Quantum programs pass through compilers, transpilers and vendor services before execution. However, the distance between what was written and what runs is rarely measured. We call this distance realization divergence: the observable difference in how an identical source circuit is realized and behaves across quantum software stacks. We report a hardware study across three vendors and four devices, combining pre-registered predictions with explicitly identified exploratory analyses and amendments. In a compilation experiment with assigned placement policies, embedding radius correlates with two-qubit overhead at Spearman 0.805, against 0.492 for circuit size. Under a fixed lowest-index policy, an eight-qubit Bernstein-Vazirani circuit exhibits greater execution divergence than a twelve-qubit circuit on IQM Emerald. The opposite ordering occurs on IQM Garnet. Both comparisons replicate across two repetitions with disjoint confidence intervals. These results support a placement-dependent explanation, without isolating individual hardware noise mechanisms. The same ordering inversion is absent on the all-to-all IonQ control. On Rigetti Cepheus, a follow-up using topology-aware native placement found no consistent advantage in correct-answer probability for either submission track, but did not establish equivalence between the tracks. Structural comparisons depend on metric weighting, placement and device generation. Provider interfaces also limit observability: Rigetti's supported-operation list remained unchanged across a device generation that replaced the native entangler. We classify silent interface failures in composed toolchains and identify checks at toolchain boundaries, connecting valid cross-provider comparisons with concrete software-quality practices.
Comments
36 pages. Submitted to Software Quality Journal. Replication package: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22471564
Quantum programs pass through compilers, transpilers and vendor services before execution. However, the distance between what was written and what runs is rarely measured. We call this distance realization divergence: the observable difference in how an identical source circuit is realized and behaves across quantum software stacks. We report a hardware study across three vendors and four devices, combining pre-registered predictions with explicitly identified exploratory analyses and amendments. In a compilation experiment with assigned placement policies, embedding radius correlates with two-qubit overhead at Spearman 0.805, against 0.492 for circuit size. Under a fixed lowest-index policy, an eight-qubit Bernstein-Vazirani circuit exhibits greater execution divergence than a twelve-qubit circuit on IQM Emerald. The opposite ordering occurs on IQM Garnet. Both comparisons replicate across two repetitions with disjoint confidence intervals. These results support a placement-dependent explanation, without isolating individual hardware noise mechanisms. The same ordering inversion is absent on the all-to-all IonQ control. On Rigetti Cepheus, a follow-up using topology-aware native placement found no consistent advantage in correct-answer probability for either submission track, but did not establish equivalence between the tracks. Structural comparisons depend on metric weighting, placement and device generation. Provider interfaces also limit observability: Rigetti's supported-operation list remained unchanged across a device generation that replaced the native entangler. We classify silent interface failures in composed toolchains and identify checks at toolchain boundaries, connecting valid cross-provider comparisons with concrete software-quality practices.
In recent years, Quantum Computing (QC) has progressed to the point where small working prototypes are available for use. Termed Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) computers, these prototypes are too small for large benchmarks or even for Quantum Error Correction, but they do have sufficient resources to run small benchmarks, particularly if compiled with optimizations to make use of scarce qubits and limited operation counts and coherence times. QC has not yet, however, settled on a particular preferred device implementation technology, and indeed different NISQ prototypes implement qubits with very different physical approaches and therefore widely-varying device and machine characteristics. Our work performs a full-stack, benchmark-driven hardware-software analysis of QC systems. We evaluate QC architectural possibilities, software-visible gates, and software optimizations to tackle fundamental design questions about gate set choices, communication topology, the factors affecting benchmark performance and compiler optimizations. In order to answer key cross-technology and cross-platform design questions, our work has built the first top-to-bottom toolflow to target different qubit device technologies, including superconducting and trapped ion qubits which are the current QC front-runners. We use our toolflow, TriQ, to conduct {\em real-system} measurements on 7 running QC prototypes from 3 different groups, IBM, Rigetti, and University of Maryland. From these real-system experiences at QC's hardware-software interface, we make observations about native and software-visible gates for different QC technologies, communication topologies, and the value of noise-aware compilation even on lower-noise platforms. This is the largest cross-platform real-system QC study performed thus far; its results have the potential to inform both QC device and compiler design going forward.
Quantum software ecosystems provide increasingly capable tools for simulation and hardware execution, but differences in programming models, supported features, and backend capabilities can make it difficult to move and systematically compare the same quantum algorithm across execution environments. We introduce eigenkit, a provider-neutral quantum computing library that separates algorithm definition from backend execution through a common circuit representation and provider interface. The library currently supports 12 execution providers spanning simulators and quantum hardware, provides backend-independent gradient computation, and integrates with standard scientific-computing and machine-learning workflows through NumPy, PyTorch, and scikit-learn interfaces. We evaluate the practical relevance of this abstraction across both simulation and quantum hardware. Simulator performance varies substantially with circuit size, structure, batching, and application workload, showing that no single backend is consistently preferable. On quantum hardware, experiments on IBM Heron and IQM Emerald show that which processor is better suited to a given algorithm depends not only on hardware constraints, but also on how well the topology of the quantum algorithm matches the physical connectivity of the processor. These results demonstrate that backend portability is not only a software-design convenience, but can be important for both computational efficiency and quantum execution quality.
Over the past few years, several quantum software stacks (QSS) have been developed in response to rapid hardware advances in quantum computing. A QSS includes a quantum programming language, an optimizing compiler that translates a quantum algorithm written in a high-level language into quantum gate instructions, a quantum simulator that emulates these instructions on a classical device, and a software controller that sends analog signals to a very expensive quantum hardware based on quantum circuits. In comparison to traditional compilers and architecture simulators, QSSes are difficult to tests due to the probabilistic nature of results, the lack of clear hardware specifications, and quantum programming complexity.This work devises a novel differential testing approach for QSSes, named QDiff with three major innovations: (1) We generate input programs to be tested via semantics-preserving, source to source transformation to explore program variants. (2) We speed up differential testing by filtering out quantum circuits that are not worthwhile to execute on quantum hardware by analyzing static characteristics such as a circuit depth, 2-gate operations, gate error rates, and T1 relaxation time. (3) We design an extensible equivalence checking mechanism via distribution comparison functions such as Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and cross entropy.We evaluate QDiff with three widely-used open source QSSes: Qiskit from IBM, Cirq from Google, and Pyquil from Rigetti. By running QDiff on both real hardware and quantum simulators, we found several critical bugs revealing potential instabilities in these platforms. QDiff’s source transformation is effective in producing semantically equivalent yet not-identical circuits (i.e., 34% of trials), and its filtering mechanism can speed up differential testing by 66%.
Quantum compilers face the test oracle problem, judged by an output-equivalence oracle: the compiled circuit must compute the same unitary as the original, modulo global phase and a qubit-layout permutation. This oracle, by construction, checks only that semantic map, not the circuit's own layout, permutation, or phase records: a defect there, or in a fixed-seed run's determinism, can pass unseen though the record is public. This empirical software engineering study of quantum transpiler correctness uses repository mining to measure how often this happens in real merged compiler fixes: a systematically identified corpus of Qiskit transpiler bug-fixes, classified by an independently dual-coded, source-validated fault-manifestation taxonomy. Nineteen of 68 fixes (28%, 95% Wilson CI 19-40%) repair faults invisible to this equivalence screen, even one augmented with compilation-validity, circuit-quality, and performance checks, and an extended 104-fix corpus over a wider window holds at the same rate with a tighter interval (29/104, 27.9%, CI 20-37%). A conservative floor remains even restricted to the one unconditionally equivalence-invisible channel (a corrupted layout or permutation record): 10 of 68 fixes (15%, CI 8-25%) beneath the 28% headline. The gap is not Qiskit-specific: it replicates in tket (7/21, 33%), with Cirq smaller but consistent. We detected no systematic differences on five inexpensive PR-level characteristics (19 vs 49, underpowered alone; the extended 29-vs-75 corpus tightens every interval toward zero). This class dominates the invisible set, concentrating at representation-boundary crossings. We release the corpus, codebook, and coding artifacts for quantum software testing research. Here we only measure it.
NISQ (Noisy, Intermediate-Scale Quantum) computing requires error mitigation to achieve meaningful computation. Our compilation tool development focuses on the fact that the error rates of individual qubits are not equal, with a goal of maximizing the success probability of real-world subroutines such as an adder circuit. We begin by establishing a metric for choosing among possible paths and circuit alternatives for executing gates between variables placed far apart within the processor, and test our approach on two IBM 20-qubit systems named Tokyo and Poughkeepsie. We find that a single-number metric describing the fidelity of individual gates is a useful but imperfect guide. Our compiler uses this subsystem and maps complete circuits onto the machine using a beam search-based heuristic that will scale as processor and program sizes grow. To evaluate the whole compilation process, we compiled and executed adder circuits, then calculated the Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL-divergence, a measure of the distance between two probability distributions). For a circuit within the capabilities of the hardware, our compilation increases estimated success probability and reduces KL-divergence relative to an error-oblivious placement.
We present an analysis of quantum circuit fidelity across the full compilation stack, from high-level gate optimization through pulse-level control. We connect a C++ circuit optimizer to a per-gate Lindblad master-equation fidelity model whose decoherence channels are cross-validated against qiskit-dynamics and whose absolute predictions are benchmarked against execution on real hardware. Across a campaign of 4,452 experiment runs over 371 benchmark circuits, gate cancellation provides the dominant improvement (d=1.66, 72% of circuits improved), while circuit size and pulse duration are the strongest negative predictors of process fidelity (input gates r=−0.78; pulse duration r=−0.73, R2=0.53). A formal ablation study shows that pass ordering has no significant effect on two-qubit gate reduction (Kruskal--Wallis p=0.302). Comparing against Qiskit transpilation levels, we show that two-qubit gate count, not total gate count, is the hardware-relevant metric: our optimizer attains superior two-qubit reduction on structured circuits (87.8% on QFT, 100% on QAOA) whereas Qiskit's larger total-gate reduction is dominated by single-qubit (u3) consolidation. Finally, executing eight circuits on the IQM Resonance Garnet processor (8/8 jobs completed, job identifiers released) reveals that the model is a consistent upper bound: it preserves the relative difficulty ordering of circuits but overestimates absolute fidelity by a mean of 0.49, quantifying the error budget (crosstalk, leakage, readout) outside a T1/T2/depolarizing model. We release the framework, data, and scripts as open source.