The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 27 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Characterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking
Open accessAbstract
We describe and expand upon the scalable randomized benchmarking protocol proposed in Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011) which provides a method for benchmarking quantum gates and estimating the gate dependence of the noise. The protocol allows the noise to have weak time and gate dependence, and we provide a sufficient condition for the applicability of the protocol in terms of the average variation of the noise. We discuss how state-preparation and measurement errors are taken into account and provide a complete proof of the scalability of the protocol. We establish a connection in special cases between the error rate provided by this protocol and the error strength measured using the diamond norm distance.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper analyzes and expands a scalable randomized benchmarking protocol for Clifford gates, providing zeroth- and first-order fitting models that tolerate weak time- and gate-dependent noise and account for state-preparation and measurement errors. It proves scalability and establishes an exact relationship between the benchmarking error rate and diamond-norm error in special Pauli cases.
Key findings
- The protocol requires at most \(O(n^2)\) quantum gates, \(O(n^4)\) classical pre-processing, and a number of single-shot repetitions independent of \(n\); random Clifford sampling and decomposition total \(O(n^4)\) classical operations.
- The zeroth-order model gives exponential fidelity decay when noise is gate- and time-independent; the first-order model adds a term \(C_1(m-1)(q(m)-p^2)p^{m-2}\) that measures gate-dependence of the noise.
- State-preparation and measurement errors are absorbed into fit parameters \(A_0,B_0\) or \(A_1,B_1,C_1\); the protocol is robust against them unless the fidelity curve is constant, which occurs only for \(p=0\), \(p=1\), or \(A_0=0\).
- For generalized Pauli channels, the paper establishes an exact relationship between the benchmarking error rate \(r=1-F_{\Lambda,I}\) and the diamond norm \(\|\Lambda-I\|_\diamond\).
Methods
- For each sequence length \(m\), the protocol generates \(K_m\) sequences of \(m+1\) Clifford operations: the first \(m\) are uniformly random, and the final operation is the inverse of their composition. It measures the survival probability, averages over sequences, repeats for different \(m\), and fits the fidelity decay.
- The analysis uses a perturbative expansion of gate- and time-dependent errors about the average error operator, Clifford twirling, and zeroth- and first-order fitting models. A sufficient condition for neglecting higher orders is derived using the \(\|\cdot\|_{H^{1\to1}}\) norm.
- Scalability is proven using the symplectic representation of the Clifford group, Hoeffding’s inequality for the number of repetitions, and decomposition of Clifford operations into one- and two-qubit generators. No new experimental data are reported.
Limitations
- The protocol assumes weak time- and gate-dependence of the noise; the paper states a sufficient condition in terms of the average variation of the noise, and higher-order terms are not negligible when this condition fails.
- The paper notes a pathological failure case: if the noise is gate-dependent and equal to the exact inverse of the target gate, benchmarking can report zero error despite substantial error on each gate.
- The exact relationship between the benchmarking error rate and the diamond norm is established only for generalized Pauli channels; the paper states that a general explicit relationship is impossible and leaves broader connections for future work.
- The authors state that how the sufficient condition depends on the number of qubits \(n\) is left for further research, and that noise correlations between qubits may create large errors on Clifford elements even when errors on a generating set are controlled.
- Evident from the text: this is a theoretical and protocol-analysis paper; it does not provide new experimental validation.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 27 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 average number of generators in such a decomposition is 1.875 which implies that even for the single-qubit case our protocol takes no more time to implement than that of [26].”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“In the single-qubit case, our RB scheme can be implemented by explicitly writing down the 24 elements of the Clifford group decomposed into a sequence of the same generators that are randomly applied in [26].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Physical Review A 77 , 012307 (2008).
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
“We note that for each m , in the limit of K m → ∞ , F seq ( m,ψ ) converges to the exact (uniform) average, F g ( m,ψ ), over all sequences,”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
“Moreover χ 0 , 0 for Λ k dep decreases to 1 d 2 exponentially in k.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe 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
“First, we look at the zeroth order fitting model F (0) g ( m, | ψ 〉 ) and note that F (0) g ( m, | ψ 〉 ) is exact in the case that the noise is independent of both the gate chosen and time, ie. Λ i j ,j = Λ.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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 m+1'th gate is decoupled from the rest of the sequence and we have”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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 in the case of randomized benchmarking (where we define the error rate r = 1 -F Λ , I ) if Λ is a generalized Pauli channel, r and ‖ Λ -I‖ ⋄ are related by,”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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 a simple corollary to Eq. (5.4) note that if E 1 and E 2 are depolarizing channels with fidelity parameters p 1 and p 2 respectively then,”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“To prove Eq. (5.4) using the semidefinite program in [49] first note that Φ = E 1 -E 2 has action,”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] J. Watrous, Theory of Computing 5 (2009). source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe 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 time-complexity in decomposing a symplectic matrix into the sequence of one and two-qubit Clifford operations given above is O ( n 3 ) since one needs to solve linear systems of equations to obtain T 1 through T 5 .”
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. 30
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
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
“An unphysical but intuitively simple example is when the error is gate-dependent and equal to the exact inverse of the target gate. The error rate given by the protocol is always equal to zero however in actuality there is substantial error on each gate (see Sec. IV B).”
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 provide a detailed proof that our protocol requires at most O ( n 2 ) quantum gates, O ( n 4 ) cost in classical pre-processing (to select each gate-sequence), and a number of single-shot repetitions that is independent of n .”
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“Suppose the noise is timeindependent and for each i, Λ i = C † i . Then F g ( m,ψ ) = 1 for every m even though there is substantial error on each C i and so benchmarking clearly fails.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“First, we note that the size of the Clifford group scales as 2 O ( n 2 ) and so the number of sequences of length m scales as 2 mO ( n 2 ) . Hence if full averaging over the Clifford group is required for each sequence length, our protocol does not scale well in either of n or m .”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“p = 1: This case corresponds to Λ being the identity channel which means all gates are perfect. Again, in practice this situation is unlikely as the implementation of any gate will have some associated error. Note that in this case the fidelity is equal to A 0 + B 0 which is just tr(Λ( ρ ψ ) E ψ )) = tr( ρ ψ E ψ ).”
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.
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
“p = 0: This occurs if and only if Λ is the totally depolarizing channel and in this case the fidelity is constant at B 0 = tr( E ψ ) d ≤ 1 d .”
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.
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 Eq. (3.26) an exponential decay occurs if and only if A 0 is non-zero and p lies in (0 , 1). Hence no decay occurs if and only if one of p = 0, p = 1 or A 0 = 0 occurs.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“Now suppose that E 2 = I in Eq. (5.4). Then, r 0 = 1 and for every 1 ≤ i ≤ d 2 -1, r i = 0.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“Note that the fidelity will be equal to B 0 in this case and so can take any value in [0 , 1].”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
“Note that k is explicitly independent of m and n which provides a solution to 1.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
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 a direct comparison, performing process tomography on a 4 qubit system already requires 65536 measurements.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
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
“Let S k ( m, | ψ 〉 ) = F ⃗ i m g ( m, | ψ 〉 )+ .... + F ⃗ i m g ( m, | ψ 〉 ) k be the normalized k-fold sum of the random variable F i ⃗ m g ( m, | ψ 〉 ) and note that BX [ S k ( m, | ψ 〉 )] = F g ( m,ψ ). A probablistic bound on | S k ( m, | ψ 〉 ) -F g ( m,ψ ) | is given by H¨ oeffding's inequality,”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“Since randomly choosing 2 n elements of the Pauli group that satisfy the required commutation relations is equivalent to inductively choosing random solutions to 2 n sets of linear equations (which requires O ( n 3 ) operations), we can produce a random Clifford element in O ( n 4 ) (classical) operations.”
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.
In the paper
“The protocol of [26] is limited to the single-qubit case and fits the observed fidelity decay averaged over sequences of single-qubit gates (where each gate consists of a random generator of the Clifford group composed with a random Pauli operator) to an exponential.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Physical Review A 77 , 012307 (2008).
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance [18] assumes the highly idealized situation of the noise being independent of the chosen gate, in which case the fidelity decay curve averaged over randomly chosen unitaries takes the form of an exponential (in the sequence length).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] J. Emerson, R. Alicki, and K. Zyczkowski, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 7 , S347 (2005). source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“However, conditions for when the assumption of an exponential decay is valid, specifically in the realistic case of gatedependent and time-dependent noise, were not given.”
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
“Our zeroth order model directly shows that for time-independent and gate-independent errors the fidelity decay is indeed modeled by an exponential decay, and the decay rate produces an estimate for the average error rate of the noise.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The fitting formula shows that gatedependent errors can lead to a deviation from the exponential decay (defining a partial test for such effects in the noise), which was illustrated via numerical examples in [25].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 , 180504 (2011). source
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
“Thus twirling a quantum operation over the Clifford group produces a depolarizing channel and the average fidelity is invariant under the twirling operation.”
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“Other important shortcomings of these previous RB protocols are that extensions to multi-qubit systems are either not scalable or not well understood, and it is unclear how to explicitly account for state preparation and measurement errors.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this paper we give a full analysis of the scalable multi-qubit randomized benchmarking protocol for Clifford gates we proposed in [25] which overcomes the shortcomings described above.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 , 180504 (2011). source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
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 Monte-Carlo methods also have the drawback of assuming negligible state-preparation and measurement errors.”
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
“One can show that r and r P are related via r P = ( d +1) r d .”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· 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.
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
“The key point to note here is that the noise is highly dependent on the gate chosen and so we expect that the sufficient condition derived above for ignoring higher order terms will not be satisfied (ie. γ in this example will be far from 0).”
Tests✓ 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
“The difference between Eq.'s (3.44) and (3.26) is the C 1 ( m -1)( q ( m ) -p 2 ) p m -2 term contained in Eq. (3.44), which can be thought of as a measure of the gate-dependence of the noise.”
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. 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
“The advantages of these methods are that the average fidelity of each gate can be estimated and the scheme is efficient in n .”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· 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. 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
“The diamond norm ‖ · ‖ ⋄ is a candidate however by Eq. (2.11) ‖ ‖ H 1 → 1 is much weaker than ‖ · ‖ ⋄ . Therefore γ associated with ‖ ‖ H 1 → 1 will be much smaller than γ associated with ‖ · ‖ ⋄ , providing a tighter bound on the fidelity difference.”
Tests✓ 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
“In general an explicit relationship will be impossible to obtain, however we show that in certain cases that are relevant in various fault-tolerant noise models we can obtain such a relationship.”
Tests✓ 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
“Thus the protocol is robust against any state preparation or measurement errors unless these errors create a constant fidelity curve.”
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
“This discussion shows that a constant fidelity decay curve can only occur in extreme cases and so it is safe to assume the protocol is independent of state preparation and measurement errors.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In practice, gate operations are reasonably precise, so substantial state-preparation or measurement errors are unlikely.
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 this number is large it is independent of n and thus compares favourably with quantum process tomography which scales as 16 n .”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The physical gates have errors on the order of 10^-4.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The accuracy ε can be relaxed as m grows large.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The range b-a can be assumed relatively small for small m but converges to 1 - 1/d as m grows large.
- The authors state this as an assumption: m=100 and the fidelity decay curve is well-approximated by an exponential.
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
“Second, the unitary group can be generated by adding just one single-qubit rotation not in the Clifford group (for instance the π 8 -gate).”
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
“It is not difficult to see that benchmarking the Clifford group provides significant information for both fault-tolerant quantum computation as well as obtaining a benchmark for a generating set of the full unitary group.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Any realistic implementation of a quantum computer will have to take advantage of error-correction codes to perform fault-tolerant quantum computation.
- Rests on an assumption: Most of the codes used in fault-tolerant theory are stabilizer codes.
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
“As previously noted, the noise associated to a multi-qubit Clifford element is given by the noise associated to the sequence of generators comprising the Clifford.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· 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.
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 fact that most of the codes used in fault-tolerant theory are stabilizer codes implies that the encoding and decoding operations that have to be performed can be chosen to be Clifford operations.”
Tests✓ 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Most of the codes used in fault-tolerant theory are stabilizer codes.
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
“Rigorous fault-tolerant analyses sometimes invoke the diamond norm as a measure of the error strength rather than the weaker characterization provided by the average fidelity.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· 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
“While benchmarking the full unitary group would be ideal, this is a provably inefficient task since just generating a Haar-random unitary operator is inefficient in n . On the other hand as we have shown here benchmarking the Clifford group is an efficient task.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“From the expression given in Eq. (2.2) one can see that the diamond norm is essentially a 'worst-case' maximization over input (entangled) states.”
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.
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
“In this case the noise must have a strong gate-dependence because otherwise q -p 2 would be small which implies the two fitting functions would produce similar estimates for p .”
Tests✓ 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
“The protocol allows for time and gatedependent noise and the fitting models for the fidelity function take into account state preparation and measurement errors.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
“Additionally, if one were able to obtain an estimate of the minimum gate fidelity from knowledge of the average fidelity they could use the direct relationship between the minimum gate fidelity and diamond norm given by Eq. (2.21) to obtain information about the error strength in terms of the diamond norm.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· 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
“A result that may be useful in this direction of research is the 'concentration of measure effect' of the gate fidelity which implies that as n increases, the measure of the set of states which produce a fidelity close to the minimum yet far from the average is exponentially small in n [41, 42].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] E. Magesan, R. Blume-Kohout, and J. Emerson, Phys. Rev. A 84 , 012309 (2011).
- Not checked yetcites [42] E. Magesan, Quant. Inf. Comp. 11 , 0466 (2011). source
Strength:hedged· 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 authors state this as an assumption.
The actual implementation of each Clifford gate C_i at time j can be represented as E_i,j = Λ_i,j ◦ C_i for some error map Λ_i,j.
“Suppose that the actual implementation of C i at time j (1 ≤ j ≤ M ) results in the map E i,j with E i,j = Λ i,j ◦ C i for some error map Λ i,j .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each operation C_i_j is allowed to have some error, represented by Λ_i_j,j.
“By assumption each operation C i j is allowed to have some error, represented by Λ i j ,j , and each sequence can be modelled by the operation,”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the simplest ideal scenario, the noise operator at each step is independent of the applied gate and time-invariant.
“assuming the simplest (ideal) scenario where the noise operator at each step is independent of the applied gate (and is also time-invariant)”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The perturbation δΛ_i,j is small relative to Λ.
“Our approach will be valid provided δ Λ i,j is a small perturbation from Λ in a sense to be made precise later.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The gate-dependence of the noise is weak enough that the zeroth-order expression in Eq. (3.26) is a valid model for the fidelity decay curve.
“For simplicity of the discussion let us assume the gate-dependence of the noise is weak enough so that the zeroth order expression given in Eq. (3.26) is a valid model for the fidelity decay curve.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The physical gates have errors on the order of 10^-4.
“Let us assume that the physical gates have errors on the order of 10 -4 .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The accuracy ε can be relaxed as m grows large.
“Intuitively, since the fidelity curve decays in sequence length it is reasonable to assume that ǫ can be relaxed as m grows large.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The range b-a can be assumed relatively small for small m but converges to 1 - 1/d as m grows large.
“Similarly, b -a can be assumed to be relatively small for small values of m but will converge to 1 -1 d as m grows large.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
m=100 and the fidelity decay curve is well-approximated by an exponential.
“Let us assume m = 100 and a fidelity decay curve that is well-approximated by an exponential.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In practice, gate operations are reasonably precise, so substantial state-preparation or measurement errors are unlikely.
“Since gates are reasonably precise in practice, this situation occurs when at least one of state preparation or measurement has substantial error.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In quantum computation, the measure of accessible states (states reachable in polynomial time using a generating set for the unitary group) is equal to 0.
“In quantum computation it is the case that the measure of accessible states (states that can be reached in polynomial time using a generating set for the unitary group) is equal to 0.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Any realistic implementation of a quantum computer will have to take advantage of error-correction codes to perform fault-tolerant quantum computation.
“First, any realistic implementation of a quantum computer will have to take advantage of error-correction codes in order to perform fault-tolerant quantum computation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most of the codes used in fault-tolerant theory are stabilizer codes.
“The fact that most of the codes used in fault-tolerant theory are stabilizer codes implies that the encoding and decoding operations that have to be performed can be chosen to be Clifford operations.”
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
“Existing works have already proposed to adopt randomly generated benchmarks for evaluating the error rates of diferent gate operations regarding a particular NISQ device [83, 84, 106].”
From QASMBench: A Low-Level Quantum Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and Simulation (2023) · cites this paper as [84]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“In these noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) systems [4], performance of isolated gates may not predict the behavior of the system.”
From Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits (2019) · cites this paper as [4]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Conflicting time complexities for Clifford decomposition
MinorThe paper says it describes a method that decomposes a Clifford element in O(n2) time, but later assigns O(n3) time to decomposing it into the described sequence of operations.
“Any Clifford element can be decomposed into a sequence of O ( n 2 ) one and two-qubit generators in O ( n 2 ) time [52] (alternatively, there are slower methods which produce a 'canonical' decomposition into O ( n 2 / log n ) generators [53]). We describe this method which again utilizes the symplectic representation of the Clifford group.”
“The time-complexity in decomposing a symplectic matrix into the sequence of one and two-qubit Clifford operations given above is O ( n 3 )”
Inconsistent number of operators in the generalized Pauli basis
MinorIndexing the proposed basis from 0 through d2 gives d2+1 operators. Elsewhere the paper indexes such a basis from 0 through d2−1, giving d2 operators.
“Suppose E 1 and E 2 are Pauli channels, or more generally any channels with Kraus operators given by an orthogonal (normalized to d) basis of unitary operators { P i } d 2 i =0 (which we call generalized Pauli channels),”
“Noting that {| ψ i 〉 := P i ⊗ BD | ψ 0 〉} d 2 -1 i =0 forms an orthonormal basis of maximally entangled states for C d ⊗ C d”
Citations
Cites
Simulating physics with computers
Feynman, R. P. (1982) · International Journal of Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1007/bf02650179 · Cited by 7,691
Quantum computation with quantum dots
Loss, D., & DiVincenzo, D. P. (1998) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.57.120 · Cited by 6,840
Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction
Bennett, C. H., DiVincenzo, D. P., Smolin, J. A., & Wootters, W. K. (1996) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.54.3824 · Cited by 5,272
Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory
Shor, P. W. (1995) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.52.r2493 · Cited by 4,479
Quantum Computations with Cold Trapped Ions
Cirac, J. I., & Zoller, P. (1995) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74.4091 · Cited by 3,733
Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations
Harrow, A. W., Hassidim, A., & Lloyd, S. (2009) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.150502 · Cited by 3,325
Quantum information and computation
Bennett, C. H., & DiVincenzo, D. P. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35005001 · Cited by 3,263
Lloyd, S. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.273.5278.1073 · Cited by 3,088
Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices
Choi, M.-D. (1975) · Linear Algebra and its Applications · doi:10.1016/0024-3795(75)90075-0 · Cited by 2,659
Good quantum error-correcting codes exist
Calderbank, A. R., & Shor, P. W. (1996) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.54.1098 · Cited by 2,516
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- P. Shor, 1994, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)
- D. Aharonov, 1997, Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)
- M. J. Biercuk, 2009, Quantum Inf. Comput., 9, 0920
- D. Aharonov, 1998, Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Dallas, TX, 1998
- R. Horn, 1990, Matrix Analysis
- J. Watrous, 2005, Quantum Inf. Comput., 5, 058
- E. Magesan, 2011, Quantum Inf. Comput., 11, 0466
- P. Boykin, 1999, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)
- 10.4086/toc.2009.v005a011 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 466
Statistical analysis of randomized benchmarking
Harper, R., Hincks, I., Ferrie, C., Flammia, S. T., & Wallman, J. J. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.99.052350 · Cited by 50
Application-Motivated, Holistic Benchmarking of a Full Quantum Computing Stack
Mills, D., Sivarajah, S., Scholten, T. L., & Duncan, R. (2021) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2021-03-22-415 · Cited by 62
Reliability Modeling of NISQ- Era Quantum Computers
Liu, J., & Zhou, H. (2020) · IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization · doi:10.1109/iiswc50251.2020.00018 · Cited by 47
Robust Characterization of Loss Rates
Wallman, J. J., Barnhill, M., & Emerson, J. (2015) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.060501 · Cited by 46
Self-citationQuantum circuits for maximally entangled states
Cervera-Lierta, A., Latorre, J. I., & Goyeneche, D. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.100.022342 · Cited by 46
QASMBench: A Low-level QASM Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and SimulationPreprint
Li, A., Stein, S., Krishnamoorthy, S., & Ang, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.13018 · Cited by 46
Path toward manufacturable superconducting qubits with relaxation times exceeding 0.1 ms
Verjauw, J., Acharya, R., Van Damme, J., Ivanov, T., Lozano, D. P., Mohiyaddin, F. A., Wan, D., Jussot, J., Vadiraj, A. M., Mongillo, M., et al. (2022) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00600-9 · Cited by 45
Estimating the Coherence of Noise in Quantum Control of a Solid-State Qubit
Feng, G., Wallman, J. J., Buonacorsi, B., Cho, F. H., Park, D. K., Xin, T., Lu, D., Baugh, J., & Laflamme, R. (2016) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.260501 · Cited by 50
High-Fidelity Universal Gates in the 171 Yb Ground-State Nuclear-Spin Qubit
Muniz, J. A., Stone, M. B., Stack, D. T., Jaffe, M., Kindem, J. M., Wadleigh, L., Zalys-Geller, E., Zhang, X., Chen, C.-A., Norcia, M. A., et al. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.020334 · Cited by 69
Randomized Benchmarking of Barrier versus Tilt Control of a Singlet-Triplet Qubit
Zhang, C., Throckmorton, R. E., Yang, X.-C., Wang, X., Barnes, E., & Sarma, S. D. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.216802 · Cited by 43
High coherence plane breaking packaging for superconducting qubits
Bronn, N. T., Adiga, V. P., Olivadese, S. B., Wu, X., Chow, J. M., & Pappas, D. P. (2018) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aaa645 · Cited by 43
Wang, H., Li, Z., Gu, J., Ding, Y., Pan, D. Z., & Han, S. (2022) · ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) · doi:10.1145/3489517.3530495 · Cited by 48
Marques, J., Ali, H. A., Varbanov, B., Finkel, M. I., Veen, H. M., van der Meer, S. L. M., Vallés-Sanclemente, S., Muthusubramanian, N., Beekman, M., Haider, N., et al. (2023) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.250602 · Cited by 51
Independent, extensible control of same-frequency superconducting qubits by selective broadcasting
Asaad, S., Dickel, C., Langford, N. K., Poletto, S., Bruno, A., Rol, M. A., Deurloo, D., & DiCarlo, L. (2016) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/npjqi.2016.29 · Cited by 50
Experimental Pauli-frame randomization on a superconducting qubit
Ware, M., Ribeill, G. J., Ristè, D., Ryan, C. A., Johnson, B., & Silva, M. P. D. (2021) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.103.042604 · Cited by 61
Qubit Measurement by Multichannel Driving
Ikonen, J., Goetz, J., Ilves, J., Keränen, A., Gunyhó, A., Partanen, M., Tan, K. Y., Hazra, D., Grönberg, L., Vesterinen, V., et al. (2019) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.080503 · Cited by 42
Entanglement and Quantum Error Correction with Superconducting QubitsPreprint
Reed, M. (2013) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1311.6759 · Cited by 70
The learnability of Pauli noise
Chen, S., Liu, Y., Otten, M., Seif, A., Fefferman, B., & Jiang, L. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35759-4 · Cited by 59
High-fidelity geometric gate for silicon-based spin qubits
Zhang, C., Chen, T., Li, S., Wang, X., & Xue, Z. (2020) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.101.052302 · Cited by 40
Independent, extensible control of same-frequency superconducting qubits by selective broadcasting
Asaad, S., Dickel, C., Langford, N. K., Poletto, S., Bruno, A., Rol, M. A., Deurloo, D., & DiCarlo, L. (2016) · TNO Repository · Cited by 42
Temporal Entanglement in Chaotic Quantum Circuits
Foligno, A., Zhou, T., & Bertini, B. (2023) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041008 · Cited by 43
Tractable simulation of error correction with honest approximations to realistic fault models
Puzzuoli, D., Granade, C., Haas, H., Criger, B., Magesan, E., & Cory, D. G. (2014) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.89.022306 · Cited by 46
Self-citationEstimating the fidelity of T gates using standard interleaved randomized benchmarking
Harper, R., & Flammia, S. T. (2017) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aa5f8d · Cited by 42
Randomized benchmarking with restricted gate sets
Brown, W., & Eastin, B. (2018) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.97.062323 · Cited by 44
Application-motivated, holistic benchmarking of a full quantum computing stack
Mills, D., Sivarajah, S., Scholten, T. L., & Duncan, R. (2021) · Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) · Cited by 40
Nakata, Y., Da, Z., Okuda, T., Bannai, E., Suzuki, Y., Tamiya, S., Heya, K., Yan, Z., Zuo, K., Tamate, S., et al. (2021) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.030339 · Cited by 44
Nishimori transition across the error threshold for constant-depth quantum circuits
Chen, E. H., Zhu, G., Verresen, R., Seif, A., Bäumer, E., Layden, D., Tantivasadakarn, N., Zhu, G., Sheldon, S., Vishwanath, A., et al. (2024) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02696-6 · Cited by 40
Randomized Benchmarking for Individual Quantum Gates
Onorati, E., Werner, A. H., & Eisert, J. (2019) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.060501 · Cited by 42
Transitions in entanglement complexity in random quantum circuits by measurements
Oliviero, S. F. E., Leone, L., & Hamma, A. (2021) · Physics Letters A · doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2021.127721 · Cited by 45
Experimental Demonstration of a Cheap and Accurate Phase Estimation
Rudinger, K., Kimmel, S., Lobser, D., & Maunz, P. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.190502 · Cited by 40
Randomized Benchmarking as Convolution: Fourier Analysis of Gate Dependent Errors
Merkel, S., Pritchett, E., & Fong, B. H. (2021) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2021-11-16-581 · Cited by 49
Hyyppä, E., Kundu, S., Chan, C. F., Gunyhó, A., Hotari, J., Janzso, D., Júlíusson, K., Kiuru, O., Kotilahti, J., Landra, A., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34614-w · Cited by 42
Approximate randomized benchmarking for finite groups
França, D. S., & Hashagen, A. K. (2018) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aad6fa · Cited by 39
Teaching quantum computing with an interactive textbook
Wootton, J. R., Harkins, F., Bronn, N. T., Vazquez, A. C., Phan, A., & Asfaw, A. T. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce52317.2021.00058 · Cited by 36
Spin-qubit control with a milli-kelvin CMOS chip
Bartee, S. K., Gilbert, W., Zuo, K., Das, K., Tanttu, T., Yang, C. H., Stuyck, N. D., Pauka, S., Su, R. Y., Lim, W. H., et al. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09157-x · Cited by 48
Subspace benchmarking high-fidelity entangling operations with trapped ions
Baldwin, C. H., Bjork, B. J., Gaebler, J. P., Hayes, D., & Stack, D. (2020) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013317 · Cited by 38
Optimization of Clifford circuits
Kliuchnikov, V., & Maslov, D. A. (2013) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.88.052307 · Cited by 42
Photon-Noise-Tolerant Dispersive Readout of a Superconducting Qubit Using a Nonlinear Purcell Filter
Sunada, Y., Yuki, K., Wang, Z., Miyamura, T., Ilves, J., Matsuura, K., Spring, P., Tamate, S., Kono, S., & Nakamura, Y. (2024) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.010307 · Cited by 33
Random Stimuli Generation for the Verification of Quantum Circuits
Burgholzer, L., Kueng, R., & Wille, R. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06770-8_16 · Cited by 36
Randomized Benchmarking for Non-Markovian Noise
Figueroa–Romero, P., Modi, K. K., Harris, R. J., Stace, T. M., & Hsieh, M.-H. (2021) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.040351 · Cited by 42
Shorter quantum circuits via single-qubit gate approximation
Kliuchnikov, V., Lauter, K., Minko, R., Paetznick, A., & Petit, C. (2023) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2023-12-18-1208 · Cited by 58
Carignan-Dugas, A., Boone, K., Wallman, J. J., & Emerson, J. (2018) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aadcc7 · Cited by 33
Self-citationBootstrapping quantum process tomography via a perturbative ansatz
Govia, L. C. G., Ribeill, G. J., Ristè, D., Ware, M., & Krovi, H. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14873-1 · Cited by 36
Bootstrapping quantum process tomography via a perturbative ansatz
Govia, L. C. G., Ribeill, G. J., Ristè, D., Ware, M., & Krovi, H. (2020) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 32
Rolling quantum dice with a superconducting qubit
Barends, R., Kelly, J., Veitia, A., Megrant, A., Fowler, A. G., Campbell, B., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Chiaro, B., Dunsworth, A., et al. (2014) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.90.030303 · Cited by 35
Bounding experimental quantum error rates relative to fault-tolerant thresholdsPreprint
Wallman, J. J. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.00727 · Cited by 53
Simple framework for systematic high-fidelity gate operations
Rimbach-Russ, M., Philips, S. G. J., Xue, X., & Vandersypen, L. M. K. (2023) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/acf786 · Cited by 31
Benchmarking Digital Quantum Simulations Above Hundreds of Qubits Using Quantum Critical Dynamics
Miessen, A., Egger, D. J., Tavernelli, I., & Mazzola, G. (2024) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.040320 · Cited by 42
Edmunds, C., Hempel, C., Harris, R. J., Frey, V., Stace, T. M., & Biercuk, M. J. (2020) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013156 · Cited by 30
Steering-enhanced quantum metrology using superpositions of noisy phase shifts
Lee, K.-Y., Lin, J.-D., Miranowicz, A., Nori, F., Ku, H.-Y., & Chen, Y.-N. (2023) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.013103 · Cited by 29
Robustness of quantum reinforcement learning under hardware errors
Skolik, A., Mangini, S., Bäck, T., Macchiavello, C., & Dunjko, V. (2023) · EPJ Quantum Technology · doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-023-00166-1 · Cited by 29
Optimal Strategies for Estimating the Average Fidelity of Quantum Gates
Reich, D. M., Gualdi, G., & Koch, C. P. (2013) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.200401 · Cited by 26
Experimental Study of Optimal Measurements for Quantum State Tomography
Martinez, H. S., Lysne, N., Baldwin, C. H., Kalev, A., Deutsch, I., & Jessen, P. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.150401 · Cited by 30
Modular superconducting-qubit architecture with a multichip tunable coupler
Field, M., Chen, A. Q., Scharmann, B., Sete, E. A., Oruc, F. B., Vu, K., Kosenko, V., Mutus, J., Poletto, S., & Bestwick, A. J. (2024) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.21.054063 · Cited by 42
Practical Introduction to Benchmarking and Characterization of Quantum Computers
Hashim, A., Nguyen, L. B., Goss, N., Marinelli, B., Naik, R., Chistolini, T., Hines, J., Marceaux, J. P., Kim, Y., Gokhale, P., et al. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.030202 · Cited by 85
Breaking the trade-off between fast control and long lifetime of a superconducting qubit
Kono, S., Koshino, K., Lachance-Quirion, D., van Loo, A. F., Tabuchi, Y., Noguchi, A., & Nakamura, Y. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17511-y · Cited by 28
Kalfus, W. D., Lee, D. F., Ribeill, G. J., Fallek, S. D., Wagner, A., Donovan, B., Ristè, D., & Ohki, T. A. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering · doi:10.1109/tqe.2020.3042895 · Cited by 27
HamLib: A library of Hamiltonians for benchmarking quantum algorithms and hardware
Sawaya, N. P. D., Marti-Dafcik, D., Ho, Y., Tabor, D. P., Bernal, D. E., Magann, A. B., Premaratne, S., Dubey, P. K., Matsuura, A. Y., Bishop, N. C., et al. (2024) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2024-12-11-1559 · Cited by 39
Logical Clifford Synthesis for Stabilizer Codes
Rengaswamy, N., Calderbank, R., Kadhe, S., & Pfister, H. D. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering · doi:10.1109/tqe.2020.3023419 · Cited by 25
A lightweight approach to detect malicious/unexpected changes in the error rates of NISQ computers
Acharya, N., & Saeed, S. M. (2020) · doi:10.1145/3400302.3415684 · Cited by 27
Compressive Gate Set Tomography
Brieger, R., Roth, I., & Kliesch, M. (2023) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.010325 · Cited by 38
Claes, J., Rieffel, E. G., & Wang, Z. (2021) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.010351 · Cited by 27
Demonstrating Scalable Randomized Benchmarking of Universal Gate Sets
Hines, J., Lu, M., Naik, R., Hashim, A., Ville, J.-L., Mitchell, B., Kreikebaum, J. M., Santiago, D., Seritan, S., Nielsen, E., et al. (2023) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041030 · Cited by 32
Breaking the trade-off between fast control and long lifetime of a superconducting qubit
Kono, S., Koshino, K., Lachance-Quirion, D., van Loo, A. F., Tabuchi, Y., Noguchi, A., & Nakamura, Y. (2020) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 24
Robust Quantum Gates against Correlated Noise in Integrated Quantum Chips
Yi, K., Hai, Y.-J., Luo, K., Chu, J., Zhang, L., Zhou, Y., Song, Y., Liu, S., Yan, T., Deng, X., et al. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.250604 · Cited by 25
A randomized benchmarking suite for mid-circuit measurements
Govia, L. C. G., Jurcevic, P., Wood, C. J., Kanazawa, N., Merkel, S., & McKay, D. C. (2023) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ad0e19 · Cited by 32
Semi-definite programming and quantum information
Mironowicz, P. (2024) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad2b85 · Cited by 30
Simple Constructions of Linear-Depth t-Designs and Pseudorandom Unitaries
Metger, T., Poremba, A., Sinha, M., & Yuen, H. (2024) · Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science · doi:10.1109/focs61266.2024.00038 · Cited by 74
Noise-compensating pulses for electrostatically controlled silicon spin qubits
Wang, X., Calderon-Vargas, F. A., Rana, M. S., Kestner, J. P., Barnes, E., & Sarma, S. D. (2014) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.90.155306 · Cited by 24
Noise filtering of composite pulses for singlet-triplet qubits
Yang, X.-C., & Wang, X. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep28996 · Cited by 23
Algorithmic Shadow Spectroscopy
Chan, H. H. S., Meister, R., Goh, M. L., & Koczor, B. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010352 · Cited by 36
TorchQuantum Case Study for Robust Quantum Circuits
Wang, H., Liang, Z., Gu, J., Li, Z., Ding, Y., Jiang, W., Shi, Y., Pan, D. Z., Chong, F. T., & Han, S. (2022) · International Conference on Computer Aided Design · doi:10.1145/3508352.3561118 · Cited by 28
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
Group-theoretic error mitigation enabled by classical shadows and symmetries
Zhao, A., & Miyake, A. (2024) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00854-5 · Cited by 34
Quantum BGP with Online Path Selection via Network Benchmarking
Liu, M., Li, Z., Cai, K., Allcock, J., Zhang, S., & Lui, J. C. S. (2024) · IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) · doi:10.1109/infocom52122.2024.10621359 · Cited by 22
Ferrie, C. (2014) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/9/093035 · Cited by 26
Randomized benchmarking for qudit Clifford gates
Jafarzadeh, M., Wu, Y.-D., Sanders, Y. R., & Sanders, B. C. (2020) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab8ab1 · Cited by 24
Linear growth of circuit complexity from Brownian dynamics
Jian, S.-K., Bentsen, G. S., & Swingle, B. G. (2023) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep08(2023)190 · Cited by 40
Environmental noise effects on entanglement fidelity of exchange-coupled semiconductor spin qubits
Throckmorton, R. E., Barnes, E., & Sarma, S. D. (2017) · Physical review. B./Physical review. B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.95.085405 · Cited by 21
Logical Randomized Benchmarking
Combes, J., Granade, C., Ferrie, C., & Flammia, S. T. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.03688 · Cited by 20
Efficient unitarity randomized benchmarking of few-qubit Clifford gates
Dirkse, B., Helsen, J., & Wehner, S. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.99.012315 · Cited by 20
High-fidelity robust qubit control by phase-modulated pulses
Kuzmanović, M., Björkman, I., McCord, J. J., Dogra, S., & Paraoanu, G. S. (2024) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.013188 · Cited by 20
Hincks, I., Granade, C., & Cory, D. G. (2017) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa9c9f · Cited by 19
Martin, B. A., Simon, P., & Rančić, M. J. (2022) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.023190 · Cited by 25
Werninghaus, M., Egger, D. J., & Filipp, S. (2021) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.020324 · Cited by 21
Optimal Qubit Reuse for Near-Term Quantum Computers
Brandhofer, S., Polian, I., & Krsulich, K. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) · doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00100 · Cited by 26
Efficient Initialization of Fluxonium Qubits based on Auxiliary Energy Levels
Wang, T., Wu, F., Wang, F., Ma, X., Zhang, G., Chen, J., Deng, H., Gao, R., Hu, R.-Z., Ma, L., et al. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.230601 · Cited by 21
Multi-qubit dynamical decoupling for enhanced crosstalk suppression
Niu, S., Todri‐Sanial, A., & Bronn, N. T. (2024) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad5a37 · Cited by 24
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
Fast pulse sequences for dynamically corrected gates in singlet-triplet qubits
Throckmorton, R. E., Zhang, C., Yang, X.-C., Wang, X., Barnes, E., & Sarma, S. D. (2017) · Physical review. B./Physical review. B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.96.195424 · Cited by 19
Randomized benchmarking under different gate sets
Boone, K., Carignan-Dugas, A., Wallman, J. J., & Emerson, J. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.99.032329 · Cited by 20
Self-citationFerrie, C. (2014) · UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) · Cited by 19
Hybrid benchmarking of arbitrary quantum gates
Chasseur, T., Reich, D. M., Koch, C. P., & Wilhelm, F. K. (2017) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.95.062335 · Cited by 21
Simulations of Quantum Circuits with Approximate Noise using qsim and CirqPreprint
Isakov, S. V., Kafri, D., Martin, O., Heidweiller, C. V., Mruczkiewicz, W., Harrigan, M. P., Rubin, N. C., Thomson, R., Broughton, M., Kissell, K., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.02396 · Cited by 19
Fast Bayesian Tomography of a Two-Qubit Gate Set in Silicon
Evans, T. J., Huang, W., Yoneda, J., Harper, R., Tanttu, T., Chan, K. W., Hudson, F. E., Itoh, K. M., Saraiva, A., Yang, C. H., et al. (2022) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.17.024068 · Cited by 22
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
Quantum simulations of a qubit of space
Czelusta, G., & B, J. M. A. (2021) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.046001 · Cited by 18
Self-Consistent Calibration of Quantum-Gate Sets
Cerfontaine, P., Otten, R., & Bluhm, H. (2020) · RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) · Cited by 18
Efficient Control of a Transmon Qudit Using Effective Spin- 7 / 2 Rotations
Champion, E., Wang, Z., Parker, R. W., & Blok, M. (2025) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/vbh4-lysv · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Magesan, E., Gambetta, J. M., & Emerson, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
- Venue
- Physical Review A
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2012-04-11
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
- 1050-2947
- 1094-1622
- OpenAlex
- W2017477211
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 12.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
- 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 many-body systems
- Keywords
- randomized benchmarking, quantum gate characterization, gate noise, scalability, state preparation and measurement errors, quantum error rates
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
