Benchmarking gate-based quantum computers
Open accessAbstract
With the advent of public access to small gate-based quantum processors, it becomes necessary to develop a benchmarking methodology such that independent researchers can validate the operation of these processors. We explore the usefulness of a number of simple quantum circuits as benchmarks for gate-based quantum computing devices and show that circuits performing identity operations are very simple, scalable and sensitive to gate errors and are therefore very well suited for this task. We illustrate the procedure by presenting benchmark results for the IBM Quantum Experience, a cloud-based platform for gate-based quantum computing.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The qec_dist3 benchmark performs a 3-distance 5-qubit surface code.
“The qec_dist3 benchmark performing a 3-distance 5-qubit surface code which is developed based on [90].”
From QASMBench: A Low-Level Quantum Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and Simulation (2023) · cites this paper as [90]
Cites
Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation
Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M., & Cleland, A. N. (2012) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.86.032324 · Cited by 3,059 · cited 1× · see citing works
“troduced in Refs. [17] and [18]. 10 6.1. Distance-two surface code Surface codes are considered to be among the most promising error-correction schemes as they can cope with error rates of about 10 2 [19]. The distancetwo surface code [[5;1;2]] studied in Ref. [14] employs postselection to discard outcomes which are n…”
BackgroundInfluentialQuantum Mechanics: A Modern Development
Ballentine, L. E. (1998) · doi:10.1142/3142 · Cited by 984 · cited 4× · see citing works
“If quantum theory is assumed to describe the operation of the device, each measurement constitutes a statistically independent trial [10].”
BackgroundInfluentialScalable noise estimation with random unitary operators
Emerson, J., Alicki, R., & Życzkowski, K. (2005) · Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics · doi:10.1088/1464-4266/7/10/021 · Cited by 502 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
QASMBench: A Low-Level Quantum Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and Simulation
Li, A., Stein, S., Krishnamoorthy, S., & Ang, J. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing · doi:10.1145/3550488 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Measuring the capabilities of quantum computers
Proctor, T., Rudinger, K., Young, K., Nielsen, E., & Blume-Kohout, R. (2022) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01409-7 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Generative model benchmarks for superconducting qubits
Hamilton, K. E., Dumitrescu, E. F., & Pooser, R. C. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.99.062323 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
- Authors
- Michielsen, K., Nocon, M., Willsch, D., Jin, F., Lippert, T., & De Raedt, H.
- Affiliations
- Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Michielsen, Kristel
- Venue
- Computer Physics Communications
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-11
- Volume
- 220
- Pages
- 44-55
- ISSN
- 0010-4655 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2625800651
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 3.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computer Physics Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- JuSER (Forschungszentrum Jülich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Keywords
- quantum benchmarking, gate-based quantum computers, quantum circuits, gate errors, IBM Quantum Experience, cloud quantum computing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
