Efficient measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking.

By Easwar Magesan, Jay M. Gambetta, Blake R. Johnson, C. Ryan, Jerry M. Chow, Seth T. Merkel, Marcus P. da Silva, G. Keefe, M. Rothwell, T. Ohki and 2 more. Physical Review Letters, 2012

418 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We describe a scalable experimental protocol for estimating the average error of individual quantum computational gates. This protocol consists of interleaving random Clifford gates between the gate of interest and provides an estimate as well as theoretical bounds for the average error of the gate under test, so long as the average noise variation over all Clifford gates is small. This technique takes into account both state preparation and measurement errors and is scalable in the number of qubits. We apply this protocol to a superconducting qubit system and find a bounded average error of 0.003 [0,0.016] for the single-qubit gates X(π/2) and Y(π/2). These bounded values provide better estimates of the average error than those extracted via quantum process tomography.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/28e2bd91fbe692b67edaf1dd00f0ae4bcb2329e1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

Citations in the corpus

Parametrically Activated Entangling Gates Using Transmon Qubits (2017, methodology): “5 Gate iSWAP CZ02 CZ20 Φ̃ [Φ0] 0.317 0.245 0.280 ωp/(2π) [MHz] 122 112 253 Duration [ns] 150 210 290 geff/2π [MHz] 3.9 4.0 2.4 Effective T1 [µs] 5-25 7-17 7-17 Effective T ∗2 [µs] 4.6(8) 10.2(22) 7.1(11) IRB fidelity 0.94 0.92 0.91 - Clifford fidelity 0.94 0.93 0.88 QPT fidelity 0.93 0.92 0.92 - uni”
Demonstration of qubit operations below a rigorous fault tolerance threshold with gate set tomography (2016, background): “On the other hand, there are several interesting variations of RB that retain its randomized nature, most notably interleaved benchmarking [29], RB tomography [30], and unitarity benchmarking (URB) [31].”
Review of performance metrics of spin qubits in gated semiconducting nanostructures (2021, methodology): “There is an extension of the procedure called interleaved randomized benchmarking [203] which can assign a fidelity—still averaged over all pure states—to a single specific gate from the Clifford group.”
Universal Gate for Fixed-Frequency Qubits via a Tunable Bus (2016, methodology): “A more direct error measurement is obtained by interleaved RB [41], as also shown in Fig.”
Efficient Z gates for quantum computing (2016, methodology): “To quantify the error of the VZ-gates we perform interleaved RB [15] of the S gate; sample data is shown in Fig.”
Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling (2015, methodology): “More specifically, the average error rate r is that of the tailored channel for the composite noise on a round of easy and hard gates and this can be directly estimated using interleaved randomized benchmarking with the relevant choice of group [37, 38].”