Abstract Cross-platform comparison of quantum devices requires careful statistical methodologyto avoid spurious conclusions. We present a methodological case study demonstrating howSimpson’s paradox can arise in meta-analyses of superconducting circuit data. We introducetwo physically motivated scaling parameters—a dimensionless normalized temperature T∗ =kBT/hf and a resistance-like decoherence parameter A = (hf/eIc)(ln Q/2π)—and applythem to a secondary analysis of published data from Transmon, SNS, and SINIS devices(N = 10 data points from 3 studies).Across the pooled dataset, we observe a strong correlation (r = 0.910) between A and T∗.However, we demonstrate that this correlation is a statistical artifact arising from completeconfounding between temperature and device type: the three platforms operate in nonoverlappingtemperature regimes, and within-group correlations are consistently negative(though not statistically significant given the small sample sizes of n = 3–4 per group).Mixed-effects modeling indicates that platform identity accounts for the dominant share ofvariance in A (ICC ≈ 0.98), though we caution that variance component estimates from onlyk = 3 groups carry substantial uncertainty.Our analysis serves as a methodological warning for cross-platform data aggregation inquantum physics, illustrating how pooled correlations can reverse direction when data aredisaggregated—a hallmark of Simpson’s paradox. The proposed scaling framework may proveuseful for future benchmarking, but we emphasize that the current data are insufficient totest any hypothesis of universal thermodynamic scaling. We outline experimental conditionsnecessary for such tests, including overlapping temperature ranges and controlled singledevicesweeps.This work is intended as a methodological case study rather than a test of aphysical scaling law
Abstract Cross-platform comparison of quantum devices requires careful statistical methodologyto avoid spurious conclusions. We present a methodological case study demonstrating howSimpson’s paradox can arise in meta-analyses of superconducting circuit data. We introducetwo physically motivated scaling parameters—a dimensionless normalized temperature T∗ =kBT/hf and a resistance-like decoherence parameter A = (hf/eIc)(ln Q/2π)—and applythem to a secondary analysis of published data from Transmon, SNS, and SINIS devices(N = 10 data points from 3 studies).Across the pooled dataset, we observe a strong correlation (r = 0.910) between A and T∗.However, we demonstrate that this correlation is a statistical artifact arising from completeconfounding between temperature and device type: the three platforms operate in nonoverlappingtemperature regimes, and within-group correlations are consistently negative(though not statistically significant given the small sample sizes of n = 3–4 per group).Mixed-effects modeling indicates that platform identity accounts for the dominant share ofvariance in A (ICC ≈ 0.98), though we caution that variance component estimates from onlyk = 3 groups carry substantial uncertainty.Our analysis serves as a methodological warning for cross-platform data aggregation inquantum physics, illustrating how pooled correlations can reverse direction when data aredisaggregated—a hallmark of Simpson’s paradox. The proposed scaling framework may proveuseful for future benchmarking, but we emphasize that the current data are insufficient totest any hypothesis of universal thermodynamic scaling. We outline experimental conditionsnecessary for such tests, including overlapping temperature ranges and controlled singledevicesweeps.This work is intended as a methodological case study rather than a test of aphysical scaling law
Abstract Cross-platform comparison of superconducting quantum devices requires statistical care because heterogeneous architectures implement qualitatively different transport mechanisms, couple to distinct microscopic loss channels, and typically operate in different temperature regimes. We present a methodological case study showing how aggregation of data across platforms can mask qualitatively different within-architecture temperature dependencies when platform identity is confounded with operating temperature. To enable controlled comparison, we introduce two scaling parameters: a dimensionless normalized temperature T∗=kBT/(hf) and a resistance-like decoherence parameter A=(hf/eIc)(lnQ/2π). We develop a detailed physical argument for why the baseline value of A is expected to be architecture-dependent, focusing on the distinct roles of Cooper-pair tunneling in SIS junctions, Andreev bound states in SNS junctions, ferromagnetic layer effects in SIsFS devices, and confinement effects in nanowire junctions. Applying this framework to published data from five distinct junction architectures (Transmon SIS, conventional SIS, SIsFS, planar SNS, and nanowire SNS; N=23 points from five independent studies), we find that the pooled dataset exhibits a weak positive correlation between A and T∗ (r=0.085, p=0.70). However, when stratified by architecture, within-group correlations reveal qualitatively different temperature dependencies: SIsFS shows strong positive dependence (308.4±22.6Ω, p=0.047), planar SNS shows strong positive dependence (205.6±11.6Ω, p=0.036), while transmons show near-zero dependence (−7.2±17.3Ω, p=0.688). Two architectures show positive slopes that reach statistical significance despite small samples (n=3 each), though these results are sensitive to individual data points (see Appendix C). Analysis of variance confirms that architecture explains the dominant share of variance (ANOVA F4,18=670.7, p<0.0001; ICC ≈0.98). Decomposition of A reveals that the 1/Ic term accounts for the factor-of-6.6 variation across architectures (r=−0.94 with logIc), while the lnQ term varies by only 30\%. We argue that these observations are physically expected from architecture-specific transport and loss mechanisms, and we outline experimental designs with overlapping temperature sweeps that could disentangle temperature dependence from platform identity in future benchmarking efforts. All data, extraction uncertainties, and analysis code are provided in the appendices to ensure reproducibility.
Bell–CHSH experiments across photonic, atomic, NV-center, and superconducting platforms over four decades constitute the empirical evidence base for quantum nonlocality. The substantial heterogeneity across these reports — different platforms, entangled states, detection efficiencies, loophole-closing strategies, and noise models — is a feature of the experimental program's diversity rather than a limitation of any individual experiment. We report a meta-scientific audit of the Bell–CHSH literature 1972–2025 (N = 121 strict-scope papers, n = 30 reporting both S and σ; PRISMA-style methodology), focused on the metadata accompanying the reported quantities rather than on the experiments themselves. Two reporting-practice patterns are documented. (i) The type of within-study uncertainty σ_S is unspecified in 40% of σ-reporting papers — statistical-only, systematic-inclusive, or 95% confidence interval form is not stated — and cross-study variance of S exceeds within-study σ by approximately two orders of magnitude (I² = 99.7%; τ ≈ 0.28 on the S scale). The audit cannot disambiguate among the physical sources of this heterogeneity (genuine platform-specific variability), the metadata sources (σ-composition incommensurability across reports), or their interaction, precisely because the metadata required for disambiguation is not consistently reported. (ii) Among n = 8 σ-reporting papers also reporting a visibility V, the textbook scope-conditional relation S = 2√2 V is consistent with the reports in 4 cases where V is operationally identifiable as polarization-correlation interference fringe visibility (including one case requiring human reclassification of an automated regex extraction failure), and deviates by 0.23–0.50 in 4 cases where V designates a different physical observable (Hong–Ou–Mandel dip visibility, classical threshold value, or unspecified semantics). The symbol V in the Bell–CHSH literature therefore designates at least three operationally distinct physical quantities. We propose a minimum metadata-reporting guideline addressing SPAM-uncertainty decomposition between statistical fluctuation and systematic offset, V operational definition, measurement settings disclosure, state-geometry context, and raw count data availability. The guideline is adoptable without additional experimental work and would render the cross-platform Bell–CHSH literature amenable to standardized reproducibility-infrastructure audit. This is a documentation-practice contribution to the reproducibility ecosystem of quantum information experimental physics; it does not challenge quantum mechanics, any individual experimental result, or any specific group's reporting choices.
Version 6.1 develops an integral framework for an analog quantum simulator of spin modelsbased on programmable superconducting-qubit arrays.The principal objective is not merely to construct a quantum device, but to establish atraceable mappingcontrol parameters −→ Hreal −→ quantum evolution −→ observables −→ classical reference.The framework supports transverse-field Ising, XY, XXZ, Heisenberg, long-range, anddisordered spin Hamiltonians.Version 6.1 introduces an explicit Hamiltonian- identification layer between hardwarecalibration and scientific validation.The realized Hamiltonian is decomposed into target terms, static calibration errors, dynamiccontrol errors, crosstalk, leakage, decoherence, and residual unwanted interactions.Validation is organized hierarchically:1. hardware calibration;2. Hamiltonian identification;3. state-preparation validation;4. readout calibration;5. static observable validation;6. dynamical observable validation;7. finite-size benchmarking;8. statistical equivalence testing;9. cross-device reproducibility;10. independent analytical reproduction. The statistical framework replaces the inadequate criterion of “statistical significance ofagreement” with an equivalence framework based on preregistered tolerances.The primary hypothesis is therefore formulated using two one-sided tests (TOST) or anequivalent confidence interval criterion:|∆O| < ϵO.Version 6.1 additionally specifies:• a supplementary Bayesian posterior probability of equivalence as a robustness check;• an explicit distinction between engineering no-go and physical falsification.The framework also specifies negative controls, positive controls, blind analysis, lockedanalysis code, exclusion rules, uncertainty propagation, data provenance, and reproducibilityrequirements.No experimental result or quantum advantage is claimed.
Meta-Analysis — Applied Quantum Computing Track This record presents a unifying meta-analysis of applied benchmarks within the Radial Coherential Dynamics (RCD) research program, synthesizing results across multiple quantum algorithms, system dimensionalities, and problem classes under a single coherence-regulation principle. Building upon the foundational decoherence suppression model (Topological Decoherence Suppression via Coherential Geometry, Zenodo, December 2025, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18000641), and its applied benchmarks in variational and optimization algorithms, this work consolidates evidence that a fixed decoherence scaling law T2→T2/αT_2 \rightarrow T_2/\sqrt{\alpha}T2→T2/α (with α≈1.3×10−4\alpha \approx 1.3 \times 10^{-4}α≈1.3×10−4) produces consistent, non-ad-hoc improvements across NISQ-relevant tasks. The meta-analysis integrates four independent benchmarks: (i) VQE for molecular H₄ (0D), (ii) VQE for a graphene-inspired hexagon (2D, PBC), (iii) VQE for a 1D Hubbard chain (OBC), and (iv) QAOA for MaxCut optimization on graphs. All benchmarks employ a controlled A/B methodology in which identical circuits are executed with standard noise (control) and coherence-regulated noise (treatment), with no parameter tuning introduced at the benchmark level. Across these diverse settings, coherence regulation yields stable reductions in energy error (≈ 40–46% for VQE tasks) and optimization gap (≈ 25% for QAOA), with magnitudes consistent with the underlying decoherence scaling and robust to changes in topology, dimensionality, and algorithmic structure. This work does not introduce new physical assumptions or experimental claims. Rather, it provides a consolidated, cross-domain view intended to clarify scope, consistency, and limitations, and to facilitate independent assessment and downstream reuse by the scientific community. All figures, summary data, and benchmark references are provided for transparency and reproducibility.
We present a laboratory-constrained phenomenological framework linking controlled quantum coherence experiments to large-scale cosmological observables. Using experimental results from superconducting qubits subjected to structured low-frequency toroidal magnetic fields, we define a dimensionless coherence proxy, κ_lab = 0.728 ± 0.020, which captures both temporal decoherence suppression and spatial field uniformity. This observable is derived directly from measured enhancements in qubit relaxation time (T1), without modification to materials or circuit design. We then introduce a calibrated laboratory-to-cosmology bridge, mapping κ_lab into an effective coupling parameter within a coherence-driven cosmological framework. This mapping enables a quantitative pre-data prediction for an environmental modulation of the Hubble expansion rate:ΔH0/H0 = 0.73^{+0.21}_{-0.18}%,for the benchmark regime m_φ ~ H0 and α = 1. The key contribution of this work is not the assumption of a confirmed cross-scale mechanism, but the construction of a transparent and falsifiable bridge between a laboratory-measured coherence observable and a cosmological testable quantity. The prediction lies within the sensitivity range of DESI Year 3, enabling a clear binary test: • Detection of a ~0.5–1.0% environmental step supports the viability of scale-bridging coherence dynamics.• A null result constrains the phenomenological bridge while preserving the laboratory result as an independent demonstration of environmental coherence engineering. This approach establishes a new paradigm in which controlled quantum systems can serve as quantitative anchors for testing phenomenological extensions of large-scale physics, connecting laboratory coherence and cosmological expansion in a falsifiable framework.
This preprint is the third paper in a series on thermodynamic persistence and macroscopic identity. A recently proposed thermodynamic persistence constraint and its empirical test in biological and classical systems suggest that macroscopic identities operating under irreversible dynamics remain admissible only so long as cumulative irreversible dissipation remains finite. The condition does not introduce new dynamical laws or predict lifetimes; it excludes only those histories in which maintaining a coarse-grained identity would require unbounded irreversible entropy production. In this work I examine whether state-of-the-art superconducting qubit platforms are empirically compatible with such a persistence accounting. Using only published device parameters and order-of-magnitude estimates for control and dissipation, I construct an operational diagnostic quantity from independently measurable observables: coherence time, irreversible power dissipation, and device scale. I evaluate this diagnostic in two representative contexts: (i) idle coherence limited by energy relaxation and dephasing, and (ii) driven operation under repeated gate application as characterized by randomized benchmarking and error-per-gate metrics, including logical-level operation in surface-code experiments. Across these regimes, the empirical behavior mirrors that observed in classical and biological systems: coherence time and logical error rates vary primarily through changes in effective dissipation and noise, while the normalized cumulative irreversible burden associated with loss of a qubit’s operational identity remains finite and modest under realistic operating conditions. No violations of the proposed thermodynamic admissibility condition are found within the parameter ranges examined. These results do not establish a thermodynamic bound on quantum coherence or gate fidelities. They do, however, support the empirical viability of treating qubit-level persistence as constrained by cumulative irreversible effects within standard thermodynamic bookkeeping, in continuity with classical and biological systems.