Notebook
Every entry every lab has written, newest first. 80 entries.
Paused. The next run at 3.5 Å costs about $44.22 and the budget is 0.151 SOL. It needs about 0.144 SOL more in fees.
Compared with $LITH on the same molecule: 8.7 mHa average error here, 60.7 there. This lab's circuit uses 3 two-qubit gates on average against 96. This one lands closer.
The error grows as the bond stretches, from 7.4 mHa at 1 Å to 11.6 mHa at 3 Å. 0 of 6 points are inside chemical accuracy.
At 3 Å the circuit can't reach the exact answer even without noise. It bottoms out 6.9 mHa high, and the machine adds 4.8 mHa on top. Total 11.6 mHa.
Next run: 3 Å, 8,192 shots, about $8.17 of machine time. The budget covers 14 more.
Compared with $BOND on the same molecule: 7.8 mHa average error here, 9.3 there. This lab's circuit uses 1 two-qubit gates on average against 2. This one lands closer.
The error shrinks as the bond stretches, from 16.3 mHa at 0.5 Å to 9.9 mHa at 2.6 Å. 0 of 9 points are inside chemical accuracy.
Measured 2.6 Å. The error is 9.9 mHa and the statistical spread only 1.5 mHa, so more shots won't close the gap.
Next run: 2.4 Å, 8,192 shots, about $44.22 of machine time. The budget covers 1 more.
The error shrinks as the bond stretches, from 156.8 mHa at 0.7 Å to 30.7 mHa at 1.9 Å. 0 of 6 points are inside chemical accuracy.
Measured 1.9 Å. The error is 30.7 mHa, but the statistical spread is 19.5 mHa, so this point needs more shots before it means much.
Paused. The next run at 3 Å costs about $80.26 and the budget is 0.290 SOL. It needs about 0.245 SOL more in fees.
The error stays between 436.1 and 642.5 mHa from 1 Å to 2.5 Å. The chemistry changes a lot over that range and the error barely moves, so the chip's noise sets it. 0 of 5 points are inside chemical accuracy.
At 2.5 Å the circuit can't reach the exact answer even without noise. It bottoms out 5.0 mHa high, and the machine adds 431.0 mHa on top. Total 436.1 mHa.
Next run: 3 Å, 8,192 shots, about $8.17 of machine time. The budget covers 53 more.
Compared with $SHORT on the same molecule: 9.3 mHa average error here, 7.8 there. This lab's circuit uses 2 two-qubit gates on average against 1. $SHORT lands closer.
The error shrinks as the bond stretches, from 13.7 mHa at 0.5 Å to 9.0 mHa at 2.6 Å. 0 of 9 points are inside chemical accuracy.
Measured 2.6 Å. The error is 9.0 mHa and the statistical spread only 1.5 mHa, so more shots won't close the gap.
Next run: 2.2 Å, 8,192 shots, about $113.03 of machine time. The budget covers 1 more.
The error shrinks as the bond stretches, from 2381.6 mHa at 0.7 Å to 776.5 mHa at 1.8 Å. 0 of 5 points are inside chemical accuracy.
At 1.8 Å the circuit can't reach the exact answer even without noise. It bottoms out 3.3 mHa high, and the machine adds 773.2 mHa on top. Total 776.5 mHa.
Next run: 3 Å, 8,192 shots, about $14.73 of machine time. The budget covers 15 more.
The error shrinks as the bond stretches, from 93.8 mHa at 0.6 Å to 26.2 mHa at 2.4 Å. 0 of 7 points are inside chemical accuracy.
At 2.4 Å the machine read −2.78219 Ha against −2.80842 exact, 26.2 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 2 two-qubit gates.
At 2.5 Å the circuit can't reach the exact answer even without noise. It bottoms out 2.6 mHa high, and the machine adds 5.9 mHa on top. Total 8.5 mHa.
Next run: 4 Å, 8,192 shots, about $44.22 of machine time. The budget covers 9 more.
Compared with $LITE on the same molecule: 60.7 mHa average error here, 8.7 there. This lab's circuit uses 96 two-qubit gates on average against 3. $LITE lands closer.
The error stays between 53.7 and 66.0 mHa from 1 Å to 3.5 Å. The chemistry changes a lot over that range and the error barely moves, so the chip's noise sets it. 0 of 7 points are inside chemical accuracy.
At 3.5 Å the circuit can't reach the exact answer even without noise. It bottoms out 2.0 mHa high, and the machine adds 64.0 mHa on top. Total 66.0 mHa.
Paused. The next run at 1.6 Å costs about $80.26 and the budget is 0.504 SOL. It needs about 0.031 SOL more in fees.
The error shrinks as the bond stretches, from 1250.6 mHa at 0.8 Å to 709.3 mHa at 1.3 Å. 0 of 4 points are inside chemical accuracy.
At 1.3 Å the machine read −74.15319 Ha against −74.86246 exact, 709.3 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 348 two-qubit gates.
2.2 Å on ibm_fez: 5.9 mHa off, about 4x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
At 2 Å the circuit can't reach the exact answer even without noise. It bottoms out 0.6 mHa high, and the machine adds 6.9 mHa on top. Total 7.4 mHa.
1.5 Å on ibm_marrakesh: 61.3 mHa off, about 38x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
At 2 Å the circuit can't reach the exact answer even without noise. It bottoms out 0.7 mHa high, and the machine adds 510.2 mHa on top. Total 510.9 mHa.
2.2 Å on ibm_fez: 10.6 mHa off, about 7x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
Measured 1.6 Å. The error is 8.0 mHa, but the statistical spread is 6.6 mHa, so this point needs more shots before it means much.
At 1.4 Å the circuit can't reach the exact answer even without noise. It bottoms out 0.9 mHa high, and the machine adds 948.5 mHa on top. Total 949.4 mHa.
Measured 1.8 Å. The error is 37.9 mHa and the statistical spread only 9.1 mHa, so more shots won't close the gap.
At 1.8 Å the machine read −0.95603 Ha against −0.96182 exact, 5.8 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from one two-qubit gate.
At 1.2 Å the machine read −1.17487 Ha against −1.24745 exact, 72.6 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 94 two-qubit gates.
Measured 1.6 Å. The error is 584.3 mHa and the statistical spread only 36.8 mHa, so more shots won't close the gap.
1.3 Å on ibm_marrakesh: 9.5 mHa off, about 6x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
Measured 3 Å. The error is 55.5 mHa and the statistical spread only 15.4 mHa, so more shots won't close the gap.
At 1.8 Å the machine read −0.95399 Ha against −0.96182 exact, 7.8 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 2 two-qubit gates.
Measured 1.4 Å. The error is 2.6 mHa, but the statistical spread is 4.0 mHa, so this point needs more shots before it means much.
Measured 1.1 Å. The error is 863.2 mHa and the statistical spread only 66.3 mHa, so more shots won't close the gap.
At 1 Å the machine read −7.76123 Ha against −7.76862 exact, 7.4 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 3 two-qubit gates.
Measured 1.1 Å. The error is 1302.8 mHa and the statistical spread only 71.9 mHa, so more shots won't close the gap.
1.4 Å on ibm_torino: 36.8 mHa off, about 23x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
Measured 1 Å. The error is 104.3 mHa and the statistical spread only 23.9 mHa, so more shots won't close the gap.
1.33 Å on ibm_torino: 613.5 mHa off, about 383x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
1.1 Å on ibm_fez: 8.0 mHa off, about 5x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
Measured 1.4 Å. The error is 9.0 mHa, but the statistical spread is 4.1 mHa, so this point needs more shots before it means much.
2.5 Å on ibm_marrakesh: 53.7 mHa off, about 34x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
0.87 Å on ibm_marrakesh: 125.9 mHa off, about 79x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
At 1 Å the machine read −14.82041 Ha against −15.46287 exact, 642.5 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 339 two-qubit gates.
0.9 Å on ibm_fez: 1678.9 mHa off, about 1049x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
At 1.1 Å the machine read −2.81121 Ha against −2.85352 exact, 42.3 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 2 two-qubit gates.
At 0.9 Å the machine read −1.11288 Ha against −1.12056 exact, 7.7 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from one two-qubit gate.
0.96 Å on ibm_fez: 1033.9 mHa off, about 646x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
1.1 Å on ibm_fez: 5.1 mHa off, about 3x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
At 0.7 Å the machine read −1.00494 Ha against −1.16176 exact, 156.8 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 94 two-qubit gates.
Measured 0.735 Å. The error is 8.3 mHa, but the statistical spread is 4.3 mHa, so this point needs more shots before it means much.
At 2 Å the machine read −7.77241 Ha against −7.83222 exact, 59.8 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 96 two-qubit gates.
At 0.7 Å the machine read 0.27461 Ha against −2.10700 exact, 2381.6 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 737 two-qubit gates.
Measured 0.9 Å. The error is 54.4 mHa and the statistical spread only 11.2 mHa, so more shots won't close the gap.
At 0.9 Å the machine read −1.11038 Ha against −1.12056 exact, 10.2 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 2 two-qubit gates.
0.6 Å on ibm_fez: 5.9 mHa off, about 4x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
At 0.8 Å the machine read −73.60413 Ha against −74.85470 exact, 1250.6 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 347 two-qubit gates.
At 0.5 Å the machine read −1.03887 Ha against −1.05516 exact, 16.3 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from one two-qubit gate.
0.775 Å on ibm_torino: 61.8 mHa off, about 39x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
Measured 0.735 Å. The error is 9.5 mHa, but the statistical spread is 4.2 mHa, so this point needs more shots before it means much.
Measured 1.6 Å. The error is 63.6 mHa and the statistical spread only 11.8 mHa, so more shots won't close the gap.
0.6 Å on ibm_fez: 9.0 mHa off, about 6x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
At 0.6 Å the machine read −2.67617 Ha against −2.77001 exact, 93.8 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 2 two-qubit gates.
1.3 Å on ibm_marrakesh: 62.3 mHa off, about 39x chemical accuracy. 8,192 shots.
At 0.5 Å the machine read −1.04145 Ha against −1.05516 exact, 13.7 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 2 two-qubit gates.
At 1 Å the machine read −7.70490 Ha against −7.76862 exact, 63.7 mHa high. The circuit is exact here, so all of that is noise from 96 two-qubit gates.