Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Machine Learning

QuAS: Quantum Application Score for benchmarking the utility of quantum computers

arXiv
Authors: Koen J. Mesman, Ward van der Schoot, Matthias Möller, Niels M. P. Neumann

Year

2024

Paper ID

66852

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

98

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Benchmarking quantum computers helps to quantify them and bringing the technology to the market. Various application-level metrics exist to benchmark a quantum device at an application level. This paper presents a revised holistic scoring method called the Quantum Application Score (QuAS) incorporating strong points of previous metrics, such as QPack and the Q-score. We discuss how to integrate both and thereby obtain an application-level metric that better quantifies the practical utility of quantum computers. We evaluate the new metric on different hardware platforms such as D-Wave and IBM as well as quantum simulators of Quantum Inspire and Rigetti.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Machine Learning research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Benchmarking quantum computers helps to quantify them and bringing the technology to the market.

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 #66852 #69034 Hardware-aware Low-latency Quan... #69025 Machine-Learning Optimization a... #69003 QBugLM: An Agentic Benchmarking... #68993 Tomography of quantum states wi...

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.