The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Demonstration of Fidelity Improvement Using Dynamical Decoupling with Superconducting Qubits
Open accessAbstract
Quantum computers must be able to function in the presence of decoherence. The simplest strategy for decoherence reduction is dynamical decoupling (DD), which requires no encoding overhead and works by converting quantum gates into decoupling pulses. Here, using the IBM and Rigetti platforms, we demonstrate that the DD method is suitable for implementation in today's relatively noisy and small-scale cloud-based quantum computers. Using DD, we achieve substantial fidelity gains relative to unprotected, free evolution of individual superconducting transmon qubits. To a lesser degree, DD is also capable of protecting entangled two-qubit states. We show that dephasing and spontaneous emission errors are dominant in these systems, and that different DD sequences are capable of mitigating both effects. Unlike previous work demonstrating the use of quantum error correcting codes on the same platforms, we make no use of postselection and hence report unconditional fidelity improvements against natural decoherence.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Recently, DD experiments were performed on the 16-qubit IBMQX5, 5-qubit IBMQX4, and the 19-qubit Rigetti Acorn chips (Pokharel et al. , 2018), where the gain in substantial gate fidelity relative to unprotected, free evolution of individual transmon qubits was demonstrated.”
From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Pokharel et al., 2018
Citations
Cites
Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond
Preskill, J. (2018) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 · Cited by 8,830
Quantum computation with quantum dots
Loss, D., & DiVincenzo, D. P. (1998) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.57.120 · Cited by 6,840
Scully, M. O., & Zubairy, M. S. (1997) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813993 · Cited by 6,589
A silicon-based nuclear spin quantum computer
Kane, B. E. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/30156 · Cited by 3,779
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
Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-Cooper-pair box
Nakamura, Y., Pashkin, Y. A., & Tsai, J. S. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/19718 · Cited by 2,386
Dynamical Decoupling of Open Quantum Systems
Viola, L., Knill, E., & Lloyd, S. (1999) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.82.2417 · Cited by 1,808
The ‘transition probability’ in the state space of a—algebra
Uhlmann, A. (1976) · Reports on Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1016/0034-4877(76)90060-4 · Cited by 1,649
Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems
Viola, L., & Lloyd, S. (1998) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.58.2733 · Cited by 1,617
Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-Cooper-pair box
Nakamura, Y., Pashkin, Y. A., & Tsai, J. S. (1999) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1,509
Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife
Efron, B. (1992) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_41 · Cited by 1,374
Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits
Ofek, N., Petrenko, A., Heeres, R., Reinhold, P., Leghtas, Z., Vlastakis, B., Liu, Y., Frunzio, L., Girvin, S. M., Jiang, L., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature18949 · Cited by 941
Noise spectroscopy through dynamical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit
Bylander, J., Gustavsson, S., Yan, F., Yoshihara, F., Harrabi, K., Fitch, G., Cory, D. G., Nakamura, Y., Tsai, J. S., & Oliver, W. D. (2011) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/nphys1994 · Cited by 888
New, compensated Carr-Purcell sequences
Gullion, T., Baker, D. B., & Conradi, M. S. (1990) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance (1969) · doi:10.1016/0022-2364(90)90331-3 · Cited by 746
Keeping a Quantum Bit Alive by Optimized π -Pulse Sequences
Uhrig, G. S. (2007) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.100504 · Cited by 716
Ryan-Anderson, C. (2013) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139034807 · Cited by 682
(1992) · Springer series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9 · Cited by 616
Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting circuits
Reed, M. D., DiCarlo, L., Nigg, S. E., Sun, L., Frunzio, L., Girvin, S. M., & Schoelkopf, R. J. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10786 · Cited by 601
Fault-Tolerant Quantum Dynamical Decoupling
Khodjasteh, K., & Lidar, D. A. (2005) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.180501 · Cited by 580
Self-citationZanardi, P. (1999) · Physics Letters A · doi:10.1016/s0375-9601(99)00365-5 · Cited by 319
A Practical Quantum Instruction Set ArchitecturePreprint
Smith, R. S., Curtis, M. J., & Zeng, W. J. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.4230/lipics.fsttcs.2021.51 · Cited by 315
Measuring the Spectrum of Colored Noise by Dynamical Decoupling
Álvarez, G. A., & Suter, D. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.230501 · Cited by 312
Open Quantum Assembly Language
Cross, A. W., Bishop, L. S., Smolin, J. A., & Gambetta, J. M. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.03429 · Cited by 310
Robust Dynamical Decoupling for Quantum Computing and Quantum Memory
Souza, A. M., Álvarez, G. A., & Suter, D. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.240501 · Cited by 282
Souza, A. M., Álvarez, G. A., & Suter, D. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0355 · Cited by 243
Performance of deterministic dynamical decoupling schemes: Concatenated and periodic pulse sequences
Khodjasteh, K., & Lidar, D. A. (2007) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.75.062310 · Cited by 216
Self-citationDemonstration of quantum advantage in machine learning
Ristè, D., Silva, M. P. D., Ryan, C. A., Cross, A. W., Córcoles, A. D., Smolin, J. A., Gambetta, J. M., Chow, J. M., & Johnson, B. R. (2017) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-017-0017-3 · Cited by 208
Quantum Information and Computation for Chemistry
Lidar, D. A. (2014) · Advances in chemical physics · doi:10.1002/9781118742631 · Cited by 198
Self-citationArbitrarily Accurate Dynamical Control in Open Quantum Systems
Khodjasteh, K., Lidar, D. A., & Viola, L. (2010) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.090501 · Cited by 173
Self-citationReview of Decoherence‐Free Subspaces, Noiseless Subsystems, and Dynamical Decoupling
Lidar, D. A. (2014) · Advances in chemical physics · doi:10.1002/9781118742631.ch11 · Cited by 155
Self-citationPerforming quantum computing experiments in the cloud
Devitt, S. J. (2016) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.94.032329 · Cited by 144
What Randomized Benchmarking Actually Measures
Proctor, T. J., Rudinger, K., Young, K. C., Sarovar, M., & Blume-Kohout, R. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.130502 · Cited by 140
Experimental test of Mermin inequalities on a five-qubit quantum computer
Alsina, D., & Latorre, J. I. (2016) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.94.012314 · Cited by 129
Arbitrarily Accurate Pulse Sequences for Robust Dynamical Decoupling
Genov, G. T., Schraft, D., Vitanov, N. V., & Halfmann, T. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.133202 · Cited by 129
Combining dynamical decoupling with fault-tolerant quantum computation
Ng, H. K., Lidar, D. A., & Preskill, J. P. (2011) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.84.012305 · Cited by 116
Self-citationSuppressing environmental noise in quantum computation through pulse control
Duan, L.-M., & Guo, G. (1999) · Physics Letters A · doi:10.1016/s0375-9601(99)00592-7 · Cited by 115
Near-Optimal Dynamical Decoupling of a Qubit
West, J. R., Fong, B. H., & Lidar, D. A. (2010) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.130501 · Cited by 113
Self-citationRobustness of composite pulses to time-dependent control noise
Kabytayev, C., Green, T. J., Khodjasteh, K., Biercuk, M. J., Viola, L., & Brown, K. R. (2014) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.90.012316 · Cited by 96
Entropic uncertainty and measurement reversibility
Berta, M., Wehner, S., & Wilde, M. M. (2016) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/7/073004 · Cited by 79
Protection of quantum systems by nested dynamical decoupling
Wang, Z., & Liu, R. (2011) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.83.022306 · Cited by 72
Wootton, J. R., & Loss, D. (2018) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.97.052313 · Cited by 60
Distance bounds on quantum dynamics
Lidar, D. A., Paolo Zanardi, A., & Khodjasteh, K. (2008) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.78.012308 · Cited by 58
Self-citationApproximate Quantum Adders with Genetic Algorithms: An IBM Quantum Experience
Li, R., Alvarez-Rodriguez, U., Lamata, L., & Solano, E. (2017) · Quantum Measurements and Quantum Metrology · doi:10.1515/qmetro-2017-0001 · Cited by 52
Protecting quantum memories using coherent parity check codes
Roffe, J., Headley, D., Chancellor, N., Horsman, D., & Kendon, V. (2018) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aac64e · Cited by 48
Protecting unknown two-qubit entangled states by nesting Uhrig’s dynamical decoupling sequences
Mukhtar, M., Soh, W. T., Saw, T. B., & Gong, J. (2010) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.82.052338 · Cited by 44
Optimally combining dynamical decoupling and quantum error correction
Paz-Silva, G. A., & Lidar, D. A. (2013) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep01530 · Cited by 42
Self-citationOptimized dynamical decoupling via genetic algorithms
Quiroz, G., & Lidar, D. A. (2013) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.88.052306 · Cited by 40
Self-citationDemonstration of entanglement assisted invariance on IBM's quantum experience
Deffner, S. (2017) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00444 · Cited by 39
Protecting quantum memories using coherent parity check codes
Roffe, J., Headley, D., Chancellor, N., Horsman, D. C., & Kendon, V. M. (2018) · Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) · Cited by 36
Approximate Quantum Adders With Genetic Algorithms: An IBM Quantum Experience
Li, R., Álvarez Rodríguez, U., Lamata Manuel, L., & Solano Villanueva, E. L. (2017) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · Cited by 34
Khodjasteh, K., & Lidar, D. A. (2003) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.68.022322 · Cited by 31
Self-citationQuantum fault tolerance in small experimentsPreprint
Gottesman, D. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.03507 · Cited by 30
Rosset, D., Gisin, N., & Wolfe, E. (2018) · Quantum Information and Computation · doi:10.26421/qic18.11-12 · Cited by 23
Sohn, I., Tarucha, S., & Choi, B.-S. (2017) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.95.012306 · Cited by 6
Khodjasteh, K., & Lidar, D. A. (2005) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.72.029905 · Cited by 5
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms
Bharti, K., Cervera-Lierta, A., Kyaw, T. H., Haug, T., Alperin-Lea, S., Anand, A., Degroote, M., Heimonen, H., Kottmann, J. S., Menke, T., et al. (2022) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 · Cited by 2,231
A quantum engineer's guide to superconducting qubits
Krantz, P., Kjærgaard, M., Yan, F., Orlando, T. P., Gustavsson, S., & Oliver, W. D. (2019) · Applied Physics Reviews · doi:10.1063/1.5089550 · Cited by 2,321
Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer
Wright, K., Beck, K. M., Debnath, S., Amini, J., Nam, Y., Grzesiak, N., Chen, J.-S., Pisenti, N. C., Chmielewski, M., Collins, C., et al. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13534-2 · Cited by 575
t|ket⟩: a retargetable compiler for NISQ devices
Sivarajah, S., Dilkes, S., Cowtan, A., Simmons, W., Edgington, A., & Duncan, R. (2021) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab8e92 · Cited by 475
Tannu, S. S., & Qureshi, M. K. (2019) · Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems · doi:10.1145/3297858.3304007 · Cited by 306
Metadata
- Authors
- Pokharel, B., Anand, N., Fortman, B., & Lidar, D. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Venue
- Physical Review Letters
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2018-11-29
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 220502-220502
- ISSN
- 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
- 1079-7114
- OpenAlex
- W2884173913
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15
- FWCI
- 7.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Bulletin of the American Physical Society
- Funders
- Oracle
- Lockheed Martin
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Keywords
- dynamical decoupling, superconducting qubits, transmon qubits, decoherence suppression, gate fidelity, dephasing, spontaneous emission, entanglement protection, two-qubit gates, IBM Quantum
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.
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
