Upload article_en.md with huggingface_hub

article_en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+title: "FINAL-Bench Quantum: An Open, Neutral Benchmark for Quantum-Computing Methods"
+thumbnail:
+authors:
+- user: SeaWolf-AI
+tags: [quantum, quantum-error-correction, benchmark, qec, vqe, qram]
+---
+
+# FINAL-Bench Quantum: An Open, Neutral Benchmark for Quantum-Computing Methods
+
+Quantum-computing results are remarkably hard to compare. The same "logical error rate (LER)" or
+"query fidelity" can mean entirely different things depending on the code, the noise model, the
+hardware, and how many shots were taken. **FINAL-Bench Quantum** is our attempt to bring *one fair
+yardstick* to that confusion: a suite where methods compete in five events under **identical,
+published protocols**, and where every number is clearly labeled as either *measured here* or
+*quoted from a source*.
+
+🔗 **Leaderboard:** `huggingface.co/spaces/FINAL-Bench/quantum-bench-leaderboard`
+
+## The core rule — two tracks
+
+- **Track A (Verified).** Methods are *measured here* on one frozen, public test set and reported
+  with 95% confidence intervals. These numbers **are** directly comparable.
+- **Track B (Reported).** Numbers *quoted* from each paper or announcement. Codes, noise models,
+  and hardware differ, so they are **not** directly comparable — and we say so plainly.
+
+Two principles hold throughout:
+
+1. **No quantum-advantage claims.**
+2. **A simulation is labeled a simulation; real hardware is named with its chip.** When two results
+   fall within each other's confidence intervals, we call it a **statistical tie** rather than
+   crowning a winner.
+
+## The five events
+
+| Event | What it measures | One-line analogy |
+|---|---|---|
+| ① **QEC Decoder** | logical error rate on a rotated surface code (Stim, circuit noise) | accuracy of a quantum "spell-checker" |
+| ② **Optimization** | Max-Cut quality (cut found / optimum) | finding the best answer among astronomically many |
+| ③ **VQE** | molecular ground-state energy vs the exact solution | quantum energy calculation for chemistry/drugs |
+| ④ **QRAM** | quantum-memory query fidelity | accuracy of a quantum "memory chip" |
+| ⑤ **Simulation** | how large a circuit a classical method can handle | faking a quantum computer on a classical one |
+
+Each event tab is organized as **A. verified measurements / B. real hardware (where available) /
+C. published references**, alongside dedicated **📈 Charts** (threshold, distance-scaling, and
+latency-vs-accuracy plots), **🏅 Medals** (participation by country), and **ℹ️ About**
+(methodology and citation).
+
+## How to read the tables
+
+- **Flag** = a method's / team's origin; **By** = its authors (e.g., Tesseract = Google Quantum AI,
+  PyMatching = O. Higgott).
+- **✓ VERIFIED** = measured on this benchmark. **REPORTED** = quoted from a source.
+- The **±value** next to a number is its 95% confidence interval. Overlapping intervals mean a tie.
+- The **latency** column matters as much as accuracy — a decoder that is "accurate but slow" can be
+  useless for real-time error correction, where decoding must keep pace with the QPU cycle.
+
+## How to submit
+
+The **📤 Submit** tab takes a method name, links (GitHub / Hugging Face), an email, and an optional
+results file. Submissions are **stored privately**, reproduced under the event's fixed protocol, and
+the submitter is emailed about inclusion. Listed entries appear with the same origin and author
+labels as everyone else.
+
+## Why neutrality is the whole point
+
+A leaderboard is only useful if you can trust it. So FINAL-Bench Quantum is built on a discipline:
+**include strong competitors even when they beat the host's own entries, quote sources faithfully,
+and never round a simulation up into a hardware claim.** Methods from Google, IBM, NVIDIA, USTC,
+Riverlane and others sit next to a Korean entry (VIDRAFT 🇰🇷) under the *same* protocol, confidence
+intervals, and honesty boundaries.
+
+Quantum computing has not yet reached the fault-tolerant era — which is exactly why a shared,
+hype-free yardstick that honestly records *what has actually been measured today* is worth building.
+Come and compete with your own method.
+
+*A methods paper is in preparation. Feedback and submissions are welcome.*