Papers for

quantum software developers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Predicting noisy quantum circuit simulation runtime after transpilation

Transpilation-Aware Runtime Prediction for Noisy Quantum Circuit Simulation

Abstract: Predicting the runtime of noisy quantum circuit simulations is important for scheduling, resource allocation, and performance optimization. However, accurate prediction is challenging because backend-aware transpilation can substantially alter the original circuit structure, while the backend-derived noise model and simulator execution behavior can introduce additional runtime variation. We study the effectiveness of graph neural networks (GNNs) and conventional regression methods in predicting Qiskit Aer simulation runtime measured after transpilation. We construct a dataset from a benchmark pool of 1,402 unique circuits spanning 22 circuit families, two Qiskit fake-backend configurations, and four transpiler optimization levels. Specifically, we compare a source GNN using original circuit information, hybrid GNN combining source-level graph with post-transpilation features, and transpiled GNN using only transpiled circuit information, along with five regression models. In the overall-model setting, the transpiled GNN achieves the strongest performance among the graph-based representations at all four optimization levels, obtaining $R^2$ values of 0.974, 0.713, 0.745, and 0.605 for optimization levels 0 through 3, respectively. However, under backend-specific evaluation, the advantage of GNN decreases, with conventional regression models matching or outperforming the GNNs in several settings. These results indicate that post-transpilation information is useful, while the value of explicit graph modeling depends on the backend and optimization level.

Fri 11 SeptPerformance
The gist
Figuring out how long it takes to simulate quantum circuits with noise is tricky because the circuits often change after being prepared for a specific quantum computer backend. The authors studied different ways to predict simulation time, comparing graph neural networks that look at circuit structure before and after these changes with traditional regression methods. They found that using information from after the changes (transpilation) helps make better predictions, but traditional methods can sometimes match or beat neural networks depending on the simulation setup. This work helps improve planning and resource use in noisy quantum computing simulations.
Open 2609.12980v1

Betti number estimation likely remains hard for classical and quantum algorithms

Average-case hardness of Betti number estimation

Abstract: We establish the average-case hardness of Betti number estimation on random clique complexes via a reduction from the planted clique problem. We further show that our reduction implies a series of hardness results for many problems in both classical and quantum Topological Data Analysis (qTDA). Under the classical planted clique conjecture, no randomized polynomial-time Betti number estimator achieves additive error below $\tfrac12$ with constant advantage. Under a new quantum planted clique conjecture that we introduce, the same conclusion holds for quantum polynomial-time algorithms. We also obtain related conditional hardness results for homology vanishing, additive approximations with larger error tolerances, preparation of simplex and harmonic states, cycle recovery, and counting eigenvalues at low energy. Our reduction clarifies the structural requirements for quantum advantage in TDA and provides a new lens to investigate the classical and quantum complexity of related problems.

Fri 11 SeptComputational Complexity
The gist
Estimating Betti numbers helps understand the shape and connectivity of complex structures, but it’s generally hard to do efficiently. The authors show that even on average, this task is as tough as finding a hidden large group in random graphs, a known difficult problem. They argue this hardness applies not only to classical computer programs but also to quantum computers if certain assumptions hold. This means some topological data analysis challenges probably can't be solved quickly by current or near-future algorithms.
Open 2609.12777v1

Quantum computers compared using a new benchmark for real tasks

Benchmarking the computational power of quantum computers

Abstract: Quantum computing hardware is advancing rapidly toward utility-scale machines that will enable scientific breakthroughs. Many teams are pursuing distinct and difficult-to-compare routes to this goal, using different qubit technologies and logical architectures. Tracking progress toward quantum utility therefore requires rigorous benchmarks that measure computational capability relative to utility-scale challenge problems and enable fair comparison across disparate platforms. Here we demonstrate direct, cross-platform measurement of quantum computational capability using a new benchmark that quantifies the size of the largest computationally relevant quantum circuits that a machine can execute successfully and the speed at which it can execute them. We apply this quantum universal operation performance system (QUOPS) experimentally to leading processors from Quantinuum, Google, and IBM, computing directly on physical qubits. Translating state-of-the-art resource requirements for recognized challenge problems that represent useful quantum computation into effective QUOPS circuit sizes shows that computational capability must grow by 5 orders of magnitude, motivating fault-tolerant approaches. We use the same benchmark to assess the performance of a simple fault-tolerant logical-qubit processor implemented on up to eight [[7,1,3]]-encoded logical qubits using Quantinuum Helios-1, and project the growth of capability across successive generations of fault-tolerant quantum computers to show how QUOPS can track progress toward quantum scientific utility.

Thu 10 SeptEmerging TechnologiesPerformance
The gist
Quantum computers are being built in many ways, making it hard to compare how good they are. The authors introduce a new test, called QUOPS, that measures how big and how fast quantum computers can run useful programs. They tried this test on some of the best quantum machines from Quantinuum, Google, and IBM. Their results show quantum computers still need to get much more powerful to do important scientific work, encouraging better error correction methods. The same test also works for quantum computers using basic error correction, helping track future progress.
Open 2609.12146v1

Quantum classifiers get new way to certify robustness against attacks

Certifying Adversarial Robustness of Quantum Classifiers under Known-Readout Query Access

Abstract: A quantum classifier assigns labels by evolving an input quantum state and measuring the output, so repeated executions reveal only a distribution over labels. We study certified adversarial robustness for such classifiers under known-readout query access (KRQA), where an evaluator can prepare inputs, knows the quantum measurement, and observes finite-shot outcomes but cannot inspect the internal evolution, parameters, or gradients. We give a measurement-only framework that returns two complementary guarantees for each input: a lower bound ruling out untargeted errors within a radius, and an attack-independent upper bound witnessing an adversarial state within a radius. Both are estimable from the known readout measurement and sampled outcomes, require no tomography or circuit description, and admit finite-sample guarantees. The upper bound uses gap operators induced by the quantum measurement; the lower bound relaxes state-space search to an efficient optimization over outcome distributions with operator-spectrum constraints, yielding certificates that are never weaker than prior probability-only certificates and can be strictly stronger when the spectral constraints are active. Evaluations on multiple quantum classifiers show that the lower bound tracks exact optima on tractable instances, while the upper bound remains informative when standard attacks fail. We further demonstrate real-device feasibility on IBM Quantum hardware: from 40 executions of two 8-qubit quantum neural networks, our method computes both certificates, with the expected ordering between the lower and upper bounds on every tested input. Taken together, these results show that robustness claims for quantum classifiers can be audited directly from observable statistics under KRQA.

Thu 10 SeptCryptography and Security
The gist
Quantum computers can be used for classifying information, but they might be tricked by tiny changes that cause wrong answers. This paper presents a method to check how resistant quantum classifiers are to such changes by only looking at the measurement results, without needing to know the details inside. The authors create two types of guarantees for each input—one shows how safe the classifier is against any error within a certain limit, and the other warns of potential vulnerabilities. They tested their approach on real quantum devices and showed it works practically.
Open 2609.11637v1

Supervised compression boosts quantum NLP classification accuracy

Hybrid Quantum-Classical NLP Classification with Compact Semantic Representations: An Experimental Analysis of Representation Compression

Abstract: Large language and sentence-embedding models provide rich semantic representations, but their high dimensionality poses a challenge for near-term quantum machine learning (QML), where quantum circuits can process only a limited number of input features. We investigate a hybrid quantum-classical pipeline that transforms high-dimensional sentence embeddings into compact representations for variational quantum classification. The workflow combines a pretrained sentence-embedding model, dimensionality reduction, angle encoding, a variational quantum circuit (VQC), and a classical decision layer. We systematically compare principal component analysis (PCA), neighborhood components analysis (NCA), and linear discriminant analysis (LDA), covering both unsupervised and supervised dimensionality reduction. Using the TREC question-classification dataset, we study the relationship between representation dimensionality, information retention, qubit count, and classification performance. Preliminary PCA experiments reveal a strong information bottleneck: reducing 768-dimensional embeddings to 3, 4, 5, and 8 dimensions retains about 8.2%, 10.2%, 11.9%, and 16.4% of the variance, with corresponding classification accuracies of 50.3%, 51.2%, 57.9%, and 63.4%. In contrast, supervised reduction is substantially more efficient. LDA reaches 85.3% accuracy and NCA reaches 83.1% using only 5 dimensions, under a leakage-free cross-validation protocol, compared with 85.1% for a full 384-dimensional classical baseline. These results indicate that supervised dimensionality reduction can preserve task-relevant information far more effectively than variance-based compression, making compact representations a promising route toward practical hybrid quantum-classical NLP models.

Wed 9 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Quantum computers can only handle a small number of input features, so representing long sentences for them is hard. The authors studied ways to shrink large sentence descriptions into smaller, meaningful ones without losing important information. They found that supervised methods, which use task labels, keep more useful details than simple variance-based methods. This makes hybrid quantum-classical systems more practical for natural language tasks. Their experiments showed that with just five features, these methods nearly matched the accuracy of much larger classical models.
Open 2609.10089v1

Fault-tolerant quantum memories do not hide logical input from error logs

Execution-transcript privacy for fault-tolerant surface-code memories

Abstract: A fault-tolerant quantum computer runs behind a telemetry stream logging syndromes, decoder actions, resets and timing separately from the answer. Can it reveal the logical input? For a distance-$d$ rotated surface-code memory on a fixed schedule of $T=Θ(d)$ rounds, under three stated hypotheses (sector-scalar honest backbone, transcript locality, Kotecky-Preiss smallness), the channel from logical qubit to transcript is $e^{-Θ(d)}$-close in diamond norm to one that ignores the input. A statement of this kind follows generically from correctability-privacy duality. Anisotropy does not. Each logical axis pays the distance of its own coset, so under amplitude damping the computational-basis label is governed by the code's $Z$-distance $d_Z\ge d_{\min}$ and not by the code distance. Two codes of quantum distance $1$ make the gap concrete. A phase-flip code's $X$-syndrome transcript is exactly input-independent under unobserved damping, while a repetition code leaks at first order. A matched converse identifies the records that do expose it, among them a lattice-surgery parity readout. On a 156-qubit superconducting processor our sufficient certificate misses by $21.5\times$, so the theorem cannot be invoked there. Measured directly, a $d_Z=1$ memory's record identifies its input with total variation $\ge 0.927$ under randomised, label-balanced acquisition. Holding the code fixed and varying the damping exposure reproduces the parameter-free law, with exponent $0.85\pm0.03$ against a predicted $0.86$. Randomized encoding returns the statistic to the floor at no two-qubit-gate cost. Fault tolerance does not grant transcript privacy. It relocates it, and only to the logical state, not to the circuit's identity.

Tue 8 SeptCryptography and Security
The gist
Quantum computers running error-correcting codes produce detailed logs about errors and corrections during computation. The authors show that even with fault tolerance, the recorded data (transcripts) can leak information about the logical input stored in the quantum memory. They prove this leakage decreases exponentially with the code distance under certain technical conditions, but not always. Their experiments on a real quantum device confirm that some error processes reveal significant input information to these transcripts. The work clarifies when fault tolerance can and cannot keep logical data private from these error records.
Open 2609.09334v1

Improving qubit mapping for dynamic hierarchical quantum circuits

Mapping Dynamic, Hierarchical Quantum Circuits

Abstract: Qubit mapping is a critical pass in quantum compilation. Despite various advances, dynamic circuits, those exhibiting data dependent control-flow, often resulting from qubit measurements, are not yet supported by the vast majority of available qubit mappers. The crucial limitation to overcome is the dependence on flat, one-dimensional representations of circuits. Further, qubit mappers currently lack compiler abstractions that capture the hierarchical nature of circuits, hindering the qubit mapping process. In this paper, 1 we introduce a new qubit mapping method and analyses to tackle hierarchical dynamic circuits. Our novelty resides in four key aspects: modeling (statically) sub-circuits in disjoint control-flow paths, introducing a novel Qubit Reconciliation pass to maintain consistency between sub-circuit and control-flow boundaries, a loop-entry remapping pass, and a refined cost function enhanced for SWAP count, circuit depth, circuit latency and error. We demonstrate the efficiency of our approach on a wide range of dynamic circuits on two monolithic Quantum Processing Units of 127 and 156 qubits, and on chiplet hexagon-based QPUs. On monolithic QPUs, our qubit mapper improves the SWAP count by up to 52%, depth by up to 18%, latency by up to 18.6%, and error by up to 40%. On chiplet architectures, we achieve improvements of up to 36% on SWAP count, 8.7% on depth, 15% on latency, and 15% of error.

Tue 8 SeptProgramming Languages
The gist
Quantum computers perform calculations using quantum bits or qubits, which must be arranged efficiently to work well. Mapping qubits for circuits that change based on measurements and include many layers is difficult, and current methods do not handle this well. The authors introduce a new way to map these complicated, changing circuits more effectively by breaking them into smaller parts and ensuring consistent connections between these parts. This approach leads to fewer extra operations, shorter circuits, faster execution, and less error when tested on large quantum processors.
Open 2609.08075v1

Capability gated checks reveal limits of quantum decoder correctness

Capability-Gated Conformance Testing of Quantum Error-Correction Decoder Libraries

Abstract: A quantum error correction decoder is a library other people's results depend on, judged in one dominant way. Sample errors, decode, and count wrong logical observables. We ask what else can be checked there. Our conformance contract needs no oracle. One check asks that a returned correction explain the syndrome in the caller's index space. The other hands a decoder one instance under two presentations differing only in bookkeeping, where two feasible corrections of different weight prove the heavier is not minimum-weight. Verdicts are gated on what each library declares, so a firing contradicts a published guarantee. Nine configurations from five public libraries give three results. Documentation answers 4 of 54 capability questions. Bounded-distance correctness, the property callers most depend on, has a direct declaration yield of 0.0%, though its hypotheses hold in 62.1% of cases. Presentation sensitivity is real but shallow. One solver moved to a 26% heavier correction under a different numbering, which reaches the logical class at most once in twenty thousand shots. Established evaluation misses corruptions that preserve logical parity, while one summation over the caller's weights catches every one we injected. All 639 certificates ship as bundles a standalone verifier re-derives from first principles.

Mon 7 SeptHardware Architecture
The gist
Quantum computers use special codes to fix errors, and programs called decoders work out how to fix these errors. This paper looks beyond usual tests to see if these decoders really do what they claim without needing a perfect answer to check against. The authors find that many decoders don’t clearly state how well they guarantee correctness, and sometimes change their fixes when given the same problem in a slightly different way. They provide tools to verify decoders more thoroughly and independently.
Open 2609.07035v1