Automation of Quantum Dot Measurement Analysis via Explainable Machine Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapid development of quantum dot (QD) devices for quantum computing has necessitated more efficient and automated methods for device characterization and tuning. This work demonstrates the feasibility and advantages of applying explainable machine learning techniques to the analysis of quantum dot measurements, paving the way for further advances in automated and transparent QD device tuning. Many of the measurements acquired during the tuning process come in the form of images that need to be properly analyzed to guide the subsequent tuning steps. By design, features present in such images capture certain behaviors or states of the measured QD devices. When considered carefully, such features can aid the control and calibration of QD devices. An important example of such images are so-called textittriangle plots, which visually represent current flow and reveal characteristics important for QD device calibration. While image-based classification tools, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), can be used to verify whether a given measurement is textitgood and thus warrants the initiation of the next phase of tuning, they do not provide any insights into how the device should be adjusted in the case of textitbad images. This is because CNNs sacrifice prediction and model intelligibility for high accuracy. To ameliorate this trade-off, a recent study introduced an image vectorization approach that relies on the Gabor wavelet transform (Schug textitet al. 2024 textitProc. XAI4Sci: Explainable Machine Learning for Sciences Workshop (AAAI 2024) (Vancouver, Canada) pp 1-6). Here we propose an alternative vectorization method that involves mathematical modeling of synthetic triangles to mimic the experimental data. Using explainable boosting machines, we show that this new method offers superior explainability of model prediction without sacrificing accuracy.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Feb 2024.
Builds on
14 of 42 references.
References · 14
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2015Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classificationcited by 3,590
- 2019Theoretically Principled Trade-off between Robustness and Accuracycited by 1,510
- 2019InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretabilitycited by 243
- 2018Visual Interpretability for Deep Learning: a Surveycited by 155
- 2015Interpretable classifiers using rules and Bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction modelcited by 140
- 2021IA-RED2: Interpretability-Aware Redundancy Reduction for Vision Transformerscited by 127
- 2015Supersparse Linear Integer Models for Optimized Medical Scoring Systemscited by 76
- 2021Accuracy, Interpretability, and Differential Privacy via Explainable Boostingcited by 24
2 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
2 papers.