The Quantum Internet: A Hardware Review

In the century following its discovery, applications for quantum physics are opening a new world of technological possibilities. With the current decade witnessing quantum supremacy, quantum technologies are already starting to change the ways information is generated, transmitted, stored and processed. The next major milestone in quantum technology is already rapidly emerging -- the quantum internet. Since light is the most logical candidate for quantum communication, quantum photonics is a critical enabling technology. This paper reviews the hardware aspects of the quantum internet, mainly from a photonics perspective. Though a plethora of quantum technologies and devices have emerged in recent years, we are more focused on devices or components that may enable the quantum internet. Our approach is primarily qualitative, providing a broad overview of the necessary technologies for a large-scale quantum internet.Comment: 38 pages, 1 tabl

Integrated Photonic Platforms for Quantum Technology: A Review

Quantum information processing has conceptually changed the way we process and transmit information. Quantum physics, which explains the strange behaviour of matter at the microscopic dimensions, has matured into a quantum technology that can harness this strange behaviour for technological applications with far-reaching consequences, which uses quantum bits (qubits) for information processing. Experiments suggest that photons are the most successful candidates for realising qubits, which indicates that integrated photonic platforms will play a crucial role in realising quantum technology. This paper surveys the various photonic platforms based on different materials for quantum information processing. The future of this technology depends on the successful materials that can be used to universally realise quantum devices, similar to silicon, which shaped the industry towards the end of the last century. Though a prediction is implausible at this point, we provide an overview of the current status of research on the platforms based on various materials.Comment: 48 pages, 3 figure

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Analysis of the Occurrence of Scintillations Observed from Bonaire, Trinidad and Brazil

The GPS scintillation data collected over a period of four years between January 2008 and December 2011 from the three Caribbean sites namely Bonaire, Trinidad and Brazil is analyzed to obtain the seasonal trends for the occurrence of scintillations, which is caused by the plasma bubble. A receiver has been operational at each Caribbean site. These receivers provide the total electron content and amplitude scintillation index, S4. This S4 index helps in determining the scintillation and in turn the disturbance in the ionosphere. These disturbances are quite common from the month of January to March and start again in October and continue until December. These scintillations occur in the evening after sunset. A maximum occurrence of these irregulaties is seen from October to December. These irregularities start around 7 pm (local time) and stop around 1 am (local time). The density of these scintillations varies according to the site.unpublishednot peer reviewedU of I OnlyUndergraduate senior thesis not recommended for open acces

Scalable Communication Endpoints for MPI+Threads Applications

Hybrid MPI+threads programming is gaining prominence as an alternative to the traditional "MPI everywhere'" model to better handle the disproportionate increase in the number of cores compared with other on-node resources. Current implementations of these two models represent the two extreme cases of communication resource sharing in modern MPI implementations. In the MPI-everywhere model, each MPI process has a dedicated set of communication resources (also known as endpoints), which is ideal for performance but is resource wasteful. With MPI+threads, current MPI implementations share a single communication endpoint for all threads, which is ideal for resource usage but is hurtful for performance. In this paper, we explore the tradeoff space between performance and communication resource usage in MPI+threads environments. We first demonstrate the two extreme cases---one where all threads share a single communication endpoint and another where each thread gets its own dedicated communication endpoint (similar to the MPI-everywhere model) and showcase the inefficiencies in both these cases. Next, we perform a thorough analysis of the different levels of resource sharing in the context of Mellanox InfiniBand. Using the lessons learned from this analysis, we design an improved resource-sharing model to produce \emph{scalable communication endpoints} that can achieve the same performance as with dedicated communication resources per thread but using just a third of the resources

Scalable Communication Endpoints for MPI+Threads Applications

Hybrid MPI+threads programming is gaining prominence as an alternative to the traditional "MPI everywhere'" model to better handle the disproportionate increase in the number of cores compared with other on-node resources. Current implementations of these two models represent the two extreme cases of communication resource sharing in modern MPI implementations. In the MPI-everywhere model, each MPI process has a dedicated set of communication resources (also known as endpoints), which is ideal for performance but is resource wasteful. With MPI+threads, current MPI implementations share a single communication endpoint for all threads, which is ideal for resource usage but is hurtful for performance. In this paper, we explore the tradeoff space between performance and communication resource usage in MPI+threads environments. We first demonstrate the two extreme cases---one where all threads share a single communication endpoint and another where each thread gets its own dedicated communication endpoint (similar to the MPI-everywhere model) and showcase the inefficiencies in both these cases. Next, we perform a thorough analysis of the different levels of resource sharing in the context of Mellanox InfiniBand. Using the lessons learned from this analysis, we design an improved resource-sharing model to produce \emph{scalable communication endpoints} that can achieve the same performance as with dedicated communication resources per thread but using just a third of the resources