Demonstrates routing efficacy with quantum versus classical computation in real tests, highlighting implications for execution strategies.
We investigate whether a training-free thermodynamic stability metric Φ = I × ρ - α × S, computed from IBM Quantum calibration data before circuit execution, can serve as a routing signal for allocating computation between quantum hardware and classical simulation in the tested setting. Across 23 tests on real IBM Quantum hardware, we validate a Φ-based routing framework and show in direct crossover tests that LOW-Φ quantum execution can be worse than exact classical simulation for the tested classically tractable circuits: in the primary crossover test, classical simulation achieved 0.00% error while LOW-Φ quantum execution produced 8.23% error on the same circuit. Under a strict methodology with verified physical qubit binding and decisive ground truth, HIGH-Φ versus LOW-Φ error ratios ranged from 2.90x (QPE) to 30.47x (Bernstein-Vazirani) across 7 tested algorithms. The strict seven-algorithm tests constitute the primary evidence layer, while the broader 23-test suite provides supporting boundary conditions on size, depth, and reproducibility. Circuit size and depth impose additional routing boundaries: in the tested conditions, LOW-Φ execution at 15 qubits produced 94.85% error and execution at circuit depth 103 produced 67.29% error, both transitions into regimes where classical fallback was more reliable. These results support a routing decision framework in which minimum Φ across circuit qubits determines whether to execute on quantum hardware or fall back to classical simulation, with hybrid strategies retained as a natural extension. The methods described in this paper are the subject of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/956,752 (filed January 9, 2026). No license to implement or commercialize the described methods is granted by this publication. All rights reserved.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shawn Barnicle (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: