Tutorial: calibration refinement in quantum annealing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum annealing has emerged as a powerful platform for simulating and optimizing classical and quantum Ising models. Quantum annealers, like other quantum and/or analog computing devices, are susceptible to non-idealities including crosstalk, device variation, and environmental noise. Compensating for these effects through calibration refinement or “shimming” can significantly improve performance but often relies on ad-hoc methods that exploit symmetries in both the problem being solved and the quantum annealer itself. In this tutorial, we attempt to demystify these methods. We introduce methods for finding exploitable symmetries in Ising models and discuss how to use these symmetries to suppress unwanted bias. We work through several examples of increasing complexity and provide complete Python code. We include automated methods for two important tasks: finding copies of small subgraphs in the qubit connectivity graph and automatically finding symmetries of an Ising model via generalized graph automorphism. We conclude the tutorial by surveying additional methods, providing practical implementation tips, and discussing limitations and remedies of the calibration procedure. Code is available at: https://github.com/dwavesystems/shimming-tutorial .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it