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 301–400 of 502
Detecting Qubit-coupling Faults in Ion-trap Quantum Computers
Maksymov, A., Nguyen, J., Chaplin, V. L., Nam, Y., & Markov, I. L. (2022) · IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA) · doi:10.1109/hpca53966.2022.00036 · Cited by 8
Gaining Information About a Quantum Channel Via Twirling
Magesan, E. (2008) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 8
Wildcard error: Quantifying unmodeled errors in quantum processorsPreprint
Blume-Kohout, R., Rudinger, K., Nielsen, E., Proctor, T. J., & Young, K. C. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.12231 · Cited by 12
Characterization, Verification and Control for Large Quantum Systems
Granade, C. (2015) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 7
Calibrating quantum gates up to 52 qubits in a superconducting processor
Fan, D., Liu, G., Li, S., Gong, M., Wu, D., Zhang, Y., Zha, C., Chen, F., Cao, S., Ye, Y., et al. (2025) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00983-5 · Cited by 9
Application of zero-noise-extrapolation-based quantum error mitigation to a silicon spin qubit
Sohn, H., Jung, J., Park, J., Jang, H., Stehouwer, L. E. A., Esposti, D. D., Scappucci, G., & Kim, D. (2025) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/925y-b4s1 · Cited by 6
Efficient Self-Consistent Learning of Gate Set Pauli Noise
Chen, S., Zhang, Z., Jiang, L., & Flammia, S. T. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/1pnv-t9px · Cited by 22
On the learnability of quantum state fidelity
Amer, N. E., Gomaa, W. E., Kimura, K. R., Ueda, K., & El-Mahdy, A. (2022) · EPJ Quantum Technology · doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-022-00149-8 · Cited by 6
Analyzing and Unifying Robustness Measures for Excitation Transfer Control in Spin Networks
O’Neil, S. P., Khalid, I., Rompokos, A. A., Weidner, C. A., Langbein, F. C., Schirmer, S. G., & JONCKHEERE, E. A. (2023) · IEEE Control Systems Letters · doi:10.1109/lcsys.2023.3279797 · Cited by 6
Automatic Test Pattern Generation for Robust Quantum Circuit Testing
Chen, K., & Ying, M. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems · doi:10.1145/3689333 · Cited by 7
Quantum circuit for three-qubit random states
Giraud, O., Žnidarič, M., & Georgeot, B. (2009) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.80.042309 · Cited by 6
Quantum noise generated by local random Hamiltonians
Markiewicz, M., Puchała, Z., de Rosier, A., Laskowski, W., & Życzkowski, K. (2017) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.95.032333 · Cited by 6
Self-citationRegularized maximum pure-state input-output fidelity of a quantum channel
Ernst, M., & Klesse, R. (2017) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.96.062319 · Cited by 6
Classically efficient quantum scalable Fermi-Hubbard benchmark
Gard, B., & Meier, A. M. (2022) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.105.042602 · Cited by 8
Tunable strong coupling between a transmon and a magnon
Zhang, F., He, S.-W., Liu, T., Wu, Q., & Yang, C. (2024) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.109.022442 · Cited by 10
Depolarizing behavior of quantum channels in higher dimensions
Magesan, E. (2011) · Quantum Information and Computation · doi:10.26421/qic11.5-6-8 · Cited by 10
No-go theorem for iterations of unknown quantum gates
Soleimanifar, M., & Karimipour, V. (2016) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.93.012344 · Cited by 6
Modeling Quantum Devices and the Reconstruction of Physics in Practical Systems
Ren, H., & Li, Y. (2019) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.140405 · Cited by 6
Chen, S., Yu, W., Zeng, P., & Flammia, S. T. (2021) · University of Chicago · doi:10.6082/cbqhv-2k196 · Cited by 14
Qubit Assignment Using Time Reversal
Peters, E., Shyamsundar, P., Li, A. C. Y., & Perdue, G. (2022) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.040333 · Cited by 8
Open System Model for Quantum Dynamical Maps with Classical Noise and Corresponding Master Equations
Kropf, C. M., Shatokhin, V. N., & Buchleitner, A. (2017) · Open Systems & Information Dynamics · doi:10.1142/s1230161217400121 · Cited by 8
Practical Quantum Computing: The value of local computationPreprint
Cruise, J. R., Gillespie, N. I., & Reid, B. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.08513 · Cited by 12
Measuring error rates of mid-circuit measurements
Hothem, D., Hines, J., Baldwin, C., Gresh, D., Blume-Kohout, R., & Proctor, T. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-60923-x · Cited by 5
Hands-on introduction to randomized benchmarking
Silva, A., & Greplová, E. (2025) · SciPost Physics Lecture Notes · doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.97 · Cited by 5
Jin, X. Y., Parrott, Z., Cicak, K., Kotler, S., Lecocq, F., Teufel, J., Aumentado, J., Kapit, E., & Simmonds, R. W. (2025) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/kmls-lgp5 · Cited by 13
Construction and volumetric benchmarking of quantum computing noise models
Weber, T., Borras, K., Jansen, K., Krücker, D., & Riebisch, M. (2024) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ad406c · Cited by 8
Extending the Q-Score to an Application-Level Quantum Metric Framework
van der Schoot, W., Wezeman, R. S., Neumann, N. M. P., Phillipson, F., & Kooij, R. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce60285.2024.00113 · Cited by 17
Characterization of coherent errors in gate layers with robustness to Pauli noise
Kaufmann, N., Rojkov, I., & Reiter, F. (2025) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.23.034014 · Cited by 9
A Theory of Direct Randomized Benchmarking
Polloreno, A., Carignan-Dugas, A., Hines, J., Blume-Kohout, R., Young, K. C., & Proctor, T. J. (2025) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2025-09-05-1848 · Cited by 15
Disti-Mator, an entanglement distillation-based state estimator
Casapao, J. C. A., Maity, A. G., Benchasattabuse, N., Hajdušek, M., Meter, R. V., & Elkouss, D. (2025) · Communications Physics · doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02352-2 · Cited by 8
Process tomography for systems in a thermal state
Ber, R., Marcovitch, S., Kenneth, O., & Reznik, B. (2013) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/1/013050 · Cited by 5
Benchmarking quantum processors with a single qubit
Göktaş, O., Tham, W. K., Bonsma-Fisher, K., & Brodutch, A. (2020) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-020-02642-4 · Cited by 6
Self-consistent quantum tomography with regularization
Sugiyama, T., Imori, S., & Tanaka, F. (2021) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.103.062615 · Cited by 7
Shadow estimation of gate-set properties from random sequences
Helsen, J., Ioannou, M., Kitzinger, J., Onorati, E., Werner, A. H., Eisert, J., & Roth, I. (2023) · Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) · doi:10.17169/refubium-40372 · Cited by 18
Scalable fast benchmarking for individual quantum gates with local twirling
Zhang, Y., Yu, W., Zeng, P., Liu, G., & Ma, X. (2022) · Photonics Research · doi:10.1364/prj.473970 · Cited by 6
Saraceno, M., Ermann, L., & Cormick, C. (2017) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.95.032102 · Cited by 5
Emergence of a fluctuation relation for heat in nonequilibrium Landauer processes
Taranto, P., Modi, K. K., & Pollock, F. A. (2018) · Physical review. E · doi:10.1103/physreve.97.052111 · Cited by 8
Predicting Features of Quantum Systems from Very Few MeasurementsPreprint
Huang, H.-Y., & Kueng, R. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.08909 · Cited by 10
Exploring a Double Full-Stack Communications-Enabled Architecture for Multi-Core Quantum ComputersPreprint
Rodrigo, S., Abadal, S., Alarcón, E., & Almudéver, C. G. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.08186 · Cited by 9
AppQSim: Application-oriented benchmarks for Hamiltonian simulation on a quantum computer
Granet, E., & Dreyer, H. (2025) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/qt55-7d6r · Cited by 9
Dynamical quantum maps for single-qubit gates under universal non-Markovian noise
Velázquez, J. M. S., Steiner, A., Freund, R., Guevara-Bertsch, M., Marciniak, C. D., Monz, T., & Bermúdez, A. (2025) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.013008 · Cited by 8
Accurate and Honest Approximation of Correlated Qubit Noise
Setiawan, F., Gramolin, A. V., Matekole, E. S., Krovi, H., & Taylor, J. M. (2025) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2025-04-09-1701 · Cited by 5
Multiqubit parity gates for Rydberg atoms in various configurations
Kazemi, J., Schuler, M., Ertler, C., & Lechner, W. (2025) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/56qk-rmsz · Cited by 7
Nonstabilizerness and Error Resilience in Noisy Quantum Circuits
Trigueros, F. B., & Guzmán, J. A. M. (2026) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/cbjz-x45n · Cited by 4
Estimating the Bias of CX Gates via Character Randomized Benchmarking
Claes, J., & Puri, S. (2023) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.010307 · Cited by 4
MIRAGE: Quantum Circuit Decomposition and Routing Collaborative Design Using Mirror Gates
McKinney, E., Hatridge, M., & Jones, A. K. (2024) · IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA) · doi:10.1109/hpca57654.2024.00060 · Cited by 8
Experimental computations of atomic properties on a superconducting quantum processor
Singh, A. P., Sugisaki, K., Prasannaa, V. S., Sahoo, B. K., Das, B. P., & Nakamura, Y. (2024) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.110.062620 · Cited by 4
Optimal adaptation of surface-code decoders to local noise
Darmawan, A. S. (2025) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/r2dc-qcrx · Cited by 4
Experimentally efficient methods for estimating the performance of quantum measurements
Magesan, E., & Cappellaro, P. (2013) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.88.022127 · Cited by 4
Coherent randomized benchmarking
Miguel-Ramiro, J., Pirker, A., & Dür, W. (2021) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033038 · Cited by 4
Testing quantum computers with the protocol of quantum state matching
Ortega, A., Kálmán, O., & Kiss, T. (2023) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/acb2ff · Cited by 5
Methods for classically simulating noisy networked quantum architectures
Vankov, I., Mills, D., Wallden, P., & Kashefi, E. (2019) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab54a4 · Cited by 4
Designer pulses for better qubit gate operations
Emerson, J. (2019) · Nature Electronics · doi:10.1038/s41928-019-0238-x · Cited by 4
Self-citationFlammia, S. T. (2020) · Physics · doi:10.1103/physics.13.3 · Cited by 4
Augmented fidelities for single-qubit gates
Wudarski, F., Marshall, J., Petukhov, A. G., & Rieffel, E. G. (2020) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.102.052612 · Cited by 4
Combining T1 and T2 estimation with randomized benchmarking and bounding the diamond distance
Dawkins, H., Wallman, J. J., & Emerson, J. (2020) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.102.022220 · Cited by 4
Self-citationLightweight Detection of a Small Number of Large Errors in a Quantum Circuit
Linden, N., & de Wolf, R. (2021) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2021-04-20-436 · Cited by 4
Statistical Properties of Bit Strings Sampled from Sycamore Random Quantum Circuits
Oh, S., & Kais, S. (2022) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c02045 · Cited by 4
Quantum Polarization of Qudit Channels
Goswami, A., Mhalla, M., & Savin, V. (2021) · IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) · doi:10.1109/isit45174.2021.9517845 · Cited by 4
Sampling and the complexity of naturePreprint
Hangleiter, D. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.17169/refubium-28790 · Cited by 8
Towards ultra-high fidelity quantum operations: SQiSW gate as a native two-qubit gatePreprint
Huang, C., Ding, D., Wu, F., Kong, L., Zhang, F., Ni, X., Shi, Y., Zhao, H., & Chen, J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 4
Error Mitigation Thresholds in Noisy Quantum CircuitsPreprint
Niroula, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Gullans, M. J. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2702892/v1 · Cited by 4
Randomized Measurements for Multiparameter Quantum Metrology
Zhou, S., & Chen, S. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/s27y-gbrp · Cited by 12
Compressed-sensing Lindbladian quantum tomography with trapped ions
Dobrynin, D., Cardarelli, L., Müller, M., & Bermúdez, A. (2025) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae0363 · Cited by 15
Computational Complexity of Unitary and State Design Properties
Nakata, Y., Takeuchi, Y., Kliesch, M., & Darmawan, A. S. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/21vm-bz3t · Cited by 5
Scalable Quantum Processor Based on Superconducting Fluxonium Qubits
Mazhorin, G. S., Kazmina, A. S., Chudakova, T. A., Simakov, I. A., Maleeva, N., Moskalenko, I. N., & Ryazanov, V. V. (2024) · Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics · doi:10.1007/s11141-024-10341-8 · Cited by 3
Error mitigation thresholds in noisy random quantum circuits
Niroula, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Gullans, M. J. (2025) · Physical review. B./Physical review. B · doi:10.1103/qsmz-9kkh · Cited by 16
Quantum noise modeling through reinforcement learning
Bordoni, S., Papaluca, A., Buttarini, P., Sopena, A., Giagu, S., & Carrazza, S. (2025) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae1e98 · Cited by 7
Resource-Efficient Cross-Platform Verification with Modular Superconducting Devices
Dalton, K., Knörzer, J., Hoehne, F., Song, Y., Flasby, A., Zanuz, D. C., Panah, M. B., Besedin, I. S., Besse, J.-C., & Wallraff, A. J. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/czph-xpzs · Cited by 5
Quantum computation with machine-learning-controlled quantum stuff
Hardy, L., & Lewis, A. G. M. (2020) · Machine Learning Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2632-2153/abb215 · Cited by 2
Study of Tangle on the Three Qubit Werner States by Using of Twirl Operation
Jafarizadeh, M. A., Heshmati, A., Karimi, N., & Mohamadzadeh, A. (2020) · International Journal of Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1007/s10773-020-04387-3 · Cited by 3
Reconfiguring quantum error-correcting codes for real-life errors
Ahsan, M., & Naqvi, S. A. Z. (2020) · Journal of Physics D Applied Physics · doi:10.1088/1361-6463/ab96eb · Cited by 3
Matrix concentration inequalities and efficiency of random universal sets of quantum gates
Dulian, P., & Sawicki, A. (2023) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2023-04-20-983 · Cited by 3
Cross-Platform Testing of Quantum Computing Platforms
Paltenghi, M. (2022) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse-companion55297.2022.9793819 · Cited by 6
Measurement-based interleaved randomised benchmarking using IBM processors
Strydom, C., & Tame, M. (2023) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/acb298 · Cited by 3
Scalable Full-Stack Benchmarks for Quantum Computers
Hines, J., & Proctor, T. J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering · doi:10.1109/tqe.2024.3404502 · Cited by 12
Noise-aware circuit compilations for a continuously parameterized two-qubit gateset
Yale, C. G., Rines, R., Omole, V., Thotakura, B., Burch, A. D., Chow, M. N. H., Ivory, M., Lobser, D., McFarland, B., Revelle, M., et al. (2025) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/3cmg-5rk7 · Cited by 6
Echo-evolution data generation for quantum error mitigation via neural networks
Валерьевич, Б. Д. (2024) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-024-04603-7 · Cited by 4
Quantum coding with finite thermodynamic resources
Xuereb, J., Debarba, T., Huber, M., & Erker, P. (2025) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/adb0e9 · Cited by 3
Fidelity decay and error accumulation in random quantum circuits
de Buruaga, N. S. S., Bistroń, R., Rudziński, M., Pereira, R. M. C., Życzkowski, K., & Ribeiro, P. (2025) · SciPost Physics · doi:10.21468/scipostphys.19.1.013 · Cited by 8
Self-citationSymmetrization methods for characterization and benchmarking of quantum processes
Emerson, J. (2008) · Canadian Journal of Physics · doi:10.1139/p07-192 · Cited by 3
Self-citationStenberg, M. P. V., & Wilhelm, F. K. (2016) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.94.052119 · Cited by 3
User-specified random sampling of quantum channels and its applications
Sim, J. Y., Suzuki, J., Englert, B., & Ng, H. K. (2020) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.101.022307 · Cited by 3
Characterization and Control in Large Hilbert spaces.
Ryan, C. A. (2008) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 4
Modelling and Simulating the Noisy Behaviour of Near-term Quantum ComputersPreprint
Γεωργόπουλος, Κ., Emary, C., & Zuliani, P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.02109 · Cited by 3
Tight bounds on the convergence of noisy random circuits to uniform.Preprint
Deshpande, A., Fefferman, B., Gorshkov, A. V., Gullans, M. J., Niroula, P., & Shtanko, O. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 3
Quantum Computing: Predictions and Challenges
Kulik, S. P. (2023) · Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute · doi:10.3103/s1068335623602273 · Cited by 2
Characterizing Physical and Logical Errors in a Transversal CNOT Gate via Cycle Error Reconstruction
Fazio, N., Freund, R., Sannamoth, D., Steiner, A., Marciniak, C. D., Rispler, M., Harper, R., Monz, T., Emerson, J., & Bartlett, S. D. (2025) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/qfwc-584t · Cited by 2
Self-citation22.2 A 16-Channel Low-Power Cryo-CMOS Flux Control Pulse Generator ASIC in 14nm FinFET Technology
Tien, K., Frank, D. J., Bulzacchelli, J. F., Rosno, P., Moertl, D., Timmerwilke, J., Noori, A., Underwood, D., Inoue, K., Ray, S., et al. (2026) · Digest of technical papers/Digest of technical papers - IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference · doi:10.1109/isscc49663.2026.11409194 · Cited by 2
Why Oracle-Based Quantum Search Cannot Use Deep Loops: Physical Limits on Sequential Operations
(18461), Y. L. (2026) · Journal of Quantum Information Science · doi:10.4236/jqis.2026.161003 · Cited by 2
Estimating average fidelity error based on local random quantum circuits
Linxi, Z., Chen, N., Zhu, C., & Pei, C. (2019) · Europhysics Letters (EPL) · doi:10.1209/0295-5075/125/40002 · Cited by 2
Nowak, W., Brünnette, T., Schalkers, M. A., & Möller, M. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing · doi:10.1145/3688857 · Cited by 2
Frisch, A., Erhard, A., Feldker, T., Girtler, F., Hettrich, M., Huss, W., Jacob, G., Maier, C., Mayramhof, G., Nigg, D., et al. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64136-7_10 · Cited by 2
Counting collisions in random circuit sampling for benchmarking quantum computers
Mari, A. (2024) · APL Quantum · doi:10.1063/5.0219266 · Cited by 2
Benchmarking the performance of a high-Q cavity qudit using random unitaries
Bornman, N., Roy, T., Job, J., Anand, N., Perdue, G., Zorzetti, S., & Alam, M. S. (2025) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/adc47c · Cited by 4
Bosonic Randomized Benchmarking with Passive Transformations
Arienzo, M., Grinko, D., Kliesch, M., & Heinrich, M. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.020305 · Cited by 9
Classical certification of quantum gates under the dimension assumption
Nöller, J., Miklin, N., Kliesch, M., & Gachechiladze, M. (2025) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2025-08-08-1825 · Cited by 6
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Noise tailoring for quantum circuits via unitary 2t-design
Linxi, Z., Yu, Y., Zhu, C., & Pei, C. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-38158-2 · Cited by 2
RetractedCertification of continuous-variable gates using average channel-fidelity witnesses
Farias, R. M. S., & Aolita, L. (2021) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac051a · Cited by 3
Cross-platform testing of quantum computing platforms
Paltenghi, M. (2022) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1145/3510454.3517061 · Cited by 2
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
