Counting collisions in random circuit sampling for benchmarking quantum computers
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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].”
From Towards violations of Local Friendliness with quantum computers (2025) · cites this paper as [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.”
From Towards violations of Local Friendliness with quantum computers (2025) · cites this paper as [55]
Cites
Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond
Preskill, J. (2018) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 · Cited by 8,830 · see citing works
Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor
Madsen, L. S., Laudenbach, F., Askarani, M. F., Rortais, F., Vincent, T., Bulmer, J. F. F., Miatto, F. M., Neuhaus, L., Helt, L. G., Collins, M. J., et al. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04725-x · Cited by 1,031 · see citing works
Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits
Cross, A. W., Bishop, L. S., Sheldon, S., Nation, P. D., & Gambetta, J. M. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.100.032328 · Cited by 704 · see citing works
Scalable 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
Challenges and Opportunities of Near-Term Quantum Computing Systems
Corcoles, A. D., Kandala, A., Javadi-Abhari, A., McClure, D. T., Cross, A. W., Temme, K., Nation, P. D., Steffen, M., & Gambetta, J. M. (2020) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2019.2954005 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
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
Cross-Platform Verification of Intermediate Scale Quantum Devices
Elben, A., Vermersch, B., van Bijnen, R., Kokail, C., Brydges, T., Maier, C., Joshi, M. K., Blatt, R., Roos, C. F., & Zoller, P. (2020) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.010504 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Baldwin, C. H., Mayer, K., Brown, N. C., Ryan-Anderson, C., & Hayes, D. (2022) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2022-05-09-707 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Towards violations of Local Friendliness with quantum computers
Zeng, W. J., Labib, F., & Russo, V. (2025) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2025-09-05-1851
“Instead, a validation-based collision counting of random quantum states would not require much classical computing but does require a large amount of sampling [56].”
- Authors
- Mari, A.
- Affiliations
- Università di Camerino (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Mari, Andrea
- ORCID
- Mari, Andrea
- Venue
- APL Quantum
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- 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