0

Statevector-Referenced Geometry Survival of a Four-Qubit ZZ Quantum Kernel on IBM Quantum Hardware: A Fixed-Subset Diagnostic Across Three Execution Configurations

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,…

Preview
Year
2026
Hosting
Abstract onlyARXIV-DEFAULT

Cite

Notes

Only stored in your browser.

Attribution

Abstract & full text
arxiv.org/abs/2607.20377ARXIV-DEFAULT
TL;DR
Semantic Scholar
Attribution policy →

Abstract

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.