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 401–500 of 502
A user-centric quantum benchmarking test suite and evaluation framework
Liu, W., Wang, F., Lin, H., & Shang, J. (2023) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-023-04154-3 · Cited by 2
An Energy Estimation Benchmark for Quantum Computing Hardware
Woitzik, A. J. C., Hoffmann, L., Buchleitner, A., & Carnio, E. G. (2024) · Open Systems & Information Dynamics · doi:10.1142/s1230161224500069 · Cited by 4
Macroscopic instructions vs microscopic operations in quantum circuits
Veitia, A., Silva, M. P. D., Blume-Kohout, R., & van Enk, S. J. (2019) · Physics Letters A · doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2019.126131 · Cited by 5
Characterizing Noise in Quantum Systems
Magesan, E. (2012) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 4
Characterizing Errors in Quantum Information Processors
Sanders, Y. R. (2016) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 2
Quantum control for time-dependent noise
Kabytayev, C. (2015) · SMARTech Repository (Georgia Institute of Technology) · Cited by 2
Measuring NISQ Gate-Based Qubit Stability Using a 1+1 Field Theory and Cycle BenchmarkingPreprint
Aydeniz, K. Y., Parks, Z. P., Nair, A., Gustafson, E., Kemper, A. F., Pooser, R. C., Meurice, Y., & Dreher, P. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.02899 · Cited by 2
Partial randomized benchmarking
Dubovitskii, K., & Makhlin, Y. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-13813-x · Cited by 1
Towards experimental classical verification of quantum computation
Stricker, R., Carrasco, J., Ringbauer, M., Postler, L., Meth, M., Edmunds, C., Schindler, P., Blatt, R., Zoller, P., Kraus, B., et al. (2024) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad2986 · Cited by 4
Multipass quantum process tomography
Stanchev, S. G., & Vitanov, N. V. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-68353-3 · Cited by 1
Experimental measurement and a physical interpretation of quantum shadow enumerators
Miller, D., Levi, K., Postler, L., Steiner, A., Bittel, L., White, G. A. L., Tang, Y., Kuehnke, E. J., Mele, A. A., Khatri, S., et al. (2026) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/8h3b-brg1 · Cited by 12
Protecting entanglement witnesses with randomized measurements
Qiu, J.-T., Jiang, W.-J., & Yu, X. (2025) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.111.042402 · Cited by 2
Symmetric Channel Verification for Purifying Noisy Quantum Channels
Tsubouchi, K., Mitsuhashi, Y., Takagi, R., & Yoshioka, N. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/jcd6-lft3 · Cited by 5
Fidelity relations in an array of neutral atom qubits: Experimental validation of control noise
van Rensburg, D. J., de Keijzer, R., Venderbosch, R., van der Werf, Y., Mellado, J. D. P., Lous, R. S., Vredenbregt, E. J. D., & Kokkelmans, S. J. J. M. F. (2025) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/66zh-yt9d · Cited by 2
Generating pseudo-random unitaries with a Floquet driven chaotic quantum system
Quillen, A. C., & Miakhel, A. S. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/bjpv-jwx6 · Cited by 2
A High-Power, Low-Noise, Ultraviolet Laser System for Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing
Tobey, R. I., Lee, K. W., Hankin, A. M., Gresh, D., Francois, D., Bohnet, J., Hayes, D., & Bohn, M. J. (2020) · Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics · doi:10.1364/cleo_at.2020.af3k.3 · Cited by 2
Perturbative tomography of small errors in quantum gates
Yang, R., & Li, Y. (2021) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.103.032421 · Cited by 1
Dual-map framework for noise characterization of quantum computers
Sud, J., Marshall, J., Wang, Z., Rieffel, E. G., & Wudarski, F. (2022) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.106.012606 · Cited by 1
Spectral-Transfer-Tensor Method for Characterizing Non-Markovian Noise
Chen, Y., Zheng, Y.-C., Zhang, S., & Hsieh, C. (2022) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.17.064007 · Cited by 2
Quantum search by continuous-time quantum walk on t-designs
Lugão, P. H. G., & Portugal, R. (2024) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-024-04355-4 · Cited by 1
Witnessing entanglement in trapped-ion quantum error correction under realistic noise
Blanco, A., Shähandeh, F., & Bermúdez, A. (2024) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.109.052417 · Cited by 4
Calibration of syndrome measurements in a single experiment
Wimmer, C. L., Szangolies, J., & Epping, M. (2024) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ad9828 · Cited by 1
Microscopic parametrizations for gate set tomography under coloured noise
Viñas, P., & Bermúdez, A. (2025) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00976-4 · Cited by 5
Coarse-grained quantum state tomography with optimal POVM construction
Jung, D., Cho, Y., Kim, Y., & Lee, J. (2025) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.023224 · Cited by 1
Speckle statistics of entangled photons
Klein, A., Agam, O., & Spivak, B. Z. (2016) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.94.013828 · Cited by 2
Average fidelity estimation of twirled noisy quantum channel using unitary 2 t -design
Linxi, Z., Zhu, C., & Pei, C. (2019) · Chinese Physics B · doi:10.1088/1674-1056/28/1/010304 · Cited by 1
Certification of a functionality in a quantum network stage
Lipińska, V., Le, T. P., Ribeiro, J., & Wehner, S. (2020) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab8c51 · Cited by 3
Approximate unitary 3-designs from transvection Markov chains
Tan, X., Rengaswamy, N., & Calderbank, R. (2022) · Designs Codes and Cryptography · doi:10.1007/s10623-021-01000-4 · Cited by 1
Certification of a functionality in a quantum network stage
Lipińska, V., Thinh, L. P., Ribeiro, J., & Wehner, S. (2020) · Institutional Repository of Leibniz Universität Hannover (Leibniz Universität Hannover) · doi:10.15488/16429 · Cited by 1
Quantum state tomography as a numerical optimization problem
Ivanova-Rohling, V. N., Burkard, G., & Rohling, N. (2021) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac3c0e · Cited by 1
On single-crystal solid-state NMR based quantum information processing.
Moussa, O. (2010) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 1
Extensions of Randomized Benchmarking
Barnhill, M. (2015) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 1
Coherent control of nuclear and electron spins for quantum information processing
Park, K. (2015) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 1
Optimized fermionic SWAP networks with equivalent circuit averaging for QAOAPreprint
Hashim, A., Rines, R., Omole, V., Naik, R., Kreikebaum, J. M., Santiago, D., Chong, F. T., Siddiqi, I. A., & Gokhale, P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.04572 · Cited by 1
Singal, T., & Hsieh, M.-H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.13678 · Cited by 2
The Vector representation of the Standard Quantum Process TomographyPreprint
Xiaohua, W. (2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1212.0105
Nuevos algoritmos cuánticos para tomografía de procesos y estados
Bendersky, A. (2011) · Repositorio Digital Institucional de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (Universidad de Buenos Aires)
Ancilla Assisted Quantum Information Processing: General protocols and NMR implementationsPreprint
Shukla, A. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1601.00234
A Protocol to Estimate the Average Fidelity of the Space-Separated Bipartite System
黄, L. 龙. H., & 吴, X.-H. 小. W. (2015) · Communications in Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1088/0253-6102/64/3/274
Cumulative effects in quantum algorithms and quantum process tomography
Kimmel, S. (2014) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Topics in Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation
Dawkins, H. (2017) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo)
Efficiently estimating average fidelity of a quantum logic gate using few classical random bitsPreprint
Nema, A., & Sen, P. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.07481
Bayesian ACRONYM TuningPreprint
Gamble, J. K., Granade, C., & Wiebe, N. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05940
Characterizing large-scale quantum devices
Wallman, J. J., & Emerson, J. (2019) · Quantum Information and Measurement (QIM) · doi:10.1364/qim.2019.s3b.2
Self-citationViewpoint: Quantum Computer Crosscheck
Flammia, S. T. (2020)
Simulated randomized benchmarking of a dynamically corrected cross-resonance gate
Colmenar, R. K., Güngördü, U., & Kestner, J. P. (2020) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.102.032626
Optimizing short stabilizer codes for asymmetric channels
Rigby, A., Olivier, J. C., & Jarvis, P. (2020) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.101.032326
Non-Markovianity in Logical Fidelity Estimation
Caesura, A. (2021) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo)
Quantum and post-quantum cryptography and cybersecurity: A systematic mapping
Markaida, B. G., Larrucea, X., & Graña, M. (2021) · Colección Jornadas y congresos · doi:10.18239/jornadas_2021.34.53
Parametrized process characterization with reduced resource requirements
Leyton‐Ortega, V., Kharazi, T., & Pooser, R. C. (2022) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.105.052408
Harnessing Bayesian Optimisation for Quantum Information Processing
Martínez-García, F. (2022) · Cronfa (Swansea University) · doi:10.23889/suthesis.60301
Typicality in random quantum scattering
Avalle, M., & Serafini, A. (2024) · Physical review. E · doi:10.1103/physreve.109.034114
Scheduling algorithm for fidelity of quantum gate circuits
Liu, X., Xu, J., & Lian, H. (2024) · International Conference on Electronic Information Engineering and Data Processing (EIEDP) · doi:10.1117/12.3032999
Reference-frame-independent quantum metrology
Imai, S., Gühne, O., & Tóth, G. (2026) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/988w-6tpf · Cited by 2
The Emergence of Time from Quantum Information Dynamics
Nye, L. (2024) · Journal of High Energy Physics Gravitation and Cosmology · doi:10.4236/jhepgc.2024.104109 · Cited by 4
Purity benchmarking study of error coherence in a superconducting qubit
Zhu, A., Béjanin, J. H., Xu, X., & Mariantoni, M. (2024) · APL Quantum · doi:10.1063/5.0226628
Controlled Phase Gate in Exchange Coupled Quantum Dots Affected by Quasistatic Charge NoisePreprint
Fang, Y. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5045616
Characterisation of Individual Gates Using Twirling Circuits
Amaro-Alcalá, D. (2025) · Open Systems & Information Dynamics · doi:10.1142/s1230161225500167
Optimizing Circuit Reusing and its Application in Randomized Benchmarking
Chen, Z., Liu, G., & Ma, X. (2025) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-23-1606
Quantum non-Markovian noise in randomized benchmarking of spin-boson models
Gandhari, S., & Gullans, M. J. (2026) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/z8zh-n1hl · Cited by 4
Time-optimization framework for the implementation of robust low-latency quantum circuits
Lussi, E. W., de Santiago, R., & Duzzioni, E. I. (2025) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.23.044036
Classification of quantum states of light using random measurements through a multimode fiber
Leedumrongwatthanakun, S., Innocenti, L., Ferraro, A., Paternostro, M., & Gigan, S. (2025) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.023222
Investigating parameter trainability in the SNAP-displacement protocol of a qudit system
Ogunkoya, O., Morris, K., & Kürkçüog̃lu, D. M. (2025) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ade206
Exact analytic toolbox for quantum dynamics with tunable noise strength
Okyay, M., Hart, O., Nandkishore, R., & Friedman, A. J. (2025) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/qqb7-h7xf
Controlled-phase gate in exchange coupled quantum dots affected by quasistatic charge noise
Fang, Y. (2025) · Physica E Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures · doi:10.1016/j.physe.2025.116319
High-Fidelity Operations on Silicon Donor Qubits Using Dynamical Decoupling Gates
Cheng, J., Zhang, S., Guo, B., Xie, H., & Huang, P. (2025) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e27080805
Application-level benchmarking of quantum computers using nonlocal game strategies
Furches, J., Chehade, S., Hamilton, K. E., Wiebe, N., & Marrero, C. O. (2025) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/adf1c0 · Cited by 7
On the query complexity of unitary channel certification
Jeon, S., & Oh, C. (2025) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01135-5 · Cited by 5
Blind spots of randomized benchmarking under temporal correlations
Srivastava, V., Roy, A. K., Mahanti, S., Kaur, J., Karuvade, S., & Gilchrist, A. (2026) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/r1z5-ycqc · Cited by 3
Basic entanglement distillation with realistic noise
Siddhu, V., Winston, E., McKay, D. C., & Javadi-Abhari, A. (2025) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/xx9g-pkht
Estimating Bell diagonal states with separable measurements
Kaufmann, N., Quadeer, M., & Elkouss, D. (2025) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/5f1m-p865
Diagnosing crosstalk in large-scale QPUs using zero-entropy classical shadows
Montañez-Barrera, J. A., Beretta, G. P., Michielsen, K. F. L., & von Spakovsky, M. R. (2025) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae1e99 · Cited by 2
Adaptively Secure Unitary Designs with Constant Non-Clifford Cost
Bittel, L., & Leone, L. (2026) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/9hcw-7fl6
A Teleportation Protocol Variant for Single-QPU Benchmarking
Márquez, C., Sierra-Sosa, D., & Garcés, K. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3639914 · Cited by 1
Low-overhead tailoring and learning of noise in graph states
Park, G., Sun, J., & Jeong, H. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/rr8y-yz5m · Cited by 1
Distribution of nonlocality on quantum random circuits
Arango, A. C. G., Holik, F., Giuntini, R., Freytes, H., & Sergioli, G. (2025) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/8nbw-bvj2 · Cited by 1
Nema, A., & Sen, P. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-13714-2_14
Enhancing decoding performance using efficient error learning
Iyer, P. S., Jain, A., Bartlett, S. D., & Emerson, J. (2026) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/vtj7-nh6l · Cited by 6
Self-citationCoherent Manipulations of Nuclear Spin and Optical Clock Qubits in Ytterbium Atoms
Nakamura, Y. (2026) · Springer theses · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-2836-3_5
Plugging Leaks in Quantum Computing
Emerson, J. (2025) · Physics · doi:10.1103/physics.18.200
Self-citationFault-Detecting Randomized Benchmarking for Testing Quantum Processors
Kuan, C., Hsieh, C.-Y., Shih, S.-C., & Li, J. C.-M. (2025) · IEEE International Test Conference in Asia (ITC-Asia) · doi:10.1109/itc-asia67627.2025.00018
3-body interactions in Brownian circuits for randomized benchmarking
Bentsen, G. S. (2026) · doi:10.1117/12.3092420
Open QBench: A benchmarking framework for evaluating quantum computing platforms
Wojciechowski, K., Kurowski, K., Slysz, M., & Pecyna, T. (2026) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-026-05115-2 · Cited by 2
Accrediting outputs of noisy all-optical quantum circuits
Liu, J., Chen, X., Xu, L., & Zhang, L. (2026) · Chinese Optics Letters · doi:10.3788/col202624.042701
Explicit construction of 2-designs of U(2) from the theory of angular momentum
Maggi, R., Lupo, C., & Pascazio, S. (2026) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ae59bf
Pasupuleti, R. R. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9443307/v1
Exploiting biased noise in variational quantum models
van Rossum, C., Shrapnel, S., & Gupta, R. S. (2026) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae636a
Realizing Unitary k -Designs with a Single Quench
Zhou, Y.-N., Löwenberg, R., & Sonner, J. (2026) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/rvwb-r9lv · Cited by 8
A Time/Utility Function for Scheduling Quantum Applications
Marchese, L., Davies, B., & Wehner, S. (2026) · International Conference on Quantum Communications, Networking, and Computing (QCNC) · doi:10.1109/qcnc69040.2026.00046
Measurement- and Feedback-Driven Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions on a Quantum Processor
Wu, Z., Sun, X., Wang, S., Zhang, J., Yang, X., Chu, J., Niu, J., Zhong, Y., Chen, X., Yang, Z.-C., et al. (2026) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/2c1p-8vx9 · Cited by 5
Song, Y.-H., Wang, B.-H., Chen, Z., Ma, Z., & Zuo, H.-J. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/hsh7-14h3
Anticoncentration Is (Almost) All You Need
Heinrich, M., Haferkamp, J., Roth, I., & Helsen, J. (2026) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/z3mp-5gml · Cited by 13
Anonymous (2026) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/9c4r-9l6y
More global randomness from less-random local gates
Anonymous, Katsura, H., Mitsuhashi, Y., Soejima, T., Eisert, J., & Yoshioka, N. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/9tnv-2559 · Cited by 11
Enlarging the GKP stabilizer group for enhanced noise protection
Pelletier, J., & Royer, B. (2026) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2026-07-08-2156 · Cited by 1
QuSquare: scalable quality-oriented benchmark suite for pre-fault-tolerant quantum devices
Aguirre, D., Peña, R., & Sanz, M. (2026) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae917c
Distributions of noisy expectation values over sets of measurement operators
Anonymous, Melko, R. G., Carrasquilla, J., & Laflamme, R. (2026) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/qp99-qqgy
In Situ Benchmarking of Fault-Tolerant Quantum Circuits: Clifford Circuits
Anonymous, Hangleiter, D., Bluvstein, D., Lukin, M. D., & Gullans, M. J. (2026) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/ghn4-8y96 · Cited by 11
Toward a benchmark for quantum computers based on an iterated post-selective protocol
Ortega, A., Kálmán, O., & Kiss, T. (2026) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-026-05294-y · Cited by 1
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
