cond-mat.mes-hallJul 23, 2026

Machine Learning for Charge State Characterization of Isolated Double Quantum Dots

Authors: Hyma Vallabhapurapu, Marco Candido, Krishna Choudhary, Paul Steinacker, Ensar Vahapoglu, Chris Escott, Wee Han Lim, Andre Saraiva, +2 more

Organizations: Diraq, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia · School of Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Abstract

Scaling semiconductor quantum dot arrays toward fault-tolerant quantum computing requires efficient tuneup of spin qubits, a process that depends on the analysis of charge stability maps (CSMs) and remains largely manual. While machine learning has been widely applied to CSM analysis in reservoir-coupled devices, automated tuning in the increasingly important isolated-mode regime has received limited attention. In isolated-mode CSMs, charge transitions appear as near-vertical lines, making them well suited to compact, task-specific models. We present two convolutional neural networks with fewer than one million parameters, trained on CSMs collected from 32 silicon metal-oxide-semiconductor (SiMOS) double-quantum-dot devices measured at approximately 1 K using an automated cryogenic probing system. Sixteen devices were used for training and sixteen were held out to evaluate cross-device generalization against hand-labeled ground truth. CSMClassifier identifies charge instability and sensor artifacts, achieving 94% macro-averaged accuracy across three quality classes on 2,407 held-out images. ChargeLineNet localizes charge-transition lines and determines electron occupancy, achieving 95.3% exact line-count accuracy on 1,131 held-out images. Combined into a single pipeline, the models correctly determine electron occupancy for 93.8% of clean held-out images. Pre-training on synthetic images substantially improves label efficiency. Fine-tuning the pre-trained model on limited experimental data maintains over 90% accuracy, whereas training from scratch degrades significantly under the same conditions. Together, the two models occupy only 6.5 MB and process images in less than 60 ms on standard laboratory hardware, demonstrating a practical path toward scalable, automated characterization and tuneup of quantum-dot devices.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 27, 2026cs.CV

Do We Really Need Quantum Machine Learning?: A Multidimensional Empirical Study

The rapid growth of computer vision and increasingly complex image recognition tasks has exposed fundamental computational limitations of classical machine learning models, motivating the exploration of quantum computing as an emerging new paradigm. This paper presents a comprehensive benchmarking study of classical and quantum machine learning models for image recognition on the MNIST handwritten digit dataset, evaluating both traditional models, a Classical Support Vector Machine (CSVM) and a Quantum Support Vector Machine (QSVM), and deep neural network models, a Classical Convolutional Neural Network (CCNN) and a Quantum Convolutional Neural Network (QCNN), across four performance dimensions: classification accuracy, computational runtime, parameter count, and memory requirements. Experiments are conducted as functions of both feature dimensionality and sample size, and across CPU and GPU execution environments, providing a controlled, multidimensional comparison to address gaps in prior work. For the SVM-based models, QSVM consistently outperforms CSVM in accuracy, reaching ∼\sim 0.90 versus ∼\sim 0.85 at 1,000 samples, with a higher computational cost. A feature count of 10 qubits and a sample size in the range of 200 -- 500 emerge as practical operating points that balance accuracy and runtime. For the neural network models, CCNN and QCNN achieve comparable classification accuracy, both exceeding 0.96 at 64 features and 60,000 samples, yet QCNN offers substantially superior parameter and memory efficiency, requiring ∼\sim 94% fewer parameters and ∼\sim 75% less memory than CCNN at higher feature counts, while incurring higher runtime. Across both model families, quantum models consistently outperform classical models by greater margins in accuracy as feature dimensionality or sample size increases.
Sudip Vhaduri, Ryan Gammon, Sayanton Dibbo
Quantum Machine LearningQuantum KernelsMnistMachine LearningConvolutional Neural NetworksComputational Cost+1
AskPDF
Jul 1, 2026quant-ph

Bridging Quantum Computing Paradigms toward Semiconductor Yield: A Controlled CV-versus-DV Comparison on Wafer-Map Defect Classification

Realizing quantum neural networks (QNNs) in industry requires knowing which quantum computing paradigm suits which task. Motivated by AI accelerators and high-bandwidth memory, where die stacking makes wafer-level defect screening central to yield, we study WM-811K wafer-map defect classification (eight classes), comparing the dominant paradigms, continuous-variable (CV) and discrete-variable (DV), under controlled conditions. To isolate the quantum circuit as the sole variable, a shared convolutional backbone (~4.3M parameters) feeds interchangeable heads (classical dense, CV-QNN, or DV-QNN) as the only structural difference; each quantum head is scaled over three sizes (3, 4, 8 qumodes/qubits). The CV head consistently outperforms the DV head: at four qumodes/qubits it reaches 79.7 +/- 1.8% accuracy versus 61.6 +/- 1.4%, a non-overlapping 18-point gap. The advantage is sharpest on the spatially localized Edge-Loc class, easily confused with Scratch, which CV recovers with recall 0.66 +/- 0.06 while DV fails at every size (<=0.05), showing the structured CV layer better captures fine spatial distinctions between defect types. Training curves show the DV limitation is a representational-capacity ceiling, not an optimization failure; at the Fock cutoff used here (d = 2) the CV advantage reflects two intrinsic properties, a structured, neural-network-analogue layer and continuous phase-space encoding, not Hilbert-space dimensionality. On IBM hardware, DV accuracy holds at shallow depth, degrading only at the deepest circuit. Both quantum heads remain below the classical baseline (85.0%), but the controlled setting isolates where a structured head already helps and, as noise and scale improve, which paradigm can deliver practical advantage.
Yeonhong Kim, Jonghyeok Im, Monu Nath Baitha +1
Quantum Neural NetworksQuantum ComputingSemiconductor Manufacturing
AskPDF
Jul 15, 2026quant-ph

Real-Time Detection of Charge Jumps in Superconducting Qubits with a Convolutional Neural Network

Ionizing radiation from cosmic rays and gammas can induce discontinuous jumps in the environmental charge of superconducting qubits (charge jumps), causing correlated errors that challenge fault-tolerant quantum computing while simultaneously providing a detection signature for quantum sensing applications. Current detection methods operate offline, introducing latency incompatible with in-the-loop qubit control. In this paper, an online detector of charge jumps for superconducting qubits, based on a dilated causal convolutional neural network (DCCNN) designed for in-the-loop deployment on the Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit (QICK) platform, is presented. The network is trained on synthetic Ramsey tomography scans generated from qubit templates measured at the Northwestern Experimental Underground Site (NEXUS) at Fermilab, and translated to FPGA firmware via hls4ml with ap_fixed⟨16,6⟩\langle 16,6 \rangle quantization, reaching a per-inference latency of 6.19μ6.19 μs on the Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC ZCU216. At this operating point the DCCNN matches the detection efficiency of the established offline χ2χ^2 algorithm (0.843±0.0220.843 \pm 0.022 vs. 0.866±0.0200.866 \pm 0.020 on ∣Δq∣∈[0.1,0.5]e|Δq| \in [0.1, 0.5] e at matched false-positive rate), while requiring no per-qubit hyperparameter tuning. This shifts charge-jump detection from a post-hoc diagnostic to a control-loop primitive, enabling adaptive protocols that respond to radiation-induced events in situ, with applications to quantum-computing error mitigation and to the use of superconducting qubits as particle detectors.
Daniel Gaytan-Villarreal, Peter Meiring, Daniel Baxter +6
QubitPost-Quantum CryptographyConvolutional Neural Networks
AskPDF