How NOT to Fool the Masses When Giving Performance Results for Quantum Computers

TL;DR

This paper warns against common pitfalls in quantum computer performance benchmarking, emphasizing transparency, fairness, and adherence to standards to prevent misleading claims and ensure credible comparisons.

Contribution

It adapts Bailey's historical guidelines to quantum computing, providing four specific recommendations to improve benchmarking practices and avoid misleading results.

Findings

Many current quantum benchmarks lack transparency.

Optimized results often omit tuning time disclosures.

Cherry-picking results without justification is common.

Abstract

In 1991, David Bailey wrote an article describing techniques for overstating the performance of massively parallel computers. Intended as a lighthearted protest against the practice of inflating benchmark results in order to ``fool the masses" and boost sales, the paper sparked development of procedural standards that help benchmarkers avoid methodological errors leading to unjustified and misleading conclusions. Now that quantum computers are starting to realize their potential as viable alternatives to classical computers, we can see the mistakes of three decades ago being repeated by a new batch of researchers who are unfamiliar with this history and these standards. Inspired by Bailey's model, this paper presents four suggestions for newcomers to quantum performance benchmarking, about how not to do it. They are: (1) Don't claim superior performance without mentioning runtimes; (2) Don't report optimized results without mentioning the tuning time needed to optimize those results; (3) Don't claim faster runtimes for (or in comparison to) solvers running on imaginary platforms; and (4) No cherry-picking (without justification and qualification). Suggestions for improving current practice appear in the last section.