Ran an N=30 benchmark test against IBM native compiler optimization_level=3
Just benchmarking our proprietary compiler against IBMs native compiler while I still have free runtime available.
I initially tested using some of my own QASM workloads and found the results interesting enough to investigate further. To eliminate internal concerns about benchmark bias, I used externally provided QASM for an N=30 repeated-run comparison.
The benchmark circuit.
OPENQASM 2.0;
include "qelib1.inc";
qreg q[5]; creg c[5];
// Nontrivial initial state to prevent auto-cancellation
x q[1]; x q[3];
// Dense Entanglement
h q[0]; cu1(pi/2) q[0], q[1]; cu1(pi/4) q[0], q[2];
h q[2]; cu1(pi/2) q[2], q[3]; cu1(pi/4) q[2], q[4];
// Cross-coupled interference
cx q[1], q[4]; cx q[3], q[0];
u3(pi/3, pi/5, pi/7) q[1]; u3(pi/4, pi/6, pi/8) q[3];
// Layer 3: Routing stress (Forcing distant physical entanglement)
cx q[0], q[4]; cx q[4], q[2]; cx q[2], q[1]; cx q[1], q[3];
cx q[3], q[0]; cx q[4], q[1];
h q[4]; cu1(pi/2) q[3], q[4]; cu1(pi/4) q[2], q[4];
h q[3]; cu1(pi/2) q[2], q[3];
measure q[0] -> c[0]; measure q[1] -> c[1]; measure q[2] -> c[2]; measure q[3] -> c[3]; measure q[4] -> c[4];
Current N=30 results:
Proprietary wins: 27/30
Native wins: 3/30
(Average deltas appear consistently positive across repeated executions.)
What I would like is an additional QASM from the community so I can continue benchmarking against IBMs native under the same conditions.
Bias is always the first criticism in benchmarking, so externally supplied workloads will dispel that.
I only have 3m31s of runtime left, so if anyone wants to throw a difficult QASM at it, now’s the time. ty.
