Graph Neural Network-Based Predictor for Optimal Quantum Hardware Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing variety of quantum hardware technologies, each with unique peculiarities such as connectivity and native gate sets, creates challenges when selecting the best platform for executing a specific quantum circuit. This selection process usually involves a brute-force approach: compiling the circuit on various devices and evaluating performance based on factors such as circuit depth and gate fidelity. However, this method is computationally expensive and does not scale well as the number of available quantum processors increases. In this work, we propose a Graph Neural Network (GNN)based predictor that automates hardware selection by analyzing the Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) representation of a quantum circuit. Our study evaluates 498 quantum circuits (up to 27 qubits) from the MQT Bench dataset, compiled using Qiskit on four devices: three superconducting quantum processors (IBM-Kyiv, IBM-Brisbane, IBM-Sherbrooke) and one trappedion processor (IONQ-Forte). Performance is estimated using a metric that integrates circuit depth and gate fidelity, resulting in a dataset where 93 circuits are optimally compiled on the trappedion device, while the remaining circuits prefer superconducting platforms. By exploiting graph-based machine learning, our approach avoids extracting the circuit features for the model evaluation but directly embeds it as a graph, significantly accelerating the optimal target decision-making process and maintaining all the information. Experimental results prove$\mathbf{9 4. 4 \%}$accuracy and an$\mathbf{8 5. 5 \%}$F1 score for the minority class, effectively predicting the best compilation target. The developed code is publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/antotu/GNN-Model-Quantum-Predictor).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".