Statevector-to-Hardware Reconstruction of a Four-Qubit ZZ Quantum Kernel: A Single-Backend Case Study of Three Execution Jobs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Hardware noise and finite sampling perturb the fidelity estimates forming a quantum-kernel Gram matrix. We measured how far three hardware-reconstructed Gram matrices depart from an exact statevector reference for one frozen four-qubit ZZ feature map on N=24 indoor air-quality windows, executed on ibm_fez at 1024 shots per circuit in three single, non-interleaved jobs: baseline, dynamical decoupling alone, and gate twirling alone. All were complete, finite, and positive-semidefinite. Off-diagonal root-mean-squared error (RMSE) against the reference was 0.0878, 0.0864, and 0.0427; full-matrix centered kernel alignment (CKA) ranged 0.933-0.989 and the post hoc diagonal-excluded (U-centered) CKA 0.816-0.986. The gate-twirled job deviated least on every reported geometry axis; its baseline contrasts are deletion-stable for the Spearman, mean-absolute-error, RMSE, and full-matrix CKA diagnostics, while the Pearson and diagonal-excluded contrasts fall just below that convention. Dynamical decoupling was not separated from the baseline. The observed error exceeded both finite-shot reference scales, so, under those sampling-only models, sampling does not explain it. Centered kernel-target alignment did not track reconstruction fidelity and stayed at or below each label-permutation reference: implementation fidelity and task relevance are distinct diagnostic axes. All configuration-level statements describe three realized jobs on one backend; no mitigation-efficacy, classifier-superiority, forecasting, or quantum-advantage claim is made.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jul 2026.
Builds on
18 of 44 references.
References · 18
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,755
- 2018Supervised learning with quantum enhanced feature spacescited by 665
- 2020Power of data in quantum machine learningcited by 338
- 2023Challenges and Opportunities in Quantum Machine Learningcited by 203
- 2020Spectral Bias and Task-Model Alignment Explain Generalization in Kernel Regression and Infinitely Wide Neural Networkscited by 166
- 2021The Inductive Bias of Quantum Kernelscited by 91
- 2022Exponential concentration in quantum kernel methodscited by 90
- 2021Training Quantum Embedding Kernels on Near-Term Quantum Computerscited by 69
- 2021Towards understanding the power of quantum kernels in the NISQ eracited by 43
- 2022Bandwidth Enables Generalization in Quantum Kernel Modelscited by 32
- 2021Grounding Representation Similarity with Statistical Testingcited by 29
- 2024Quantum Kernel Methods under Scrutiny: A Benchmarking Studycited by 22
6 more
- 2023On the expressivity of embedding quantum kernelscited by 17
- 2022Automatic and effective discovery of quantum kernelscited by 10
- 2025Benchmarking MedMNIST dataset on real quantum hardwarecited by 6
- 2022Shot-frugal and Robust quantum kernel classifierscited by 3
- 2026AQKA: Active Quantum Kernel Acquisition Under a Shot Budgetcited by 3
- 2026Benchmarking Quantum Kernel Support Vector Machines Against Classical Baselines on Tabular Data: A Rigorous Empirical Study with Hardware Validationcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.