The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Three-Qubit Randomized Benchmarking
Open accessAbstract
As quantum circuits increase in size, it is critical to establish scalable multiqubit fidelity metrics. Here we investigate, for the first time, three-qubit randomized benchmarking (RB) on a quantum device consisting of three fixed-frequency transmon qubits with pairwise microwave-activated interactions (cross-resonance). We measure a three-qubit error per Clifford of 0.106 for all-to-all gate connectivity and 0.207 for linear gate connectivity. Furthermore, by introducing mixed dimensionality simultaneous RB-simultaneous one- and two-qubit RB-we show that the three-qubit errors can be predicted from the one- and two-qubit errors. However, by introducing certain coherent errors to the gates, we can increase the three-qubit error to 0.302, an increase that is not predicted by a proportionate increase in the one- and two-qubit errors from simultaneous RB. This demonstrates the importance of multiqubit metrics, such as three-qubit RB, on evaluating overall device performance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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
“Methods such as randomized benchmarking [5], state and process tomography [6], and gateset tomography [7] are valued for measuring the performance of operations on a few qubits, yet they fail to account for errors arising from interactions with spectator qubits [8, 9].”
From Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits (2019) · cites this paper as [8]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quantum computation and quantum information
Law, J. (2001) · ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · doi:10.1145/505482.505499 · Cited by 20,450
Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation
Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M., & Cleland, A. N. (2012) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.86.032324 · Cited by 3,059 · cited 1×
“Surface codes are predicted to have a high threshold for correcting errors, but they are typically simulated with correlated noise only between qubits for which there is a direct gate [3].”
BackgroundSuperconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance
Barends, R., Kelly, J., Megrant, A., Veitia, A., Sank, D., Jeffrey, E., White, T. C., Mutus, J., Fowler, A. G., Campbell, B., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13171 · Cited by 1,733
Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits
Aaronson, S., & Gottesman, D. (2004) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.70.052328 · Cited by 1,515
Quantum State Tomography via Compressed Sensing
Gross, D., Liu, Y.-K., Flammia, S. T., Becker, S., & Eisert, J. (2010) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.150401 · Cited by 1,133
Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates
Knill, E., Leibfried, D., Reichle, R., Britton, J., Blakestad, R. B., Jost, J. D., Langer, C., Ozeri, R., Seidelin, S., & Wineland, D. J. (2008) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.77.012307 · Cited by 1,019
An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity
Veldhorst, M., Hwang, J. C. C., Yang, C. H., Leenstra, A., de Ronde, B., Dehollain, J. P., Muhonen, J. T., Hudson, F. E., Itoh, K. M., Morello, A., et al. (2014) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/nnano.2014.216 · Cited by 957
Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box
Chuang, I. L., & Nielsen, M. A. (1997) · Journal of Modern Optics · doi:10.1080/09500349708231894 · Cited by 949
Simple Pulses for Elimination of Leakage in Weakly Nonlinear Qubits
Motzoi, F., Gambetta, J. M., Rebentrost, P., & Wilhelm, F. K. (2009) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.110501 · Cited by 814
Self-citationScalable and Robust Randomized Benchmarking of Quantum Processes
Magesan, E., Gambetta, J., & Emerson, J. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.180504 · Cited by 797
Self-citationHigh-Fidelity Quantum Logic Gates Using Trapped-Ion Hyperfine Qubits
Ballance, C. J., Harty, T. P., Linke, N. M., Sepiol, M. A., & Lucas, D. M. (2016) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.060504 · Cited by 777
Efficient quantum state tomography
Cramer, M., Plenio, M. B., Flammia, S. T., Somma, R. D., Gross, D., Bartlett, S. D., Landon-Cardinal, O., Poulin, D., & Liu, Y.-K. (2010) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms1147 · Cited by 721
Efficient Z gates for quantum computing
McKay, D. C., Wood, C. J., Sheldon, S., Chow, J. M., & Gambetta, J. (2017) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.96.022330 · Cited by 614
Self-citation(2016) · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.060505 · Cited by 540
Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures
Linke, N. M., Maslov, D., Roetteler, M., Debnath, S., Figgatt, C., Landsman, K. A., Wright, K., & Monroe, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1618020114 · Cited by 508
Procedure for systematically tuning up cross-talk in the cross-resonance gate
Sheldon, S., Magesan, E., Chow, J. M., & Gambetta, J. (2016) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.93.060302 · Cited by 491
Self-citation10-Qubit Entanglement and Parallel Logic Operations with a Superconducting Circuit
Song, C., Xu, K., Liu, W., Yang, C., Zheng, S., Deng, H., Xie, Q., Huang, K., Guo, Q., Zhang, L., et al. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.180511 · Cited by 465
Characterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking
Magesan, E., Gambetta, J. M., & Emerson, J. (2012) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.85.042311 · Cited by 464
Self-citationEfficient Measurement of Quantum Gate Error by Interleaved Randomized Benchmarking
Magesan, E., Gambetta, J., Johnson, B., Ryan, C. A., Chow, J. M., Merkel, S., Silva, M. P. D., Keefe, G., Rothwell, M. B., Ohki, T., et al. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.080505 · Cited by 456
Self-citationDirect Fidelity Estimation from Few Pauli Measurements
Flammia, S. T., & Liu, Y.-K. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.230501 · Cited by 449
Practical Characterization of Quantum Devices without Tomography
Silva, M. P. D., Landon-Cardinal, O., & Poulin, D. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.210404 · Cited by 340
Universal Gate for Fixed-Frequency Qubits via a Tunable Bus
McKay, D. C., Filipp, S., Mezzacapo, A., Magesan, E., Chow, J. M., & Gambetta, J. M. (2016) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.6.064007 · Cited by 321
Self-citationCharacterization of Addressability by Simultaneous Randomized Benchmarking
Gambetta, J., Corcoles, A. D., Merkel, S., Johnson, B., Smolin, J. A., Chow, J. M., Ryan, C. A., Rigetti, C. T., Poletto, S., Ohki, T., et al. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.240504 · Cited by 313
Self-citationRandomized Benchmarking and Process Tomography for Gate Errors in a Solid-State Qubit
Chow, J. M., Gambetta, J., Tornberg, L., Koch, J., Bishop, L. S., Houck, A., Johnson, B., Frunzio, L., Girvin, S. M., & Schoelkopf, R. J. (2009) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.090502 · Cited by 247
Self-citationEfficient tomography of a quantum many-body system
Lanyon, B. P., Maier, C., Holzäpfel, M., Baumgratz, T., Hempel, C., Jurcevic, P., Dhand, I., Buyskikh, A. S., Daley, A. J., Cramer, M., et al. (2017) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/nphys4244 · Cited by 243
Experimental Demonstration of Fault-Tolerant State Preparation with Superconducting Qubits
Takita, M., Cross, A. W., Córcoles, A. D., Chow, J. M., & Gambetta, J. M. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.180501 · Cited by 228
Self-citationProcess verification of two-qubit quantum gates by randomized benchmarking
Corcoles, A. D., Gambetta, J., Chow, J. M., Smolin, J. A., Ware, M., Strand, J., Plourde, B. L. T., & Steffen, M. (2013) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.87.030301 · Cited by 218
Self-citationEstimating the coherence of noise
Wallman, J. J., Granade, C., Harper, R., & Flammia, S. T. (2015) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/11/113020 · Cited by 212
Genuine 12-Qubit Entanglement on a Superconducting Quantum Processor
Gong, M., Chen, M.-C., Zheng, Y., Wang, S., Zha, C., Deng, H., Yan, Z., Rong, H., Wu, Y., Li, S., et al. (2019) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.110501 · Cited by 208
Quantification and characterization of leakage errors
Wood, C. J., & Gambetta, J. (2018) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.97.032306 · Cited by 185
Self-citationInvestigating the limits of randomized benchmarking protocols
Epstein, J. M., Cross, A. W., Magesan, E., & Gambetta, J. (2014) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.89.062321 · Cited by 142
Self-citationWhat 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
Randomized Benchmarking of Multiqubit Gates
Gaebler, J. P., Meier, A. M., Tan, T. R., Bowler, R., Lin, Y., Hanneke, D., Jost, J. D., Home, J. P., Knill, E., Leibfried, D., et al. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.260503 · Cited by 127
Ryan, C. A., Laforest, M., & Laflamme, R. (2009) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/1/013034 · Cited by 123
Randomized benchmarking with gate-dependent noise
Wallman, J. J. (2018) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2018-01-29-47 · Cited by 121
Fast Tunable Coupler for Superconducting Qubits
Bialczak, R. C., Ansmann, M., Hofheinz, M., Lenander, M., Lucero, E. A., Neeley, M., O’Connell, A. D., Sank, D., Wang, H., Weides, M. P., et al. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.060501 · Cited by 120
Experimental Comparison of Efficient Tomography Schemes for a Six-Qubit State
Schwemmer, C., Tóth, G., Niggebaum, A., Moroder, T., Gross, D., Gühne, O., & Weinfurter, H. (2014) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.040503 · Cited by 78
Robust characterization of leakage errors
Wallman, J. J., Barnhill, M., & Emerson, J. (2016) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/4/043021 · Cited by 70
Experimental Estimation of Average Fidelity of a Clifford Gate on a 7-Qubit Quantum Processor
Lu, D., Li, H., Trottier, D., Li, J., Brodutch, A., Krismanich, A. P., Ghavami, A., Dmitrienko, G. I., Long, G., Baugh, J., et al. (2015) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.140505 · Cited by 65
Randomized benchmarking of atomic qubits in an optical lattice
Olmschenk, S., Chicireanu, R., Nelson, K. D., & Porto, J. V. (2010) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/11/113007 · Cited by 62
Practical Experimental Certification of Computational Quantum Gates Using a Twirling Procedure
Moussa, O., Silva, M. P. D., Ryan, C. A., & Laflamme, R. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.070504 · Cited by 49
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
Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits
Cross, A. W., Bishop, L. S., Sheldon, S., Nation, P. D., & Gambetta, J. M. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.100.032328 · Cited by 704
Self-citationSuppression of Qubit Crosstalk in a Tunable Coupling Superconducting Circuit
Mundada, P., Zhang, G., Hazard, T., & Houck, A. (2019) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.12.054023 · Cited by 268
Characterizing large-scale quantum computers via cycle benchmarking
Erhard, A., Wallman, J. J., Postler, L., Meth, M., Stricker, R., Martinez, E. A., Schindler, P., Monz, T., Emerson, J., & Blatt, R. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13068-7 · Cited by 254
Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors
Sarovar, M., Proctor, T. J., Rudinger, K., Young, K., Nielsen, E., & Blume-Kohout, R. (2020) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-11-321 · Cited by 292
Metadata
- Authors
- McKay, D. C., Sheldon, S., Smolin, J. A., Chow, J. M., & Gambetta, J. M.
- Affiliations
- IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
- Venue
- Physical Review Letters
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2019-05-23
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 200502-200502
- ISSN
- 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
- 1079-7114
- OpenAlex
- W2776564547
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 12
- FWCI
- 10.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- transmon qubits, cross-resonance gate, coherent errors
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
