Quick Navigation

Topics

Benchmarking Verification Validation

A comparison of HPC-based quantum computing simulators using Quantum Volume

arXiv
Authors: Lourens van Niekerk, Dhiraj Kumar, Aasish Kumar Sharma, Tino Meisel, Martin Leandro Paleico, Christian Boehme

Year

2024

Paper ID

352

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

109

Citations

N/A

Abstract

This paper compares quantum computing simulators running on a single CPU or GPU-based HPC node using the Quantum Volume benchmark commonly proposed for comparing NISQ systems. As simulators do not suffer from noise, the metric used in the comparison is the time required to simulate a set Quantum Volume. The results are important to estimate the feasibility of proof of concept studies and debugging of quantum algorithms on HPC systems. Besides benchmarks of some commonly used simulators, this paper also offers an overview of their main features, a review of the state of quantum computing simulation and quantum computing benchmarking, and some insight into the theory of Quantum Volume.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Benchmarking, Verification & Validation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • This paper compares quantum computing simulators running on a single CPU or GPU-based HPC node using the Quantum Volume benchmark commonly proposed for comparing NISQ systems.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #352

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.