The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 28 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits
Open accessAbstract
We introduce a single-number metric, quantum volume, that can be measured using a concrete protocol on near-term quantum computers of modest size ($n\ensuremath{\lesssim}50$), and measure it on several state-of-the-art transmon devices, finding values as high as 16. The quantum volume is linked to system error rates, and is empirically reduced by uncontrolled interactions within the system. It quantifies the largest random circuit of equal width and depth that the computer successfully implements. Quantum computing systems with high-fidelity operations, high connectivity, large calibrated gate sets, and circuit rewriting toolchains are expected to have higher quantum volumes. The quantum volume is a pragmatic way to measure and compare progress toward improved system-wide gate error rates for near-term quantum computation and error-correction experiments.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper introduces quantum volume, a single-number metric measured by random model circuits of equal width and depth using heavy output generation, and reports measurements on IBM Q transmon devices with values as high as 16. It links quantum volume to system error rates, connectivity, and circuit optimization, and provides simulations for how it scales with two-qubit error and coupling map.
Key findings
- Quantum volume is defined as \(V_Q = 2^{\min(d,m)}\), measuring the largest square-shaped model circuit a quantum computer successfully implements; measured values reach as high as 16 (\(\log_2 V_Q = 4\)). On the tested devices, \(\log_2 V_Q = 3\) for Tokyo, \(\log_2 V_Q = 2\) for Tenerife, and \(\log_2 V_Q < 2\) for Melbourne.
- Heavy output probabilities for \(m=d\) circuits include Tokyo \(m=d=2\): 0.718(0.006), \(m=d=3\): 0.682(0.002)*, \(m=d=4\): 0.614(0.003); Johannesburg \(m=d=4\): 0.664(0.004), and optimized \(m=d=4\): 0.699(0.001), against the 2/3 threshold.
- Circuit optimization improves performance: standard Qiskit Terra transpiler produced 28.1 CX gates on average with \(\hat h_d = 0.614(0.003)\); KAK reduced this to 21.0 CX gates with \(\hat h_d = 0.632(0.005)\); approximate SU(4) with 1% CX error used 17.7 CX gates and achieved \(\hat h_d = 0.649(0.005)\). Noisy depolarizing simulations substantially over-estimated experimental performance.
- Connectivity simulations show all-to-all connectivity has an advantage: for \(\log_2 V_Q = 12\), the maximum permissible two-qubit error was 0.0032 for all-to-all, 0.0015 for square grid, and 0.0014 for loop. Measurement error reduces permissible two-qubit error for square grid at \(\log_2 V_Q = 12\) from 0.0015 at 0% to 0.00125 at 1% and 0.0002 at 5%.
Methods
- The protocol uses random model circuits of width \(m\) and depth \(d\), built from layers of random permutations and Haar-random SU(4) two-qubit gates, compiled to the target device’s gate set. Success is evaluated via the heavy output generation problem, requiring heavy output probability \(h_d > 2/3\), with quantum volume defined as \(V_Q = 2^{\min(d,m)}\).
- Experiments were run on four IBM Q devices: 5-qubit Tenerife, 16-qubit Melbourne, 20-qubit Tokyo, and 20-qubit Johannesburg. For each \(m\), 200 circuits were run for \(d=m\) with \(m \in \{2,3,4\}\); repeats used 5000 circuits for \(m=2\) on Tenerife and \(m=3\) on Tokyo, and 1000 circuits for optimized Johannesburg experiments. Results were compared with depolarizing noise simulations.
- Simulations of all-to-all, square-grid, and loop coupling maps up to 12 qubits estimated the two-qubit gate error required for \(\log_2 V_Q = 4, 6, 8, 12\), assuming single-qubit error equal to \(\epsilon/10\) and measurement errors of 0%, 1%, and 5% for the square grid.
Limitations
- The paper states that noisy simulations substantially over-estimate performance, that classical computation of the heavy set scales exponentially with \(m\), and that for error rates as low as \(10^{-4}\) model circuits may still be small enough to simulate classically; lower error rates may require new or modified volume metrics. It also notes that the LOCO optimization did not significantly improve heavy output generation for small numbers of qubits, and that connectivity comparisons involve small total qubit numbers, with asymptotic loop-versus-grid differences potentially larger.
- Evident from the text: experimental validation is limited to four IBM Q transmon devices and small square circuits up to \(m=d=4\) (with \(m=d=5\) on Johannesburg), so larger-device and architecture conclusions rely on simulations. Device error rates were measured one day before the experiments and can fluctuate during the experiment timescale.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 28 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
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 quantum volume is linked to system error rates, and is empirically reduced by uncontrolled interactions within the system.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA 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
“We note that the noisy simulation substantially over-estimates the performance, highlighting the value of system-level metrics such as quantum volume.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“the standard Qiskit Terra transpiler [ ? ] produces circuits with 28 CX gates on average, and we measure ˆ h d = 0 . 614(0 . 003); KAK reduces the average number of CX gates to 21 and produces ˆ h d = 0 . 632(0 . 005).”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“the standard Qiskit Terra transpiler [ ? ] produces circuits with 28 CX gates on average, and we measure ˆ h d = 0 . 614(0 . 003); KAK reduces the average number of CX gates to 21 and produces ˆ h d = 0 . 632(0 . 005).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA 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
“the standard Qiskit Terra transpiler [ ? ] produces circuits with 28 CX gates on average, and we measure ˆ h d = 0 . 614(0 . 003); KAK reduces the average number of CX gates to 21 and produces ˆ h d = 0 . 632(0 . 005).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA 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
“The approximate SU(4) circuits introduce further gains with the best result of ˆ h d = 0 . 649(0 . 005) achieved using circuits with a 1% CX error approximation.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“For the case m = d = 4 the results lie just below the threshold of ˆ h d = 2 / 3, and optimizing the circuits with both the KAK decomposition and the approximate SU(4) with 1% CX error yields ˆ h d = 0 . 699(0 . 001).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA 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
“It is clear from Table III that all-to-all connectivity provides an advantage over the less-connected graph; log 2 V Q of 12 is achievable with twice the two-qubit error rate (0.0032) of the square grid (0.0015) and the 12-qubit loop (0.0014).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“It is clear from Table III that all-to-all connectivity provides an advantage over the less-connected graph; log 2 V Q of 12 is achievable with twice the two-qubit error rate (0.0032) of the square grid (0.0015) and the 12-qubit loop (0.0014).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
“the standard Qiskit Terra transpiler [ ? ] produces circuits with 28 CX gates on average, and we measure ˆ h d = 0 . 614(0 . 003); KAK reduces the average number of CX gates to 21 and produces ˆ h d = 0 . 632(0 . 005).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 16
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
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
“This device has the lowest gate error rates of all the devices measured, with single qubit gate errors a factor of four smaller and two qubit gate errors nearly half than those measured on Tokyo .”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
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
“At the same time, there is little difference between the required two-qubit error rate for the square grid versus the loop graphs; the error rate for the loop is less than 7% lower than that of the square grid for the 12-qubit case.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
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
“The 2-basis gate approximations perform surprisingly well, with the median fidelities F (2) avg = 0 . 99, F (2 m ) avg = 0 . 997 comparing favorably to the typical 2-qubit gate fidelities for current quantum devices.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
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
“For F b = 0 . 97 we get F e = 0 . 976, F ( m ) e = 0 . 978, reducing the infidelity by factors of 0.82 and 0.74 respectively.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
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
“With a fairly noisy basis gate F b = 0 . 97 and no mirroring, the best expansion by this method has 3 applications of the basis for 22%, two applications for 76%, one application for 2%, and zero applications for < 0 . 1% of targets, thus an average of 2.2 basis gate applications.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
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
“With the freedom to mirror, three applications for 3%, two applications for 93%, one application for 4%, and zero applications for < 0 . 1% of targets, thus a mean of 2.0 basis gate applications.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Although this optimization did not lead to significant improvements for heavy output generation using small numbers of qubits, we expect SWAP optimizations such as these to further improve results for larger circuits mapped onto devices with limited connectivity.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“In particular, we introduced an approximate method for NISQ devices, and used it to show experimental improvements.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
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
“We implemented various circuit optimization passes (far from optimal) and showed a measurable change in the experimental performance.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition, circuits with a similar form appear in near-term algorithms like quantum adiabatic optimization algorithms [17] and variational quantum eigensolvers [18].”
What the sources say
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, random circuits model generic state preparations, and are used as the basis of proposals for demonstrating quantum advantage [16].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Clever partitioning of circuits can achieve good parallelism and efficient use of distributed memory resources for particular supercomputer architectures [21-27].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Z.-Y. Chen, Q. Zhou, C. Xue, X. Yang, G.-C. Guo, and G.-P. Guo, Science Bulletin 63 , 964 (2018), arXiv: 1802.06952. source
- Not checked yetcites [22] J. Chen, F. Zhang, C. Huang, M. Newman, and Y. Shi, arXiv:1805.01450 [quant-ph] (2018), arXiv: 1805.01450. source
- Not checked yetcites [23] R. Li, B. Wu, M. Ying, X. Sun, and G. Yang, arXiv:1804.04797 [quant-ph] (2018), arXiv: 1804.04797. source
- Not checked yetcites [24] E. Pednault, J. A. Gunnels, G. Nannicini, L. Horesh, T. Magerlein, E. Solomonik, and R. Wisnieff, arXiv:1710.05867 [quant-ph] (2017), arXiv: 1710.05867. source
- Not checked yetcites [25] S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and H. Neven, arXiv:1712.05384 [quant-ph] (2017), arXiv: 1712.05384.
- Not checked yetcites [26] T. H¨ aner, D. S. Steiger, M. Smelyanskiy, and M. Troyer, arXiv:1604.06460 [quant-ph] (2016), arXiv: 1604.06460.
- Not checked yetcites [27] M. Smelyanskiy, N. P. D. Sawaya, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, arXiv:1601.07195 [quant-ph] (2016), arXiv: 1601.07195. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
“A straightforward wave-vector propagation approach requires exponential space and time ∼ 2 m .”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This definition differs from [13, 14] and loosely coincides with the complexity of classically simulating the model circuits.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“A 'Feynman' algorithm uses linear space ∼ dm but exponential time ∼ 4 dm .”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
“Quantum algorithms are generally not random circuits.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It is possible to trade off time and space complexity in a smooth way [19].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] S. Aaronson and L. Chen, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05903 (2016).
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“High-fidelity state preparation and readout are also necessary.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. 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
“Quantum computing systems with high-fidelity operations, high connectivity, large calibrated gate sets, and circuit rewriting toolchains are expected to have higher quantum volumes.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Particular efforts for circuit partitioning and parallelism have been expended for circuits defined on a 2-dimensional square grid of qubits, where the state-of-the-art is d = 40 for a 9 × 9 grid [22].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] J. Chen, F. Zhang, C. Huang, M. Newman, and Y. Shi, arXiv:1805.01450 [quant-ph] (2018), arXiv: 1805.01450. source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It is well-known that quantum algorithms can be expressed as polynomial-sized quantum circuits built from two-qubit unitary gates [15].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“While we focus on transmon devices, the protocol can be implemented with any universal programmable quantum computing device.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For U b ∼ CNOT ∼ U d ( π/ 4 , 0 , 0) it is well-known [43, 44] that 3 applications of the basis is sufficient to cover all of SU(4).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43] F. Vatan and C. Williams, Physical Review A 69 , 032315 (2004).
- Not checked yetcites [44] G. Vidal and C. M. Dawson, Physical Review A 69 , 010301 (2004).
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“Therefore, we heuristically bound the treewidth of the model circuits as min( d, m ), and since the simulation complexity grows exponentially with the treewidth, we define the quantum volume as V Q = 2 min( d,m ) .”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we instead require a minimum of n c = 100 circuits and make a normal approximation to the binomial”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This reordering is efficient, having a runtime that is linear in the number of nonzero matrix elements [39].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] W. M. Chan and A. George, BIT 20 , 8 (1980).
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
“Typical trapped-ion systems have both two-qubit gate errors and measurement errors less than 0.01, which based on Table III should be sufficient to achieve log 2 V Q = 6 if not higher.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“Similarly, we can infer that for superconducting devices, coupling maps with more connectivity should produce higher quantum volume, but only if additional coupling does not also introduce larger errors.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
“Although all operations must improve to increase the quantum volume, the first path is to prioritize improving the gate fidelity above other operations, such as measurement and initialization.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To be confident with a finite number of trials that the heavy probability h d exceeds 2 / 3, we should set stricter threshold t > 2 / 3, requiring the estimated heavy probability ˆ h d > t to claim success.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
“This relatively small difference is due to the small total number of qubits, since there is a significant asymptotic difference between loop and grid layouts.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
“This metric takes into account all relevant hardware parameters. This includes the performance parameters (coherence, calibration errors, crosstalk, spectator errors, gate fidelity, measurement fidelity, initialization fidelity) as well as the design parameters such as connectivity and gate set. It also includes the software behind the circuit optimization.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Zhang et al. [45] give decompositions using a more general 'super controlled' basis U b ∼ U d ( π/ 4 , β b , 0), for any β b , both an expansion with 3 applications of U b to decompose an arbitrary U t ∼ U d ( α t , β t , γ t ) and also an expansion using two applications of U b for a restricted target unitary U t ∼ U d ( α t , β t , 0), γ t = 0 for any α t , β t .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Y.-S. Zhang, M.-Y. Ye, and G.-C. Guo, Physical Review A 71 , 062331 (2005).
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“Additionally, the quantum volume is architecture-independent, and can be applied to any system that is capable of running quantum circuits.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The IBM Q systems used in this paper accept quantum circuits expressed by products of controlled-NOT (CNOT) gates and single-qubit gates [36].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] A. W. Cross, L. Bishop, J. Smolin, and J. M. Gambetta, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.03429 (2017).
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The approximation of achievable model circuit depth assumes independent stochastic errors.
“We approximate the achievable model circuit depth ˜ d ( m ) by assuming independent stochastic errors, so that the computation fails with high probability when the model circuit volume (width times depth) satisfies”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In simulations for Table III, the single-qubit gate error is equal to ε/10.
“assuming the single-qubit gate error is equal to ϵ/ 10 (Table III).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the Table III estimates, measurements are perfect.
“The estimates are based on simulations using a depolarizing noise model with two-qubit error ϵ as given, single-qubit error equal to ϵ/ 10, and perfect measurements.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Besides, these metrics all involve certain randomness due to synthetically generated inputs or circuits, which do not necessarily share the properties of real quantum workloads.”
From QASMBench: A Low-Level Quantum Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and Simulation (2023) · cites this paper as [28]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Cross etal. tried to validate the quantum computers using randomized model circuits andhave attempted to introduce a method for NISQ [54].”
From Quantum Computing in the Next-Generation Computational Biology Landscape: From Protein Folding to Molecular Dynamics (2024) · cites this paper as [54]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Regarding QC metrics, Cross et al. deined the quantum volume protocol which quantiied the largest random circuit of equal width and depth that a NISQ device can successfully implement [28], taking gate and measurement error into consideration.”
From QASMBench: A Low-Level Quantum Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and Simulation (2023) · cites this paper as [28]
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
Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond
Preskill, J. (2018) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 · Cited by 8,830
The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms
McClean, J. R., Romero, J., Babbush, R., & Aspuru-Guzik, A. (2016) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023023 · Cited by 2,227
Computer Solution of Large Sparse Positive Definite Systems.
Pasciak, J. E., George, A. D., & Liu, J. W. (1982) · Mathematics of Computation · doi:10.2307/2007640 · Cited by 1,883
Reducing the bandwidth of sparse symmetric matrices
Cuthill, E., & McKee, J. (1969) · doi:10.1145/800195.805928 · Cited by 1,472
Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices
Boixo, S., Isakov, S. V., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Babbush, R., Ding, N., Jiang, Z., Bremner, M. J., Martinis, J. M., & Neven, H. (2018) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0124-x · Cited by 1,175
14-Qubit Entanglement: Creation and Coherence
Monz, T., Schindler, P., Barreiro, J. T., Chwalla, M., Nigg, D., Coish, W. A., Harlander, M., Hänsel, W., Hennrich, M., & Blatt, R. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.130506 · Cited by 1,110
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
Řeháček, J., F., A. S., & RICCI, M. (2004) · Lecture notes in physics · doi:10.1007/b98673 · Cited by 836
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- S. Aaronson, 2017, Proceedings of the 32nd Computational Complexity Conference (CCC '17)
- T. Häner, 2016, Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC '16)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 701
Simulating Static and Dynamic Properties of Magnetic Molecules with Prototype Quantum Computers
Crippa, L., Tacchino, F., Chizzini, M., Aita, A., Grossi, M., Chiesa, A., Santini, P. M., Tavernelli, I., & Carretta, S. (2021) · Magnetochemistry · doi:10.3390/magnetochemistry7080117 · Cited by 24
D-NISQ: A reference model for Distributed Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum computers
Acampora, G., Martino, F. D., Massa, A. A., Schiattarella, R., & Vitiello, A. (2022) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2022.08.003 · Cited by 23
Conserved charges in the quantum simulation of integrable spin chains
Maruyoshi, K., Okuda, T., Pedersen, J. W., Suzuki, R., Yamazaki, M., & Yoshida, Y. (2023) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/acc369 · Cited by 39
Comparison of quantum-walk implementations on noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers
Γεωργόπουλος, Κ., Emary, C., & Zuliani, P. (2021) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.103.022408 · Cited by 27
On Testing and Debugging Quantum SoftwarePreprint
Miranskyy, A. V., Zhang, L., & Doliskani, J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.13016/m2tytz-xb93 · Cited by 58
Scalable Benchmarks for Gate-Based Quantum ComputersPreprint
Cornelissen, A., Bausch, J., & Gilyén, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.10698 · Cited by 37
Nation, P. D., Saki, A. A., Brandhofer, S., Bello, L., Garion, S., Treinish, M., & Javadi-Abhari, A. (2025) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-025-00792-y · Cited by 22
Self-citationRepresentation of binary classification trees with binary features by quantum circuits
Heese, R., Bickert, P., & Niederle, A. E. (2022) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2022-03-30-676 · Cited by 23
Continuous dynamical decoupling of optical 171Yb+ qudits with radiofrequency fields
Zalivako, I. V., Borisenko, A. S., Semerikov, I. A., Korolkov, A. E., Sidorov, P., Galstyan, K. P., Semenin, N. V., Smirnov, V. N., Aksenov, M. D., Fedorov, A. K., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.3389/frqst.2023.1228208 · Cited by 23
Spin Foam Vertex Amplitudes on Quantum Computer—Preliminary Results
B, J. M. A. (2019) · Universe · doi:10.3390/universe5080179 · Cited by 25
Reversible Computation: Extending Horizons of Computing
Ulidowski, I., Lanese, I., Schultz, U. P., & Ferreira, C. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47361-7 · Cited by 25
Forecasting timelines of quantum computingPreprint
Sevilla, J., & Riedel, C. J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.05045 · Cited by 62
Enabling large-scale and high-precision fluid simulations on near-term quantum computers
Chen, Z., Ma, T.-Y., Ye, C.-C., Xu, L., Bai, W., Zhou, L., Tan, M.-Y., Zhuang, X., Xu, X., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cma.2024.117428 · Cited by 31
Voltage-Tunable Superconducting Resonators: A Platform for Random Access Quantum Memory
Sardashti, K., Dartiailh, M., Yuan, J. O., Hart, S., Gumann, P., & Shabani, J. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering · doi:10.1109/tqe.2020.3034553 · Cited by 21
Testing Platform-Independent Quantum Error Mitigation on Noisy Quantum Computers
Russo, V., Mari, A., Shammah, N., LaRose, R., & Zeng, W. J. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering · doi:10.1109/tqe.2023.3305232 · Cited by 30
Machine-Learning-Based Qubit Allocation for Error Reduction in Quantum Circuits
LeCompte, T., Qi, F., Yuan, X., Tzeng, N.-F., Najafi, M. H., & Peng, L. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering · doi:10.1109/tqe.2023.3301899 · Cited by 21
DRLQ: A Deep Reinforcement Learning-based Task Placement for Quantum Cloud Computing
Nguyen, H. T., Usman, M., & Buyya, R. (2024) · IEEE ... International Conference on Cloud Computing · doi:10.1109/cloud62652.2024.00060 · Cited by 22
Quantum algorithms for scientific computing
Au-Yeung, R., Camino, B., Rathore, O., & Kendon, V. M. (2024) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad85f0 · Cited by 37
Effects of Imperfections on Quantum Algorithms: A Software Engineering Perspective
Greiwe, F., Krüger, T., & Mauerer, W. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW) · doi:10.1109/qsw59989.2023.00014 · Cited by 27
Superstaq: Deep Optimization of Quantum Programs
Campbell, C., Chong, F. T., Dahl, D., Frederick, P., Goiporia, P., Gokhale, P., Hall, B., Issa, S., Jones, E. B., Lee, S., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00116 · Cited by 20
Squeezing and quantum approximate optimization
Santra, G. C., Jendrzejewski, F., Hauke, P., & Egger, D. J. (2024) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.109.012413 · Cited by 27
iQuantum: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of quantum computing environments
Nguyen, H. T., Usman, M., & Buyya, R. (2024) · Software Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/spe.3331 · Cited by 27
A Herculean task: classical simulation of quantum computers
Xu, X., Benjamin, S. C., Chen, J., Sun, J., Yuan, X., & Zhang, P. (2025) · 中国科学通报：英文版 · doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.10.016 · Cited by 57
Pairwise tomography networks for many-body quantum systems
García-Pérez, G., Rossi, M. A. C., Sokolov, B., Borrelli, E.-M., & Maniscalco, S. (2022) · UTUPub (University of Turku) · Cited by 20
Gonthier, J. F., Radin, M. D., Buda, C., Doskocil, E. J., Abuan, C. M., & Romero, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 20
Practical Verification of Quantum Properties in Quantum-Approximate-Optimization Runs
Alam, M. S., Wudarski, F., Reagor, M. J., Sud, J., Grabbe, S. R., Wang, Z., Hodson, M. J., Lott, P. A., Rieffel, E. G., & Venturelli, D. (2022) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.17.024026 · Cited by 19
Ytterbium ion trap quantum computing: The current state-of-the-art
Nop, G., Paudyal, D., & Smith, J. D. H. (2021) · AVS Quantum Science · doi:10.1116/5.0065951 · Cited by 23
Multi-mode architectures for noise-resilient superconducting qubits
Calzona, A., & Carrega, M. (2022) · Superconductor Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/1361-6668/acaa64 · Cited by 20
Circuit optimization of Grover quantum search algorithm
Wu, X., Li, Q., Li, Z., Yang, D., Yang, H., Pan, W., Perkowski, M. A., & Xiaoyu Song, B. (2023) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-022-03727-y · Cited by 19
Language models for quantum simulation
Melko, R. G., & Carrasquilla, J. (2024) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00578-0 · Cited by 21
Modeling Short-Range Microwave Networks to Scale Superconducting Quantum Computation
LaRacuente, N. D., Smith, K. N., Imany, P., Silverman, K. L., & Chong, F. T. (2025) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-08-1581 · Cited by 40
Experimental accreditation of outputs of noisy quantum computers
Ferracin, S., Merkel, S., McKay, D. C., & Datta, A. (2021) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.104.042603 · Cited by 26
Single-Qubit Fidelity Assessment of Quantum Annealing Hardware
Nelson, J., Vuffray, M., Lokhov, A. Y., & Coffrin, C. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering · doi:10.1109/tqe.2021.3092710 · Cited by 26
Dispersive Readout of Molecular Spin Qudits
Gómez-León, Á., Luis, F., & Zueco, D. (2022) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.17.064030 · Cited by 18
Liu, Y., Liu, J., Raney, J. R., & Wang, P. (2023) · Extreme Mechanics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.eml.2023.102117 · Cited by 18
Shuttle-Exploiting Attacks and Their Defenses in Trapped-Ion Quantum Computers
Saki, A. A., Topaloglu, R. O., & Ghosh, S. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3139085 · Cited by 25
Evaluating the Q-score of Quantum Annealers
van der Schoot, W., Leermakers, D., Wezeman, R. S., Neumann, N. M. P., & Phillipson, F. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW) · doi:10.1109/qsw55613.2022.00017 · Cited by 18
Weakly Flux-Tunable Superconducting Qubit
Chavez-Garcia, J., Solgun, F., Hertzberg, J., Jinka, O., Brink, M., & Abdo, B. (2022) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.18.034057 · Cited by 22
Tan, A. T. K., Sun, S.-N., Tazhigulov, R. N., Chan, G. K., & Minnich, A. J. (2023) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.107.032614 · Cited by 22
Variational quantum algorithm for ergotropy estimation in quantum many-body batteries
Hoang, D. T., Metz, F., Thomasen, A. M. D., Anh-Tai, T. D., Busch, T., & Fogarty, T. (2024) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.013038 · Cited by 18
Impact of decoherence on the fidelity of quantum gates leaving the computational subspace
Abad, T., Schattner, Y., Kockum, A. F., & Johansson, G. (2025) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2025-04-03-1684 · Cited by 30
1.4 The Future of Computing: Bits + Neurons + Qubits
Gil, D., & Green, W. M. J. (2020) · Digest of technical papers/Digest of technical papers - IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference · doi:10.1109/isscc19947.2020.9062918 · Cited by 22
Quantum Circuits for the Preparation of Spin Eigenfunctions on Quantum Computers
Carbone, A., Galli, D. E., Motta, M., & Jones, B. (2022) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym14030624 · Cited by 18
Are quantum computers really energy efficient?
Chen, S. (2023) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00459-6 · Cited by 18
Faj, J., Peng, I. B., Wahlgren, J., & Markidis, S. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on eScience · doi:10.1109/e-science58273.2023.10254803 · Cited by 17
Characterizing non-Markovian off-resonant errors in quantum gates
Wei, K. X., Pritchett, E., Zajac, D. M., McKay, D. C., & Merkel, S. (2024) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.21.024018 · Cited by 25
Probing spin hydrodynamics on a superconducting quantum simulator
Shi, Y., Sun, Z., Wang, Y.-Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y.-R., Ma, W.-G., Liu, H.-T., Zhao, K., Song, J., Liang, G.-H., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52082-2 · Cited by 20
Simulating quantum circuit expectation values by Clifford perturbation theory
Begušić, T., Hejazi, K., & Chan, G. K. (2025) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/5.0269149 · Cited by 50
Logical abstractions for noisy variational Quantum algorithm simulation
Huang, Y., Holtzen, S., Millstein, T. D., den Broeck, G. V., & Martonosi, M. (2021) · International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) · doi:10.1145/3445814.3446750 · Cited by 17
Fair Sampling Error Analysis on NISQ Devices
Golden, J. K., Bärtschi, A., O’Malley, D., & Eidenbenz, S. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing · doi:10.1145/3510857 · Cited by 17
Efficient Constructions for Simulating Multi Controlled Quantum Gates
Balauca, S., & Arusoaie, A. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08760-8_16 · Cited by 17
Programming physical quantum systems with pulse-level control
Smith, K. N., Ravi, G. S., Alexander, T., Bronn, N. T., Carvalho, A. R. R., Cervera-Lierta, A., Chong, F. T., Chow, J. M., Cubeddu, M., Hashim, A., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Physics · doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.900099 · Cited by 24
Variational Entanglement-Assisted Quantum Process Tomography with Arbitrary Ancillary Qubits
Xue, S., Wang, Y., Zhan, J., Wang, Y., Zeng, R., Ding, J., Shi, W., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Huang, A., et al. (2022) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.133601 · Cited by 20
Huffman, E., Vera, M. G., & Banerjee, D. (2022) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.094502 · Cited by 25
Methods of quantum logic in ion frequency standards, quantum computers, and modern spectroscopy
Khabarova, K. Y., Zalivako, I. V., & Kolachevsky, N. (2022) · Physics-Uspekhi · doi:10.3367/ufne.2022.10.039270 · Cited by 12
Advancing biomolecular simulation through exascale HPC, AI and quantum computing
Pyzer‐Knapp, E. O., & Curioni, A. (2024) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2024.102826 · Cited by 19
Efficient qubit routing for a globally connected trapped ion quantum computer
Herbert, S. (2020) · Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) · Cited by 16
Finding Small and Large $k$-Clique Instances on a Quantum Computer
Metwalli, S. A., Gall, F. L., & Meter, R. V. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering · doi:10.1109/tqe.2020.3045692 · Cited by 16
Testing Scalable Bell Inequalities for Quantum Graph States on IBM Quantum Devices
Yang, B., Raymond, R., Imai, H., Chang, H., & Hiraishi, H. (2022) · IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems · doi:10.1109/jetcas.2022.3201730 · Cited by 19
Distributed Quantum Computing: Applications and Challenges
Boschero, J. C., Neumann, N. M. P., van der Schoot, W., Sijpesteijn, T., & Wezeman, R. S. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92602-0_6 · Cited by 15
Solving Large‐Scale Linear Systems of Equations by a Quantum Hybrid Algorithm
Perelshtein, M. R., Pakhomchik, A. I., Мельников, А. А., Novikov, A. A., Glatz, A., Paraoanu, G. S., Vinokur, V. M., & Lesovik, G. B. (2022) · Annalen der Physik · doi:10.1002/andp.202200082 · Cited by 16
Quantum Computing Technology and Roadmap
Riel, H. (2022) · European Solid-State Device Research Conference · doi:10.1109/essderc55479.2022.9947181 · Cited by 16
Volumetric Benchmarking of Error Mitigation with Qermit
Cîrstoiu, C., Dilkes, S., Mills, D., Sivarajah, S., & Duncan, R. (2023) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2023-07-13-1059 · Cited by 16
A Quantum Fingerprinting Algorithm for Next Generation Cellular Positioning
Zook, Y., Shokry, A., & Youssef, M. A. (2023) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2023.3322763 · Cited by 14
Qoncord: A Multi-Device Job Scheduling Framework for Variational Quantum Algorithms
Wang, M., Das, P., & Nair, P. J. (2024) · IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO) · doi:10.1109/micro61859.2024.00060 · Cited by 22
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
Brandhofer, S., Devitt, S. J., Wellens, T., & Polian, I. (2021) · IEEE VLSI Test Symposium (VTS) · doi:10.1109/vts50974.2021.9441047 · Cited by 15
Optimal synthesis into fixed XX interactions
Peterson, E., Bishop, L. S., & Javadi-Abhari, A. (2022) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2022-04-27-696 · Cited by 15
Self-citationMethods of quantum logic in ion frequency standards, quantum computers, and modern spectroscopy
Khabarova, K. Y., Zalivako, I. V., & Kolachevsky, N. (2022) · Uspekhi Fizicheskih Nauk · doi:10.3367/ufnr.2022.10.039270 · Cited by 15
Quantum firmware and the quantum computing stack
Ball, H., Biercuk, M. J., & Hush, M. (2021) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/pt.3.4698 · Cited by 15
Performance of superconducting quantum computing chips under different architecture designs
Hu, W., Yang, Y., Xia, W., Pi, J., Huang, E., Zhang, X.-D., & Xu, H. (2022) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-022-03571-0 · Cited by 15
Automatic Generation of an Efficient Less-Than Oracle for Quantum Amplitude Amplification
Sanchez‐Rivero, J., Talaván, D., García-Alonso, J. M., Ruiz–Cortés, A., & Murillo, J. M. (2023) · IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Quantum Software Engineering (Q-SE) · doi:10.1109/q-se59154.2023.00011 · Cited by 14
Weaving, T., Ralli, A., Kirby, W. M., Love, P. J., Succi, S., & Coveney, P. V. (2023) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.043054 · Cited by 14
Quantum trajectory entanglement in various unravelings of Markovian dynamics
Vovk, T., & Pichler, H. (2024) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.110.012207 · Cited by 19
Zalivako, I. V., Semerikov, I. A., Borisenko, A. S., Aksenov, M. A., Vishnyakov, P., Sidorov, P., Semenin, N. V., Golovizin, A. A., Khabarova, K. Y., & Kolachevsky, N. (2020) · Quantum Electronics · doi:10.1070/qel17373 · Cited by 15
Mitigation of Decoherence-Induced Quantum-Bit Errors and Quantum-Gate Errors Using Steane’s Code
Cane, R., Chandra, D., Ng, S. X., & Hanzo, L. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2991802 · Cited by 13
A Serverless Cloud Integration For Quantum ComputingPreprint
Grossi, M., Crippa, L., Aita, A., Bartoli, G., Sammarco, V., Picca, E., Said, N., Tramonto, F., & Mattei, F. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.02007 · Cited by 23
Quantum Spectral Clustering of Mixed Graphs
Volya, D., & Mishra, P. (2021) · ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) · doi:10.1109/dac18074.2021.9586308 · Cited by 13
Quantum computational advantage attested by nonlocal games with the cyclic cluster state
Daniel, A. K., Zhu, Y., Alderete, C. H., Buchemmavari, V., Green, A., Nguyen, N. H., Thurtell, T. G., Zhao, A., Linke, N. M., & Miyake, A. (2022) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.033068 · Cited by 16
iQuantum: A Case for Modeling and Simulation of Quantum Computing Environments
Nguyen, H. T., Usman, M., & Buyya, R. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW) · doi:10.1109/qsw59989.2023.00013 · Cited by 19
A Uniform Representation of Classical and Quantum Source Code for Static Code Analysis
Kaul, M., Küchler, A., & Banse, C. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00115 · Cited by 13
Error estimation in current noisy quantum computers
Aseginolaza, U., Sobrino, N., Sobrino, G., Jornet-Somoza, J., & Borge, J. (2024) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-024-04384-z · Cited by 12
Route-Forcing: Scalable Quantum Circuit Mapping for Scalable Quantum Computing Architectures
Escofet, P., Gonzalvo, A., Alarcón, E., Almudéver, C. G., & Abadal, S. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce60285.2024.00110 · Cited by 17
de la Torre, M. Á. G., Sandoval, I. A. M., de Abreu, G. T. F., & Encinas, L. H. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3560023 · Cited by 16
Salm, M., Barzen, J., Leymann, F., & Weder, B. (2020) · doi:10.1145/3412451.3428498 · Cited by 14
Numerical hardware-efficient variational quantum simulation of a soliton solution
Kardashin, A., Pervishko, A. A., Biamonte, J., & Yudin, D. I. (2021) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.104.l020402 · Cited by 16
Tolunay, M., Liepuoniute, I., Vyushkova, M., & Jones, B. (2023) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/d3cp00276d · Cited by 13
Defining Best Practices for Quantum Benchmarks
Amico, M., Zhang, H., Jurcevic, P., Bishop, L. S., Nation, P., Wack, A., & McKay, D. C. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00084 · Cited by 16
Self-citationParallel tomography of quantum non-demolition measurements in multi-qubit devices
Pereira, L., García‐Ripoll, J. J., & Ramos, T. (2023) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00688-7 · Cited by 16
Towards Quantum Gravity in the Lab on Quantum Processors
Shapoval, I., Su, V. P., de Jong, W. A., Urbánek, M., & Swingle, B. G. (2023) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2023-10-12-1138 · Cited by 18
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
Extracting randomness from magic quantum states
Vairogs, C., & Yan, B. (2025) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/3ttm-vhdt · Cited by 12
Software mitigation of coherent two-qubit gate errors
Lao, L., Korotkov, A. N., Zhang, J., Mruczkiewicz, W., O’Brien, T. E., & Browne, D. E. (2022) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac57f1 · Cited by 13
Pre-established entanglement distribution algorithm in quantum networks
Wang, Y., Yu, X., Zhao, Y., Nag, A., & Zhang, J. (2022) · Journal of Optical Communications and Networking · doi:10.1364/jocn.465432 · Cited by 13
Quantum Fourier Iterative Amplitude Estimation
de Lejarza, J. J. M., Grossi, M., Cieri, L., & Germán Rodrigo, A. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00071 · Cited by 12
Experimental evaluation of quantum Bayesian networks on IBM QX hardware
Borujeni, S. E., Nguyen, N. H., Nannapaneni, S., Behrman, E., & Steck, J. E. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce49297.2020.00053 · Cited by 12
On Structured Design Space Exploration for Mapping of Quantum Algorithms
Bandić, M., Zarein, H., Alarcón, E., & Almudéver, C. G. (2020) · Conference on Design of Circuits and Integrated Systems · doi:10.1109/dcis51330.2020.9268670 · Cited by 12
Finding Solutions to the Integer Case Constraint Satisfiability Problem Using Grover’s Algorithm
Vinod, G. M., & Shaji, A. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering · doi:10.1109/tqe.2021.3120449 · Cited by 12
SANQ: A Simulation Framework for Architecting Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Computing SystemPreprint
Li, G., Ding, Y., & Xie, Y. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.11590 · Cited by 14
A quantum Hopfield associative memory implemented on an actual quantum processor
Miller, N. E., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-02866-z · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Cross, A. W., Bishop, L. S., Sheldon, S., Nation, P. D., & Gambetta, J. M.
- Affiliations
- IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
- Venue
- Physical Review A
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2019-09-20
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
- 2469-9926
- 2469-9934
- OpenAlex
- W2903516100
- Semantic Scholar
- 3a9f7dda6264e4827e78230d88fea893a9d81b09
- Cited by
- 704
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 77 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 115 · 2022: 109 · 2021: 117 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 17
- FWCI
- 35.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Army Research Office (W911NF-14-1-0124)
- 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 many-body systems
- Keywords
- quantum volume, transmon qubits, gate error rates, near-term quantum devices, quantum error correction
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
