The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 12 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators
Open accessAbstract
We describe a scalable stochastic method for the experimental measurement of generalized fidelities characterizing the accuracy of the implementation of a coherent quantum transformation. The method is based on the motion reversal of random unitary operators. In the simplest case our method enables direct estimation of the average gate fidelity. The more general fidelities are characterized by a universal exponential rate of fidelity loss. In all cases the measurable fidelity decrease is directly related to the strength of the noise affecting the implementation, quantified by the trace of the superoperator describing the non-unitary dynamics. While the scalability of our stochastic protocol makes it most relevant in large Hilbert spaces (when quantum process tomography is infeasible), our method should be immediately useful for evaluating the degree of control that is achievable in any prototype quantum processing device. By varying over different experimental arrangements and error-correction strategies, additional information about the noise can be determined.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes a scalable stochastic protocol for estimating noise in quantum implementations by applying random unitary operators and their inverses (motion reversal), enabling direct estimation of average gate fidelity and generalized fidelities. It shows the measurable fidelity loss depends on the trace of the cumulative noise superoperator and can be estimated with accuracy \(O(1/\sqrt{DN})\) for \(N\) independent experiments, avoiding the exponential scaling of quantum process tomography.
Key findings
- Under Haar-random motion reversal, the average gate fidelity depends only on a single noise-strength parameter \(p \in [0,1]\), equivalently \(\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{\Lambda})\), and can be read out as the residual population of the initial computational basis state.
- The method estimates noise strength with accuracy \(O(1/\sqrt{DN})\) for \(N\) independent experiments, where \(D\) is the Hilbert-space dimension. In contrast, quantum process tomography requires \(O(D^4)\) experiments and manipulation of \(D^2 \times D^2\) matrices; Nielsen’s direct \(F_g\) method requires \(D^4\) experiments but only \(D \times D\) matrices.
- Generalized iterated motion-reversal and Loschmidt-echo sequences yield a universal exponential decay of averaged fidelity depending only on noise strength; as the number of iterations \(n\) grows, \(F_n \to D^{-1}\).
- For continuous-time weak Markovian noise, under an ergodic hypothesis and small noise parameter \(\epsilon\), the paper derives a universal exponential fidelity decay. A generalized Loschmidt echo with noise in both forward and backward sequences is conjectured to satisfy relation (31), with analytic and numerical evidence for unitary noise.
Methods
- Theoretical/analytical protocol: apply a Haar-random unitary \(U\) and its inverse \(U^{-1}\) to an initial state, average over the Haar measure, and use superoperator representation. The Haar-averaged superoperator is \(U(D)\)-invariant and equivalent to a depolarizing channel characterized by \(\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{\Lambda})\).
- Generalized discrete-time analysis: iterated motion reversal and Loschmidt-echo sequences with independent random unitaries, arbitrary mixed initial states, and averaging over Haar measure.
- Continuous-time analysis: Markovian master equation with controlled reversible dynamics and a small noise parameter \(\epsilon\), using a cumulant expansion and an ergodic hypothesis for the time-dependent generator.
Limitations
- The paper states the only inefficiency is the requirement to experimentally implement a Haar-random unitary: its decomposition into elementary one- and two-qubit gates requires an exponentially long gate sequence. It leaves open whether efficient random circuits can provide adequate randomization.
- The paper states it assumes the noise superoperator is independent of the specific target transformation, but notes that actual noise generally depends sensitively on the target \(U\) and the gate sequence; it argues this assumption may become statistically well motivated but does not prove it.
- The generalized Loschmidt-echo relation (31) is not directly evaluated analytically in the general case; the paper reports only analytic and numerical evidence for unitary noise and conjectures it holds under general noise. Continuous-time results rely on the stated ergodic hypothesis and small-\(\epsilon\), long-time conditions.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
21 No basis given · 17 Own interpretation · 9 Not checked yet · 1 Own result
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The more general fidelities are characterized by a universal exponential rate of fidelity loss.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all cases the measurable fidelity decrease is directly related to the strength of the noise affecting the implementation - quantified by the trace of the superoperator describing the non-unitary dynamics.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As before, we can simplify this result by assuming that the cumulative noise for each step has the same strength ( p j = p ), in which case we obtain for arbitrary noise a universal exponential form for the decay of fidelity”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The cumulative noise for each U_j, or each step, has the same strength p_j = p.
In the paper
“In the limit of large n , we see that F n → D -1 , as may be expected from the average fidelity between random states [16].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As noted above and shown in the Appendix, ˆ Λ ave ≡ ∫ dU ˆ U ˆ Λ ˆ U -1 is a depolarizing channel with strength parameter”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Haar-averaged superoperator corresponding to the noise under the imperfect motion-reversal protocol, averaged over all possible unitary operators, is a U ( D ) -invariant superoperator”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The measure dψ denotes the natural, unitarily invariant (Fubini-Study) measure on the set of pure states and hence the average gate fidelity provides an indicator that is independent of the choice of initial state.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The protocol is now clear: after the motion reversal sequence has been applied experimentally, the single parameter p characterizing the average gate fidelity appears as the residual population of the initial state.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While we have not directly evaluated the average of this fidelity analytically in the general case, for the special case of unitary noise we have analytic and numerical evidence supporting the relation”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence the gate fidelity for the Haar-averaged operator resulting from a motion reversal experiment depends only on the single parameter Tr( ˆ Λ) which represents the intrinsic strength of the cumulative noise.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The noise superoperator Λ is independent of the specific target transformation but depends only on the duration of the experiment.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 4
- Probably not a substantial claim. 6
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore for small enough ǫ and long enough times t such that ǫt is fixed the first term dominates and we can write”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any superoperator ˆ Λ possesses exactly two linear U ( D ) invariants, i.e. the linear functionals on superoperator space which are invariant with respect to all transformation of the form ˆ Λ ↦→ ˆ U ˆ Λ ˆ U † :”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the fact that Tr( ˆ Λ ave ) = Tr( ˆ Λ) we obtain”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in the Appendix, the Haar-averaged superoperator ˆ Λ ave is U ( D ) -invariant and thus can be expressed as a depolarizing channel”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The exact method for characterizing the noise affecting an implementation is quantum process tomography (QPT) [8].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Nielsen M A, 2000, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By varying over different experimental arrangements and error-correction strategies additional information about the noise can be determined.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our method should be immediately useful for evaluating the degree of control that is achievable in any prototype quantum processing device.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These conditions are satisfied , for instance if the time-dependent dynamics t ↦→ U ( t ) can be modelled by a random walk on the group U ( D ) or by a trajectory on U ( D ) given by a certain deterministic dynamics with strong enough ergodic properties.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Due to the invariance of the Fubini-Study measure the average fidelity depends only on the noise operator and can been expressed in the form [9, 10, 11]”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most importantly, due to the concentration of measure (14), for large D the fidelity loss under iterated motion reversal of a single sequence of random unitary operators will be exponentially close to the Haar-average, and hence the noise strength can be estimated with only a few experimental runs.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The cumulative noise for each U_j, or each step, has the same strength p_j = p.
“we can further simplify this result by assuming that the cumulative noise for each U j has the same strength p j = p”
“As before, we can simplify this result by assuming that the cumulative noise for each step has the same strength ( p j = p )”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The ergodic mean exists and is equal to the Haar average.
“We assume now the following ergodic hypothesis: a) the ergodic mean exists and is equal to the Haar average”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The fluctuations δL(t) around the ergodic mean are normal for long t.
“b) the fluctuations δ ˆ L ( t ) ≡ ˆ L ( t ) -ˆ L ave around ergodic mean are normal, i.e. for long t”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The noise superoperator Λ is independent of the specific target transformation but depends only on the duration of the experiment.
“We have throughout our analysis made the usual assumption that the noise superoperator Λ is independent of the specific target transformation but depends only on the duration of the experiment.”
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?
In the citing paper
“One extremely useful property of Clif n , especially for noise estimation, is that the uniform probability distribution over Clif n comprises a unitary 2-design [17].”
From Characterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking (2012) · cites this paper as [17]
Citations
Cites
Quantum Computation and Quantum Information
Nielsen, M. A., Chuang, I., & Grover, L. K. (2002) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1463744 · Cited by 21,895
Quantum computation and quantum information
Law, J. (2001) · ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · doi:10.1145/505482.505499 · Cited by 20,450
On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups
Lindblad, G. (1976) · Communications in Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1007/bf01608499 · Cited by 7,548
Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N -level systems
Gorini, V., Kossakowski, A., & Sudarshan, E. C. G. (1976) · Journal of Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.522979 · Cited by 3,998
Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems
Viola, L., & Lloyd, S. (1998) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.58.2733 · Cited by 1,617
General teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistillation
Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P., & Horodecki, R. (1999) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.60.1888 · Cited by 965
A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical operation
Nielsen, M. A. (2002) · Physics Letters A · doi:10.1016/s0375-9601(02)01272-0 · Cited by 725
Knill, E., Laflamme, R., & Zurek, W. H. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.279.5349.342 · Cited by 663
Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error
Aharonov, D., & Ben-Or, M. (1997) · Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC '97 · doi:10.1145/258533.258579 · Cited by 631
Environment-Independent Decoherence Rate in Classically Chaotic Systems
Jalabert, R. A., & Pastawski, H. M. (2001) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.86.2490 · Cited by 571
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Alicki R, 1987, Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and their Applications
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 502
Fast Bayesian Tomography of a Two-Qubit Gate Set in Silicon
Evans, T. J., Huang, W., Yoneda, J., Harper, R., Tanttu, T., Chan, K. W., Hudson, F. E., Itoh, K. M., Saraiva, A., Yang, C. H., et al. (2022) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.17.024068 · Cited by 22
Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs: numerical results
Ćwikliński, P., Horodecki, M., Mozrzymas, M., Pankowski, Ł., & Studziński, M. (2013) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8113/46/30/305301 · Cited by 18
Gauge invariant information concerning quantum channels
Rudnicki, Ł., Puchała, Z., & Zyczkowski, K. (2018) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2018-04-11-60 · Cited by 23
Parallel quantum trajectories via forking for sampling without redundancy
Park, D. K., Sinayskiy, I., Fingerhuth, M., Petruccione, F., & Rhee, J.-K. K. (2019) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab35fb · Cited by 21
Factoring semi-primes with (quantum) SAT-solvers
Mosca, M., & Verschoor, S. R. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-11687-7 · Cited by 22
Effective qubit dephasing induced by spectator-qubit relaxation
Jurcevic, P., & Govia, L. C. G. (2022) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac8cad · Cited by 17
Qibolab: an open-source hybrid quantum operating system
Efthymiou, S., Orgaz, Á., Carobene, R., Cereijo, J., Pasquale, A., Ramos-Calderer, S., Bordoni, S., Fuentes-Ruiz, D., Candido, A., Pedicillo, E., et al. (2024) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2024-02-12-1247 · Cited by 24
Crosstalk Attacks and Defence in a Shared Quantum Computing Environment
Harper, B., Tonekaboni, B., Goldozian, B., Sevior, M. E., & Usman, M. (2025) · Advanced Quantum Technologies · doi:10.1002/qute.202500009 · Cited by 28
Carignan-Dugas, A., Alexander, M., & Emerson, J. (2019) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2019-08-12-173 · Cited by 20
Self-citationAveraged Circuit Eigenvalue SamplingPreprint
Flammia, S. T. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.4230/lipics.tqc.2022.4 · Cited by 48
Projected state ensemble of a generic model of many-body quantum chaos
Chan, A., & Luca, A. D. (2024) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad7211 · Cited by 16
Modeling Low- and High-Frequency Noise in Transmon Qubits with Resource-Efficient Measurement
Tripathi, V., Chen, H., Levenson-Falk, E. M., & Lidar, D. A. (2024) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.010320 · Cited by 16
Tight Bounds on Pauli Channel Learning without Entanglement
Chen, S., Oh, C., Zhou, S., Huang, H.-Y., & Jiang, L. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.180805 · Cited by 28
Optically induced spin gates in coupled quantum dots using the electron-hole exchange interaction
Economou, S. E., & Reinecke, T. L. (2008) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.78.115306 · Cited by 16
Quantum reference frames and the classification of rotationally invariant maps
Boileau, J.-C., Sheridan, L., Laforest, M., & Bartlett, S. D. (2008) · Journal of Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.2884583 · Cited by 16
A simple method for sampling random Clifford operators
van den Berg, E. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce52317.2021.00021 · Cited by 22
The Imitation Game: Leveraging CopyCats for Robust Native Gate Selection in NISQ Programs
Das, P., Kessler, E., & Shi, Y. (2023) · IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA) · doi:10.1109/hpca56546.2023.10071025 · Cited by 18
Unraveling the emergence of quantum state designs in systems with symmetry
Varikuti, N. D., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2024) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2024-08-29-1456 · Cited by 23
Benchmarking Quantum Gates and Circuits
Tripathi, V., Kowsari, D., Saurav, K., Zhang, H., Levenson-Falk, E. M., & Lidar, D. A. (2025) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00870 · Cited by 22
Improving Compressed Sensing With the Diamond Norm
Kliesch, M., Kueng, R., Eisert, J., & Gross, D. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.2016.2606500 · Cited by 15
Practical verification protocols for analog quantum simulators
Shaffer, R., Megidish, E., Broz, J., Chen, W.-T., & Häffner, H. (2021) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00380-8 · Cited by 22
Random circuits by measurements on weighted graph states
Plato, A. D. K., Dahlsten, O., & Plenio, M. B. (2008) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.78.042332 · Cited by 16
Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates implemented by electron spin resonance
Park, D. K., Feng, G., Rahimi, R., Baugh, J., & Laflamme, R. (2016) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance · doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2016.04.010 · Cited by 15
Coherence and quantum correlations measure sensitivity to dephasing channels
Yadin, B., Bogaert, P., Susa, C. E., & Girolami, D. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.99.012329 · Cited by 15
López, C. C., Lévi, B., & Cory, D. G. (2009) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.79.042328 · Cited by 15
Direct digital synthesis of microwave waveforms for quantum computingPreprint
Raftery, J. J., Vrajitoarea, A., Zhang, G., Leng, Z., Srinivasan, S. J., & Houck, A. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.00942 · Cited by 23
QPack: Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithms as universal benchmark for quantum computersPreprint
Mesman, K. J., Al-Ars, Z., & Möller, M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.17193 · Cited by 38
On the distribution of the mean energy in the unitary orbit of quantum states
Salvia, R., & Giovannetti, V. (2021) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2021-08-03-514 · Cited by 14
Optimal quantum state tomography with noisy gates
Ivanova-Rohling, V. N., Rohling, N., & Burkard, G. (2023) · EPJ Quantum Technology · doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-023-00181-2 · Cited by 14
Time-Dependent Hamiltonian Reconstruction Using Continuous Weak Measurements
Siva, K., Koolstra, G., Steinmetz, J., Livingston, W. P., Das, D., Chen, L., Kreikebaum, J. M., Stevenson, N. J., Jünger, C., Santiago, D., et al. (2023) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.040324 · Cited by 17
Scalable estimation of pure multi-qubit states
Pereira, L., Zambrano, L., & Delgado, A. (2022) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00565-9 · Cited by 14
Mangini, S., Maccone, L., & Macchiavello, C. (2022) · EPJ Quantum Technology · doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-022-00151-0 · Cited by 16
Benchmarking quantum logic operations relative to thresholds for fault tolerance
Hashim, A., Seritan, S., Proctor, T. J., Rudinger, K., Goss, N., Naik, R., Kreikebaum, J. M., Santiago, D., & Siddiqi, I. A. (2023) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00764-y · Cited by 23
Continuous-Variable Quantum State Designs: Theory and Applications
Iosue, J. T., Sharma, K., Gullans, M. J., & Albert, V. V. (2024) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.011013 · Cited by 26
Self-consistent tomography of temporally correlated errors
Huo, M., & Li, Y. (2021) · Communications in Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1088/1572-9494/abf72f · Cited by 16
Halder, S., Shrikhande, C., & Maitra, R. (2023) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/5.0166433 · Cited by 13
Zero Noise Extrapolation on Logical Qubits by Scaling the Error Correction Code Distance
Wahl, M., Mari, A., Shammah, N., Zeng, W. J., & Ravi, G. S. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00103 · Cited by 21
Efficient Unitary Designs from Random Sums and Permutations
Chen, C.-F., Docter, J., Xu, M., Bouland, A., Brandão, F. G. S. L., & Hayden, P. M. (2024) · Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science · doi:10.1109/focs61266.2024.00037 · Cited by 18
Randomized benchmarking in the analogue setting
Derbyshire, E., Malo, J. Y., Daley, A. J., Kashefi, E., & Wallden, P. (2020) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab7eec · Cited by 15
Practical verification protocols for analog quantum simulators
Shaffer, R., Megidish, E., Broz, J., Chen, W., & Häffner, H. (2021) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 14
Resonance and generation of random states in a quenched Ising model
Mishra, S. K., & Lakshminarayan, A. (2014) · Europhysics Letters (EPL) · doi:10.1209/0295-5075/105/10002 · Cited by 13
Experimental Implementation of Efficient Quantum Pseudorandomness on a 12-Spin System
Li, J., Luo, Z., Xin, T., Wang, H., Kribs, D. W., Lu, D., Zeng, B., & Laflamme, R. (2019) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.030502 · Cited by 17
Explicit construction of exact unitary designs
Bannaĭ, E., Nakata, Y., Okuda, T., & Da, Z. (2022) · Advances in Mathematics · doi:10.1016/j.aim.2022.108457 · Cited by 20
Unitarity Estimation for Quantum Channels
Chen, K., Wang, Q., Long, P., & Ying, M. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.2023.3263645 · Cited by 31
Clifford Group and Unitary Designs under Symmetry
Mitsuhashi, Y., & Yoshioka, N. (2023) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.040331 · Cited by 14
Minimal-Clifford shadow estimation by mutually unbiased bases
Zhang, Q., Liu, Q., & Zhou, Y. (2024) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.21.064001 · Cited by 14
Fully Scalable Randomized Benchmarking Without Motion Reversal
Hines, J., Hothem, D., Blume-Kohout, R., Whaley, B., & Proctor, T. (2024) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.030334 · Cited by 12
Hockings, E. T., Doherty, A. C., & Harper, R. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010334 · Cited by 22
Leveraging randomized compiling for the quantum imaginary-time-evolution algorithm
Ville, J.-L., Morvan, A., Hashim, A., Naik, R., Lu, M., Mitchell, B., Kreikebaum, J. M., O’Brien, K. P., Wallman, J. J., Hincks, I., et al. (2022) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.033140 · Cited by 30
Self-citationA random-walk benchmark for single-electron circuits
Reifert, D., Kokainis, M., Ambainis, A., Kashcheyevs, V., & Ubbelohde, N. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20554-w · Cited by 13
Operational, gauge-free quantum tomography
Matteo, O. D., Gamble, J. K., Granade, C., Rudinger, K., & Wiebe, N. (2020) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2020-11-17-364 · Cited by 14
Limits to Quantum Gate Fidelity from Near-Field Thermal and Vacuum Fluctuations
Sun, W., Bharadwaj, S., Yang, L., Hsueh, Y., Wang, Y., Jiao, D., Rahman, R., & Jacob, Z. (2023) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.19.064038 · Cited by 11
Multiaxis quantum noise spectroscopy robust to errors in state preparation and measurement
Khan, M. Q., Dong, W., Norris, L., & Viola, L. (2024) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.22.024074 · Cited by 16
Experimental demonstration of a high-fidelity virtual two-qubit gate
Singh, A. P., Mitarai, K., Suzuki, Y., Heya, K., Tabuchi, Y., Fujii, K., & Nakamura, Y. (2024) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.013235 · Cited by 18
Cao, S., Lall, D., Bakr, M. S., Campanaro, G., Fasciati, S. D., Wills, J., Chidambaram, V., Shteynas, B., Rungger, I., & Leek, P. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.120802 · Cited by 14
Hardware-Efficient Microwave-Activated Tunable Coupling Between Superconducting Qubits
Mitchell, B., Naik, R., Morvan, A., Hashim, A., Kreikebaum, J. M., Marinelli, B., Lavrijsen, W., Nowrouzi, K., Santiago, D., & Siddiqi, I. A. (2021) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 11
Comparing the randomized benchmarking figure with the average infidelity of a quantum gate-set
Qi, J., & Ng, H. K. (2019) · International Journal of Quantum Information · doi:10.1142/s021974991950031x · Cited by 14
Recycling qubits in near-term quantum computers
Anikeeva, G., Kim, I. H., & Hayden, P. M. (2021) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.103.042613 · Cited by 12
Norms and Cones in the Theory of Quantum EntanglementPreprint
Johnston, N. (2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1207.1479 · Cited by 13
Symmetric Clifford twirling for cost-optimal quantum error mitigation in early FTQC regime
Tsubouchi, K., Mitsuhashi, Y., Sharma, K., & Yoshioka, N. (2025) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01050-9 · Cited by 11
Emergence of noise-induced barren plateaus in arbitrary layered noise models
Schumann, M., Wilhelm, F. K., & Ciani, A. (2024) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad6285 · Cited by 11
Error budget of a parametric resonance entangling gate with a tunable coupler
Sete, E. A., Tripathi, V., Valery, J. A., Lidar, D. A., & Mutus, J. (2024) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.22.014059 · Cited by 10
Escofet, P., Rodrigo, S., García-Sáez, A., Alarcón, E., Abadal, S., & Almudéver, C. G. (2025) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aded2f · Cited by 12
Shaffer, R., Ren, H., Dyrenkova, E., Yale, C. G., Lobser, D., Burch, A. D., Chow, M. N. H., Revelle, M., Clark, S., & Häffner, H. (2023) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2023-05-04-997 · Cited by 13
Towards a general framework of Randomized Benchmarking incorporating non-Markovian Noise
Figueroa–Romero, P., Modi, K. K., & Hsieh, M.-H. (2022) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2022-12-01-868 · Cited by 17
Randomized Benchmarking of Clifford OperatorsPreprint
Meier, A. M. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.10040 · Cited by 17
An introduction into optimal control for quantum technologiesPreprint
Wilhelm, F. K., Kirchhoff, S., Machnes, S., Wittler, N., & Sugny, D. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.10132 · Cited by 32
Benchmarking quantum computers: towards a standard performance evaluation approach
Acuaviva, A., Aguirre, D., Peña, R., & Sanz, M. (2026) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae4269 · Cited by 24
Unitary Designs of Symmetric Local Random Circuits
Mitsuhashi, Y., Suzuki, R., Soejima, T., & Yoshioka, N. (2025) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.180404 · Cited by 12
Measuring the Capabilities of Quantum Computers
Proctor, T. J., Rudinger, K., Nielsen, E., Young, K. C., & Blume-Kohout, R. (2021) · OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5197499 · Cited by 12
Operational Markovianization in randomized benchmarking
Figueroa–Romero, P., Papič, M., Auer, A., Hsieh, M.-H., Modi, K. K., & de Vega, I. (2024) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad3f44 · Cited by 11
High-fidelity gate operations for quantum computing beyond dephasing time limits
Souza, A. M., Sarthour, R. S., Oliveira, I. S., & Suter, D. (2015) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.92.062332 · Cited by 9
Kerdock Codes Determine Unitary 2-Designs
Can, T., Rengaswamy, N., Calderbank, R., & Pfister, H. D. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.2020.3015683 · Cited by 10
Sreeram, P. G., Varikuti, N. D., & Madhok, V. (2021) · Physics Letters A · doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2021.127257 · Cited by 9
Semi-device-dependent blind quantum tomography
Roth, I., Wilkens, J., Hangleiter, D., & Eisert, J. (2023) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2023-07-11-1053 · Cited by 10
Benchmarking Bosonic Modes for Quantum Information with Randomized Displacements
Valahu, C. H., Navickas, T., Biercuk, M. J., & Tan, T. R. (2024) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.040337 · Cited by 12
Approximate t -Designs in Generic Circuit Architectures
Belkin, D., Allen, J., Ghosh, S., Kang, C., Lin, S. F., Sud, J., Chong, F. T., Fefferman, B., & Clark, B. K. (2024) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.040344 · Cited by 8
Learning and forecasting open quantum dynamics with correlated noise
Zhang, X., Wu, Z., White, G. A. L., Xiang, Z., Hu, S., Peng, Z., Liu, Y., Zheng, D., Fu, X., Huang, A., et al. (2025) · Communications Physics · doi:10.1038/s42005-025-01944-2 · Cited by 15
Designs from Magic-Augmented Clifford Circuits
Zhang, Y., Vijay, S., Gu, Y., & Bao, Y. (2026) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/myrb-nyhf · Cited by 8
Guo, L.-J., Xu, H. L., Fang, Z.-Y., Chen, T., Wei, K., & Zhang, C. (2023) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.107.012604 · Cited by 8
Exploring Quantum Average-Case Distances: Proofs, Properties, and Examples
Maciejewski, F. B., Puchała, Z., & Oszmaniec, M. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.2023.3250100 · Cited by 11
Charge-parity switching effects and optimisation of transmon-qubit design parameters
Papič, M., Tuorila, J., Auer, A., de Vega, I., & Hosseinkhani, A. (2024) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00860-7 · Cited by 8
Characterization of randomness in quantum circuits of continuous gate sets
Mitsuhashi, Y., Suzuki, R., Soejima, T., & Yoshioka, N. (2025) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.111.052409 · Cited by 10
Scalable Evaluation of Quantum-Circuit Error Loss Using Clifford Sampling
Wang, Z., Chen, Y., Song, Z., Qin, D., Li, H., Guo, Q., Wang, H., Song, C., & Li, Y. (2021) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.080501 · Cited by 9
A random-walk benchmark for single-electron circuits
Reifert, D., Kokainis, M., Ambainis, A., Kashcheyevs, V., & Ubbelohde, N. (2021) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 8
Zhang, Z., Long, X., Zhao, X., Lin, Z., Tang, K., Liu, H., Yang, X., Nie, X., Wu, J., Li, J., et al. (2022) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.105.l030402 · Cited by 8
Benchmarking quantum error-correcting codes on quasi-linear and central-spin processors
Finsterhoelzl, R., & Burkard, G. (2022) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aca21f · Cited by 8
Measuring qubit stability in a gate-based NISQ hardware processor
Aydeniz, K. Y., Parks, Z. P., Nair, A., Gustafson, E., Kemper, A. F., Pooser, R. C., Meurice, Y., & Dreher, P. (2023) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-023-03826-4 · Cited by 12
Operational Quantum Average-Case Distances
Maciejewski, F. B., Puchała, Z., & Oszmaniec, M. (2023) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2023-09-11-1106 · Cited by 10
Partial standard quantum process tomography
Wu, X., & Xu, K. (2012) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-012-0473-9 · Cited by 8
Group twirling and noise tailoring for multiqubit controlled phase gates
Liu, G., Xie, Z., Xu, Z., & Ma, X. (2024) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.043221 · Cited by 7
Projective toric designs, quantum state designs, and mutually unbiased bases
Iosue, J. T., Mooney, T. C., Ehrenberg, A., & Gorshkov, A. V. (2024) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2024-12-03-1546 · Cited by 13
Randomized Benchmarking beyond Groups
Chen, J., Ding, D., & Huang, C. (2022) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.030320 · Cited by 11
Linear cross-entropy benchmarking with Clifford circuits
Chen, J., Ding, D., Huang, C., & Kong, L. (2023) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.108.052613 · Cited by 13
Randomised benchmarking for universal qudit gates
Amaro-Alcalá, D., Sanders, B. C., & de Guise, H. (2024) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ad6635 · Cited by 8
Learning to rank quantum circuits for hardware-optimized performance enhancement
Hartnett, G. S., Barbosa, A., Mundada, P., Hush, M., Biercuk, M. J., & Baum, Y. (2024) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2024-11-27-1542 · Cited by 12
qprof: A gprof-Inspired Quantum Profiler
Suau, A., Staffelbach, G., & Todri‐Sanial, A. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing · doi:10.1145/3529398 · Cited by 9
Fast high-fidelity geometric gates for singlet-triplet qubits
Chen, M., Zhang, C., & Xue, Z. (2022) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.105.022620 · Cited by 6
Learning a quantum channel from its steady-state
Ilin, Y., & Arad, I. (2024) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ad5464 · Cited by 11
Impact of Unreliable Devices on Stability of Quantum Computations
Dasgupta, S., & Humble, T. S. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing · doi:10.1145/3682071 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Emerson, J., Alicki, R., & Życzkowski, K.
- Affiliations
- Perimeter Institute (CA)
- University of Gdańsk (PL)
- Jagiellonian University (PL)
- Venue
- Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2005-09-21
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- S347-S352
- ISSN
- 1464-4266 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3575
- OpenAlex
- W2148118219
- Cited by
- 502
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 5.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Journal of Optics B Quantum and Semiclassical Optics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
- CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Keywords
- noise estimation, average gate fidelity, quantum process tomography, quantum control, non-unitary dynamics, superoperators, fidelity loss, error correction, scalable quantum devices
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
