7
$\begingroup$

We have an informal policy that all questions should have at least one top level arxiv tag. However, appears with all kinds of other tags, many of which are not arxiv tags.

My understanding is that the home for quantum computing on the arxiv is quant-ph. If that's the case, should we require all quantum-computing questions to be labelled quant-ph in addition to other specific tags that might be appropriate ?

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ I am confused about what exactly is proposed. I thought that the proposal is about creating a tag for the broader topic of the intersection of TCS and quantum physics, which probably include both quantum computing and part of quantum information. But are you instead proposing to rename [quantum-computing] to some other name such as [quant-ph]? $\endgroup$
    – Tsuyoshi Ito
    Nov 24, 2010 at 18:43
  • $\begingroup$ Just in case, I do not see a compelling reason in either case. I am asking this because I would like to avoid arguing against something which you are not even proposing. :) $\endgroup$
    – Tsuyoshi Ito
    Nov 24, 2010 at 18:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There's no reason our top-level tags have to coincide with the arXiv's top-level tags. In fact, they already don't quite, with [ds.algorithms] and [ds.data-structures]. I think it would be a good idea to make a top-level tag [ph.quantum-computing] or [qc.quantum-computing]. I actually like ph a little bit better because it stands for physics, which is where quantum computing papers would go on the arXiv, so in some sense it's closer to the arXiv. (Although it also opens the possibility of some day deciding to add [ph.quantum-information], which I don't think is a good idea right now.) $\endgroup$
    – Peter Shor
    Nov 24, 2010 at 21:23
  • $\begingroup$ this is really the kind of thing where we need chat ;). I'm in the chat room btw. @Tsuyoshi, I was thinking merely of making quantum-computing (as a top level qc tag) conform to the arxiv. @Peter, yes, either ph... or qc... as a prefix would be ok. But now I'm wondering whether it's even worth it, since the change from quantum-computing to ph.quantum-computing is merely cosmetic (and only reflects the anachronism that quantum computing has a home in physics, rather than its true cross disciplinary nature) $\endgroup$
    – Suresh Venkat
    Nov 24, 2010 at 21:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ One comment: I looked through the tags, and it looks like the other physics tags we have are [statistical-physics] and [physics]. So if we want to do something like the [ds.algorithms] and [ds.data-structures] split, we could use [ph.quantum-computing] and [ph.statistical-physics]. $\endgroup$
    – Peter Shor
    Nov 25, 2010 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ yes, that's another idea. it annoys me that the physics arxiv is differently structured, because for math, we have XX.full-name formats, which would suggest qc.quantum-computing and sp.statistical-physics, rather than the artificial ph.XXX categorization. $\endgroup$
    – Suresh Venkat
    Nov 25, 2010 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ At this point I'm frankly confused :). Maybe we should just leave things as they are, since there's no pressing urgency to change, and none of the proposed mods are clearly better. $\endgroup$
    – Suresh Venkat
    Nov 25, 2010 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ Some quantum computing stuff also shows up in cond-mat, but that is more implementations. $\endgroup$
    – Joe Fitzsimons
    Nov 27, 2010 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ There's probably no real need to change anything. Things seem to be working fine currently. $\endgroup$
    – Peter Shor
    Nov 27, 2010 at 16:05

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
6
$\begingroup$

How about coming up with a proposal for the arXiv board to add a new category for quantum computing preprints? I think the quant-ph tag on the arXiv became too broad, it includes too many things and browsing it became too painful. Some universities even started graduate programs in QC, I don't see why the field doesn't deserve an arXiv tag yet.

As a byproduct, we would also solve our problem with tagging QC questions here :)

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ while that's an excellent idea, it's probably better coming from the QC folks than this site :). $\endgroup$
    – Suresh Venkat
    Nov 25, 2010 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh, this site abounds in QC folks :) $\endgroup$
    – Alessandro Cosentino
    Nov 25, 2010 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ quant-ph seems to be about 60% quantum computing now, so moving QC elsewhere seems a very bad idea. Every one of my papers that is on the arxiv is in quant-ph. $\endgroup$
    – Joe Fitzsimons
    Nov 27, 2010 at 13:56
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Joe: I guess if a new category is created for QC, we would all go to the arXiv and cross-list our papers to appear in this new category. I don't think this should present any problem. And in the future we would stop posting to quant-ph completely. $\endgroup$
    – Robin Kothari
    Nov 28, 2010 at 14:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1. As for now, quant-ph lumps together two widely different types of papers, experimental and theoretical/QC - this might have made sense 15 years ago, when the fields was much smaller, but today this categorization is simply obsolete (as well as some other arXiv tags; in general, a more flexible tag system would be much better than static categories as we arXiv uses them today). $\endgroup$
    – Marcin Kotowski
    Oct 28, 2011 at 21:31
4
$\begingroup$

I do not see anything wrong with creating a tag about quantum information processing. However, as I suggested in an answer to another question, I fail to see why it matters whether some tag has the same name as an arXiv category or not. For example, the tag is useful not because it is the same name as arXiv (it is not even the same name as arXiv, actually), but because it groups questions in complexity theory together.

In short, I do not think that “it is called quant-ph in arXiv” is a valid reason to have that tag.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ so you'd prefer to stay with quantum-computing ? $\endgroup$
    – Suresh Venkat
    Nov 24, 2010 at 17:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh: I do not have a strong opinion either way, but I am fine with the current tagging now and do not see any compelling reason why it should change. If there is some other reason to change the convention, of course we should not hesitate to change. $\endgroup$
    – Tsuyoshi Ito
    Nov 24, 2010 at 18:23
3
$\begingroup$

Since physics arXiv tags don't have two-letter abbreviations, this would confuse everybody who's not familiar with physics on the arXiv. We could add two letters (with x and y to be determined). Or we could assume that all quantum computing falls into or or or some other non-quantum tag.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ the second option is awkward. the first option, maybe using ph.quantum-computing, might be better. note that ds.algorithms is a fake tag, since there is no ds.algorithms (merely ds.algorithms+datastructures). So it might be ok to do it this way, to signify the physics 'root' $\endgroup$
    – Suresh Venkat
    Nov 24, 2010 at 0:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'll second [ph.quantum-computing] $\endgroup$
    – Peter Shor
    Nov 24, 2010 at 3:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I agree that ph.* is a good idea. It would also allow for ph.statistical-mechanics which seems to also be a topic showing up here. $\endgroup$
    – Joe Fitzsimons
    Nov 27, 2010 at 13:55
2
$\begingroup$

How about [qc.quantum-computing]?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ that's not an arxiv tag. $\endgroup$
    – Suresh Venkat
    Nov 24, 2010 at 6:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh: yes, it isn't, it is made up, but its structure is similar to the other top level tags we have. Moreover we don't use [math.pr.probability] but simply [pr.probability], I think qc is a good candidate for xy in Peter's answer and [quantum-computing] is more suitable than more general [quant-ph]. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Nov 24, 2010 at 7:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No, it's not an ArXiv tag. But it should be. $\endgroup$
    – Jeffε
    Nov 29, 2010 at 4:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .