybe they have :)) has some info out about their forthcoming rankings. Now I’m probably definitely biased but I can pretty safely say that the UW CS ranking is off by a bit:

The NRC assessment of UW Computer Science & Engineering is based on clearly erroneous data. The assessment is meaningless, and in no way representative of the accomplishments of UW CSE. Errors in the data affect (at least) UW CSE, many other computer science programs nationally, and many programs in other fields at the University of Washington.
During the week of September 19th, NRC provided pre-release access to its long-delayed “Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States,” scheduled for public release during the week of September 26th.
We, along with colleagues in other computer science programs nationally and colleagues in programs in other fields at the University of Washington, quickly discovered significant flaws of three types in NRC’s data:

  • Instances in which the data reported by NRC is demonstrably incorrect, sometimes by very substantial margins.
  • Instances in which the accuracy of the data cannot easily be checked, but it does not pass even a rudimentary sanity check.
  • Instances in which institutions interpreted NRC’s data reporting guidelines differently, yielding major inconsistencies.

Here are three specific examples affecting UW CSE:

  • Due to difficulty in interpreting NRC’s instructions, NRC was provided with an incorrect faculty list for our program – essentially, a list that included anyone who had served as a member of a Ph.D. committee. In 2006 (the reporting year), UW CSE had roughly 40 faculty members by any reasonable definition. In the NRC study, our “total faculty” size is listed as 91 and our “allocated faculty size” (roughly, full time equivalent) as 62.5. A large number of these “additional faculty” were industrial colleagues – whose “academic records” (including grants, publications, and awards) were quantitatively evaluated by NRC as if these individuals were full members of our faculty. Since faculty size is the denominator in many measures computed by NRC, you can imagine the result – clearly erroneous.
  • NRC reports UW CSE with 0% of graduate students “having academic plans” for 2001-05 (the reporting period for this measure). In fact, 40% of our graduating Ph.D. students took full-time faculty positions during this period. We are one of the top programs nationally in producing faculty members for major departments; in recent years our graduates have taken faculty positions at Berkeley, CMU, MIT, Princeton, Cornell, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Penn, Waterloo, Toronto, WashU, UCSD, Northwestern, UCLA, UBC, Maryland, Georgia Tech, UMass-Amherst, and many other outstanding programs. NRC obtained this number from an outside data provider; it’s clearly erroneous.
  • NRC reports UW CSE as having 0.09 “awards per allocated faculty member.” The erroneous faculty count is not sufficient to explain this, given that our faculty includes 14 ACM Fellows, 10 IEEE Fellows, 3 AAAI Fellows, 14 Sloan Research Fellowship recipients, a MacArthur Award winner, two NAE members, 27 NSF CAREER Award winners, etc. We don’t know where NRC obtained this data, but it’s clearly erroneous.
    The University of Washington reported these issues to NRC when the pre-release data was made available, and asked NRC to make corrections prior to public release. NRC declined to do so. We and others have detected and reported many other anomalies and inaccuracies in the data during the pre-release week.

The widespread availability of the badly flawed pre-release data within the academic community, and NRC’s apparent resolve to move forward with the public release of this badly flawed data, have caused us and others to take action – hence this statement. Garbage In, Garbage Out – this assessment is based on clearly erroneous data. For our program – and surely for many others – the results are meaningless.