MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117584588 · doi:10.1109/iccd65941.2025.00054

Forensics of Error Rates of Quantum Hardware

2025· article· W7117584588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rupshali Roy, Swaroop Ghosh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsExploitQubitLeverage (statistics)Cloud computingHash functionWord error rateError detection and correctionQuantum computer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The qubit technologies, basis gate set, noise behavior, speed and coupling architecture are among the various factors that vary among various backends. Although third-party cloud providers offering quantum hardware as a service offer lower cost and flexibility to the users to choose from several qubit technologies, quantum hardware, and coupling maps; the actual execution of the program is not clearly visible to the customer. The success of the user program, in addition to various other metadata such as cost, performance, & number of iterations to converge, depends on the error rate of the backend used. Moreover, the third-party provider and/or tools (e.g., hardware allocator and mapper) may hold insider/outsider adversarial agents to conserve resources and maximize profit by running the quantum circuits on error-prone hardware. Thus it is important to gain visibility of the backend from various perspectives of the computing process e.g., execution, transpilation and outcomes. In this paper, we estimate the error rate of the backend from the original and transpiled circuit. Although many quantum services providers publish the error rates of their backends, we assume that such information may not be accurate and/or correspond to the actual hardware allocated to the program. For the forensics we propose two complementary approaches. First, we exploit the fact that qubit mapping and routing steps of the transpilation process select qubits and qubit pairs with low gate errors to minimize overall error accumulation. We leverage this to rank qubit links into bins and compare with publicly available data we are able to assign a bin rank within a difference of 2 with respect to the actual bin for upto$\mathbf{8 3. 5 \%}$of the qubit links in IBM Sherbrooke and$\mathbf{8 0 \%}$in IBM Brisbane, 127 qubit IBM backends. Second, we derive the error rates of the backends from a pool of programs by solving fidelity equations using numerical nonlinear optimizer. We achieve upto$92.7 \%(97.3 \%)$accuracy for single qubit (2 qubit) gate error rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207