Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the scarcity of quantum computing resources, researchers and developers have very limited access to real quantum computers. Therefore, judicious planning and utilization of quantum computer runtime are essential to ensure smooth execution and completion of projects. Accurate estimation of a quantum circuit's execution time is thus necessary to prevent unexpectedly exceeding the anticipated runtime or the maximum capacity of the quantum computers; it also allows quantum computing platforms to make precisely informed provisioning and prioritization of quantum computing jobs. In this paper, we first study the characteristics of quantum circuits' runtime on simulators and real quantum computers. Then, we introduce an innovative method that employs a graph transformer-based model, utilizing the graph information and global information of quantum circuits to estimate their execution time. We selected a benchmark dataset comprising over 1,510 quantum circuits, initially predicting their execution times on simulators, which yielded promising results with an R-squared value greater than 95%. Subsequently, we applied active learning to select 340 circuit samples with a confidence level of 95% to build and evaluate our approach for the estimation of circuit execution times on quantum computers, achieving an average R-squared value exceeding 90%. Our approach can be integrated into quantum computing platforms to provide an accurate estimation of quantum execution time and be used as a reference for prioritizing quantum execution jobs. In addition, our findings provide insights for quantum program developers to optimize their circuits for reduced execution time.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".