Qubit Health Analytics and Clustering for HPC-Integrated Quantum Processors

Laura Schulz; Martin Schulz; Xiaolong Deng

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Qubit Health Analytics and Clustering for HPC-Integrated Quantum Processors

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that routine calibration logs alone—without extra benchmarks—can be clustered to separate reliable qubits from noisy ones, and that GHZ state experiments confirm circuits run better on the reliable group.

desk verdict Useful operational case study with rare 250-day calibration data, but the GHZ validation is confounded and the predictive claim is not established as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21231 v1 pith:6SRSXDRY submitted 2025-08-28 quant-ph

Xiaolong Deng , Laura Schulz , Martin Schulz This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumcalibrationmetricsunsupervisedclusteringqubithealthmonitoringNISQdevicesGHZstatevalidationhigh-performancecomputingcoherencetimescircuitmapping

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's claim is that the daily calibration telemetry already collected for a superconducting processor—T1 and T2 coherence times, readout fidelity, and single- and two-qubit gate fidelities, logged once per day for over 250 days on a 20-qubit IQM device—contains enough structure to split the qubits into stable and noisy families. Applying unsupervised clustering that combines each qubit's metric history with its position in the chip's connectivity graph, the authors find the same split under four different algorithms: most qubits sit in one stable group, while a smaller set is persistently noisy. The paper validates this split with real circuits: five-qubit GHZ states run on the stable cluster keep higher and steadier fidelity (0.74 ± 0.05) than the same states run on the noisy cluster (0.63 ± 0.14), and a heatmap of two-qubit GHZ fidelities matches the cluster map. If this is right, an HPC operator can turn an ordinary calibration log into a qubit health indicator that steers circuit mapping, recalibration priority, and maintenance scheduling without extra measurement overhead.

What carries the argument

Unsupervised clustering is the load-bearing mechanism. Each qubit gets a feature vector from the daily means of six calibration metrics, extended by a Node2Vec graph embedding of the 20-qubit connectivity graph so that both behavior and position count; the number of clusters is chosen by maximizing silhouette score. Before clustering, the paper establishes structure with autocorrelation functions (up to 30-day lags) and four cross-metric correlation measures (Pearson, Spearman, distance correlation, mutual information), which show that fidelity metrics move together, coherence times move together, and T1 has multi-day memory while fidelities forget within a day. The cluster assignments are t

What would settle it

Take the first 125 days of the calibration record, cluster qubits from that half alone, then run the same five-qubit GHZ circuits on the predicted stable and noisy clusters during the following 125 days; if the 'noisy' cluster matches or beats the 'stable' cluster in mean fidelity—or if GHZ fidelity differences vanish after controlling for the day of measurement—the central claim that clusters predict circuit reliability is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 250 days of once-daily calibration data from a 20-qubit NISQ processor, the paper shows that fidelity metrics—readout, single-qubit, and two-qubit gate fidelity—form one tightly correlated block in all four correlation measures tested, while coherence times form a second block, with weak cross-block coupling. When qubits are clustered from their six-dimensional metric histories plus a Node2Vec embedding of the chip topology, KMeans, GMM, Spectral, and Node2Vec+KMeans all separate the qubits into a dominant stable cluster and a noisy minority. The experimental validation is direct: hourly runs of GHZ circuits show per-pair fidelity patterns that mirror the cluster map, and 5-qubit GHZ s

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis assumes the 250-day calibration record is a clean mirror of qubit health—that the daily calibration procedure, pulse shapes, readout settings, and environment stayed consistent enough that every fluctuation in the metrics is due to the device itself, not to how the data was logged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Qubit placement for jobs can be chosen from daily calibration logs alone, steering error-sensitive circuits to the stable cluster without running extra benchmarks.
Recalibration and diagnostic effort can be prioritized on the noisy cluster, such as qubits 3, 5, 10 and their coupled pairs, which show persistent variability.
Because fidelity metrics are strongly correlated across the chip, monitoring a single representative fidelity (with coherence times as a second signal) is enough to trigger broad health alerts.
The two warm-up events visible in gate-fidelity heatmaps mean global events can degrade large regions at once; cluster-aware scheduling should re-derive clusters after each cryogenic cycle.
Autocorrelation results suggest T1 has multi-day memory while fidelity metrics lose memory after a day, so recalibration intervals can be set per metric class.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension the authors leave implicit: cluster labels from the first half of the record should predict GHZ fidelity in the second half; if they do, the method is a genuine predictive model rather than a description of one window.
The same clustering pipeline likely transfers to the 54- and 150-qubit chips mentioned in the conclusion, since it only needs daily calibration tables and a connectivity graph; the main risk is whether cluster structure remains stable as device scale grows.
The strong cross-metric correlation block could be exploited for anomaly detection: a simultaneous drop in T1 and T2echo may be a leading indicator that a full recalibration is needed before gate fidelities visibly degrade.
Beyond scheduling, cluster membership drift over time could itself be a health signal: a qubit moving from the stable to the noisy cluster may be developing a TLS or coupling defect before standard thresholds trip.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a useful operational case study with real 250-day calibration data from a 20-qubit IQM chip, but the headline claim—that clustering predicts circuit performance—is not backed by the validation as reported. The GHZ experiment has multiple confounds, so the paper overstates what the data show.

What's actually new and good: a 250-day longitudinal dataset from a production HPC-integrated device is genuinely rare. The descriptive analysis (heatmaps, distributions, heavy tails) is careful and reads as honest engineering. The autocorrelation analysis is a practical touch and the comparison of four correlation methods is clean. The consistency of clustering across KMeans, GMM, Spectral, and Node2Vec is a solid empirical result. The authors also flag some temporal quirks (e.g., T2 echo recorded later), which is a good sign of careful handling.

Soft spots, in order of severity:

1. The GHZ validation does not validate prediction. The good and bad circuits share qubit 8, so the comparison is not between disjoint stable/noisy families. The clustering features include readout and gate fidelities, and GHZ fidelity is not readout-error corrected, so the gap may simply re-detect inputs used to build the clusters. No temporal split is described: clusters come from the 250-day record, but the GHZ measurement window is not shown to be out-of-sample. Only two 5-qubit circuits are reported, with overlapping standard deviations (0.74±0.05 vs 0.63±0.14), and there is no significance test. The sentence claiming circuits mapped to robust clusters yield more reliable outcomes goes beyond the evidence.

2. Clustering configuration is underreported: k, Node2Vec hyperparameters, silhouette scores, and data windows are largely unspecified. This makes the result hard to reproduce or judge.

3. No code or data are released, which is a shame for a data-driven paper.

4. The novelty is incremental: each individual technique is standard, and variability-aware qubit selection was already in the literature (e.g., Tannu and Qureshi). The value is in the integration and the rare dataset, not in a new method.

The circularity concern is real but not fatal for the clustering itself—unsupervised clustering is a legitimate way to identify structure. What is not legitimate is calling it a predictive model when the validating metric shares the same error sources as the features.

Overall: this deserves a serious referee because real device data over 250 days is valuable and the framework is operationally motivated. But the abstract overstates the evidence. I would recommend major revision: use disjoint circuit sets, apply readout-error correction, run significance tests over more circuits, define a clear out-of-sample split, report all hyperparameters, and release code and data. If the authors do that, this becomes a credible reference for HPC centers operating NISQ devices.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 250 days of calibration data from a 20-qubit IQM superconducting processor in an HPC environment. It studies temporal autocorrelation and cross-metric correlations of T1, T2, readout fidelity, and single-/two-qubit gate fidelities. The authors then apply unsupervised clustering (KMeans, GMM, Spectral, Node2Vec+KMeans) to group qubits into stable and noisy families, and report GHZ-state experiments that they interpret as validating the clusters. The paper concludes with recommendations for recalibration scheduling and circuit mapping in HPC-integrated quantum systems.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, this would be a practically valuable contribution: daily calibration logs alone could identify reliability families of qubits that predict real circuit performance, informing HPC workload scheduling. The paper's strengths are its real long-term operational dataset (250 days, 20 qubits), the systematic comparison of four correlation methods, the use of multiple clustering algorithms, and the direct hardware validation attempt. These are concrete, reproducible-in-principle empirical contributions to a field where such longitudinal calibration studies are rare. The paper does not ship code or data, and the validation as reported is too weak to support the predictive claim, but the underlying framework is plausible and worth strengthening.

major comments (4)

[Section IV, Fig. 9(b)] The GHZ validation is not sufficient to support the claim that 'circuits mapped to robust clusters indeed yield more reliable experimental outcomes.' (1) The two 5-qubit circuits overlap: {13,8,12,17,14} and {3,0,2,8,4} both contain qubit 8, so the comparison is not between disjoint stable and noisy qubit sets. (2) The reported fidelities 0.74±0.05 and 0.63±0.14 overlap within uncertainty, and no significance test, number of repetitions, or shot counts are given. (3) No temporal split is described; clusters are built from the 250-day calibration record, while the GHZ measurement window is not stated to be outside that record, so the agreement could be an in-sample descriptive correlation rather than out-of-sample prediction. (4) Readout error is not mitigated or corrected, and readout fidelity is one of the clustering features; GHZ fidelity extracted from measured populations can therefo
[Section III.C] The clustering setup is under-specified in ways that affect the central claim of robust stable/noisy families. The paper states that the optimal number of clusters is chosen by maximizing the silhouette score, but it does not report silhouette values or the selected k. Node2Vec hyperparameters (embedding dimension, walk length, number of walks, context window, p, q) are not given, nor is it explained how the 6-dimensional metric feature vector and the graph embedding are concatenated and normalized. The claim that KMeans and Spectral 'give the same as' Node2Vec+KMeans is only qualitative; no cluster-agreement metric (e.g., adjusted Rand index) is provided. Without these details, it is hard to assess whether the stable/noisy split is intrinsic or an artifact of particular hyperparameters. Please report the full clustering pipeline and quantitative agreement across algorithms.
[Sections II.D and III.B] The analysis relies on several time windows that are not defined. Section II.D discusses probability distributions computed over 'a representative time window' without specifying its start, end, or selection criterion. Section III.B computes metric correlations 'over 80 days after cool-down' but does not state which cool-down event (the paper mentions warm-ups at Day 130 and Day 180) or why 80 days was chosen. If these windows were chosen after inspecting the data, the reported correlations and cluster features could be influenced by selection bias. Please define the windows a priori or show that the clustering and correlation conclusions are stable across multiple sub-periods.
[Section II, first paragraph after dataset description] The paper assumes 'no procedural drift' because the calibration schedule and pulse/readout configurations are fixed, yet the same section and Section II.C describe two cryogenic warm-up/cool-down cycles and incremental recalibration relying on prior parameters. These are procedural changes that visibly affect gate fidelities (the 'two pronounced boundaries' in Fig. 4). The clustering is performed over the entire 250-day record, so the stable/noisy classification may partly reflect qubit responses to these global events rather than intrinsic qubit health. I recommend showing that the clusters are stable when computed separately for the intervals before and after each warm-up, or that the clustering features account for the regime changes.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV] Hadamard circuit results are mentioned as part of the hourly benchmarks but no Hadamard fidelity data are shown; either include them or remove the reference.
[Section II.A] The notation for T2 is inconsistent: T2*, T2^echo, and T2 are used without a single consolidated definition. Please define all variants at first use and use consistent subscripts/superscripts throughout.
[Section II.C] The text says 'qubit 6 has a sharpest drop' and 'qubit 3 exhibits persistent variability'; please adjust grammar and make clear whether these are the same qubits flagged by the standard-deviation bar plots.
[Figure 8] The captions state that KMeans and Spectral give the same result as Node2Vec+KMeans, but the figure does not show those results. A quantitative cluster-comparison metric (e.g., adjusted Rand index) would be more informative than the verbal claim.
[Section III.B] The phrase 'over 80 days after cool-down' is ambiguous: after which cool-down, and why 80 days? Please specify the exact date range and justify the choice.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

GHZ 'validation' re-measures the gate/readout fidelities used as clustering features, so the central claim partially reduces to its inputs.

fitted input called prediction [Section III.C (feature vector construction) and Section IV (GHZ use case, Fig. 9)]
"We combine each qubit's temporal feature vector (e.g., daily means of 6 dimensional vector) with their topological connectivity (via Node2Vec graph embedding [40]). ... To further quantify the impact of clustering on operation, we compare the fidelity evolution of two representative 5-qubit GHZ circuits over time. ... The mean fidelity of good circuit is 0.74 ± 0.05, while the mean of bad circuit is 0.63 ± 0.14. This demonstrates that circuits mapped to robust clusters indeed yield more reliable experimental outcomes."

The 6-dimensional feature vector used for clustering includes the readout fidelity and single-/two-qubit gate fidelities described in Sections II.B and II.C. A GHZ-state fidelity is directly governed by exactly these same error sources: two-qubit CZ gate fidelities and readout fidelity. Thus the lower GHZ fidelity of the "bad" cluster is a re-measurement of the input features in a different circuit, not an independent confirmation that clustering predicts performance. The comparison is also not shown to be out-of-sample (clusters come from the 250-day record; the GHZ measurement window is not stated to be outside it) and the two 5-qubit sets overlap in qubit 8, so the reported gap is substantially forced by shared inputs.

full rationale

The paper is largely a descriptive data-analysis study: it computes autocorrelations, cross-metric correlations, and unsupervised clusters, and it compares several clustering algorithms. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the self-citations to prior HPC-integration work are not load-bearing for the main clustering claim. The load-bearing validation step, however, is Section IV's GHZ experiment. Because the cluster features already include the readout and gate fidelities that dominate GHZ circuit error, the observed agreement between cluster labels and GHZ fidelities is substantially circular: the GHZ result re-measures the input features rather than demonstrating emergent predictive power. The overlapping circuit membership (qubit 8 appears in both the 'good' and 'bad' sets) and the absence of a stated out-of-sample or readout-error-corrected split reinforce that the comparison is not an independent test. This warrants a partial-circularity score of 6: the central 'validation' reduces in part, but not entirely, to the clustering inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on treating calibration log data as reliable health signals, on standard clustering and correlation methodology, and on GHZ fidelity as an operational benchmark. No new physical entities are postulated. The main free parameters are data-window choices and clustering configuration, several of which are not reported.

free parameters (5)

number of clusters k = not reported (silhouette-maximizing)
The stable/noisy split is defined by the cluster count, chosen by maximizing silhouette score but the value and scores are not reported in Section III.C.
Node2Vec embedding hyperparameters = not reported
Embedding dimension, walk length, context window, and iterations are not specified in Section III.C; clustering results depend on these choices.
cross-metric correlation time window = about 80 days after a cool-down
Section III.B computes correlations over a post-cool-down window of unspecified exact length and starting point; this choice affects the correlation matrices.
representative time window for distributions = unspecified
Section II.D uses a 'representative time window' for the probability density plots without defining its boundaries.
T2/T1 ratio cutoff = 2.0
Section II.A omits ratios larger than 2.0 from the displayed data, a post-hoc exclusion that could bias reported ratio statistics.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Standard quantum characterization protocols and nonlinear least-squares fits produce accurate values for T1, T2, and gate/readout fidelities
Section II states these metrics are extracted from standard protocols with parameters obtained via nonlinear least-square fits; all subsequent analysis treats them as ground truth.
domain assumption Fixed daily calibration schedule and consistent pulse/readout settings imply observed fluctuations reflect device and environmental variability, not procedural drift
Stated explicitly in Section II: 'we ensure that metric fluctuations reflect true device and environmental variability, without procedural drift.' If false, clusters would capture logging artifacts.
domain assumption GHZ state fidelity is a valid operational performance measure for validating qubit clusters
Section IV uses GHZ circuits as the validation benchmark without independent justification of their representativeness for general workloads.
ad hoc to paper Silhouette score maximization yields the correct number of intrinsic qubit clusters
Section III.C chooses cluster count by silhouette score but reports no scores, no alternative k values, and no stability analysis across resamples.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Qubit Health Analytics and Clustering for HPC-Integrated Quantum Processors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SRSXDRY

@misc{pith2026250821231,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Qubit Health Analytics and Clustering for HPC-Integrated Quantum Processors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SRSXDRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21231}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum computing in supercomputing centers requires robust tools to analyze calibration datasets, predict hardware performance, and optimize operational workflows. This paper presents a data-driven framework for processing calibration metrics. Our model is based on a real calibration quality metrics dataset from our in-house 20-qubit NISQ device and for more than 250 days. We apply detailed data analysis to uncover temporal patterns and cross-metric correlations. Using unsupervised clustering, we identify stable and noisy qubits. We also validate our model using GHZ state experiments. Our study provides health indicators as well as hardware-driven maintenance and recalibration recommendations, thus motivating the integration of relevant schedulers with HPCQC workflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21231 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a) Relaxation time T1 heatmap over time. The average across 20 qubits and over more than 250 days shows 40.95 ± 10.54(std)µs. (b) Dephasing time (Ramsey) T ⋆ 2 heatmap over time, with the average 3.89 ± 2.27µs. (c) Spin echo T echo 2 heatmap over time, with the average 17.7 ± 6.05µs. (d) T echo 2 /T1 heatmap over time. The mean is around 0.44 with std 0.16. The minimal ratio is 0.03 and the maximal is 1.4. The rati… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) Heatmap of readout fidelity for each qubit across 250 days. Color scale ranges from 0.75 to 1.00. The overall mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Heatmaps of (a) single-qubit and (c) two-qubit CZ gate fidelities over 250 days and their bar-plots of variance over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Probability distribution of each quality metric across all qubits/pairs and days: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (a) ACF of daily average for metrics T1, Freadout and F1q across all 20 qubits with 95% confidence interval. (b) Representative single-qubit ACFs for qubits 0 and 15. Qubit 0’s single-qubit gate exhibits a long-lived drift for several days. 15 appears nearly memoryless…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Metric-metric correlation of daily-mean quality metrics over a time window ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Clustering of qubits by (a) Node2Vec+KMeans and (b) GMM. The results by KMeans and Spectral give the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: (a) Heatmap of 2-qubit GHZ fidelity of each pair, that is assigned to its paired qubits. (b) 5-qubit GHZ state evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Review of Superconducting Qubit Devices and Their Large-Scale Integration
quant-ph 2026-02 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

A review summarizing superconducting qubit types, DiVincenzo criteria implementations, coherence limits from defects, and large-scale integration strategies for quantum computing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information . Cambridge University Press, 2000

work page 2000
[2]

Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,

K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,” Rev. Mod. Phys. , vol. 94, p. 015004, Feb 2022. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015004

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 2022
[3]

A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gily ´en, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica, and et al., Quantum Algorithms: A Survey of Applications and End-to-end Complexities . Cambridge University Press, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

2018
[5]

A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,

P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, “A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,” Applied Physics Reviews, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 021318, 06 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5089550

doi:10.1063/1.5089550 2019
[6]

Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin et al., “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,” Nature, vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 505–510, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

High-performance computing with quantum processing units,

K. A. Britt and T. S. Humble, “High-performance computing with quantum processing units,” J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. , vol. 13, no. 3, Mar

work page
[8]

Quantum computers for high-performance computing,

T. S. Humble, A. McCaskey, D. I. Lyakh, M. Gowrishankar, A. Frisch, and T. Monz, “Quantum computers for high-performance computing,” IEEE Micro, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 15–23, 2021

2021

Show all 44 references

[9]

Accelerating hpc with quantum computing: It is a software challenge too,

M. Schulz, M. Ruefenacht, D. Kranzlm ¨uller, and L. B. Schulz, “Accelerating hpc with quantum computing: It is a software challenge too,” Computing in Science & Engineering , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 60–64, 2022

2022
[10]

Integration of quantum accelerators with high performance computing – a review of quantum programming tools,

A. Elsharkawy, X.-T. M. To, P. Seitz, Y . Chen, Y . Stade, M. Geiger, Q. Huang, X. Guo, M. A. Ansari, C. B. Mendl, D. Kranzlm ¨uller, and M. Schulz, “Integration of quantum accelerators with high performance computing – a review of quantum programming tools,” 2023. [Online]. A...

2023
[12]

Qure: Qubit re-allocation in noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers,

A. A. Saki, M. Alam, and S. Ghosh, “Qure: Qubit re-allocation in noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers,” in 2019 56th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) , 2019, pp. 1–6

2019
[13]

Not all qubits are created equal: A case for variability-aware policies for nisq-era quantum computers,

S. S. Tannu and M. K. Qureshi, “Not all qubits are created equal: A case for variability-aware policies for nisq-era quantum computers,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-F ourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems , ser...

2019
[14]

Timing and resource-aware mapping of quantum circuits to superconducting processors,

L. Lao, H. van Someren, I. Ashraf, and C. G. Almudever, “Timing and resource-aware mapping of quantum circuits to superconducting processors,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 359–371, 2022

2022
[15]

Calibration-aware transpilation for variational quantum optimization,

Y . Ji, S. Brandhofer, and I. Polian, “Calibration-aware transpilation for variational quantum optimization,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , 2022, pp. 204–214

2022
[16]

Supermarq: A scalable quantum benchmark suite,

T. Tomesh, P. Gokhale, V . Omole, G. S. Ravi, K. N. Smith, J. Viszlai, X.-C. Wu, N. Hardavellas, M. R. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, “Supermarq: A scalable quantum benchmark suite,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA) , 2022, pp. 587–603

2022
[17]

A hybrid classical-quantum hpc workload,

A. Esposito, J. R. Jones, S. Cabaniols, and D. Brayford, “A hybrid classical-quantum hpc workload,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 02, 2023, pp. 117–121

2023
[18]

Resource-aware scheduling of multiple quantum circuits on a hardware device,

D. Bhoumik, R. Majumdar, and S. Sur-Kolay, “Resource-aware scheduling of multiple quantum circuits on a hardware device,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08930

2024 arXiv
[19]

Modular compilation for quantum chiplet architectures,

M. J. Jeng, N. V . Maruszewski, C. Selna, M. Gavrincea, K. N. Smith, and N. Hardavellas, “Modular compilation for quantum chiplet architectures,”
[20]

Conqure: A co-execution environment for quantum and classical resources,

A. Mahesh, S. Mittal, and F. Mueller, “Conqure: A co-execution environment for quantum and classical resources,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02241

2025
[21]

Enabling efficient real-time calibration on cloud quantum machines,

Y . Liu, Z. Li, A. Robertson, X. Fu, and S. L. Song, “Enabling efficient real-time calibration on cloud quantum machines,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 1–17, 2023

2023
[22]

Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors,

M. Sarovar, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, “Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 321, Sep. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-09-11-321

2020 doi
[23]

Quantum crosstalk robust quantum control,

Z. Zhou, R. Sitler, Y . Oda, K. Schultz, and G. Quiroz, “Quantum crosstalk robust quantum control,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 131, p. 210802, Nov 2023. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.210802

2023 doi
[24]

Physical qubit calibration on a directed acyclic graph,

J. Kelly, P. O’Malley, M. Neeley, H. Neven, and J. M. Martinis, “Physical qubit calibration on a directed acyclic graph,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.03226

2018 arXiv
[25]

Qibocal: an open-source framework for calibration of self-hosted quantum devices,

A. Pasquale, E. Pedicillo, J. Cereijo, S. Ramos-Calderer, A. Candido, G. Palazzo, R. Carobene, M. Gobbo, S. Efthymiou, Y . P. Tan, I. Roth, M. Robbiati, J. Wilkens, A. Orgaz-Fuertes, D. Fuentes-Ruiz, A. Giachero, F. Brito, J. I. Latorre, and S. Carrazza, “Qibocal: an open-sour...

2024 arXiv
[26]

QUAlibrate: Advanced User-Programmed Calibration Software for Large-Scale Quantum Computers,

S. Asaad and maxim v4s, “QUAlibrate: Advanced User-Programmed Calibration Software for Large-Scale Quantum Computers,” 5 2025, open-source calibration platform for quantum computers. Accessed: 2025-06-28. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/qua-platform/qualibrate

2025
[27]

Survey on quantum circuit compilation for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers: Artificial intelligence to heuristics,

J. Kusyk, S. M. Saeed, and M. U. Uyar, “Survey on quantum circuit compilation for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers: Artificial intelligence to heuristics,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , vol. 2, pp. 1–16, 2021

2021
[28]

Learning high-accuracy error decoding for quantum processors,

J. Bausch, A. W. Senior, F. J. H. Heras, T. Edlich, A. Davies, M. Newman, C. Jones, K. Satzinger, M. Y . Niu, S. Blackwell, G. Holland, D. Kafri, J. Atalaya, C. Gidney, D. Hassabis, S. Boixo, H. Neven, and P. Kohli, “Learning high-accuracy error decoding for quantum processors...

2024 doi
[29]

Artificial intelligence for quantum computing,

Y . Alexeev, M. H. Farag, T. L. Patti, M. E. Wolf, N. Ares, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, Z. Cai, Z. Chandani, F. Fedele, N. Harrigan, J.-S. Kim, E. Kyoseva, J. G. Lietz, T. Lubowe, A. McCaskey, R. G. Melko, K. Nakaji, A. Peruzzo, S. Stanwyck, N. M. Tubman, H. Wang, and T. ...

2024
[30]

Quantum computing and artificial intelligence: status and perspectives,

G. Acampora, A. Ambainis, N. Ares, L. Banchi, P. Bhardwaj, D. Binosi, G. A. D. Briggs, T. Calarco, V . Dunjko, J. Eisert, O. Ezratty, P. Erker, F. Fedele, E. Gil-Fuster, M. G ¨arttner, M. Granath, M. Heyl, I. Kerenidis, M. Klusch, A. F. Kockum, R. Kueng, M. Krenn, J. L ¨assig,...
[31]

Identification of malfunctioning quantum devices,

M. Skotiniotis, S. Llorens, R. Hotz, J. Calsamiglia, and R. Mu ˜noz Tapia, “Identification of malfunctioning quantum devices,” Phys. Rev. Res. , vol. 6, p. 033329, Sep 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033329

2024 doi
[32]

Prediction and real-time compensation of qubit decoherence via machine-learning,

S. Mavadia, V . Frey, J. Sastrawan, S. Dona, and M. J. Biercuk, “Prediction and real-time compensation of qubit decoherence via machine-learning,” Nature Communications, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 14106, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14106

2017
[33]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23860

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23860

arXiv
[34]

Calibration and performance evaluation of a superconducting quantum processor in an hpc center,

X. Deng, S. Pogorzalek, F. Vigneau, P. Yang, M. Schulz, and L. Schulz, “Calibration and performance evaluation of a superconducting quantum processor in an hpc center,” in ISC High Performance 2024 Research Paper Proceedings (39th International Conference) , 2024, pp. 1–9

2024
[35]

Garnet Quantum Processing Unit (QPU),

IQM Quantum Computers, “Garnet Quantum Processing Unit (QPU),” https://www.iqmacademy.com/qpu/garnet/, 2024, accessed: 30 June 2025

2024
[36]

Machine learning for predictive estimation of qubit dynamics subject to dephasing,

R. S. Gupta and M. J. Biercuk, “Machine learning for predictive estimation of qubit dynamics subject to dephasing,” Phys. Rev. Appl. , vol. 9, p. 064042, Jun 2018. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.9.064042

2018 doi
[37]

R. H. Shumway and D. S. Stoffer, Time Series Analysis and Its Applications: With R Examples , 4th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52452-8

2017 doi
[38]

B. V . Vishwas and A. Patel, Hands-on Time Series Analysis with Python , 1st ed. Berkeley, CA: Apress, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4842-5992-4

2020 doi
[39]

G. E. P. Box, G. M. Jenkins, G. C. Reinsel, and G. M. Ljung, Time Series Analysis: F orecasting and Control , 5th ed. Wiley, 2015

2015
[40]

node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks,

A. Grover and J. Leskovec, “node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , ser. KDD ’16. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2016, p. 855–864. [Onli...

2016
[41]

A tutorial on spectral clustering,

U. von Luxburg, “A tutorial on spectral clustering,” Stat. Comput., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 395–416, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222- 007-9033-z

2007 doi
[42]

Hastie, R

T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman, The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction , 2nd ed., ser. Springer Series in Statistics. New York, NY: Springer, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7

2009 doi
[45]

Towards a unified architectural representation in hpcqc: Extending sys-sage for quantum technologies,

D. Mishra, S. Vanecek, J. Echavarria, X. Deng, B. Mete, L. Schulz, and M. Schulz, “Towards a unified architectural representation in hpcqc: Extending sys-sage for quantum technologies,” in ISC High Performance 2025 Research Paper Proceedings (40th International Conference) , 2...

2025
[2017]

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3007651

[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3007651

doi
[2025]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.08478

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.08478

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information . Cambridge University Press, 2000

work page 2000

[2] [2]

Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,

K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,” Rev. Mod. Phys. , vol. 94, p. 015004, Feb 2022. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015004

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 2022

[3] [3]

A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gily ´en, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica, and et al., Quantum Algorithms: A Survey of Applications and End-to-end Complexities . Cambridge University Press, 2025

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

2018

[5] [5]

A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,

P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, “A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,” Applied Physics Reviews, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 021318, 06 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5089550

doi:10.1063/1.5089550 2019

[6] [6]

Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin et al., “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,” Nature, vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 505–510, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

High-performance computing with quantum processing units,

K. A. Britt and T. S. Humble, “High-performance computing with quantum processing units,” J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. , vol. 13, no. 3, Mar

work page

[8] [8]

Quantum computers for high-performance computing,

T. S. Humble, A. McCaskey, D. I. Lyakh, M. Gowrishankar, A. Frisch, and T. Monz, “Quantum computers for high-performance computing,” IEEE Micro, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 15–23, 2021

2021