Cited by 57Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Mechanics and Applications

Generative model benchmarks for superconducting qubits

Open access
Hamilton, Kathleen E., Dumitrescu, Eugene F., Pooser, Raphael C.·2019·Physical Review A

Abstract

In this work we demonstrate experimentally how generative model training can be used as a benchmark for small (fewer than five qubits) quantum devices. Performance is quantified using three data analytic metrics: the Kullback-Leibler divergence and two adaptations of the ${F}_{1}$ score. Using the $2\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}2$ bars and stripes data set, we train several different circuit constructions for generative modeling with superconducting qubits. By taking hardware connectivity constraints into consideration, we show that sparsely connected shallow circuits outperform denser counterparts on noisy hardware.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreva.99.062323

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • QCBMs are well suited to be run on current NISQ hardware and can serve as benchmarks.

    “QCBMs are well suited to be run on current NISQ hardware and can serve as benchmarks (Hamilton et al. ,”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Hamilton et al. , 2019

  • Generative models such as the QCBM can serve as benchmarks for NISQ devices.

    “Generative models such as the QCBM (see Sec. VI.B.2) can also serve as benchmarks for NISQ devices (Hamilton et al. , 2019; Leyton-Ortega et al. , 2019; Zhu et al. , 2019).”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Hamilton et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hamilton, K. E., Dumitrescu, E. F., & Pooser, R. C.
Affiliations
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
Venue
Physical Review A
Published
2019-06-18
Volume
99
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 2469-9926
  • 2469-9934
OpenAlex
W2950205552
Cited by
57
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5
FWCI
4.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ERKJ332)
  • U.S. Department of Energy
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Keywords
generative models, superconducting qubits, Kullback-Leibler divergence, F1 score, shallow circuits, noisy quantum hardware, quantum circuit design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review