S4 IBM pulse-level Kuramoto-XY calibration-review preregistration¶
Job ID: s4_ibm_pulse_calibration_review
Purpose¶
Prepare the IBM pulse-level route for human calibration review before any pulse job, backend session, or QPU spend.
Hypothesis¶
If the exported circuit-QED pulse design matches a backend-supported IBM pulse control path after calibration review, it can become a bounded candidate for testing pulse-shaped Kuramoto-XY evolution against the digital Trotter route.
Falsification Condition¶
The IBM pulse route is rejected for near-term execution if the selected backend does not expose compatible pulse controls, calibrated channels, timing units, or safe amplitude/duration bounds for the exported schedule.
Expected Observables¶
- backend pulse-control capability status
- drive/control channel mapping for each coupled pair
- dt or duration-unit compatibility
- amplitude and duration bounds for the exported envelope
- transpiled digital comparator depth and two-qubit gate count
- post-review QPU time estimate before any execution approval
Circuit / Package Summary¶
provider: ibm_pulseplatform: circuit_qednative_schema: exchange_resonator_v1n_oscillators: 4n_couplers: 6n_drives: 4duration: 0.2sdk_module: qiskit.pulsesdk_available: False
QPU Budget¶
status: not_requestedhardware_submission: Falsecloud_contact: Falserecommended_initial_scope: calibration metadata review onlyestimated_execution_seconds: 0.0future_optional_ceiling_seconds: 300.0
Platform Fit¶
ibm_pulse: blocked_until_sdk_calibration_approvalgate_based_comparator: required_before_executionneutral_atom: separate_S4_route
Risks and Confounds¶
- Modern IBM Runtime access may not expose OpenPulse-style low-level controls on every backend.
- A design payload is not a calibrated Qiskit pulse Schedule or provider-accepted instruction.
- Pulse-shaped evolution and digital Trotter circuits are not equivalent without a matched observable protocol.
- Calibration drift can invalidate a pulse review before execution.
- Backend channel constraints can dominate any expected reduction in Trotter overhead.
Decision Tree¶
accepted: Promote to live backend metadata capture and a no-submit channel-map artefact.manual_review: Request backend-specific pulse constraints before choosing a hardware scope.fail: Reject IBM pulse execution for this route and prioritise digital or neutral-atom S4 paths.
Paper Impact¶
A passed calibration review would support the S4 methods narrative by showing how the software stack moves from analogue design payloads to provider-specific hardware readiness.
Follow-up Avenue¶
After review, generate a backend-specific pulse channel map, then compare a tiny pulse-shaped candidate against a matched digital comparator only after explicit QPU-budget approval.
Possibilities Opened¶
- pulse-vs-digital Trotter overhead comparison
- provider-specific calibration package for future QPU credit requests
- bounded IBM pulse-level route before non-IBM S4 hardware replication
Claim Boundary¶
This preregistration does not create a pulse Schedule, contact IBM services, submit QPU jobs, or claim pulse-level performance. It only defines the calibration-review gate.
Reproducibility Package¶
s4_readiness: data/s4_multi_hardware_control/s4_multi_hardware_readiness_2026-05-06.jsonpreregistration_script: scripts/export_s4_provider_preregistration.pybench_command: scpn-bench s4-provider-preregistrationreadiness_doc: docs/campaigns/s4_multi_hardware_readiness_2026-05-06.md
Prerequisites¶
- select a concrete IBM backend that exposes compatible pulse metadata
- capture backend calibration metadata without submitting jobs
- record channel map, duration unit, amplitude bounds, and timing granularity
- estimate QPU time after the review and before any hardware approval