Statevector-to-Hardware Reconstruction of a Four-Qubit ZZ Quantum Kernel: A Single-Backend Case Study of Three Execution Jobs
Abstract
Hardware noise and finite sampling perturb the fidelity estimates forming a quantum-kernel Gram matrix. We measured how far three hardware-reconstructed Gram matrices depart from an exact statevector reference for one frozen four-qubit ZZ feature map on N=24 indoor air-quality windows, executed on ibm_fez at 1024 shots per circuit in three single, non-interleaved jobs: baseline, dynamical decoupling alone, and gate twirling alone. All were complete, finite, and positive-semidefinite. Off-diagonal root-mean-squared error (RMSE) against the reference was 0.0878, 0.0864, and 0.0427; full-matrix centered kernel alignment (CKA) ranged 0.933-0.989 and the post hoc diagonal-excluded (U-centered) CKA 0.816-0.986. The gate-twirled job deviated least on every reported geometry axis; its baseline contrasts are deletion-stable for the Spearman, mean-absolute-error, RMSE, and full-matrix CKA diagnostics, while the Pearson and diagonal-excluded contrasts fall just below that convention. Dynamical decoupling was not separated from the baseline. The observed error exceeded both finite-shot reference scales, so, under those sampling-only models, sampling does not explain it. Centered kernel-target alignment did not track reconstruction fidelity and stayed at or below each label-permutation reference: implementation fidelity and task relevance are distinct diagnostic axes. All configuration-level statements describe three realized jobs on one backend; no mitigation-efficacy, classifier-superiority, forecasting, or quantum-advantage claim is made.
Versions
Related
- Demonstration of Parallel Multi-QPU Execution for Fragment-Based Quantum Chemistry Using On-Premises Hardware
- A Backend-Agnostic MWIS Kernel for Stochastic Unit Commitment with Neutral-Atom Hardware Validation
- Transient Heat Conduction on Quantum Hardware: Replicated Temperature-Field Reconstruction and Shot-Count Sensitivity with a Variational Quantum Linear Solver
- Benchmark Study for Quantum Statevector Simulators for Scientific Computing
- Fault-tolerant execution of error-corrected quantum algorithms
BibTeX
@misc{sipakov2026statevectortohardware,
title = {{Statevector-to-Hardware Reconstruction of a Four-Qubit ZZ Quantum Kernel: A Single-Backend Case Study of Three Execution Jobs}},
author = {Rostyslav Sipakov},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2607.20377},
eprint = {2607.20377},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20377},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Statevector-to-Hardware Reconstruction of a Four-Qubit ZZ Quantum Kernel: A Single-Backend Case Study of Three Execution Jobs
AU - Rostyslav Sipakov
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/03
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2607.20377
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20377
AB - Hardware noise and finite sampling perturb the fidelity estimates forming a quantum-kernel Gram matrix. We measured how far three hardware-reconstructed Gram matrices depart from an exact statevector reference for one frozen four-qubit ZZ feature map on N=24 indoor air-quality windows, executed on ibm_fez at 1024 shots per circuit in three single, non-interleaved jobs: baseline, dynamical decoupling alone, and gate twirling alone. All were complete, finite, and positive-semidefinite. Off-diagonal root-mean-squared error (RMSE) against the reference was 0.0878, 0.0864, and 0.0427; full-matrix centered kernel alignment (CKA) ranged 0.933-0.989 and the post hoc diagonal-excluded (U-centered) CKA 0.816-0.986. The gate-twirled job deviated least on every reported geometry axis; its baseline contrasts are deletion-stable for the Spearman, mean-absolute-error, RMSE, and full-matrix CKA diagnostics, while the Pearson and diagonal-excluded contrasts fall just below that convention. Dynamical decoupling was not separated from the baseline. The observed error exceeded both finite-shot reference scales, so, under those sampling-only models, sampling does not explain it. Centered kernel-target alignment did not track reconstruction fidelity and stayed at or below each label-permutation reference: implementation fidelity and task relevance are distinct diagnostic axes. All configuration-level statements describe three realized jobs on one backend; no mitigation-efficacy, classifier-superiority, forecasting, or quantum-advantage claim is made.
ER -