Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the preservation of geometric properties in a four-qubit ZZ quantum kernel executed on IBM Quantum hardware across three configurations: baseline, dynamical decoupling, and gate twirling. The results indicate that while all configurations produced positive-semidefinite Gram matrices and maintained a high degree of centered statevector geometry, gate twirling outperformed the others in terms of fidelity to the intended geometry. Notably, the findings reveal a counterintuitive relationship between fidelity and label alignment, suggesting that hardware distortions significantly impact the outcomes of quantum machine learning tasks.
Gate twirling emerges as the most effective method for preserving quantum kernel geometry, yet paradoxically yields the lowest alignment with target labels.
Quantum-kernel methods encode a dataset's geometry in a Gram matrix, so learning claims on hardware kernels assume the intended geometry survives execution. We measure that survival for one frozen four-qubit ZZ feature-map kernel on $N=24$ real indoor air-quality windows, reconstructed on ibm_fez (1024 shots per circuit) under baseline, dynamical decoupling alone, and gate twirling alone, each a single non-interleaved job. Every configuration returned a complete, finite, positive-semidefinite Gram matrix and preserved the centered statevector geometry to a substantial but incomplete descriptive degree (full-matrix centered kernel alignment, CKA, 0.933-0.989). Gate twirling was most faithful on every reported geometry axis, with the only jackknife-resolved improvement over baseline (persisted Spearman, mean absolute error, and full-matrix CKA diagnostics); dynamical decoupling alone was not separated from baseline at the frozen-window scale. Residual hardware distortion, not finite sampling, dominates the discrepancy. Yet fidelity and label alignment were reversed: the most faithful configuration had the lowest centered kernel-target alignment, which sits at or below label-permutation references for statevector and hardware alike. We read the small hardware uplift as a normalization property of the non-affine distortion, not captured signal. These are descriptive results for single jobs on one backend, not causal mitigation-efficacy estimates; no quantum-advantage, hardware-classifier-superiority, or forecasting claim is made. Implementation fidelity and task relevance are distinct axes; hardware quantum machine-learning studies should report both.
