Pulse-level calibration metrics — coherence times T₁ and T₂ measured through single-qubit Rabi and Ramsey sequences — are the standard by which quantum hardware providers certify device health. We demonstrate, through 191 circuit executions on three 156-qubit IBM Heron r2 processors (ibm_kingston, ibm_fez, and ibm_marrakesh), that these pulse-level metrics can give opposite conclusions to circuit-level diagnostics on the same device at the same time. Specifically, between experimental sessions on July 3 and July 5, 2026, IBM reported ibm_marrakesh T₂ improved from 303 μs to 340 μs (a 12% improvement), while the K–R scaling exponent α measured from GHZ circuit scaling increased from 1.406 to 3.811 (a 171% increase in coherent error dominance) and GHZ n=2 infidelity rose from 0.018 to 0.204 — a 920% increase in circuit error. We further demonstrate that Ramsey circuit-context T₂ on qubit 0 is approximately 9–30 μs, compared to IBM-reported pulse-level T₂ of 32–340 μs — a discrepancy of 3–11×. We introduce five experimental demonstrations showing K–R circuit-level diagnostics detect degradation invisible to T₁/T₂, provide higher temporal sensitivity, enable algorithm failure prediction, and confirm the theoretical prediction αₜᵥₜᶜʰ + αₑₜₕₒ = 2 within 7% on real hardware. These findings establish circuit-level K–R diagnostics as a necessary complement to pulse-level calibration for operational quantum computing.
Pulse-level calibration metrics — coherence times T₁ and T₂ measured through single-qubit Rabi and Ramsey sequences — are the standard by which quantum hardware providers certify device health. We demonstrate, through 191 circuit executions on three 156-qubit IBM Heron r2 processors (ibm_kingston, ibm_fez, and ibm_marrakesh), that these pulse-level metrics can give opposite conclusions to circuit-level diagnostics on the same device at the same time. Specifically, between experimental sessions on July 3 and July 5, 2026, IBM reported ibm_marrakesh T₂ improved from 303 μs to 340 μs (a 12% improvement), while the K–R scaling exponent α measured from GHZ circuit scaling increased from 1.406 to 3.811 (a 171% increase in coherent error dominance) and GHZ n=2 infidelity rose from 0.018 to 0.204 — a 920% increase in circuit error. We further demonstrate that Ramsey circuit-context T₂ on qubit 0 is approximately 9–30 μs, compared to IBM-reported pulse-level T₂ of 32–340 μs — a discrepancy of 3–11×. We introduce five experimental demonstrations showing K–R circuit-level diagnostics detect degradation invisible to T₁/T₂, provide higher temporal sensitivity, enable algorithm failure prediction, and confirm the theoretical prediction αₜᵥₜᶜʰ + αₑₜₕₒ = 2 within 7% on real hardware. These findings establish circuit-level K–R diagnostics as a necessary complement to pulse-level calibration for operational quantum computing.
Abstract Pulse-level calibration metrics — coherence times T₁ and T₂ measured through single-qubit Rabi and Ramsey sequences — are the standard by which quantum hardware providers certify device health. We demonstrate, through 191 circuit executions on three 156-qubit IBM Heron r2 processors (ibm_kingston, ibm_fez, and ibm_marrakesh), that these pulse-level metrics can give opposite conclusions to circuit-level diagnostics on the same device at the same time. Specifically, between experimental sessions on July 3 and July 5, 2026, IBM reported ibm_marrakesh T₂ improved from 303 µs to 340 µs (a 12% improvement), while the K–R scaling exponent α measured from GHZ circuit scaling increased from 1.406 to 3.811 (a 171% increase in coherent error dominance) and GHZ n = 2 infidelity rose from 0.018 to 0.204 — a 920% increase in circuit error. We further demonstrate that Ramsey circuit-context T₂ on qubit 0 is approximately 9–30 µs, compared to IBM-reported pulse-level T₂ of 32–340 µs — a discrepancy of 3–11×. We introduce five experimental demonstrations showing K–R circuit-level diagnostics detect degradation invisible to T₁/T₂, provide higher temporal sensitivity, enable algorithm failure prediction, and confirm the theoretical prediction αₜ v ₜᶜʰ + αₑₜₕₒ = 2 within 7% on real hardware. These findings establish circuit-level K–R diagnostics as a necessary complement to pulse-level calibration for operational quantum computing.
Abstract We introduce Quantum Diagnostic Intelligence (QDI), a five-layer decision-support architecture for inferring the operational state of quantum processing units from circuit-level measurements. Pulse-level calibration metrics — coherence times T₁ and T₂ measured through single-qubit Rabi and Ramsey sequences — are the dominant industry standard for certifying quantum hardware health. We demonstrate, through 191 circuit executions on three 156-qubit IBM Heron r2 processors, that circuit-level measurements contain diagnostic information that T₁/T₂ may not capture. On ibm_marrakesh between July 3 and July 5, 2026, IBM-reported T₂ improved from 303 to 340 µs (+ 12%), while circuit-level GHZ scaling yielded α = 3.811, a QDI health score of 37.8/100 [95% CI: 7.6, 67.9], and a circuit infidelity increase of 920% at n = 2 qubits. The QDI architecture formalizes this observation through four operators: a diagnostic state classifier D(χ), a health score H(χ), a recommendation generator R(χ), and a drift forecast F(χ, t). Rules trained on ibm_kingston correctly classified ibm_fez and both ibm_marrakesh sessions without retuning (3/3 held-out tests; n = 4 total — feasibility demonstration only). We identify three scientific limitations of the current framework: operators rely on expert-designed rules rather than learned statistical models; ground truth (algorithm success/failure) has not yet been collected; and diagnostic state labels have not been validated by clustering analysis. Prospective validation on n ≥ 50 independent sessions is required before statistical claims about generalization can be made. The dataset, code, and QDI system are openly available.
Abstract We introduce the K–R scaling exponent α, extracted from the three-parameter cost decomposition C = C₀/Kᵅ + R, as a compact diagnostic descriptor of error-accumulation regimes on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) hardware. Here, C is the measured circuit infidelity, K is a structural parameter (inverse depth or inverse qubit count), C₀ is the correctable error amplitude, R is the irreducible noise floor, and α quantifies the rate of error accumulation. Through three experimental campaigns totaling approximately 150 circuit executions on two 156-qubit IBM Quantum Heron r2 processors (ibm_kingston and ibm_fez), we observe three distinct scaling regimes: (i) structured scaling with super-linear α in GHZ circuits (α = 1.54–1.64, R² > 0.97) and noise amplification (α = 1.19, R² = 1.000), consistent with correlated multi-qubit errors; (ii) controlled stochastic scaling in Clifford depth and echo circuits (α ≈ 0.5–0.7, R² up to 0.998); and (iii) saturation where α → 0. We organize these results in an (α, R²) phase diagram—the first such empirical diagram for quantum hardware noise—and demonstrate that α serves as a low-cost diagnostic observable enabling regime identification, device fingerprinting, and stability monitoring using fewer than 13 circuits per device. An honest comparison shows that for depth extrapolation, exponential models outperform K–R; however, K–R uniquely provides regime-level insight and device-specific behavioral signatures not accessible from exponential decay rates. By reducing quantum hardware characterization to a small set of experimentally accessible scaling parameters, the K–R framework provides a practical bridge between low-cost benchmarking and physically interpretable noise diagnostics in the NISQ era.
The K–R scaling exponent α, extracted from the three-parameter model C = C₀/Kᵅ + R, was recently validated as a low-cost diagnostic for NISQ noise regimes on IBM Quantum hardware (under peer review, IEEE TQE, ID: TQE-26-04-REG-0175). The present paper looks beyond benchmarking to identify five high-potential future directions where α could provide unique diagnostic value: (1) quantum error correction, where α may serve as an early warning indicator before logical failure; (2) real-time hardware stability monitoring, where a daily 13-circuit α(t) curve replaces tracking dozens of calibration parameters; (3) cryogenic component testing, where Δα before/after component swap quantifies improvement; (4) quantum networking, where α may distinguish channel noise from memory decoherence in entanglement distribution; and (5) variational quantum algorithms, where regime transitions in α may predict barren plateau onset and trainability collapse. For each direction, we present the scientific hypothesis, the proposed experimental protocol, expected outcomes, target metrics, and recommended target journals. This roadmap is intended to establish research priority, invite collaboration, and provide a concrete plan for extending the K–R framework from a benchmarking tool into a general-purpose quantum diagnostic platform.
We present empirical evidence that a thermodynamic stability metric Φ = I × ρ − α × S serves as a leading indicator of qubit degradation on IBM Quantum hardware and provides practical discrimination across multiple circuit and hardware validation settings. Analysis of 445 qubits across three backends (ibm_fez, ibm_marrakesh, ibm_torino) over 30 days demonstrates 100% detection of IBM-reported status transitions in the tested window, with average lead time of 163 hours (6.8 days) and maximum lead time of 480 hours (20 days) for warnings occurring at least 24 hours before degradation. The coherence ratio ρ = T2/T1 accounts for 70 to 78% of component contribution in backend-split component analysis, suggesting a substantially larger role for coherence information in stability monitoring than is reflected in prior qubit-selection heuristics. Cross-backend transfer achieves 98.4% balanced accuracy without retraining. Additional validation demonstrates 4.34x higher two-qubit gate error for low-Φ qubit pairs, 8 to 18x error discrimination across circuit depths from 10 to 500 gates, and correct identification of all five failed qubits in the tested dataset via Φ < 0. These results establish Φ as an early warning indicator for quantum processor maintenance and a practical qubit selection metric. The methods described in this paper are the subject of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/952,883 (filed January 2, 2026). No license to implement or commercialize the described methods is granted by this publication. All rights reserved.