Claims of high temperature superconductivity were yesterday published in Nature and presented at the APS March Meeting. Given the history of the group, discussed in detail during a workshop on reproducibility in condensed matter physics, no doubt this should be taken with a pinch of salt.
On arXiv yesterday: Russians tear down claims of QAOA-accelerated factorization algorithms which hit news headlines last December. The comments on Scott Aaronson's blog on the original paper have some amusing (or depressing) background on the group behind this work.
Similarly, a few weeks ago claims of quantum simulation of wormhole dynamics using superconducting processors were heavily criticized.
These examples are all high profile works which have been (and will be) carefully scrutinized. The vast majority of preprints and publications do not attract as much interest. If you're having trouble reproducing a result in a paper, keep in mind that the paper may have errors that went undetected through peer review. The real peer review begins after the paper is published.
No comments:
Post a Comment