QESEM (unbiased), ibm_boston, ZZd3, 51qx16c

[TasneemWtd]

Name

QESEM (unbiased), ibm_boston, ZZd3, 51qx16c

Circuit

floquet_mixed_field_ising_zzd3_51qx16c

Observable value

0.2111

Error bound (low)

0.1984

Error bound (high)

0.2238

Method

QESEM, IBM (unbiased)

Method proof

QESEM, IBM (unbiased): The experiment is executed on ibm_boston using Qedma's error-suppression
and error-mitigation software (QESEM) [1].
QESEM (unbiased) combines high-accuracy characterization,
quasi-probabilistic mitigation of fractional-angle entangling gates, and active volume identification.
This approach yields expectation values that are unbiased up to characterization error; the error bars
reflect the statistical uncertainties of the mitigation.

The RZZ-based quantum circuit was mapped directly onto the native fractional RZZ gates of IBM Boston,
without decomposition into CZ gates, with the physical qubit layout shown below:

[1] Aharonov et al. (Qedma), arXiv:2508.10997 (2025).

Authors

No response

Institutions

Qedma, IBM, Riken, BlueQubit

Quantum runtime (seconds)

10800

Classical runtime (seconds)

8437

Compute resources (quantum)

ibm_boston

Compute resources (classical)

32 CPUS 32 GB

Notes

No response

[JoeyT1994]

Thanks for the submissions.

Submissions are now being categorized in three categories:

Baseline Benchmarks
These represent problems of interest with sufficient documentation and scale and can include problems where the state-of-the-art is clearly classical, tracked for progress and calibration.
Active Candidates
Problems that have met a higher bar of evidence suggesting quantum methods are credible contenders for advantage. To be clear, problems in this category are not provably examples of quantum advantage. These are merely problems where we do not yet have reliable classical benchmarks
Superseded Candidates
Previously active candidates for which classical methods have caught up or exceeded the quantum approach.
Can you please suggest where you would like to place this submission? Your submission will be reviewed accordingly.

Can you let us know which of these you would like your submission to be considered for?

Can you also provide a 1-page writeup: including the problem statement, a short abstract, summary of methods used and an illustration of the main result (for instance, graphical comparison of quantum and classical solutions/runtimes). This could be further supplemented by more detailed preprints, publications, documents etc but the submission itself should come with a short write-up.