Edukaizen

Menu
  • News
  • Hubbard 1D
    • Part 1: 1D Hubbard model
    • Part 2: Snake layout and fSWAP
    • Part 3: Qiskit and Fire Opal
    • Part 4: 120-qubit run
    • Part 5: Time-to-answer
    • Part 6: Tensor networks
    • Part 7: Majorana propagation
    • Part 8: Reading heatmaps
    • Part 9: Digital vs cold-atom labs
    • Part 10: Official Monoprop benchmark
  • Hubbard 2D
    • Part 1: 1D to 2D
    • Part 2: Cuprates
    • Part 3: 3×3
    • Part 4: Time
    • Part 5: 4×4
    • Part 6: 6×6 Fez
  • Hadron
    • Part 1: Hadron on a quantum processor
    • Part 2: Quarks and confinement
    • Part 3: SU(2) and LSH
    • Part 4: Hamiltonian and circuit
    • Part 5: Fire Opal
    • Part 6: Classical simulations
    • Part 7: Quantum advantage
  • Black Hole OLE
    • Part 1: What we ran
    • Part 2: How OLE works
    • Part 3: Fire Opal and Kingston
    • Part 4: The tensor-network challenge
    • Part 5: Hawking and scrambling
    • Part 6: What the result proves
    • Part 7: Local toy model
    • Part 8: QGSS26 compatibility
  • Random Graph
    • Start here
    • Part 1: Theory
    • Part 2: Circuit
    • Part 3: Qiskit
    • Part 4: Complexity
    • Part 5: Verification
    • Part 6: Workflow
    • Part 7: Conclusion
  • QOS QML
    • Tutorial: UMI counts to a four-qubit circuit
    • Part 1: The QML task
    • Part 2: QOS theory
    • Part 3: Gene expression to 40 qubits
    • Part 4: JAX to hardware
    • Part 5: Readout and classifier
    • Part 6: 40-qubit result
    • Part 7: Route to quantum advantage
    • Part 8: 60-qubit result
  • Floquet-Ising
    • Part 1: Floquet physics
    • Part 2: Ising cycle
    • Part 3: Two-qubit toy model
    • Part 4: Oscillation and entanglement
    • Part 5: Noise and error mitigation
    • Part 6: Toward 51 qubits
  • Work
    • Quantum Gold
      • Part 1: Why gold is a relativistic quantum problem
      • Part 2: Why the 2025 gold VQE study stalled
      • Part 3: From QE and spin–orbit coupling to Qiskit
      • Part 4: Twelve gold spinor modes on four qubits
      • Part 5: The 24-qubit route: an active window for transport
      • Part 6: 24 qubits on IBM and with Fire Opal
      • Part 7: The road to quantum advantage for gold
      • Part 8: 24 gold spinor modes on IBM with ZNE-PEA
    • HaPPY Gravity
      • Part 1: Gravity as a phase gate
      • Part 2: Bosons and convergence
      • Part 3: The dynamic HaPPY benchmark
      • Part 4: The N=145 classical audit
      • Part 5: MPS and Majorana baselines
      • Part 6: PEA/ZNE and the decisive test
    • Fibonacci Anyons
      • Part 1: Fusion and braiding
      • Part 2: The 3/5/9-qubit ladder
      • Part 3: Why nine qubits were too deep
      • Part 4: Structure-aware simplification
      • Part 5: IBM hardware diagnostic
      • Part 6: Results and open questions
  • Advantage List
Menu

From bosonic modes to a dynamic HaPPY benchmark

NederlandsEnglish

Part 3 · benchmark design

To ask a serious scaling question, the project moves from two bosonic modes to seeded non-Clifford dynamics on a structured 61-qubit graph.

What HaPPY contributes

The original HaPPY tensor network is a toy model of holographic quantum error correction: bulk degrees of freedom are encoded at a boundary. This project uses the graph generated by a layered HaPPY construction as the interaction geometry for a dynamic circuit. It does not claim that the circuit is a model of real spacetime.

The frozen instance

  • boundary size N = 145;
  • 61 dynamic bulk qubits and 80 bulk edges;
  • seed 260814;
  • non-Clifford Floquet layers;
  • 13 X, 13 Z and 16 ZZ probes.

Freezing the seed and the observable list matters. Without that step it is too easy to move the goalposts after discovering which observables are easy or which circuits happen to fit the hardware.

A useful benchmark needs two tasks

Local expectation values and global sampling are different computational problems. A full state may be difficult to represent while one local observable has a small backwards causal cone. The repository therefore reports exactly which output is requested and never transfers a hardness conclusion from one task to another.

Claim boundary. “HaPPY-inspired” describes the graph construction. The dynamics, hardness and gravity interpretation must each be justified separately.
Project page: HaPPY gravity

  1. Part 1: Gravity as a phase gate
  2. Part 2: Bosons and convergence
  3. Part 3: The dynamic HaPPY benchmark
  4. Part 4: The N=145 classical audit
  5. Part 5: MPS and Majorana baselines
  6. Part 6: PEA/ZNE and the decisive test

Sources and reproducibility

  • Bose et al., A Spin Entanglement Witness for Quantum Gravity
  • Marletto & Vedral, Gravitationally Induced Entanglement
  • Sabín, Digital quantum simulation of quantum gravitational entanglement
  • Pastawski et al., Holographic quantum error-correcting codes
  • IBM Quantum documentation: ZNE and PEA
  • Public code, numerical reports and full 42-value table on GitHub

Project status: 14 August 2026. Numerical values come from the frozen public research artifacts; claim boundaries are deliberately preserved.

Recent Posts

  • Quantum computing-nieuws — 14 augustus 2026
  • IBM Quantum queues surge past 264,000 pending jobs
  • Quantum computing news — August 13, 2026
  • Quantum computing news — August 12, 2026
  • Quantum computing news — August 11, 2026

Recent Comments

No comments to show.

Archives

  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • May 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • September 2024

Categories

  • 10
  • Quantum Computing
  • Uncategorized
©2026 Edukaizen | Theme by SuperbThemes