1
$\begingroup$

I'm running an experiment first on qasm_simulator backend from Aer provider and the most frequent result is the correct one with the minimal energy value. Then I'm running the same experiment with the same configuration and parameter set on ibmq_qasm_simulator backend from IBMQ provider and got different results (don't reach minimal energy value). What is the reason for this behavior?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You should post the code so we can better understand the issue. $\endgroup$ – Paul Nation May 19 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ These backends should in most cases return very similar results? The code of the experiment is quite complex and hard to understand, therefore my question is in general what are the differences of these backends and what could be the reason for different results :) $\endgroup$ – gosia123 May 19 at 8:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The ibmq simulator uses the Aer code internally, which is why I wanted to see the difference in outputs. $\endgroup$ – Paul Nation May 19 at 12:01
  • $\begingroup$ ok :) these are results from qasm_simulator: {"0010010101": 61, "1010010101": 2, "1000010101": 70, "1100010101": 8, "0000010101": 799, "0110010101": 2, "0100010101": 57, "1000001110": 1} , these from ibmq_qasm_simulator: {"0110010101": 1, "0000010101": 52, "0100010101": 368, "0010011100": 366, "0100011100": 1, "1010010101": 3, "0110011100": 153, "1000010101": 4, "1110011100": 10, "1100010101": 16, "1010011100": 25, "0000011100": 1}. The lowest energy is for configuration: "0000010101". On qasm_simulator this config got 799 and in ibmq_qasm_simulator this config got only 52. $\endgroup$ – gosia123 May 24 at 10:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.