Cited by 2Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

Counting collisions in random circuit sampling for benchmarking quantum computers

Open access
Mari, Andrea·2024·APL Quantum

Abstract

We show that counting the number of collisions (re-sampled bitstrings) when measuring a random quantum circuit provides a practical benchmark for the quality of a quantum computer and a quantitative noise characterization method. We analytically estimate the difference in the expected number of collisions when sampling bitstrings from a pure random state and when sampling from the classical uniform distribution. We show that this quantity, if properly normalized, can be used as a collision anomaly benchmark or as a collision volume test, which is similar to the well-known quantum volume test, with advantages (no classical computing cost) and disadvantages (high sampling cost). We also propose to count the number of cross-collisions between two independent quantum computers running the same random circuit in order to obtain a cross-validation test of the two devices. Finally, we quantify the sampling cost of quantum collision experiments. We find that the sampling cost for running a collision volume test on state-of-the-art processors (e.g., 20 effective clean qubits) is quite small: less than 105 shots. For large-scale experiments in the quantum supremacy regime, the required number of shots for observing a quantum signal in the observed number of collisions is currently infeasible (>1012), but not completely out of reach for near-future technology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/5.0219266

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There is a signature for random quantum states given by heavy output distributions whose statistics can act as a proxy for having prepared random quantum states.

    “We know there is a signature for random quantum states given by heavy output distributions whose statistics can act as a proxy for having prepared random quantum states [55].”
  • Supremacy experiments are similar but not quite the same as what is needed for EWFS.

    “Note that supremacy experiments[55] are similar but not quite the same as what is needed.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mari, A.
Affiliations
Università di Camerino (IT)
Corresponding author
Mari, Andrea
Venue
APL Quantum
Published
2024-11-25
Volume
1
Issue
4
ISSN
2835-0103 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4404696243
Cited by
2
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • APL Quantum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Unicam Scientific Publications (University of Camerino) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca (PE0000023-NQSTI)
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
random quantum circuits, noise characterization, quantum volume, sampling cost, quantum advantage

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