CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

Measuring error rates of mid-circuit measurements

Open access
Hothem, Daniel, Hines, Jordan, Baldwin, Charles, Gresh, Dan, Blume-Kohout, Robin, Proctor, Timothy·2025·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-025-60923-xPMC PMC12217855
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

High-fidelity mid-circuit measurements, which read out the state of specific qubits in a multiqubit processor without destroying them or disrupting their neighbors, are a critical component for useful quantum computing. They enable fault-tolerant quantum error correction, dynamic circuits, and other paths to solving classically intractable problems. But there are few methods to assess their performance comprehensively. In this work, we address this gap by introducing the first randomized benchmarking protocol that measures the rate at which mid-circuit measurements induce errors in many-qubit circuits. Using this protocol, we detect and eliminate previously undetected measurement-induced crosstalk in a 20-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer. Then, we use the same protocol to measure the rate of measurement-induced crosstalk error on a 27-qubit IBM Q processor, and quantify how much of that error is eliminated by dynamical decoupling. Characterisation of quantum operations is fundamental in quantum technologies - quantum computing in particular - but there’s currently no reliably efficient method to assess mid-circuit measurements, which are a key component for subfields like quantum error correction. Here, the authors fill this gap, integrating MCMs into the framework of randomized benchmarking.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-025-60923-x

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 57 · Cited by 5

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. [1]Shor, P. W. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1484–1509 (1997). · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Rubin, N. C. et al. Quantum computation of stopping power for inertial fusion target design. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2317772121 (2024). 38820000 PMC11161767 · DOI
  3. [3]Harrow, A. W., Hassidim, A. & Lloyd, S. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009). 19905613 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [4]Cao, Y. et al. Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing. Chem. Rev. 119, 10856–10915 (2019). 31469277 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [9]Poulin, D. Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230504 (2005). 16384287 · DOI
  6. [11]Google Quantum AI. Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code. Nature 614, 676–681 (2023). 36813892 PMC9946823 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [13]DeCross, M., Chertkov, E., Kohagen, M. & Foss-Feig, M. Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset. Phys. Rev. X 13, 041057 (2023).
  8. [15]Emerson, J. et al. Symmetrized characterization of noisy quantum processes. Science 317, 1893–1896 (2007). 17901327 · DOI
  9. [16]Knill, E. et al. Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates. Phys. Rev. A 77, 012307 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  10. [17]Magesan, E., Gambetta, J. M. & Emerson, J. Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011). 21635076 · DOI
  11. [21]Hines, J. et al. Demonstrating scalable randomized benchmarking of universal gate sets. Phys. Rev. X 13, 041030 (2023).
  12. [22]Hines, J., Hothem, D., Blume-Kohout, R., Whaley, B. & Proctor, T. Fully scalable randomized benchmarking without motion reversal. PRX Quantum 5, 030334 (2024). · DOI · Paper page
  13. [24]Polloreno, A. M. et al. A theory of direct randomized benchmarking. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13853 (2023). · arXiv
  14. [26]Erhard, A. et al. Characterizing large-scale quantum computers via cycle benchmarking. Nat. Commun. 10, 5347 (2019). 31767840 PMC6877623 · DOI
  15. [27]Harper, R., Flammia, S. T. & Wallman, J. J. Efficient learning of quantum noise. Nat. Phys. 16, 1184–1188 (2020). · DOI
  16. [28]Nielsen, E. et al. Gate set tomography. Quantum 5, 557 (2021). · DOI
  17. [29]Blume-Kohout, R. et al. Demonstration of qubit operations below a rigorous fault tolerance threshold with gate set tomography. Nat. Commun. 8, 14485 (2017). 28198466 PMC5330857 · DOI
  18. [30]Rudinger, K. et al. Characterizing midcircuit measurements on a superconducting qubit using gate set tomography. Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 014014 (2022). · DOI
  19. [31]Stricker, R. et al. Characterizing quantum instruments: From nondemolition measurements to quantum error correction. PRX Quantum 3, 030318 (2022). · DOI
  20. [32]Pereira, L., García-Ripoll, J. J. & Ramos, T. Parallel tomography of quantum non-demolition measurements in multi-qubit devices. Npj Quantum Inf. 9, 1–9 (2023). · DOI
  21. [33]Wagner, S., Bancal, J.-D., Sangouard, N. & Sekatski, P. Device-independent characterization of quantum instruments. Quantum 4, 243 (2020). · DOI
  22. [34]Gómez, E. S. et al. Device-independent certification of a nonprojective qubit measurement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 260401 (2016). 28059533 · DOI
  23. [35]Gaebler, J. P. et al. Suppression of midcircuit measurement crosstalk errors with micromotion. Phys. Rev. A 104, 062440 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  24. [36]Govia, L. C. G. et al. A randomized benchmarking suite for mid-circuit measurements. N. J. Phys. 25, 123016 (2023). · DOI
  25. [37]Hines, J. & Proctor, T. Pauli noise learning for mid-circuit measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 020602 (2025). 39913840 · DOI
  26. [38]Zhang, Z., Chen, S., Liu, Y. & Jiang, L. Generalized cycle benchmarking algorithm for characterizing midcircuit measurements. PRX Quantum 6, 010310 (2025). · DOI
  27. [39]Shirizly, L., Govia, L. C. G. & McKay, D. C. Randomized benchmarking protocol for dynamic circuits. Phys. Rev. A 111, 012611 (2025). · DOI
  28. [40]Bisio, A., Chiribella, G., D’Ariano, G. M., Facchini, S. & Perinotti, P. Optimal quantum tomography of states, measurements, and transformations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 010404 (2009). 19257173 · DOI
  29. [41]Lundeen, J. S. et al. Tomography of quantum detectors. Nat. Phys. 5, 27–30 (2009). · DOI
  30. [42]Feito, A. et al. Measuring measurement: theory and practice. N. J. Phys. 11, 093038 (2009). · DOI
  31. [43]Maciejewski, F. B., Zimborás, Z. & Oszmaniec, M. Mitigation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography. Quantum 4, 257 (2020). · DOI
  32. [44]Davies, E. B. & Lewis, J. T. An operational approach to quantum probability. Commun. Math. Phys. 17, 239–260 (1970). · DOI · Paper page
  33. [45]Ryan-Anderson, C. et al. Implementing fault-tolerant entangling gates on the five-qubit code and the color code. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01863 (2022). · arXiv
  34. [46]Viola, L., Knill, E. & Lloyd, S. Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417–2421 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  35. [47]Moussa, O., da Silva, M. P., Ryan, C. A. & Laflamme, R. Practical experimental certification of computational quantum gates using a twirling procedure. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 070504 (2012). 23006350 · DOI
  36. [48]Hothem, D., Hines, J., Nataraj, K., Blume-Kohout, R. & Proctor, T. Predictive models from quantum computer benchmarks. 2023 IEEE Int. Conf. Quantum Comput. Eng. 1, 709–714 (2023). · DOI
  37. [50]Wood, C. J. & Gambetta, J. M. Quantification and characterization of leakage errors. Phys. Rev. A 97, 032306 (2018). · DOI
  38. [51]Chen, Z. et al. Measuring and suppressing quantum state leakage in a superconducting qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 020501 (2016). 26824531 · DOI
  39. [52]Chasseur, T. & Wilhelm, F. K. Complete randomized benchmarking protocol accounting for leakage errors. Phys. Rev. A 92, 042333 (2015). · DOI
  40. [53]Wallman, J. J., Barnhill, M. & Emerson, J. Robust characterization of leakage errors. N. J. Phys. 18, 043021 (2016). · DOI
  41. [54]Beale, S. J. & Wallman, J. J. Randomized compiling for subsystem measurements. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.06599 (2023). · arXiv
  42. [55]McLaren, D., Graydon, M. A. & Wallman, J. J. Stochastic errors in quantum instruments. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.07418 (2023). · arXiv
  43. [56]Boixo, S. et al. Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices. Nat. Phys. 14, 595–600 (2018). · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Hothem, D., Hines, J., Baldwin, C., Gresh, D., Blume-Kohout, R., & Proctor, T.
Affiliations
  • Sandia National Laboratories California (US)
  • Sandia National Laboratories (US)
  • Quantinuum (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Hothem, Daniel
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-07-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
5761-5761
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-025-60923-x
PMC
PMC12217855
OpenAlex
W4411881839
Cited by
5
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DENA0003525, 0003525)
  • Office of the Director of National Intelligence
  • Office of Science (DE-NA0003525)
  • National Nuclear Security Administration (DENA-0003525)
  • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
  • Advanced Scientific Computing Research (DE-NA-0003525)
  • Sandia National Laboratories (DE‐NA,0003525)
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 many-body systems
Keywords
mid-circuit measurement, randomized benchmarking, trapped-ion quantum computing, dynamical decoupling, quantum error correction

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