pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.25783 · v1 · pith:KKMFKWEQnew · submitted 2026-05-25 · 🪐 quant-ph

Q-RAIL: A Reliability-Aware Framework for Quantum Federated Learning on Heterogeneous Noisy Hardware

Walid El Maouaki , Muhammad Shafique This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 21:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum federated learningNISQ hardwarereliability aware aggregationnoise budgetcalibration metadataheterogeneous quantum devicesfederated averaging
0
0 comments X

The pith

Q-RAIL weights quantum federated learning updates by client-specific noise budgets to improve accuracy on heterogeneous NISQ hardware.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Quantum federated learning on NISQ devices suffers when clients use different backends because uniform averaging mixes informative updates with noise-dominated ones. The paper introduces Q-RAIL to compute an effective noise budget for each client from calibration metadata and circuit statistics, then applies temperature scaling to set aggregation weights. This method is evaluated on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and OrganAMNIST, showing consistent gains over FedAvg and other baselines, including a 10-point accuracy lift on the main benchmark under hardware skew. A reader would care if the approach makes federated quantum training viable before fault-tolerant hardware arrives.

Core claim

Q-RAIL computes a client-specific effective noise budget from backend calibration metadata together with transpiled circuit statistics. This budget is converted into stabilized aggregation weights using temperature scaling, uniform mixing, and a minimum-weight floor. On the primary MNIST benchmark under strong hardware skew, Q-RAIL improves final test accuracy from FedAvg's 0.777 to 0.877.

What carries the argument

Client-specific effective noise budget from calibration metadata and transpiled circuit statistics, used to derive temperature-scaled aggregation weights.

Load-bearing premise

The effective noise budget from calibration metadata and circuit statistics serves as a reliable indicator of how much a client's update will help the global model.

What would settle it

An experiment in which clients with low computed noise budgets produce updates that degrade the aggregated model more than high-noise clients, causing the weighted scheme to underperform uniform averaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.25783 by Muhammad Shafique, Walid El Maouaki.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Q-RAIL Implementation Workflow backends due to cost, availability, or geographic constraints [4]. FedAvg [5], FedProx [6], TiFL [7], and SCAFFOLD [8] all address important forms of heterogeneity in classical FL, but none is designed for the case where the physical faithfulness of a local update depends on backend-specific compilation and execution noise. This paper studies that regime directly. We define d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Ranking of candidate backends by composite error (log scale), from low-error to high-error devices, with color indicating the corresponding quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of the Q-RAIL methodology: a) Input. b) Backend discovery and profiling. c) Ranking and client assignment. Here, the top-5 and bottom-5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Main comparison across Configurations A and B. Global test accuracy over communication rounds for FedAvg, Q-RAIL, and wpQFL under IID (top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance under increasing bad-client ratios. Final-round test accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Client-count sweep on IID MNIST. Final-round test accuracy and test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representative Q-RAIL effective noise budgets. Example effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum federated learning (QFL) on NISQ hardware is highly sensitive to backend heterogeneity: some clients contribute informative updates, while others contribute noise-dominated drift that uniform averaging cannot distinguish. We propose Q-RAIL (Quantum Reliability-Aware Federated Inference and Learning), a circuit- and calibration-aware aggregation method for hardware-heterogeneous QFL. Q-RAIL computes a client-specific effective noise budget from backend calibration metadata together with transpiled circuit statistics. This budget is converted into stabilized aggregation weights using temperature scaling, uniform mixing, and a minimum-weight floor. Q-RAIL was evaluated across multiple experimental settings, including an ablation study, and benchmarked against state-of-the-art methods on three datasets: MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and OrganAMNIST. On the primary MNIST benchmark under strong hardware skew, Q-RAIL improves final test accuracy from FedAvg's 0.777 to 0.877, a +10.0-point gain corresponding to about 44.8% relative error reduction, while also exceeding the strongest wpQFL baseline (0.833). At the same time, test loss drops from 0.722 to 0.585, and test AUC rises from 0.920 to 0.973. Under non-IID MNIST, Q-RAIL reaches 0.813 vs 0.722 for FedAvg. It also outperforms FedAvg in 12/12 ansatz/CX-fold stress configurations and remains stronger at 4, 10, and 15 qubit setups. Overall, the results support calibration-driven, circuit-aware aggregation as a practical path toward robust QFL on heterogeneous quantum hardware.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Q-RAIL, a reliability-aware aggregation framework for quantum federated learning on heterogeneous NISQ hardware. It derives client-specific effective noise budgets from backend calibration metadata and transpiled circuit statistics, converts these into temperature-scaled aggregation weights with uniform mixing and a minimum-weight floor, and reports empirical results on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and OrganAMNIST. On the primary MNIST benchmark under strong hardware skew, it claims a test accuracy increase from 0.777 (FedAvg) to 0.877, with corresponding drops in loss and rises in AUC, plus consistent outperformance across ablations, non-IID settings, and 12/12 ansatz/CX-fold configurations.

Significance. If the central proxy assumption holds, Q-RAIL provides a practical, calibration-driven approach to robust QFL that directly addresses hardware heterogeneity, a key barrier on NISQ devices. The ablation study and cross-configuration stress tests (including 4/10/15 qubit setups) are positive empirical features that would support broader adoption if the gains prove robust. The work is entirely empirical with no machine-checked proofs or parameter-free derivations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim of a +10.0-point accuracy gain (0.777 to 0.877, 44.8% relative error reduction) and outperformance versus wpQFL (0.833) is presented as point estimates with no error bars, statistical tests, data-split details, or full hyperparameter tables; this directly affects assessment of whether the reported deltas are reliable.
  2. [Weighting scheme description] Weighting scheme description: the method's rationale rests on the effective noise budget serving as a faithful proxy for client update informativeness, yet no direct validation is supplied (e.g., per-client correlation of the derived weight with measured update divergence, per-client accuracy, or gradient alignment); without this, the ablation results cannot distinguish the specific proxy from any monotonic function of circuit depth or CX count.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states outperformance in 12/12 configurations and at multiple qubit counts but does not enumerate the configurations or provide a summary table; adding one would improve clarity.
  2. Reproducibility would benefit from explicit statements on random seeds, exact data partitioning for the non-IID MNIST case, and the precise form of the temperature scaling and minimum-weight floor.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the empirical presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim of a +10.0-point accuracy gain (0.777 to 0.877, 44.8% relative error reduction) and outperformance versus wpQFL (0.833) is presented as point estimates with no error bars, statistical tests, data-split details, or full hyperparameter tables; this directly affects assessment of whether the reported deltas are reliable.

    Authors: We agree that presenting only point estimates in the abstract limits evaluation of result reliability. In the revision we will rerun the primary MNIST experiments across 5 independent random seeds, report mean ± standard deviation for accuracy, loss, and AUC, include p-values or confidence intervals for the key deltas versus FedAvg and wpQFL, add data-split details, and provide a supplementary hyperparameter table. These changes will be reflected in both the abstract and the results section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Weighting scheme description] Weighting scheme description: the method's rationale rests on the effective noise budget serving as a faithful proxy for client update informativeness, yet no direct validation is supplied (e.g., per-client correlation of the derived weight with measured update divergence, per-client accuracy, or gradient alignment); without this, the ablation results cannot distinguish the specific proxy from any monotonic function of circuit depth or CX count.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current ablations do not include explicit per-client correlation analysis between the derived effective noise budget and update-quality metrics, leaving open the possibility that performance gains could arise from any monotonic function of circuit statistics. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated analysis (new figure and table) that computes, for each client, the Pearson correlation between the Q-RAIL weight and (i) KL divergence of the client update from the global model, (ii) cosine similarity of client gradients, and (iii) per-client contribution to test accuracy. This will directly test the informativeness-proxy assumption and differentiate it from simpler depth- or CX-based weighting. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical method benchmarked against external baselines

full rationale

The paper presents Q-RAIL as a heuristic aggregation rule that computes client weights from external calibration metadata and transpiled circuit statistics, then applies temperature scaling and a floor. No equations or claims reduce a derived quantity to a fitted parameter defined by the paper itself, nor do any load-bearing steps rely on self-citations for uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. All performance claims rest on direct comparisons to FedAvg and wpQFL on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and OrganAMNIST under stated hardware skew conditions, making the evaluation self-contained against independent benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no identifiable free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; temperature scaling is mentioned but its hyperparameter is not quantified or fitted in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5841 in / 1096 out tokens · 34946 ms · 2026-06-29T21:38:18.659893+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Federated quantum machine learning,

    S. Y .-C. Chen and S. Yoo, “Federated quantum machine learning,” Entropy, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    A review of applications in federated learning,

    L. Li, Y . Fan, M. Tse, and K.-Y . Lin, “A review of applications in federated learning,”Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 149, p. 106854, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    The effects of quantum hardware properties on the performances of variational quantum learning algorithms,

    G. Buonaiuto, F. Gargiulo, G. De Pietro, M. Esposito, and M. Pota, “The effects of quantum hardware properties on the performances of variational quantum learning algorithms,”Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 9, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Cloud quantum computing concept and development: a systematic literature review,

    H. Soeparno and A. S. Perbangsa, “Cloud quantum computing concept and development: a systematic literature review,”Procedia Computer Science, vol. 179, pp. 944–954, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” inArtificial intelligence and statistics. Pmlr, 2017, pp. 1273–1282

    2017

  6. [6]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,”Proceedings of Machine learning and systems, vol. 2, pp. 429–450, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Tifl: A tier-based federated learning system,

    Z. Chai, A. Ali, S. Zawad, S. Truex, A. Anwar, N. Baracaldo, Y . Zhou, H. Ludwig, F. Yan, and Y . Cheng, “Tifl: A tier-based federated learning system,” inProceedings of the 29th international symposium on high- performance parallel and distributed computing, 2020, pp. 125–136

    2020

  8. [8]

    Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,

    S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. Reddi, S. Stich, and A. T. Suresh, “Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2020, pp. 5132–5143

    2020

  9. [9]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,”Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

    2018

  10. [10]

    Transpilation defaults and configuration options,

    IBM Quantum, “Transpilation defaults and configuration options,” https: //qiskit.qotlabs.org/docs/guides/defaults-and-configuration-options, 2024, accessed: 2026-04-11

    2024

  11. [11]

    Representing quantum computers for the transpiler,

    ——, “Representing quantum computers for the transpiler,” https://qiskit. qotlabs.org/docs/guides/represent-quantum-computers, 2024, accessed: 2026-04-11

    2024

  12. [12]

    View backend details,

    ——, “View backend details,” https://qiskit.qotlabs.org/docs/guides/ qpu-information, 2024, accessed: 2026-04-11

    2024

  13. [13]

    Quantum federated learning with quantum data,

    M. Chehimi and W. Saad, “Quantum federated learning with quantum data,” inICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 8617–8621

    2022

  14. [14]

    Quantum federated learning: a comprehensive literature review of foundations, challenges, and future directions,

    R. Ballester, J. Cerquides, and L. Artiles, “Quantum federated learning: a comprehensive literature review of foundations, challenges, and future directions,”Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 73, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Experimentally validated quantum-secure federated learning over a multi-user quantum network

    Z.-P. Liu, X.-Y . Cao, H.-W. Liu, X.-R. Sun, Y . Bao, Y .-S. Lu, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, “Practical quantum federated learning and its experimental demonstration,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12709, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Target (v2.0),

    IBM Quantum, “Target (v2.0),” https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/ api/qiskit/2.0/qiskit.transpiler.Target, 2024, accessed: 2026-04-11

    2024

  17. [17]

    Introduction to transpilation,

    ——, “Introduction to transpilation,” https://qiskit.qotlabs.org/docs/ guides/transpile, 2024, accessed: 2026-04-12

    2024

  18. [18]

    Toward heterogeneous quantum federated learning: Challenges and solutions,

    R. Rahman, D. C. Nguyen, C. K. Thomas, and W. Saad, “Toward heterogeneous quantum federated learning: Challenges and solutions,” IEEE Network, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification,

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 1155–1208, 2010

    2010

  20. [20]

    Quantum machine learning,

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum machine learning,”Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, 2017

    2017

  21. [21]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincioet al., “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625–644, 2021

    2021

  22. [22]

    Evaluating the noise resilience of variational quantum algorithms,

    E. Fontana, N. Fitzpatrick, D. M. Ramo, R. Duncan, and I. Rungger, “Evaluating the noise resilience of variational quantum algorithms,” Physical Review A, vol. 104, no. 2, p. 022403, 2021

    2021

  23. [23]

    Investigating the effect of noise on the training performance of hybrid quantum neural networks,

    M. Kashif, E. Sychiuco, and M. Shafique, “Investigating the effect of noise on the training performance of hybrid quantum neural networks,” in2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–10

    2024

  24. [24]

    Federated learning with matched averaging,

    H. Wang, M. Yurochkin, Y . Sun, D. Papailiopoulos, and Y . Khazaeni, “Federated learning with matched averaging,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06440, 2020

    work page arXiv 2002

  25. [25]

    Fedfa: Federated feature augmentation,

    T. Zhou and E. Konukoglu, “Fedfa: Federated feature augmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12995, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Performance analysis and design of a weighted personalized quantum federated learning,

    D. Gurung and S. R. Pokhrel, “Performance analysis and design of a weighted personalized quantum federated learning,”IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    Sporadic federated learning approach in quantum environment to tackle quantum noise,

    R. Rahman, A. Pokharel, and D. C. Nguyen, “Sporadic federated learning approach in quantum environment to tackle quantum noise,” in Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2025, pp. 1829–1838

    2025

  28. [28]

    Tackling heterogeneity in quantum federated learning: An integrated sporadic-personalized approach,

    R. Rahman, S. Shaon, and D. C. Nguyen, “Tackling heterogeneity in quantum federated learning: An integrated sporadic-personalized approach,”IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2026

    2026

  29. [29]

    Qfal: Quantum federated adversarial learning,

    W. E. Maouaki, N. Innan, A. Marchisio, T. Said, M. Bennai, and M. Shafique, “Qfal: Quantum federated adversarial learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21171, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Robqfl: Robust quantum federated learning in adversarial environment,

    W. El Maouaki, N. Innan, A. Marchisio, T. Said, M. Shafique, and M. Bennai, “Robqfl: Robust quantum federated learning in adversarial environment,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Artificial Intelligence (QAI). IEEE, 2025, pp. 128–134

    2025

  31. [31]

    Designing robust quantum neural networks via optimized circuit metrics,

    W. El Maouaki, A. Marchisio, T. Said, M. Shafique, and M. Bennai, “Designing robust quantum neural networks via optimized circuit metrics,” Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 8, no. 6, p. 2400601, 2025

    2025

  32. [32]

    Advqunn: A methodology for analyzing the adversarial robustness of quanvolutional neural networks,

    W. El Maouaki, A. Marchisio, T. Said, M. Bennai, and M. Shafique, “Advqunn: A methodology for analyzing the adversarial robustness of quanvolutional neural networks,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW). IEEE, 2024, pp. 175–181

    2024

  33. [33]

    Fakeproviderforbackendv2 (latest version),

    IBM Quantum, “Fakeproviderforbackendv2 (latest version),” https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/api/qiskit-ibm-runtime/ fake-provider-fake-provider-for-backend-v2, 2024, accessed: 2026-04- 12

    2024

  34. [34]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,

    Y . LeCun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, 1998

    1998

  35. [35]

    Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms

    H. Xiao, K. Rasul, and R. V ollgraf, “Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Medmnist v2: A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2d and 3d biomedical image classification,

    J. Yang, R. Shi, D. Wei, Z. Liu, L. Zhao, B. Ke, H. Pfister, and B. Ni, “Medmnist v2: A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2d and 3d biomedical image classification,”Scientific Data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 41, 2023

    2023

  37. [37]

    Medmnist classification decathlon: A lightweight automl benchmark for medical image analysis,

    J. Yang, R. Shi, and B. Ni, “Medmnist classification decathlon: A lightweight automl benchmark for medical image analysis,” inIEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), 2021, pp. 191–195

    2021

  38. [38]

    A bayesian analysis of some nonparametric problems,

    T. S. Ferguson, “A bayesian analysis of some nonparametric problems,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 209–230, 1973

    1973