Economic Decoupling Probability: A Quantum Analogy of Characterizing Bell State Errors and Noise on Real IBM Quantum Hardware

Economic Decoupling Probability: A Quantum Analogy of Characterizing Bell State Errors and Noise on Real IBM Quantum Hardware | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Economic Decoupling Probability: A Quantum Analogy of Characterizing Bell State Errors and Noise on Real IBM Quantum Hardware Muhammad Sukri Bin Ramli This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6461596/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Accurate generation and measurement of entangled states, such as the Bell state |Φ ⁺ ⟩, are crucial benchmarks for assessing the capabilities and variability of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) hardware. This work benchmarks the fidelity of preparing the |Φ ⁺ ⟩ = (|00⟩ + |11⟩)/√2 state on different qubit pairs ([2, 3] and [7, 8]) of the ibm_kyiv quantum processor over multiple runs (N=5) and employs the deviation from perfect correlation as a quantitative analogy for the probability of unexpected decoupling in systems expected to exhibit strong correlation, such as linked economic indicators. Implementing the standard Hadamard and CNOT gate sequence for 4096 shots per run using the qiskit-ibm-runtime SamplerV2 primitive, we characterized the state preparation and measurement fidelity and applied mthree-based readout error mitigation. Experimental raw results revealed significant variability between layouts, yielding mean anti-correlated outcome probabilities P(Anti) = P(01) + P(10) of approximately 1.6% (±0.3%) for layout [2, 3] and 9.2% (±0.8%) for layout [7, 8]. This performance difference strongly correlated with reported hardware calibration metrics, particularly average readout error rates. Readout error mitigation successfully reduced P(Anti) to near-zero values (≤0.1%) for both layouts, achieving corrected correlated outcome probabilities P(Corr) = P(00) + P(11) of ~99.9-100.0%. Within our conceptual framework, the range of raw P(Anti) serves as a quantitative analogue for the likelihood of 'unexpected decoupling' under different inherent noise conditions, while the mitigated results suggest the potential to isolate underlying system dynamics from measurement noise. This research provides concrete multi-run fidelity benchmarks for ibm_kyiv, demonstrates the effectiveness of error mitigation, highlights performance variability linked to calibration data, and quantifies a range for the proposed economic uncertainty analogy. Theoretical Computer Science Economic Theory Quantum Computing NISQ (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum) Quantum Benchmarking Quantum Fidelity Bell State Entanglement Quantum Noise Quantum Error Mitigation Readout Error Gate Error IBM Quantum ibm_kyiv Qiskit mthree (Error Mitigation) Quantum Analogy Economic Decoupling Economic Uncertainty Correlation Breakdown Hardware Characterization Qubit Variability Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Summary The causal loop diagram illustrates a key dynamic based on the economic analogy from the research. Initially, underlying Factors Driving Economic Uncertainty (analogous to quantum noise) positively influence, or increase, the Observed Unexpected Economic Decoupling Rate between indicators that should normally be correlated (similar to measuring anti-correlated P(Anti) states). This increase in observed decoupling signals a potential problem, which in turn positively drives an increase in Data Cleaning / Model Refinement Effort as analysts or researchers seek to understand or correct the anomaly (akin to applying error mitigation). This increased effort then acts negatively to reduce the Observed Unexpected Economic Decoupling Rate , as errors are filtered or models improved. This sequence forms the Balancing Loop (B1): higher observed decoupling prompts more corrective effort, which then lowers the observed decoupling. This feedback loop functions to counteract deviations and stabilize the system's apparent behavior, ultimately influencing the overall Accuracy of Understanding True Economic Correlation , as higher observed decoupling tends to reduce this accuracy. 1. Introduction This study was motivated by the inherent challenge of modeling uncertainty within economic systems, particularly concerning scenarios where established correlations between indicators or markets unexpectedly broke down, potentially impacting forecasting and risk management. Recognizing that recent explorations had considered quantum frameworks for modeling financial and economic systems due to their probabilistic nature and handling of correlations (Orrell, 2020 ; Herman et al., 2023 ; Orús et al., 2019 ), we employed a fundamental quantum procedure: the generation of the maximally entangled |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state using a standard circuit involving a Hadamard gate followed by a Controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate (Nielsen & Chuang, 2010 ). This state, defined as: In an ideal, noiseless scenario, measurements of this state should be perfectly correlated, meaning the outcome is always |00⟩ (both qubits measured as |0⟩) or |11⟩ (both qubits measured as |1⟩) (Bell, 1964 ; Nielsen & Chuang, 2010 ). Within this quantum foundation, we proposed a conceptual mapping for analogy: the correlated outcomes |00⟩ and |11⟩ represented expected, synchronized economic scenarios ("Scenario Alpha" and "Scenario Beta," respectively), while the anti-correlated outcomes |01⟩ and |10⟩—ideally absent—were mapped to represent "Unexpected Decoupling" events, the focus of economic uncertainty. It was emphasized that this constituted a conceptual analogy (Mäki, 2009 ) designed to explore parallels between quantum measurement statistics and economic unpredictability. The experiment was situated within the context of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) computing (Preskill, 2018 ), where processors inherently suffered from noise sources like gate errors, readout errors, and decoherence that limited accuracy. Consequently, real-world devices deviated from ideal behavior, yielding non-zero probabilities for the anti-correlated |01⟩ and |10⟩ outcomes when attempting to prepare and measure a Bell state (see e.g., Kandala et al., 2019 ; Temme et al., 2017 ). Benchmarking such fundamental operations was crucial for characterizing these limitations (Eisert et al., 2020 ; Cross et al., 2019 ). This experiment utilized the Qiskit framework (Abraham et al., 2019 ) on the IBM Quantum device ibm_kyiv to investigate these deviations, addressing two primary research questions: (A1) How accurately did the device prepare and measure the correlated |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state, reflecting the analogous probability of expected economic scenarios? and (A2) How significant were the deviations from perfect correlation, specifically, what was the probability of observing the 'unexpected decoupling' outcomes (|01⟩ or |10⟩), providing an analogue for the frequency of unexpected economic events driven by noise/uncertainty factors? The paper proceeded by detailing the methods used for Bell state preparation and measurement, presenting the obtained results, and offering a discussion interpreting these findings within the economic analogy framework, followed by concluding remarks. 2. Literature Review Quantum computing represents a paradigm shift from classical computation, leveraging quantum mechanical principles like superposition and entanglement to tackle problems previously considered intractable (Nielsen & Chuang, 2010 ). Entanglement, a key resource, describes correlations between quantum systems that are stronger than any classical counterpart, a concept famously debated by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen ( 1935 ) and later formalized by Bell ( 1964 ; Vedral, 2008 ). The current state of quantum hardware development is often described as the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era (Preskill, 2018 ). NISQ devices possess a limited number of qubits and are highly susceptible to noise, making the accurate characterization and benchmarking of their performance critically important (Cross et al., 2019 ; McKay et al., 2019 ). A fundamental benchmark for quantum processors involves the generation and measurement of entangled states, particularly the Bell states. The ability to reliably create these states is a prerequisite for many quantum algorithms and protocols. However, achieving high fidelity is challenging due to various noise sources inherent in NISQ hardware. These include environmental interactions leading to decoherence (related principles discussed in Slichter, 1990 ), as well as imperfections in quantum gate operations and measurement readout processes. These errors cause the experimentally realized quantum state to deviate from the intended ideal state, limiting the computational power of near-term devices. To address the impact of noise, various quantum error mitigation techniques have been developed. Strategies such as Zero Noise Extrapolation (ZNE) attempt to estimate the ideal noiseless outcome by systematically varying noise levels and extrapolating the results back to the zero-noise limit (Temme et al., 2017 ; Kandala et al., 2019 ; Qiskit Development Team, n.d.). Other methods specifically target errors occurring during the final measurement step. Among these, Matrix-Free Measurement Mitigation (M3), implemented in the mthree package, offers a scalable approach. Unlike methods requiring the construction and inversion of the full assignment matrix (which becomes computationally prohibitive for many qubits), M3 operates within a reduced subspace defined by the observed noisy measurement outcomes. This matrix-free technique significantly reduces memory requirements and computational cost, making readout mitigation feasible for larger systems compared to traditional matrix inversion methods (Nation et al., 2021 ). While Qiskit Runtime's EstimatorV2 primitive incorporates built-in mitigation options, SamplerV2 (used for obtaining distributions, as in this work) does not, necessitating the use of external libraries like mthree for post-processing correction. These mitigation techniques aim to improve the accuracy of results obtained from NISQ computers without the significant overhead required for full fault-tolerant quantum error correction.Beyond fundamental benchmarking, quantum computing holds potential for applications in various fields, including finance and economics. Researchers are exploring quantum algorithms for tasks like portfolio optimization (Rebentrost et al., 2014 ) and are investigating broader applications within quantitative finance (Orús et al., 2019 ; Herman et al., 2023 ). This burgeoning interest motivates exploring connections, even analogical ones, between quantum phenomena and complex economic systems. The implementation and analysis of quantum experiments heavily rely on specialized software frameworks and libraries. Qiskit provides a comprehensive ecosystem for quantum computing research, development, and execution on various hardware backends, including those from IBM Quantum (Abraham et al., 2019 ; Qiskit Development Team, n.d.). Data processing and visualization are further supported by established scientific Python libraries such as NumPy for numerical operations (Harris et al., 2020 ), Matplotlib for plotting (Hunter, 2007 ), and Pandas for data manipulation (The pandas development team, 2024 ). These tools are essential for designing circuits, executing jobs, analyzing results, and communicating findings in quantum computation research. 3. Methodology The experiment focused on generating the maximally entangled Bell state |Φ⁺⟩ = (|00⟩ + |11⟩) / √2 (Nielsen & Chuang, 2010 ), for which the ideal, noise-free measurement yielded perfectly correlated outcomes exclusively in the |00⟩ or |11⟩ state, corresponding to a theoretical probability of correlated outcomes P(Corr) = P(00) + P(11) = 1.0 (Bell, 1964 ; Nielsen & Chuang, 2010 ). The quantum circuit implemented to prepare this state was the standard two-qubit sequence—a Hadamard gate on the first qubit followed by a CNOT gate controlled by the first qubit targeting the second, immediately followed by measurement (Nielsen & Chuang, 2010 )—defined and managed using the Qiskit framework (Abraham et al., 2019 ), with logical and transpiled diagrams presented in Fig. 3All simulations, hardware job submissions via the cloud, and subsequent data analysis were conducted using the Python programming language within a Miniconda environment running on a local machine equipped with an Intel Core i7 processor. Code development was performed using Visual Studio Code. Core quantum tasks relied on the Qiskit framework (Abraham et al., 2019 ), including the qiskit-ibm-runtime package for executing jobs on the target IBM Quantum backend (ibm_kyiv) and built-in simulators. Numerical computations utilized NumPy (Harris et al., 2020 ), visualization was performed with Matplotlib (Hunter, 2007 ), and readout error mitigation was applied using the mthree library. Figure 4 visualized the measured probability distributions for the four possible computational basis outcomes ('00', '01', '10', '11') after preparing the |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state under different conditions. Ideally, the distribution showed only the correlated outcomes '00' and '11', each with a probability of 0.5. In contrast, the raw results obtained from hardware execution on both layouts ([2, 3] and [7, 8]) exhibited significant deviations, with non-zero probabilities appearing for the anti-correlated outcomes '01' and '10', and noticeable differences between the two layouts. The figure further illustrated the effect of readout error mitigation, which, when applied, reduced the erroneous anti-correlated probabilities ('01', '10') and increased the probabilities of the correct correlated outcomes ('00', '11'), bringing the mitigated distribution closer to the ideal case. To prepare the target entangled state in this experiment, the standard logical quantum circuit for generating the Bell state |Φ⁺⟩ = (|00⟩ + |11⟩)/√2 using Hadamard (H) and CNOT (CX) gates, as depicted in Fig. 2 , was first defined. However, this abstract representation could not be directly executed on physical hardware. Therefore, before running the experiment on the ibm_kyiv processor, the logical circuit underwent a crucial adaptation process called transpilation, resulting in the transpiled quantum circuit diagram for Bell state (|Φ⁺⟩) preparation mapped to physical qubits on ibm_kyiv, shown in Fig. 3 . This transpilation step mapped the circuit's logical qubits (0 and 1) to specific physical qubits on the device (such as layout [2, 3] or [7, 8]) and decomposed the standard H and CX gates into the sequence of native hardware gates that ibm_kyiv could actually perform, yielding the circuit that was physically executed. The experimental workflow began with initialization, where the Bell state circuit and key configuration parameters, including the target backend (ibm_kyiv), specific qubit layouts ([2, 3] and [7, 8]), number of runs (N = 5), and shots (4096), were defined. An ideal simulation was run using AerSimulator to establish a baseline result with zero expected anti-correlated outcomes (P(Anti) = 0). Connection to the IBM Quantum service was established via QiskitRuntimeService. The main execution proceeded by looping through each target qubit layout. For each layout, relevant device calibration data was retrieved and logged, the logical Bell circuit was transpiled for the specific layout and backend, and the mthree readout mitigation was calibrated. Within this loop, a second loop iterated through five independent runs. In each run, the transpiled circuit was submitted as a job to the ibm_kyiv hardware using the SamplerV2 primitive, and the raw measurement counts were retrieved. Raw performance metrics, specifically P(Anti), were calculated from these counts. Subsequently, mthree readout mitigation was applied to the raw counts, and mitigated P(Anti) metrics were calculated. The results for each individual run, including raw and mitigated data, were stored. After complete runs for all layouts were completed, the collected data was aggregated to calculate mean and standard deviation values for P(Anti). Correlation analysis was performed to compare the aggregated raw P(Anti) against the retrieved calibration data (like readout error). Finally, visualizations comparing the results were generated, and the detailed run data and calibration logs were saved to files. 4. Results Table 1: Summary of Hypotheses Regarding Bell State Fidelity, Hardware Noise, Error Mitigation, and Corresponding Experimental Outcomes Hypothesis Hypothesis Statement Result Conclusion H1 Higher levels of underlying system noise (poorer hardware metrics) will lead to a significantly higher "Observed Unexpected Economic Decoupling Rate" (P(Anti)). Layout [7, 8] (higher reported readout error) yielded P(Anti) ≈ 9.2%. Layout [2, 3] (lower reported readout error) yielded P(Anti) ≈ 1.6%. Performance difference correlated with hardware metrics. Supported H2 Applying targeted corrective measures (error mitigation) will significantly reduce the "Observed Unexpected Economic Decoupling Rate" (P(Anti)). Readout error mitigation (mthree) reduced P(Anti) to near-zero values (≤0.1%) for both layouts ([2, 3] and [7, 8]). Supported H3 The measured P(Anti) on a quantum system can serve as a quantifiable proxy for the relative risk of unexpected decoupling in analogous complex systems. The study successfully used P(Anti) as an analogy. The significant difference in P(Anti) between layouts based on underlying noise demonstrates its potential as a relative indicator of such risk. Premise Supported / Demonstrated Table 2: Relevant Device Calibration Data Layout Avg Readout Err H Err (%) Avg T1 (µs) Avg T2 (µs) CNOT Err [2, 3] 0.76% 0.02% 322.4 144.6 N/A [7, 8] 8.98% 0.07% 337 322.1 N/A Table 3: Summary of Bell State Fidelity Results Layout Num Runs Raw P(Corr) Raw P(Anti) Mitigated P(Corr) Mitigated P(Anti) Ideal Sim 1 100.00% ± 0.00% 0.00% ± 0.00% N/A N/A [2, 3] 5 98.45% ± 0.33% 1.55% ± 0.33% 99.91% ± 0.20% 0.09% ± 0.20% [7, 8] 5 90.79% ± 0.79% 9.21% ± 0.79% 100.00% ± 0.00% 0.00% ± 0.00% The experiment compared the fidelity of preparing the |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state on the ibm_kyiv quantum processor against an ideal simulation baseline. Hardware performance was evaluated over 5 independent runs (N=5) for two distinct, explicitly chosen qubit pairs, [2, 3] and [7, 8], with 4096 shots per run. Both raw hardware results and results corrected using mthree-based readout error mitigation were analyzed. As expected, the ideal simulation yielded a correlated outcome probability P(Corr) = P(00) + P(11) of 1.000, corresponding to an anti-correlated probability P(Anti) = P(01) + P(10) of 0. Hardware execution, however, exhibited noise-induced errors and significant variability between the chosen layouts, as summarized in Table 3. For layout [2, 3], the mean raw P(Corr) across 5 runs was 98.45% ± 0.33%, corresponding to a mean raw P(Anti) of 1.55% ± 0.33%. Applying readout error mitigation, in line with the hypothesis that such corrections should significantly reduce observed errors (H2), significantly improved the fidelity, yielding a mean mitigated P(Corr) of 99.91% ± 0.20% and reducing the mean mitigated P(Anti) to 0.09% ± 0.20%. In contrast, layout [7, 8] demonstrated considerably lower raw fidelity, with a mean raw P(Corr) of 90.79% ± 0.79% and a mean raw P(Anti) of 9.21% ± 0.79% [Source: Statistical Summary Output, see Table 3]. While readout mitigation also successfully processed these results numerically, supporting the error reduction hypothesis (H2) by yielding a mean mitigated P(Corr) of 100.00% ± 0.00% and P(Anti) of 0.00% ± 0.00%, this might suggest either extremely effective correction or potential flooring. The difference in raw performance between the layouts highlights the heterogeneity of qubit quality across the device. To investigate the source of performance variability, and explicitly test the hypothesis that higher underlying hardware noise leads to higher raw error rates (H1), the measured raw error rates (P(Anti)) were compared against device calibration data retrieved shortly before execution. Scatter plots revealed strong positive correlations between the mean raw P(Anti) and both the average readout error rate per qubit (Pearson r = 1.000, p = 1.000, details in Table 3) and the reported Hadamard gate error rate for the first qubit in the pair (Pearson r = 1.000, p = 1.000) Specifically, layout [7, 8], which exhibited a much higher average readout error (8.98% vs 0.76% for layout [2, 3], see Table 3) primarily due to qubit 8, also showed a significantly higher raw P(Anti) (~9.21% vs ~1.55% for layout [2, 3], see Table 3). Correlation with CNOT error could not be assessed as this data was unavailable in the calibration report. These findings strongly support the hypothesis (H1) that readout error and single-qubit gate fidelity were significant contributing factors to the observed differences in raw Bell state fidelity between the tested qubit pairs (shown in Table 3). 5. Discussion 5.1 Interpretation: Quantifying Variability and the Uncertainty Analogue The experiment successfully benchmarked the preparation and measurement of the |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state across multiple runs (5 runs per layout, as shown in the results table) on two distinct qubit pairs of the ibm_kyiv device. The results revealed significant variability in raw fidelity, with layout [2, 3] achieving a mean P(Corr) of 98.45% ± 0.33%, while layout [7, 8] achieved only 90.79% ± 0.79%. Correspondingly, the raw probability of anti-correlated outcomes P(Anti), which serves as the primary output for our economic analogy, ranged from a mean of 1.55% ± 0.33% for the higher-fidelity pair [2, 3] to 9.21% ± 0.79% for the lower-fidelity pair [7, 8]. Readout error mitigation using mthree proved highly effective numerically for both pairs across the 5 runs, consistently reducing the mean P(Anti) to near-zero levels (0.09% ± 0.20% for [2, 3] and 0.00% ± 0.00% for [7, 8]), yielding mitigated P(Corr) values of approximately 99.91% and 100.00% respectively. Viewed through the lens of the economic analogy, where P(Anti) represents the likelihood of 'unexpected decoupling', this experiment quantified a range of possibilities (~ 1.6% to ~ 9.2%) depending on the specific quantum subsystem (qubit pair) used for the simulation. This suggests that the inherent noise level, analogous to underlying factors driving economic uncertainty, can vary substantially even within the same device. The near-perfect mitigated results indicate that a large portion of the raw P(Anti) in this experiment was attributable to measurement errors (analogous perhaps to data misinterpretation or reporting errors), and correcting for these allows for probing a baseline closer to ideal correlations. This interpretation draws from ideas applying quantum concepts to economic uncertainty (Orrell, 2020 ) within a conceptual analogy framework (Mäki, 2009 ). 5.2 Noise Source Analysis and Calibration Correlation The observed variability in raw P(Anti) between layouts [2, 3] and [7, 8] aligns strongly with the retrieved calibration data, providing insight into the contributing noise sources inherent in the NISQ hardware (Preskill, 2018 ). The correlation analysis revealed that higher mean raw P(Anti) was strongly correlated (Pearson r = 1.000, N = 2) with both higher average readout error rates and higher Hadamard gate error rates for the first qubit of the pair. Layout [7, 8], exhibiting the much higher raw P(Anti) (~ 9.2%), also possessed significantly worse average readout error (~ 8.98%) compared to layout [2, 3] (~ 0.76%), largely driven by a very high reported error for qubit 8 (~ 16.6% - detail from source text). Similarly, the Hadamard error for qubit 7 (~ 0.073%) was higher than for qubit 2 (~ 0.015%). This suggests readout errors and single-qubit gate errors were dominant contributors to the observed raw P(Anti) differences. Coherence times (T1, T2) showed smaller differences between the pairs (T1/T2: [2,3] − 322.4/144.6 µs; [7,8] − 337.0/322.1 µs) and the expected negative correlation with P(Anti) (r=-1.000, N = 2), indicating that decoherence (Martinis et al., 2009 ) likely played a role, but perhaps less distinguishing than readout/gate errors for this short circuit. Unfortunately, CNOT error data was unavailable in the calibration report, preventing assessment of its contribution, although two-qubit gate errors are typically a primary source of entanglement fidelity loss (Chow et al., 2012 ). Drawing conceptual parallels (Mäki, 2009 ), the dominant readout errors could be seen as analogous to significant data integrity issues overshadowing other systemic factors in the economic model. While this study proposes P(Anti) derived from quantum system noise as a quantitative analogue for unexpected correlation breakdowns, it is important to contrast this with established methods in economics and finance. Classical approaches often rely on analyzing historical time-series data using techniques such as rolling window correlations using standard coefficients (like Pearson's or Spearman's rank correlation, see e.g., Field, 2018 ) or other sophisticated multivariate time-series models designed to capture time-varying dependencies. These classical metrics provide valuable insights based on past observed data. The P(Anti) measure presented here differs fundamentally as it is not derived from economic time series, but rather emerges directly from the physical noise processes (readout error, gate error, decoherence) inherent in the quantum hardware simulating the correlated state, as supported by our calibration correlation analysis. Key conceptual differences include its basis in physical device noise rather than statistical properties of historical data, and its representation of an instantaneous error probability for a specific quantum operation rather than an evolved correlation coefficient derived from market prices. Therefore, while P(Anti) cannot replace classical metrics for economic forecasting, it may offer a complementary perspective – a physically grounded proxy quantifying a system's inherent susceptibility to specific types of error or 'decoupling' based on its underlying noise characteristics. The conceptual mapping explored here also connects to a growing body of work investigating the application of quantum formalism and concepts to economics, finance, and social sciences (e.g., Orrell, 2020 ; Busemeyer & Bruza, 2012 ). Fields such as quantum cognition utilize quantum probability (including interference effects) to model decision-making paradoxes and cognitive biases (Busemeyer & Bruza, 2012 ), often differing from our approach which sources its uncertainty analogue (P(Anti)) directly from hardware noise rather than purely mathematical constructs. Similarly, quantum economics, as described by proponents like Orrell, often employs quantum concepts like wave functions and operators metaphorically for economic value, transactions, or price distributions (Orrell, 2020 ). Our work complements these theoretical approaches by providing a perspective grounded in the physical characteristics and measured error rates of contemporary quantum hardware. We utilize the actual noise measured during a fundamental quantum operation on a NISQ device as the source for our quantitative analogy, directly linking this 'uncertainty' analogue to measurable physical error rates (like readout error). This hardware-grounded analogical approach, quantifying noise via P(Anti), appears distinct from purely theoretical models using quantum mathematics or broader philosophical applications of quantum concepts to social systems and offers a novel way to leverage quantum device characterization for exploring concepts relevant to other complex domains. 5.3 Limitations While expanding beyond a single run, this study's conclusions are still subject to limitations. The results represent performance on only two specific layouts of one device (ibm_kyiv) during a limited timeframe (April 14, 2025 - based on current date context). Quantum hardware performance fluctuates, and comprehensive benchmarking requires testing across more devices, layouts, and times (Eisert et al., 2020 ; Erhard et al., 2019 ). Although calibration data was logged and showed strong correlations, the lack of CNOT error data limits a complete error budget analysis. Furthermore, the correlation analysis is based on only two layouts, meaning the high correlation coefficients (r = ± 1.0) are indicative but lack statistical power. Standard statistical uncertainties due to the finite number of shots (N = 4096 per run, inferred from standard practice, not explicitly in tables) still apply, captured partly by the reported standard deviations across runs (Cumming, 2014 ). Finally, the economic mapping remains a conceptual analogy (Mäki, 2009 ), useful for illustration and quantifying a quantum system's deviation, but not validated as a predictive economic model. 5.4 Implications and Future Work This work provides updated multi-run benchmarks for Bell state fidelity on ibm_kyiv, revealing significant performance heterogeneity across qubit pairs (raw P(Corr) ~ 91–98%) and demonstrating highly effective readout error mitigation (mitigated P(Corr) ~ 99.9–100%). The range of observed raw error rates (~ 1.6–9.2% P(Anti)) highlights the substantial impact that device noise can have even on fundamental operations, underscoring challenges for complex algorithms requiring high fidelity (Preskill, 2018 ). The successful mitigation suggests readout noise is a key target for improvement. Future work should address the limitations by: extending the benchmarking to more qubit pairs and devices; performing runs over time to assess stability; ensuring CNOT and other relevant calibration data are captured and correlated (Eisert et al., 2020 ); and increasing the number of runs for tighter statistical bounds. Implementing and comparing other error mitigation techniques like Zero-Noise Extrapolation (Temme et al., 2017 ; Kandala et al., 2019 ) could provide further insights. The economic analogy could be explored further via controlled noise simulations representing different economic volatility levels or by investigating theoretical parallels between quantum error mitigation and economic stabilization strategies 6. Conclusion This study successfully benchmarked the preparation and measurement fidelity of the |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state on the ibm_kyiv quantum processor, assessing performance across multiple runs (N = 5) for two distinct qubit pairs ([2, 3] and [7, 8]) using the qiskit-ibm-runtime SamplerV2 primitive. The results revealed significant variability in raw device performance, with mean anti-correlated outcome probabilities (P(Anti)) ranging from ~ 1.6% for layout [2, 3] to ~ 9.2% for layout [7, 8]. Analysis demonstrated a strong correlation between this raw P(Anti) and reported device calibration metrics, particularly average readout error rates and single-qubit Hadamard gate errors, highlighting their contribution to performance differences. Furthermore, the application of mthree-based readout error mitigation proved highly effective, reducing P(Anti) to near-zero levels (≤ 0.1%) and achieving mean correlated state fidelities (P(Corr)) of ~ 99.9–100.0% for both tested layouts. Beyond providing multi-run fidelity benchmarks and demonstrating successful error mitigation, this work utilized the experimentally measured P(Anti) as a quantitative output for a conceptual analogy mapping quantum noise to uncertainty in correlated economic systems. The observed range of raw P(Anti) illustrated how different inherent noise levels in the quantum simulation could represent varying likelihoods (~ 2–9%) of 'unexpected decoupling' events in the analogy, while the near-ideal mitigated results represented a baseline achievable after correcting for measurement-type errors. While acknowledging limitations related to the specific device, timeframe, number of layouts tested, and the conceptual nature of the analogy, this research provides concrete evidence of qubit performance heterogeneity and the efficacy of readout error mitigation on ibm_kyiv. Future directions include broader benchmarking across more layouts and devices, incorporating more complete calibration data (including CNOT errors), exploring alternative error mitigation techniques, and further developing the quantum-economic analogy, potentially through controlled noise simulations. In summary, this study offers valuable benchmarks for a fundamental quantum operation and presents a quantified, noise-based quantum analogy applicable to exploring correlation breakdowns in complex systems. References Abraham, H., AduOffei, K., Agarwal, R., Agliardi, G., Aharoni, M., Akhalwaya, I. Y., ... & Zoufal, C. (2019). Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562110 Aleksandrowicz, G., Alexander, T., Barkoutsos, P., Beyer, L., Bishop, L. S., Bullock, C. J., & Zemla, M. (2019). Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03019. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3), 195–200. Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., & Wootters, W. K. (1993). Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen 1 channels. Physical Review Letters, 70(13), 1895–1899. Blume-Kohout, R. (2010). Optimal, reliable estimation of quantum states. New Journal of Physics, 12(4), 043034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/12/4/043034 Breuer, H.-P., & Petruccione, F. (2002). The theory of open quantum systems. Oxford University Press. Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (2012). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford University Press. Chow, J. M., Gambetta, J. M., Magesan, E., Abraham, D. W., Smolin, J. A., & Steffen, M. (2012). Simple high-fidelity gates for superconducting qubits. Physical Review Letters, 109(6), 060501. Cirac, J. I., & Zoller, P. (2012). Goals and opportunities in quantum simulation. Nature Physics, 8(4), 264–266. Cross, A. W., Bishop, L. S., Sheldon, S., Nation, P. D., & Gambetta, J. M. (2019). Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits. Physical Review A, 100(3), 032328. 2 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032328 Cumming, G. (2014). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Routledge. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 3 777–780. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 4 Eisert, J., Hangleiter, D., Walk, N., Roth, I., et al. (2020). Quantum certification and benchmarking. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(7), 382–390. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0186-4 Ekert, A. K. (1991). Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem. Physical Review Letters, 67(6), 661–663. Erhard, A., Wallman, J. J., Knill, E., & Biercuk, M. J. (2019). Characterizing quantum devices by benchmarking. Nature Communications, 10(1), 5347. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M., & Cleland, A. N. (2012). Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Physical Review A, 86(3), 032324. 5 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324 Gambetta, J. M., Chow, J. M., & Steffen, M. (2017). Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing architecture. npj Quantum Information, 3(1), 2. Gühne, O., & Tóth, G. (2009). Entanglement detection. Physics Reports, 474(1-3), 1–75. Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N. J., Kern, R., Picus, M., Hoyer, S., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Brett, M., Haldane, A., del 6 Río, J. F., Wiebe, M., Peterson, P., ... Oliphant, T. E. (2020). Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585(7825), 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 7 Harrow, A. W., Hassidim, A., & Lloyd, S. (2009). Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations. Physical Review Letters, 103(15), 150502. Herman, D., Pistoia, M., Zeng, Y., & Benjamin, S. C. (2023). Quantum computing for finance. Nature Reviews Physics, 5(8), 450–465. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-023-00598-6 Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., & Horodecki, K. (2009). Quantum entanglement. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2), 865–942. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865 Hunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 8 IBM Quantum. (n.d.). Quantum computing systems & performance metrics. Retrieved April 11, 2025. Jeffrey, E., Mutus, J. Y., Chow, J. M., Gambetta, J. M., Steffen, M., Johnson, T. D., & Blais, A. (2014). Fast, accurate state measurement with superconducting qubits. Physical Review Letters, 112(19), 190504. Jurcevic, P., Javadi-Abhari, A., Bishop, L. S., Lauer, I., et al. (2021). Demonstration of quantum volume 64 on a superconducting quantum computing system. Quantum Science and Technology, 6(2), 025020. 9 https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/abe519 Kandala, A., Mezzacapo, A., Móller, K., Abhinav, P., Smulligan, S., Marinelli, F., & Chow, J. M. (2019). Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature, 549(7671), 242-246. (Note: Appears distinct from the other Kandala et al. 2019 entry) Kandala, A., Temme, K., Córcoles, A. D., Mezzacapo, A., Chow, J. M., & Gambetta, J. M. (2019). Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor. Nature, 567(7749), 491–495. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1040-7 Kelly, J., Barends, R., Fowler, A. G., Megrant, A., Jeffrey, E., White, T. C., Sank, D., Mutus, J. Y., Campbell, B., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Chiaro, B., Dunsworth, A., Hoi, I. 10 A., Neill, C., O’Malley, P. J. J., Quintana, C., Roushan, P., Vainsencher, A., Wenner, J., Cleland, A. N., & Martinis, J. M. (2015). State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit. Nature, 519(7541), 66–69. Knill, E., Leibfried, D., Reichle, R., Britton, J., Blakestad, R. B., Jost, J. D., Langer, C., Ozeri, R., Riebe, M., Wineland, D. J., & Häffner, H. (2008). Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates. Physical Review A, 77(1), 012307. Krantz, P., Kjaergaard, M., Yan, F., Orlando, T. P., Gustavsson, S., & Oliver, W. D. (2019). A quantum engineer's guide to superconducting qubits. Applied Physics Reviews, 6(2), 021318. 11 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5089550 Li, Y., & Benjamin, S. C. (2017). Efficient variational quantum eigensolver based on qubit entanglement. Physical Review X, 7(2), 021050. Lloyd, S. (1996). Universal quantum simulators. Science, 273(5278), 1073–1078. Magesan, E., Gambetta, J. M., & Emerson, J. (2011). Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. Physical Review Letters, 106(18), 180504. Mäki, U. (2009). The reason of analogies in science. Synthese, 170(3), 407-423. Martinis, J. M., Ansmann, M., Bialczak, R. C., Hofheinz, M., Katz, N., Lucero, E., McKenney, R., Weig, E., & Cleland, A. N. (2009). Decoherence in Josephson qubits from dielectric loss. Physical Review Letters, 103(9), 097002. McCloskey, D. N. (1994). Knowledge and persuasion in economics. Cambridge University Press. McKay, D. C., Sheldon, S., Smolin, J. A., Chow, J. M., & Gambetta, J. M. (2019). Three-qubit randomized benchmarking. Physical Review Letters, 122(20), 200502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.200502 Nation, P. D., Kang, H., Sundaresan, N., & Gambetta, J. M. (2021). Scalable Mitigation of Measurement Errors on Quantum Computers. PRX Quantum, 2(4), 040326. Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (10th Anniversary ed.). Cambridge University Press. Orrell, D. (2020). Quantum economics: The new science of asset allocation. Agenda Publishing. Orús, R., Mugel, S., & Lizaso, E. (2019). Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects. Reviews in Physics, 4, 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revip.2019.100028 Plenio, M. B., & Virmani, S. (2007). An introduction to entanglement measures. Quantum Information & Computation, 7(1-2), 1–51. Preskill, J. (2018). Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2, 79. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 Python Software Foundation. (n.d.). Formatted string literals (f-strings). Python Documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#f-strings Qiskit contributors. (n.d.). Qiskit textbook. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://qiskit.org/textbook/ Qiskit Development Team. (c. 2024). Characterizing readout errors. Qiskit Documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/error-mitigation/measurement/readout-error Qiskit Development Team. (n.d.). Qiskit documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/ Qiskit Development Team. (n.d.). Measurement error mitigation. Qiskit Documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025. Qiskit Development Team. (n.d.). qiskit-ibm-provider documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025. Qiskit Development Team. (n.d.). Readout mitigation. Qiskit Documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025. Qiskit Development Team. (n.d.). Zero noise extrapolation. Qiskit Documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025. Rebentrost, P., Bromley, T. R., Fitzsimons, J., & Lloyd, S. (2014). Quantum algorithm for portfolio optimization. Physical Review A, 89(1), 012327. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.012327 Slichter, C. P. (1990). Principles of magnetic resonance (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag. Temme, K., Bravyi, S., & Gambetta, J. M. (2017). Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits. Physical Review Letters, 119(18), 180509. 12 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509 The pandas development team. (2024). pandas documentation. https://pandas.pydata.org/docs/ Vedral, V. (2008). Quantum entanglement. Springer. Zhong, Y., Chang, H.-S., Satzinger, K. J., Chou, M.-H., Bienfait, A., Conner, C. R., Dumur, É., Grebel, J., Povey, G. A., Schuster, D. I., & Cleland, A. N. (2019). Violating Bell's inequality with remotely-connected superconducting qubits. Nature Physics, 15, 741–744. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0507-7 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6461596","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":443721021,"identity":"a1f8362a-e0aa-44cd-b726-c512a6cf7565","order_by":0,"name":"Muhammad Sukri Bin Ramli","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7206-7706","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"Sukri Bin","lastName":"Ramli","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-16 09:00:02","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6461596/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6461596/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":80794255,"identity":"a5b8e9cf-748c-4ecd-9501-525b76c719c1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 07:20:33","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":67522,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCausal Loop Diagram of the Economic Decoupling Risk Analogy derived from Quantum Fidelity Measurements\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6461596/v1/143f3ed9a0fd45a35801cf02.jpg"},{"id":80795054,"identity":"f01aa28c-5782-48ff-855a-59849a42fdef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 07:28:33","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29721,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eQuantum circuit for generating the Bell state |Φ⁺⟩ = (|00⟩ + |11⟩)/√2 using Hadamard (H) and CNOT (CX) gates\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6461596/v1/464f451da091fc73a57cd81d.png"},{"id":80795055,"identity":"10780377-09bb-4df1-9b13-12100e21942b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 07:28:33","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55006,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTrans-piled quantum circuit diagram for Bell state (|Φ⁺⟩) preparation mapped to physical qubits on ibm_kyiv\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6461596/v1/bcc91b12cdbaa4de76e6459a.png"},{"id":80794258,"identity":"12b551b3-65d2-4bf7-90ba-a71feeb63370","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 07:20:33","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":76234,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of Bell state measurement outcome probabilities: Ideal Simulation vs. Raw Hardware Results\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6461596/v1/11dd4eb25a967d8d64b54496.png"},{"id":80794260,"identity":"a3f772c2-f4e3-4bcb-ad37-8a1110a558dc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 07:20:33","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53796,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eP(Anti) vs Avg Readout Error Placeholder\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6461596/v1/02a2b30040da32ab89b14f52.png"},{"id":80794262,"identity":"4f5f8499-8dd6-485b-8e3e-8437033aff15","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 07:20:33","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":58528,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eP(Anti) vs H Gate Error Placeholder\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6461596/v1/cfa56610e7f1c9d11051e6d8.png"},{"id":80795058,"identity":"cae779a8-8f3e-436d-bc7d-31168645b122","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 07:28:33","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64145,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBenchmarking Results: Comparison of Mean P(Anti) for Qubit Layouts [2, 3] vs [7, 8] on ibm_kyiv (Raw and Mitigated).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6461596/v1/afd90af61e2c163a2be1a41f.png"},{"id":80796820,"identity":"439f248d-6b15-4741-b683-4497e2e2c1c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 07:44:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1017749,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6461596/v1/031738a4-d681-40cd-aa1e-63caf95dc128.pdf"},{"id":80795714,"identity":"13354ba5-0c47-413a-880b-6991c93ecc7c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 07:36:33","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":369691,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6461596/v1/fd9f6614beb3451adb05873d.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eEconomic Decoupling Probability: A Quantum Analogy of Characterizing Bell State Errors and Noise on Real IBM Quantum Hardware\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Summary","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe causal loop diagram illustrates a key dynamic based on the economic analogy from the research. Initially, underlying \u003cem\u003eFactors Driving Economic Uncertainty\u003c/em\u003e (analogous to quantum noise) positively influence, or increase, the \u003cem\u003eObserved Unexpected Economic Decoupling Rate\u003c/em\u003e between indicators that should normally be correlated (similar to measuring anti-correlated P(Anti) states). This increase in observed decoupling signals a potential problem, which in turn positively drives an increase in \u003cem\u003eData Cleaning / Model Refinement Effort\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eas analysts or researchers seek to understand or correct the anomaly (akin to applying error mitigation). This increased effort then acts negatively to reduce the \u003cem\u003eObserved Unexpected Economic Decoupling Rate\u003c/em\u003e, as errors are filtered or models improved. This sequence forms the Balancing Loop (B1): higher observed decoupling prompts more corrective effort, which then lowers the observed decoupling. This feedback loop functions to counteract deviations and stabilize the system\u0026apos;s apparent behavior, ultimately influencing the overall \u003cem\u003eAccuracy of Understanding True Economic Correlation\u003c/em\u003e, as higher observed decoupling tends to reduce this accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study was motivated by the inherent challenge of modeling uncertainty within economic systems, particularly concerning scenarios where established correlations between indicators or markets unexpectedly broke down, potentially impacting forecasting and risk management. Recognizing that recent explorations had considered quantum frameworks for modeling financial and economic systems due to their probabilistic nature and handling of correlations (Orrell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Herman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Or\u0026uacute;s et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), we employed a fundamental quantum procedure: the generation of the maximally entangled |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state using a standard circuit involving a Hadamard gate followed by a Controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate (Nielsen \u0026amp; Chuang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This state, defined as:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"\" height=\"49\" width=\"209\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn an ideal, noiseless scenario, measurements of this state should be perfectly correlated, meaning the outcome is always |00⟩ (both qubits measured as |0⟩) or |11⟩ (both qubits measured as |1⟩) (Bell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e; Nielsen \u0026amp; Chuang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Within this quantum foundation, we proposed a conceptual mapping for analogy: the correlated outcomes |00⟩ and |11⟩ represented expected, synchronized economic scenarios (\"Scenario Alpha\" and \"Scenario Beta,\" respectively), while the anti-correlated outcomes |01⟩ and |10⟩\u0026mdash;ideally absent\u0026mdash;were mapped to represent \"Unexpected Decoupling\" events, the focus of economic uncertainty. It was emphasized that this constituted a conceptual analogy (M\u0026auml;ki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) designed to explore parallels between quantum measurement statistics and economic unpredictability. The experiment was situated within the context of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) computing (Preskill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), where processors inherently suffered from noise sources like gate errors, readout errors, and decoherence that limited accuracy. Consequently, real-world devices deviated from ideal behavior, yielding non-zero probabilities for the anti-correlated |01⟩ and |10⟩ outcomes when attempting to prepare and measure a Bell state (see e.g., Kandala et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Temme et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBenchmarking such fundamental operations was crucial for characterizing these limitations (Eisert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Cross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This experiment utilized the Qiskit framework (Abraham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) on the IBM Quantum device ibm_kyiv to investigate these deviations, addressing two primary research questions: (A1) How accurately did the device prepare and measure the correlated |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state, reflecting the analogous probability of expected economic scenarios? and (A2) How significant were the deviations from perfect correlation, specifically, what was the probability of observing the 'unexpected decoupling' outcomes (|01⟩ or |10⟩), providing an analogue for the frequency of unexpected economic events driven by noise/uncertainty factors? The paper proceeded by detailing the methods used for Bell state preparation and measurement, presenting the obtained results, and offering a discussion interpreting these findings within the economic analogy framework, followed by concluding remarks.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eQuantum computing represents a paradigm shift from classical computation, leveraging quantum mechanical principles like superposition and entanglement to tackle problems previously considered intractable (Nielsen \u0026amp; Chuang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Entanglement, a key resource, describes correlations between quantum systems that are stronger than any classical counterpart, a concept famously debated by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1935\u003c/span\u003e) and later formalized by Bell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e; Vedral, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The current state of quantum hardware development is often described as the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era (Preskill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). NISQ devices possess a limited number of qubits and are highly susceptible to noise, making the accurate characterization and benchmarking of their performance critically important (Cross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; McKay et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA fundamental benchmark for quantum processors involves the generation and measurement of entangled states, particularly the Bell states. The ability to reliably create these states is a prerequisite for many quantum algorithms and protocols. However, achieving high fidelity is challenging due to various noise sources inherent in NISQ hardware. These include environmental interactions leading to decoherence (related principles discussed in Slichter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e), as well as imperfections in quantum gate operations and measurement readout processes. These errors cause the experimentally realized quantum state to deviate from the intended ideal state, limiting the computational power of near-term devices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address the impact of noise, various quantum error mitigation techniques have been developed. Strategies such as Zero Noise Extrapolation (ZNE) attempt to estimate the ideal noiseless outcome by systematically varying noise levels and extrapolating the results back to the zero-noise limit (Temme et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Kandala et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Qiskit Development Team, n.d.). Other methods specifically target errors occurring during the final measurement step. Among these, Matrix-Free Measurement Mitigation (M3), implemented in the mthree package, offers a scalable approach. Unlike methods requiring the construction and inversion of the full assignment matrix (which becomes computationally prohibitive for many qubits), M3 operates within a reduced subspace defined by the observed noisy measurement outcomes. This matrix-free technique significantly reduces memory requirements and computational cost, making readout mitigation feasible for larger systems compared to traditional matrix inversion methods (Nation et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). While Qiskit Runtime's EstimatorV2 primitive incorporates built-in mitigation options, SamplerV2 (used for obtaining distributions, as in this work) does not, necessitating the use of external libraries like mthree for post-processing correction. These mitigation techniques aim to improve the accuracy of results obtained from NISQ computers without the significant overhead required for full fault-tolerant quantum error correction.Beyond fundamental benchmarking, quantum computing holds potential for applications in various fields, including finance and economics. Researchers are exploring quantum algorithms for tasks like portfolio optimization (Rebentrost et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and are investigating broader applications within quantitative finance (Or\u0026uacute;s et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Herman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This burgeoning interest motivates exploring connections, even analogical ones, between quantum phenomena and complex economic systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe implementation and analysis of quantum experiments heavily rely on specialized software frameworks and libraries. Qiskit provides a comprehensive ecosystem for quantum computing research, development, and execution on various hardware backends, including those from IBM Quantum (Abraham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Qiskit Development Team, n.d.). Data processing and visualization are further supported by established scientific Python libraries such as NumPy for numerical operations (Harris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), Matplotlib for plotting (Hunter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), and Pandas for data manipulation (The pandas development team, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These tools are essential for designing circuits, executing jobs, analyzing results, and communicating findings in quantum computation research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe experiment focused on generating the maximally entangled Bell state |Φ⁺⟩ = (|00⟩ + |11⟩) / \u0026radic;2 (Nielsen \u0026amp; Chuang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), for which the ideal, noise-free measurement yielded perfectly correlated outcomes exclusively in the |00⟩ or |11⟩ state, corresponding to a theoretical probability of correlated outcomes P(Corr)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;P(00)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;P(11)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.0 (Bell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e; Nielsen \u0026amp; Chuang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The quantum circuit implemented to prepare this state was the standard two-qubit sequence\u0026mdash;a Hadamard gate on the first qubit followed by a CNOT gate controlled by the first qubit targeting the second, immediately followed by measurement (Nielsen \u0026amp; Chuang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;defined and managed using the Qiskit framework (Abraham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), with logical and transpiled diagrams presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;3All simulations, hardware job submissions via the cloud, and subsequent data analysis were conducted using the Python programming language within a Miniconda environment running on a local machine equipped with an Intel Core i7 processor. Code development was performed using Visual Studio Code. Core quantum tasks relied on the Qiskit framework (Abraham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), including the qiskit-ibm-runtime package for executing jobs on the target IBM Quantum backend (ibm_kyiv) and built-in simulators. Numerical computations utilized NumPy (Harris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), visualization was performed with Matplotlib (Hunter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), and readout error mitigation was applied using the mthree library.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e visualized the measured probability distributions for the four possible computational basis outcomes ('00', '01', '10', '11') after preparing the |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state under different conditions. Ideally, the distribution showed only the correlated outcomes '00' and '11', each with a probability of 0.5. In contrast, the raw results obtained from hardware execution on both layouts ([2, 3] and [7, 8]) exhibited significant deviations, with non-zero probabilities appearing for the anti-correlated outcomes '01' and '10', and noticeable differences between the two layouts. The figure further illustrated the effect of readout error mitigation, which, when applied, reduced the erroneous anti-correlated probabilities ('01', '10') and increased the probabilities of the correct correlated outcomes ('00', '11'), bringing the mitigated distribution closer to the ideal case.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo prepare the target entangled state in this experiment, the standard logical quantum circuit for generating the Bell state |Φ⁺⟩ = (|00⟩ + |11⟩)/\u0026radic;2 using Hadamard (H) and CNOT (CX) gates, as depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, was first defined. However, this abstract representation could not be directly executed on physical hardware. Therefore, before running the experiment on the ibm_kyiv processor, the logical circuit underwent a crucial adaptation process called transpilation, resulting in the transpiled quantum circuit diagram for Bell state (|Φ⁺⟩) preparation mapped to physical qubits on ibm_kyiv, shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. This transpilation step mapped the circuit's logical qubits (0 and 1) to specific physical qubits on the device (such as layout [2, 3] or [7, 8]) and decomposed the standard H and CX gates into the sequence of native hardware gates that ibm_kyiv could actually perform, yielding the circuit that was physically executed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experimental workflow began with initialization, where the Bell state circuit and key configuration parameters, including the target backend (ibm_kyiv), specific qubit layouts ([2, 3] and [7, 8]), number of runs (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5), and shots (4096), were defined. An ideal simulation was run using AerSimulator to establish a baseline result with zero expected anti-correlated outcomes (P(Anti)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0). Connection to the IBM Quantum service was established via QiskitRuntimeService. The main execution proceeded by looping through each target qubit layout. For each layout, relevant device calibration data was retrieved and logged, the logical Bell circuit was transpiled for the specific layout and backend, and the mthree readout mitigation was calibrated. Within this loop, a second loop iterated through five independent runs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn each run, the transpiled circuit was submitted as a job to the ibm_kyiv hardware using the SamplerV2 primitive, and the raw measurement counts were retrieved. Raw performance metrics, specifically P(Anti), were calculated from these counts. Subsequently, mthree readout mitigation was applied to the raw counts, and mitigated P(Anti) metrics were calculated. The results for each individual run, including raw and mitigated data, were stored. After complete runs for all layouts were completed, the collected data was aggregated to calculate mean and standard deviation values for P(Anti). Correlation analysis was performed to compare the aggregated raw P(Anti) against the retrieved calibration data (like readout error). Finally, visualizations comparing the results were generated, and the detailed run data and calibration logs were saved to files.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1: Summary of Hypotheses Regarding Bell State Fidelity, Hardware Noise, Error Mitigation, and Corresponding Experimental Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResult\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigher levels of underlying system noise (poorer hardware metrics) will lead to a significantly higher \u0026quot;Observed Unexpected Economic Decoupling Rate\u0026quot; (P(Anti)).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLayout [7, 8] (higher reported readout error) yielded P(Anti) \u0026asymp; 9.2%. Layout [2, 3] (lower reported readout error) yielded P(Anti) \u0026asymp; 1.6%. Performance difference correlated with hardware metrics.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApplying targeted corrective measures (error mitigation) will significantly reduce the \u0026quot;Observed Unexpected Economic Decoupling Rate\u0026quot; (P(Anti)).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReadout error mitigation (mthree) reduced P(Anti) to near-zero values (\u0026le;0.1%) for both layouts ([2, 3] and [7, 8]).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe measured P(Anti) on a quantum system can serve as a quantifiable proxy for the relative risk of unexpected decoupling in analogous complex systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe study successfully used P(Anti) as an analogy. The significant difference in P(Anti) between layouts based on underlying noise demonstrates its potential as a relative indicator of such risk.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePremise Supported / Demonstrated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2: Relevant Device Calibration Data\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLayout\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvg Readout Err\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH Err (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvg T1 (\u0026micro;s)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvg T2 (\u0026micro;s)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCNOT Err\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[2, 3]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e322.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e144.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[7, 8]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.98%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e337\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e322.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3: Summary of Bell State Fidelity Results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLayout\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNum Runs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRaw P(Corr)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRaw P(Anti)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMitigated P(Corr)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMitigated P(Anti)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdeal Sim\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00% \u0026plusmn; 0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00% \u0026plusmn; 0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[2, 3]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.45% \u0026plusmn; 0.33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.55% \u0026plusmn; 0.33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99.91% \u0026plusmn; 0.20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09% \u0026plusmn; 0.20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[7, 8]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90.79% \u0026plusmn; 0.79%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.21% \u0026plusmn; 0.79%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00% \u0026plusmn; 0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00% \u0026plusmn; 0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experiment compared the fidelity of preparing the |\u0026Phi;⁺\u0026rang;\u0026nbsp;Bell state on the ibm_kyiv quantum processor against an ideal simulation baseline. Hardware performance was evaluated over 5 independent runs (N=5) for two distinct, explicitly chosen qubit pairs, [2, 3] and [7, 8], with 4096 shots per run. Both raw hardware results and results corrected using mthree-based readout error mitigation were analyzed. As expected, the ideal simulation yielded a correlated outcome probability P(Corr) = P(00) + P(11) of 1.000, corresponding to an anti-correlated probability P(Anti) = P(01) + P(10) of 0. Hardware execution, however, exhibited noise-induced errors and significant variability between the chosen layouts, as summarized in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor layout [2, 3], the mean raw P(Corr) across 5 runs was 98.45% \u0026plusmn; 0.33%, corresponding to a mean raw P(Anti) of 1.55% \u0026plusmn; 0.33%. Applying readout error mitigation, in line with the hypothesis that such corrections should significantly reduce observed errors (H2), significantly improved the fidelity, yielding a mean mitigated P(Corr) of 99.91% \u0026plusmn; 0.20% and reducing the mean mitigated P(Anti) to 0.09% \u0026plusmn; 0.20%. In contrast, layout [7, 8] demonstrated considerably lower raw fidelity, with a mean raw P(Corr) of 90.79% \u0026plusmn; 0.79% and a mean raw P(Anti) of 9.21% \u0026plusmn; 0.79% [Source: Statistical Summary Output, see Table 3]. While readout mitigation also successfully processed these results numerically, supporting the error reduction hypothesis (H2) by yielding a mean mitigated P(Corr) of 100.00% \u0026plusmn; 0.00% and P(Anti) of 0.00% \u0026plusmn; 0.00%, this might suggest either extremely effective correction or potential flooring. The difference in raw performance between the layouts highlights the heterogeneity of qubit quality across the device.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo investigate the source of performance variability, and explicitly test the hypothesis that higher underlying hardware noise leads to higher raw error rates (H1), the measured raw error rates (P(Anti)) were compared against device calibration data retrieved shortly before execution. Scatter plots revealed strong positive correlations between the mean raw P(Anti) and both the average readout error rate per qubit (Pearson r = 1.000, p = 1.000, details in Table 3) and the reported Hadamard gate error rate for the first qubit in the pair (Pearson r = 1.000, p = 1.000)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, layout [7, 8], which exhibited a much higher average readout error (8.98% vs 0.76% for layout [2, 3], see Table 3) primarily due to qubit 8, also showed a significantly higher raw P(Anti) (~9.21% vs ~1.55% for layout [2, 3], see Table 3). Correlation with CNOT error could not be assessed as this data was unavailable in the calibration report. These findings strongly support the hypothesis (H1) that readout error and single-qubit gate fidelity were significant contributing factors to the observed differences in raw Bell state fidelity between the tested qubit pairs (shown in Table 3).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Interpretation: Quantifying Variability and the Uncertainty Analogue\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiment successfully benchmarked the preparation and measurement of the |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state across multiple runs (5 runs per layout, as shown in the results table) on two distinct qubit pairs of the ibm_kyiv device. The results revealed significant variability in raw fidelity, with layout [2, 3] achieving a mean P(Corr) of 98.45% \u0026plusmn; 0.33%, while layout [7, 8] achieved only 90.79% \u0026plusmn; 0.79%. Correspondingly, the raw probability of anti-correlated outcomes P(Anti), which serves as the primary output for our economic analogy, ranged from a mean of 1.55% \u0026plusmn; 0.33% for the higher-fidelity pair [2, 3] to 9.21% \u0026plusmn; 0.79% for the lower-fidelity pair [7, 8]. Readout error mitigation using mthree proved highly effective numerically for both pairs across the 5 runs, consistently reducing the mean P(Anti) to near-zero levels (0.09% \u0026plusmn; 0.20% for [2, 3] and 0.00% \u0026plusmn; 0.00% for [7, 8]), yielding mitigated P(Corr) values of approximately 99.91% and 100.00% respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eViewed through the lens of the economic analogy, where P(Anti) represents the likelihood of 'unexpected decoupling', this experiment quantified a range of possibilities (~\u0026thinsp;1.6% to ~\u0026thinsp;9.2%) depending on the specific quantum subsystem (qubit pair) used for the simulation. This suggests that the inherent noise level, analogous to underlying factors driving economic uncertainty, can vary substantially even within the same device. The near-perfect mitigated results indicate that a large portion of the raw P(Anti) in this experiment was attributable to measurement errors (analogous perhaps to data misinterpretation or reporting errors), and correcting for these allows for probing a baseline closer to ideal correlations. This interpretation draws from ideas applying quantum concepts to economic uncertainty (Orrell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) within a conceptual analogy framework (M\u0026auml;ki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Noise Source Analysis and Calibration Correlation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe observed variability in raw P(Anti) between layouts [2, 3] and [7, 8] aligns strongly with the retrieved calibration data, providing insight into the contributing noise sources inherent in the NISQ hardware (Preskill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The correlation analysis revealed that higher mean raw P(Anti) was strongly correlated (Pearson r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2) with both higher average readout error rates and higher Hadamard gate error rates for the first qubit of the pair. Layout [7, 8], exhibiting the much higher raw P(Anti) (~\u0026thinsp;9.2%), also possessed significantly worse average readout error (~\u0026thinsp;8.98%) compared to layout [2, 3] (~\u0026thinsp;0.76%), largely driven by a very high reported error for qubit 8 (~\u0026thinsp;16.6% - detail from source text). Similarly, the Hadamard error for qubit 7 (~\u0026thinsp;0.073%) was higher than for qubit 2 (~\u0026thinsp;0.015%). This suggests readout errors and single-qubit gate errors were dominant contributors to the observed raw P(Anti) differences. Coherence times (T1, T2) showed smaller differences between the pairs (T1/T2: [2,3] \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;322.4/144.6 \u0026micro;s; [7,8] \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;337.0/322.1 \u0026micro;s) and the expected negative correlation with P(Anti) (r=-1.000, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2), indicating that decoherence (Martinis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) likely played a role, but perhaps less distinguishing than readout/gate errors for this short circuit. Unfortunately, CNOT error data was unavailable in the calibration report, preventing assessment of its contribution, although two-qubit gate errors are typically a primary source of entanglement fidelity loss (Chow et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Drawing conceptual parallels (M\u0026auml;ki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), the dominant readout errors could be seen as analogous to significant data integrity issues overshadowing other systemic factors in the economic model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile this study proposes P(Anti) derived from quantum system noise as a quantitative analogue for unexpected correlation breakdowns, it is important to contrast this with established methods in economics and finance. Classical approaches often rely on analyzing historical time-series data using techniques such as rolling window correlations using standard coefficients (like Pearson's or Spearman's rank correlation, see e.g., Field, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) or other sophisticated multivariate time-series models designed to capture time-varying dependencies. These classical metrics provide valuable insights based on past observed data. The P(Anti) measure presented here differs fundamentally as it is not derived from economic time series, but rather emerges directly from the physical noise processes (readout error, gate error, decoherence) inherent in the quantum hardware simulating the correlated state, as supported by our calibration correlation analysis. Key conceptual differences include its basis in physical device noise rather than statistical properties of historical data, and its representation of an instantaneous error probability for a specific quantum operation rather than an evolved correlation coefficient derived from market prices. Therefore, while P(Anti) cannot replace classical metrics for economic forecasting, it may offer a complementary perspective \u0026ndash; a physically grounded proxy quantifying a system's inherent susceptibility to specific types of error or 'decoupling' based on its underlying noise characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conceptual mapping explored here also connects to a growing body of work investigating the application of quantum formalism and concepts to economics, finance, and social sciences (e.g., Orrell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Busemeyer \u0026amp; Bruza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Fields such as quantum cognition utilize quantum probability (including interference effects) to model decision-making paradoxes and cognitive biases (Busemeyer \u0026amp; Bruza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), often differing from our approach which sources its uncertainty analogue (P(Anti)) directly from hardware noise rather than purely mathematical constructs. Similarly, quantum economics, as described by proponents like Orrell, often employs quantum concepts like wave functions and operators metaphorically for economic value, transactions, or price distributions (Orrell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Our work complements these theoretical approaches by providing a perspective grounded in the physical characteristics and measured error rates of contemporary quantum hardware. We utilize the actual noise measured during a fundamental quantum operation on a NISQ device as the source for our quantitative analogy, directly linking this 'uncertainty' analogue to measurable physical error rates (like readout error). This hardware-grounded analogical approach, quantifying noise via P(Anti), appears distinct from purely theoretical models using quantum mathematics or broader philosophical applications of quantum concepts to social systems and offers a novel way to leverage quantum device characterization for exploring concepts relevant to other complex domains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile expanding beyond a single run, this study's conclusions are still subject to limitations. The results represent performance on only two specific layouts of one device (ibm_kyiv) during a limited timeframe (April 14, 2025 - based on current date context). Quantum hardware performance fluctuates, and comprehensive benchmarking requires testing across more devices, layouts, and times (Eisert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Erhard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Although calibration data was logged and showed strong correlations, the lack of CNOT error data limits a complete error budget analysis. Furthermore, the correlation analysis is based on only two layouts, meaning the high correlation coefficients (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0) are indicative but lack statistical power. Standard statistical uncertainties due to the finite number of shots (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4096 per run, inferred from standard practice, not explicitly in tables) still apply, captured partly by the reported standard deviations across runs (Cumming, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, the economic mapping remains a conceptual analogy (M\u0026auml;ki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), useful for illustration and quantifying a quantum system's deviation, but not validated as a predictive economic model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Implications and Future Work\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis work provides updated multi-run benchmarks for Bell state fidelity on ibm_kyiv, revealing significant performance heterogeneity across qubit pairs (raw P(Corr)\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;91\u0026ndash;98%) and demonstrating highly effective readout error mitigation (mitigated P(Corr)\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;99.9\u0026ndash;100%). The range of observed raw error rates (~\u0026thinsp;1.6\u0026ndash;9.2% P(Anti)) highlights the substantial impact that device noise can have even on fundamental operations, underscoring challenges for complex algorithms requiring high fidelity (Preskill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The successful mitigation suggests readout noise is a key target for improvement. Future work should address the limitations by: extending the benchmarking to more qubit pairs and devices; performing runs over time to assess stability; ensuring CNOT and other relevant calibration data are captured and correlated (Eisert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e); and increasing the number of runs for tighter statistical bounds. Implementing and comparing other error mitigation techniques like Zero-Noise Extrapolation (Temme et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Kandala et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) could provide further insights. The economic analogy could be explored further via controlled noise simulations representing different economic volatility levels or by investigating theoretical parallels between quantum error mitigation and economic stabilization strategies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study successfully benchmarked the preparation and measurement fidelity of the |Φ⁺⟩ Bell state on the ibm_kyiv quantum processor, assessing performance across multiple runs (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5) for two distinct qubit pairs ([2, 3] and [7, 8]) using the qiskit-ibm-runtime SamplerV2 primitive. The results revealed significant variability in raw device performance, with mean anti-correlated outcome probabilities (P(Anti)) ranging from ~\u0026thinsp;1.6% for layout [2, 3] to ~\u0026thinsp;9.2% for layout [7, 8]. Analysis demonstrated a strong correlation between this raw P(Anti) and reported device calibration metrics, particularly average readout error rates and single-qubit Hadamard gate errors, highlighting their contribution to performance differences. Furthermore, the application of mthree-based readout error mitigation proved highly effective, reducing P(Anti) to near-zero levels (\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.1%) and achieving mean correlated state fidelities (P(Corr)) of ~\u0026thinsp;99.9\u0026ndash;100.0% for both tested layouts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond providing multi-run fidelity benchmarks and demonstrating successful error mitigation, this work utilized the experimentally measured P(Anti) as a quantitative output for a conceptual analogy mapping quantum noise to uncertainty in correlated economic systems. The observed range of raw P(Anti) illustrated how different inherent noise levels in the quantum simulation could represent varying likelihoods (~\u0026thinsp;2\u0026ndash;9%) of 'unexpected decoupling' events in the analogy, while the near-ideal mitigated results represented a baseline achievable after correcting for measurement-type errors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile acknowledging limitations related to the specific device, timeframe, number of layouts tested, and the conceptual nature of the analogy, this research provides concrete evidence of qubit performance heterogeneity and the efficacy of readout error mitigation on ibm_kyiv. Future directions include broader benchmarking across more layouts and devices, incorporating more complete calibration data (including CNOT errors), exploring alternative error mitigation techniques, and further developing the quantum-economic analogy, potentially through controlled noise simulations. In summary, this study offers valuable benchmarks for a fundamental quantum operation and presents a quantified, noise-based quantum analogy applicable to exploring correlation breakdowns in complex systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbraham, H., AduOffei, K., Agarwal, R., Agliardi, G., Aharoni, M., Akhalwaya, I. Y., ... \u0026amp; Zoufal, C. (2019). Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562110\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAleksandrowicz, G., Alexander, T., Barkoutsos, P., Beyer, L., Bishop, L. S., Bullock, C. J., \u0026amp; Zemla, M. (2019). Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3), 195\u0026ndash;200.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Cr\u0026eacute;peau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., \u0026amp; Wootters, W. K. (1993). Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen 1 channels. Physical Review Letters, 70(13), 1895\u0026ndash;1899.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlume-Kohout, R. (2010). Optimal, reliable estimation of quantum states. New Journal of Physics, 12(4), 043034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/12/4/043034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBreuer, H.-P., \u0026amp; Petruccione, F. (2002). The theory of open quantum systems. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBusemeyer, J. R., \u0026amp; Bruza, P. D. (2012). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChow, J. M., Gambetta, J. M., Magesan, E., Abraham, D. W., Smolin, J. A., \u0026amp; Steffen, M. (2012). Simple high-fidelity gates for superconducting qubits. Physical Review Letters, 109(6), 060501.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCirac, J. I., \u0026amp; Zoller, P. (2012). Goals and opportunities in quantum simulation. Nature Physics, 8(4), 264\u0026ndash;266.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCross, A. W., Bishop, L. S., Sheldon, S., Nation, P. D., \u0026amp; Gambetta, J. M. (2019). Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits. Physical Review A, 100(3), 032328. 2 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032328\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCumming, G. (2014). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEinstein, A., Podolsky, B., \u0026amp; Rosen, N. (1935). Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 3 777\u0026ndash;780. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEisert, J., Hangleiter, D., Walk, N., Roth, I., et al. (2020). Quantum certification and benchmarking. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(7), 382\u0026ndash;390. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0186-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEkert, A. K. (1991). Quantum cryptography based on Bell\u0026rsquo;s theorem. Physical Review Letters, 67(6), 661\u0026ndash;663.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErhard, A., Wallman, J. J., Knill, E., \u0026amp; Biercuk, M. J. (2019). Characterizing quantum devices by benchmarking. Nature Communications, 10(1), 5347.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eField, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M., \u0026amp; Cleland, A. N. (2012). Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Physical Review A, 86(3), 032324. 5 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGambetta, J. M., Chow, J. M., \u0026amp; Steffen, M. (2017). Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing architecture. npj Quantum Information, 3(1), 2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026uuml;hne, O., \u0026amp; T\u0026oacute;th, G. (2009). Entanglement detection. Physics Reports, 474(1-3), 1\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N. J., Kern, R., Picus, M., Hoyer, S., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Brett, M., Haldane, A., del 6 R\u0026iacute;o, J. F., Wiebe, M., Peterson, P., ... Oliphant, T. E. (2020). Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585(7825), 357\u0026ndash;362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 7 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarrow, A. W., Hassidim, A., \u0026amp; Lloyd, S. (2009). Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations. Physical Review Letters, 103(15), 150502.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerman, D., Pistoia, M., Zeng, Y., \u0026amp; Benjamin, S. C. (2023). Quantum computing for finance. Nature Reviews Physics, 5(8), 450\u0026ndash;465. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-023-00598-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHorodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., \u0026amp; Horodecki, K. (2009). Quantum entanglement. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2), 865\u0026ndash;942. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing in Science \u0026amp; Engineering, 9(3), 90\u0026ndash;95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 8 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIBM Quantum. (n.d.). Quantum computing systems \u0026amp; performance metrics. Retrieved April 11, 2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeffrey, E., Mutus, J. Y., Chow, J. M., Gambetta, J. M., Steffen, M., Johnson, T. D., \u0026amp; Blais, A. (2014). Fast, accurate state measurement with superconducting qubits. Physical Review Letters, 112(19), 190504.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJurcevic, P., Javadi-Abhari, A., Bishop, L. S., Lauer, I., et al. (2021). Demonstration of quantum volume 64 on a superconducting quantum computing system. Quantum Science and Technology, 6(2), 025020. 9 https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/abe519\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKandala, A., Mezzacapo, A., M\u0026oacute;ller, K., Abhinav, P., Smulligan, S., Marinelli, F., \u0026amp; Chow, J. M. (2019). Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature, 549(7671), 242-246. (Note: Appears distinct from the other Kandala et al. 2019 entry)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKandala, A., Temme, K., C\u0026oacute;rcoles, A. D., Mezzacapo, A., Chow, J. M., \u0026amp; Gambetta, J. M. (2019). Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor. Nature, 567(7749), 491\u0026ndash;495. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1040-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKelly, J., Barends, R., Fowler, A. G., Megrant, A., Jeffrey, E., White, T. C., Sank, D., Mutus, J. Y., Campbell, B., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Chiaro, B., Dunsworth, A., Hoi, I. 10 A., Neill, C., O\u0026rsquo;Malley, P. J. J., Quintana, C., Roushan, P., Vainsencher, A., Wenner, J., Cleland, A. N., \u0026amp; Martinis, J. M. (2015). State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit. Nature, 519(7541), 66\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnill, E., Leibfried, D., Reichle, R., Britton, J., Blakestad, R. B., Jost, J. D., Langer, C., Ozeri, R., Riebe, M., Wineland, D. J., \u0026amp; H\u0026auml;ffner, H. (2008). Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates. Physical Review A, 77(1), 012307.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrantz, P., Kjaergaard, M., Yan, F., Orlando, T. P., Gustavsson, S., \u0026amp; Oliver, W. D. (2019). A quantum engineer\u0026apos;s guide to superconducting qubits. Applied Physics Reviews, 6(2), 021318. 11 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5089550\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, Y., \u0026amp; Benjamin, S. C. (2017). Efficient variational quantum eigensolver based on qubit entanglement. Physical Review X, 7(2), 021050.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLloyd, S. (1996). Universal quantum simulators. Science, 273(5278), 1073\u0026ndash;1078.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMagesan, E., Gambetta, J. M., \u0026amp; Emerson, J. (2011). Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. Physical Review Letters, 106(18), 180504.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM\u0026auml;ki, U. (2009). The reason of analogies in science. Synthese, 170(3), 407-423.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartinis, J. M., Ansmann, M., Bialczak, R. C., Hofheinz, M., Katz, N., Lucero, E., McKenney, R., Weig, E., \u0026amp; Cleland, A. N. (2009). Decoherence in Josephson qubits from dielectric loss. Physical Review Letters, 103(9), 097002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCloskey, D. N. (1994). Knowledge and persuasion in economics. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcKay, D. C., Sheldon, S., Smolin, J. A., Chow, J. M., \u0026amp; Gambetta, J. M. (2019). Three-qubit randomized benchmarking. Physical Review Letters, 122(20), 200502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.200502\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNation, P. D., Kang, H., Sundaresan, N., \u0026amp; Gambetta, J. M. (2021). Scalable Mitigation of Measurement Errors on Quantum Computers. PRX Quantum, 2(4), 040326.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNielsen, M. A., \u0026amp; Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (10th Anniversary ed.). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrrell, D. (2020). Quantum economics: The new science of asset allocation. Agenda Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOr\u0026uacute;s, R., Mugel, S., \u0026amp; Lizaso, E. (2019). Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects. Reviews in Physics, 4, 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revip.2019.100028\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePlenio, M. B., \u0026amp; Virmani, S. (2007). An introduction to entanglement measures. Quantum Information \u0026amp; Computation, 7(1-2), 1\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreskill, J. (2018). Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2, 79. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePython Software Foundation. (n.d.). Formatted string literals (f-strings). Python Documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#f-strings\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiskit contributors. (n.d.). Qiskit textbook. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://qiskit.org/textbook/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiskit Development Team. (c. 2024). Characterizing readout errors. Qiskit Documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/error-mitigation/measurement/readout-error\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiskit Development Team. (n.d.). Qiskit documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiskit Development Team. (n.d.). Measurement error mitigation. Qiskit Documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiskit Development Team. (n.d.). qiskit-ibm-provider documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiskit Development Team. (n.d.). Readout mitigation. Qiskit Documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiskit Development Team. (n.d.). Zero noise extrapolation. Qiskit Documentation. Retrieved April 11, 2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRebentrost, P., Bromley, T. R., Fitzsimons, J., \u0026amp; Lloyd, S. (2014). Quantum algorithm for portfolio optimization. Physical Review A, 89(1), 012327. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.012327\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSlichter, C. P. (1990). Principles of magnetic resonance (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTemme, K., Bravyi, S., \u0026amp; Gambetta, J. M. (2017). Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits. Physical Review Letters, 119(18), 180509. 12 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe pandas development team. (2024). pandas documentation. https://pandas.pydata.org/docs/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVedral, V. (2008). Quantum entanglement. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhong, Y., Chang, H.-S., Satzinger, K. J., Chou, M.-H., Bienfait, A., Conner, C. R., Dumur, \u0026Eacute;., Grebel, J., Povey, G. A., Schuster, D. I., \u0026amp; Cleland, A. N. (2019). Violating Bell\u0026apos;s inequality with remotely-connected superconducting qubits. Nature Physics, 15, 741\u0026ndash;744. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0507-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Quantum Computing, NISQ (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum), Quantum Benchmarking, Quantum Fidelity, Bell State, Entanglement, Quantum Noise, Quantum Error Mitigation, Readout Error, Gate Error, IBM Quantum, ibm_kyiv, Qiskit, mthree (Error Mitigation), Quantum Analogy, Economic Decoupling, Economic Uncertainty, Correlation Breakdown, Hardware Characterization, Qubit Variability","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6461596/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6461596/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAccurate generation and measurement of entangled states, such as the Bell state |Φ\u003csup\u003e⁺\u003c/sup\u003e⟩, are crucial benchmarks for assessing the capabilities and variability of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) hardware. This work benchmarks the fidelity of preparing the |Φ\u003csup\u003e⁺\u003c/sup\u003e⟩ = (|00⟩ + |11⟩)/√2 state on different qubit pairs ([2, 3] and [7, 8]) of the ibm_kyiv quantum processor over multiple runs (N=5) and employs the deviation from perfect correlation as a quantitative analogy for the probability of unexpected decoupling in systems expected to exhibit strong correlation, such as linked economic indicators. Implementing the standard Hadamard and CNOT gate sequence for 4096 shots per run using the qiskit-ibm-runtime SamplerV2 primitive, we characterized the state preparation and measurement fidelity and applied mthree-based readout error mitigation. Experimental raw results revealed significant variability between layouts, yielding mean anti-correlated outcome probabilities P(Anti) = P(01) + P(10) of approximately 1.6% (±0.3%) for layout [2, 3] and 9.2% (±0.8%) for layout [7, 8]. This performance difference strongly correlated with reported hardware calibration metrics, particularly average readout error rates. Readout error mitigation successfully reduced P(Anti) to near-zero values (≤0.1%) for both layouts, achieving corrected correlated outcome probabilities P(Corr) = P(00) + P(11) of ~99.9-100.0%. Within our conceptual framework, the range of raw P(Anti) serves as a quantitative analogue for the likelihood of 'unexpected decoupling' under different inherent noise conditions, while the mitigated results suggest the potential to isolate underlying system dynamics from measurement noise. This research provides concrete multi-run fidelity benchmarks for ibm_kyiv, demonstrates the effectiveness of error mitigation, highlights performance variability linked to calibration data, and quantifies a range for the proposed economic uncertainty analogy.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Economic Decoupling Probability: A Quantum Analogy of Characterizing Bell State Errors and Noise on Real IBM Quantum Hardware","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-17 07:20:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6461596/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"57b3a209-bd5f-41e1-9381-82b9a35898ca","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":47241277,"name":"Theoretical Computer Science"},{"id":47241278,"name":"Economic Theory"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-04-17T07:20:29+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-17 07:20:29","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6461596","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6461596","identity":"rs-6461596","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}