Can systems matched on a declared present nevertheless show different future responses because they retain different relational organisation? We test this in a six-qubit hybrid quantum-classical architecture on IBM Heron hardware. Written and sham preparations use exactly the same five coupling values and the same number of native two-qubit operations; only the edge assignment differs. Under a frozen preregistered decision rule with randomised block orders, matched fast preparations displayed different later directional responses when the prepared slow classical relational configuration differed. Because the full-sample cosine alignment and norm-based retention estimates sat outside their original percentile intervals, a post hoc audit was performed from the sealed raw-count archive. That audit is reported alongside, and does not replace, the frozen rule. Claim boundary. The result is real under its frozen analysis. It is not autonomous cross-job quantum memory, and it is not evidence of a hidden quantum degree of freedom persisting between jobs. The classical coupling configuration is part of the preparation and is named as such throughout. No claim is made about quantum coherence surviving between executions. This deposit contains the manuscript in PDF and DOCX form together with the complete evidence archive: protocol freezes, compiled QPY circuits, inspection tables, randomised block orders, backend snapshots, raw-count files for both runs, IBM job ledgers, point estimates, blockwise endpoints, the frozen decision JSON, an artefact inventory and a checksum ledger.
Can systems matched on a declared present nevertheless show different future responses because they retain different relational organisation? We test this in a six-qubit hybrid quantum-classical architecture on IBM Heron hardware. Written and sham preparations use exactly the same five coupling values and the same number of native two-qubit operations; only the edge assignment differs. Under a frozen preregistered decision rule with randomised block orders, matched fast preparations displayed different later directional responses when the prepared slow classical relational configuration differed. Because the full-sample cosine alignment and norm-based retention estimates sat outside their original percentile intervals, a post hoc audit was performed from the sealed raw-count archive. That audit is reported alongside, and does not replace, the frozen rule. Claim boundary. The result is real under its frozen analysis. It is not autonomous cross-job quantum memory, and it is not evidence of a hidden quantum degree of freedom persisting between jobs. The classical coupling configuration is part of the preparation and is named as such throughout. No claim is made about quantum coherence surviving between executions. This deposit contains the manuscript in PDF and DOCX form together with the complete evidence archive: protocol freezes, compiled QPY circuits, inspection tables, randomised block orders, backend snapshots, raw-count files for both runs, IBM job ledgers, point estimates, blockwise endpoints, the frozen decision JSON, an artefact inventory and a checksum ledger.
Note: description expanded on 2026-10-14 for readability. It adds no new predictions or criteria. The frozen pre-registration is the attached PDF, unchanged since publication. Status: the experiment was run on 2026-10-14, after this record was published. Results, including every pre-registered test, will be reported in a separate record linked here. In plain language Theory says a quantum system never completely forgets where it started, even when its dynamics are chaotic. This leftover memory is called a quantum birthmark (Graf et al., Phys. Rev. X, 2026). Theory also says the birthmark should be larger when the system's rules run the same forwards and backwards in time (time-reversal symmetry) than when that symmetry is broken. This record pre-registers a test of that prediction on IBM's ibm_kingston quantum processor. We built two nearly identical sets of 4-qubit circuits. One set has time-reversal symmetry and the other does not. Both use exactly the same gates, so they experience the same hardware noise. We measure how often each circuit returns to its starting state, compared with the 1-in-16 chance level, and predict that the symmetric set shows about 1.67× more memory than the broken set. All predictions, pass/fail criteria, circuits and analysis code were deposited here before any quantum hardware was used. What is tested, and what is not Tested: whether the return probability stays above the ergodic baseline 1/16 at depths 8–23, and whether that excess is larger for the time-reversal-symmetric class by the ratio exact numerics predict for these fixed instances. Not tested: the withdrawn temporal-memory claims of 10.5281/zenodo.20470129. The birthmark is closed-system coherent memory, which measurement and reset erase, so no outcome here bears on those claims. Not tested: the universal random-matrix value 1.889. At this size (N = 16) the circuit family itself gives about 1.66, so a finite-size difference is expected. Not a quantum-advantage claim: a 16-dimensional system is exactly simulable. This is a hardware-validation experiment. Design Hardware: ibm_kingston, physical qubits 108–109–118–129 as an open chain, selected by a no-QPU calibration audit (included as v6_backend_audit.zip). Circuits: a kicked-Ising Floquet period Kx(a/2) → D(h1) → Kx(b) → D(h2) → Kx(a/2), with D(h) = exp(−iΣhiZi)·exp(−iπ/4 ΣZiZj), at exactly 6 CZ per period. COE (symmetric): h1 = h2. TRSB (broken): h1 = h + d, h2 = h − d. The classes differ only in virtual-Z angles. Instances: 16 seeded COE/TRSB pairs (seed 20261013), run at every depth from 8 to 23 (48–138 CZ). Observable: P(t) = |⟨0000|Ft|0000⟩|². The primary statistic is the readout-mitigated excess ratio R = ECOE / ETRSB, where E is the mean of P(t) − 1/16. A noise fidelity common to both classes cancels in R. Controls: 32 deep circuits (depths 60–63) as a decoherence-floor check. 8 state-preparation monitors. 16 readout-calibration circuits. Run: one SamplerV2 job of 568 circuits at 256 shots each, with dynamical decoupling and twirling off and the execution order shuffled. Predictions Quantity COE TRSB R Excess over 1/16, depths 8–23 (noiseless, primary) 0.0896 0.0537 1.667 Same instances, infinite-time limit 0.0952 0.0634 1.502 Circuit family, 10,000 random draws — — 1.661 Random-matrix reference, N = 16 — — 1.889 Under four simulated noise models (nominal, pessimistic, and each with coherent errors), the mitigated R stays between 1.64 and 1.77. The shot-noise standard deviation of R at 256 shots is 0.070–0.125. Pre-registered decision criteria Test Pass condition H1 (primary): symmetry dependence 99% CI lower bound of R > 1.0 H2 (primary): quantitative agreement 99% CI of R intersects 1.54–1.87 and is at most 1.0 wide S1: birthmark above decohered floor Window excess minus depth 60–63 excess, 99% CI lower bound > 0, for both classes S2: matched fidelity between classes 0.85 ≤ FCOE/FTRSB ≤ 1.15 S3: instance-level agreement Pearson r ≥ 0.80 against exact predictions S4 (flag only): state prep and drift Monitors ≥ 0.95, drift ≤ 0.045 Overall verdict: CONFIRMED if H1, H2 and S2 all pass; PARTIAL if H1 passes but H2 or S2 fails; NOT CONFIRMED if H1 fails. Every test is reported whatever the outcome. Uncertainty comes from a 10,000-sample parametric multinomial bootstrap over every circuit's counts, with instances held fixed. Amendment 1 (v1.1.0, made before any data) Amendment 1 changed two things relative to v1.0.0 (10.5281/zenodo.23355804): Shots: reduced from 1024 to 256 per circuit for QPU budget, cutting estimated execution from about 152 s to about 38 s. H2: changed from "point estimate in 1.54–1.87" to the CI rule above, because at 256 shots the point rule would falsely fail 20–25% of the time under the pessimistic models. A CI-width cap of 1.0 keeps H2 informative. Circuits, instances and predictions are unchanged. The trade-off is that H2 is now a weaker test. Provenance Every reported number is derived by script from raw counts: Source and transpiled circuits are saved as QPY. Before submission, every transpiled circuit is mapped back to 4 qubits and its unitary checked against the exact model to < 10−8. The analysis reads its decision bands only from predictions.json and its data only from the raw results file. Submission is gated on the DOI of this record. Files: The PDF is the authoritative pre-registration. predictions.json holds every predicted number and decision band. birthmark_prereg_v1.1.0.zip contains the circuit builder, verification, submission and frozen analysis scripts, plus simulated-data self-tests. v6_backend_audit.zip is the pre-submission calibration audit. Known limitations Small system size (N = 16), so the random-matrix value is not expected. The prediction is specific to depths 8–23 and to these 16 fixed instances. The noise models exclude leakage, TLS fluctuations and crosstalk from outside the chain. T1 relaxation biases P(0000) upward, which pulls R toward 1 (conservative). One backend, one path, one job: no replication. Data: CC BY 4.0. Code: MIT. Principal investigator: Amit Brahmbhatt, Quantum-Clarity LLC.
H. Billah and M.M.H. Sarker contributed equally to this work. Interpreting a fixed quantum circuit's output as evidence of a hardware effect requires ruling out two things usually conflated with it: finite-sample fluctuation, and structure already present in the circuit's own noiseless output. Less commonly checked is a third: whether the reference circuit compared against is the one actually executed, once compiler-level qubit routing is accounted for. We execute a fixed 35-qubit, 243-gate diagnostic circuit on IBM Heron-family hardware (three runs, two backends) and show this third check is essential: the routed circuit submitted to hardware has different noiseless predictions than the logical circuit intended, for several qubits. Against the correct, routed-circuit reference, the aggregate deviation is significant in two of three runs, and four registers (0, 9, 14, 27) show a significant output-probability deviation in every run — though we distinguish a high-confidence subset, {0, 9, 27}, with tightly time-matched calibration, from qubit 14, included only on an exploratory basis given its calibration was retrieved roughly two weeks post-execution. Same-backend replicates correlate more strongly by the Pearson measure, though a rank-based (Spearman) test shows this gap does not survive at the level of register ordering, indicating substantial leverage from a small number of registers rather than a broadly robust pattern; these three executions also share a byte-identical payload and are not independent replications in the strictest sense. The mechanism is only partially resolved: independent single-qubit readout error and raw gate count are ruled out as complete explanations for most of these registers, but the simplest version of the leading hypothesis for the single most-affected register does not reproduce the observed cross-backend pattern even with live, backend-specific timing data. A second, structurally different circuit validated only in simulation calibrates the statistical procedure's behavior under one synthetic noise model; it does not itself establish generality to real hardware, and the specific register set found here should not be expected to generalize beyond this study. Note on scope: this is a methodology and case-study contribution centered on executed-circuit references for fixed-circuit diagnostics, not a characterization of IBM Heron hardware in general or a randomized-benchmarking experiment in the formal sense. Supporting data, the routed OpenQASM circuits, raw measurement counts, and analysis code for this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Affiliation: Sonicium Quantum Lab Ltd., Dhaka, Bangladesh.
This preprint presents a Kuramoto--XY synchronisation study with heterogeneous natural frequencies, simulator baselines, and ledgered IBM Heron r2 evidence. A Rust/PyO3-assisted pipeline supports entanglement entropy, Krylov complexity, OTOC scrambling, and Floquet discrete-time-crystal diagnostics for 2--16 qubit systems. The manuscript reports finite-size diagnostics consistent with Berezinskii--Kosterlitz--Thouless scaling in the small systems studied, including a periodic-boundary central-charge estimate near c = 1 at n = 8, while explicitly noting finite-size drift at larger sizes. It also records subharmonic Floquet response, non-ergodic level-spacing behaviour for heterogeneous frequencies, and a hardware-anchored scaling analysis that bounds exact Hilbert-space simulation costs. The record archives the manuscript source and PDF. Legacy IBM artefacts are treated as committed artefact-path evidence rather than aggregate validation, and the resource-boundary discussion is not promoted as a broad quantum-advantage claim because classical Rust Kuramoto ODE baselines remain faster in the measured observable-level regime.
This technical report packages a set of hardware component-witness experiments run on IBM superconducting quantum processors. The experiments test whether a hidden auxiliary phase can affect a later system-qubit measurement, whether that phase can be recovered from basis-resolved readout, and whether two auxiliary registers can produce a nonadditive response rather than a simple sum of their individual effects. The package includes the report draft, figures, raw hardware result JSONs, raw-count appendix, and scripts for regenerating the figures and count tables. The central result chain is: echo/phase response on real hardware, basis-resolved phase readout without density-matrix tomography, and a two-register Y-basis nonadditivity test where the first run remains a frozen FAIL and an independent higher-shot replication reaches STRONG_PASS. The longer-term motivation is to develop small, testable quantum hardware primitives for systems that can preserve, read out, and combine latent histories or unchosen alternatives, instead of reducing every intermediate state to a single classical output immediately. In that sense, these experiments are intended as early building blocks for future quantum-assisted sequence or language-model architectures. This work does not claim a completed quantum language model, natural-language processing on a quantum computer, consciousness, selfhood, classical impossibility, or quantum advantage. It reports only hardware component witnesses on specific IBM backends, edges, and calibration windows, with the possibility of richer classical explanations left open.
Two registered experiments with the QITE equilibrium law on the IBM Heron processor ibm_marrakesh, one day apart in nothing but the place where the law runs: outside the processor on a microcontroller board, and inside one shot in the processor's own feed-forward. Each experiment has its own registration, hashed before its first registered job, its own frozen scripts, complete raw data, verdict and write-up; the two archives in this record are independent of each other. QITE Hold (zenodo_qite_hold_20260923.zip, SHA-256 97853e20d86c146c16d6011191e9c038dddc743dfd5392476993187654f6e1d3; write-up custodia_paper_v1.pdf; working name Custodia). A microcontroller board (ESP32-C3) holds one pair of numbers per qubit for 144 qubits and turns each pair into a rotation angle. Every tick, one circuit of 144 single-qubit rotations is measured 4096 times; the fraction of ones per qubit goes to the board, the board updates its numbers by its fixed law and returns the angles of the next circuit; it never reads the processor's calibration. A registered programme of eight blocks ran over 280 ticks and 290 jobs: square waves, a hold, a staircase, a checkerboard of 18 zones up and 18 down, two state shocks written into the board, two disturbances written into the circuits, and a comparison with an open-loop reference of frozen angles. Of the seven binding lines, six were run and held; the seventh (drift against the open-loop reference) could not be run because the device did not drift by the registered minimum. The square waves came back with a gain of 0.231 of the commanded swing (the law: 0.25), the checkerboard put 98.5 % of (tick, zone) pairs on the commanded side, the disturbances were rejected to 0.557 and 0.539 of their open-loop size (the law: 4/7). A first registration (v1.0) ended at tick 130 through a design flaw of the host and is included in full. Registration SHA-256 1de82ab12a53c1da349196e8ef07851e6b2f176efc6bd1ca6ba14cacd1f7d54b. QITE In-Shot (zenodo_qite_inshot_20260923.zip, SHA-256 a087f88a95f17c6f8023d5ff40aff35901b5e3e87db531dcd76728511f7ae944; write-up qite_inshot_paper_v1.pdf). On each of 54 qubits, twenty rounds of a measurement followed by a rotation conditioned on that measurement, with angles that set the target level and the memory g; the records of a qubit form a two-state Markov chain whose second eigenvalue is 1 - g. The lines test that eigenvalue, not the level: the autocorrelations of the records for g = 0.3, 0.6 and 1.0 were +0.607, +0.366 and +0.046, the two memories in the ratio 1.657 (the law: 1.75); the relaxation from |0> came back at 0.690 and 0.446 per round (the law: 0.70 and 0.40, lowered by T1 during a round); a step of the target proceeded at 0.658 per round and, with g = 1, completed in one round; a kick of the state was followed by a return to within 0.012 of the unkicked hold; over the same twenty rounds an open-loop state lost 0.451 while the closed loop held within 0.006; 98 % of the qubits with a clean read-out showed their own rate within the registered band. All seven binding lines held; 17 jobs. The size is what the service's compiler accepted on the day (144, 72 and 64 qubits failed with an internal compiler error; every attempt is recorded with its job id). Registration SHA-256 51933de4196bfdd7998e6a5305f7576bb7d35ac137e8b6ce0109965372b4fe5c. Nothing here is a claim of quantum advantage: the observables are classical bits and the circuits contain no two-qubit gate. The claim of both experiments is one of control: a fixed law, registered in advance, holding a public quantum processor at commanded levels with the numbers the law says, once from a board over minutes and once inside the coherence time of the qubits. The board's firmware and the serial link layer are not part of the record; both are identified by their SHA-256 in the registration of QITE Hold. Licence: CC BY 4.0.
This record contains an English manuscript, the Japanese original manuscript, and selected structured CSV/JSON raw-count logs from IBM Quantum and simulator/control runs. The work visualizes quantum-correlation structures predicted by standard quantum mechanics as multi-shot raw-count landscapes on IBM Quantum hardware. It records four-outcome pair distributions, 00, 01, 10, and 11, and connects the resulting correlation landscape to pre-shared classical classification rules. This record does not claim superluminal communication, unconditional information transfer, or a modification of quantum mechanics. The purpose is to preserve the raw-count evidence and manuscript materials for reproducibility, review, and future journal submission.