The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Direct Randomized Benchmarking for Multiqubit Devices
Open accessAbstract
Benchmarking methods that can be adapted to multiqubit systems are essential for assessing the overall or "holistic" performance of nascent quantum processors. The current industry standard is Clifford randomized benchmarking (RB), which measures a single error rate that quantifies overall performance. But, scaling Clifford RB to many qubits is surprisingly hard. It has only been performed on one, two, and three qubits as of this writing. This reflects a fundamental inefficiency in Clifford RB: the n-qubit Clifford gates at its core have to be compiled into large circuits over the one- and two-qubit gates native to a device. As n grows, the quality of these Clifford gates quickly degrades, making Clifford RB impractical at relatively low n. In this Letter, we propose a direct RB protocol that mostly avoids compiling. Instead, it uses random circuits over the native gates in a device, which are seeded by an initial layer of Clifford-like randomization. We demonstrate this protocol experimentally on two to five qubits using the publicly available ibmqx5. We believe this to be the greatest number of qubits holistically benchmarked, and this was achieved on a freely available device without any special tuning up. Our protocol retains the simplicity and convenient properties of Clifford RB: it estimates an error rate from an exponential decay. But, it can be extended to processors with more qubits-we present simulations on 10+ qubits-and it reports a more directly informative and flexible error rate than the one reported by Clifford RB. We show how to use this flexibility to measure separate error rates for distinct sets of gates, and we use this method to estimate the average error rate of a set of cnot gates.
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
“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 [106]
In the citing paper
“however, detailed modeling predicts that the SPAM error is dominated by measurement error for 171 Yb þ [47,48].”
From A Race-Track Trapped-Ion Quantum Processor (2023) · cites this paper as [48]
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
Superconducting 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 computing with realistically noisy devices
Knill, E. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03350 · Cited by 1,184 · cited 1×
“Assume that the gate errors are stochastic, which can be enforced to a good approximation by, e.g., Pauli-frame randomization [51–53] or by following each layer in DRB with a random n -qubit Pauli gate.”
MethodSekino, Y., & Susskind, L. (2008) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/065 · Cited by 1,112
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
State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit
Kelly, J., Barends, R., Fowler, A. G., Megrant, A., Jeffrey, E. R., White, T., Sank, D., Mutus, J., Campbell, B., Chen, Y., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14270 · Cited by 933
A quantum-dot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%
Yoneda, J., Takeda, K., Otsuka, T., Nakajima, T., Delbecq, M. R., Allison, G., Honda, T., Kodera, T., Oda, S., Hoshi, Y., et al. (2017) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41565-017-0014-x · Cited by 906
Scalable 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
A programmable two-qubit quantum processor in silicon
Watson, T. F., Philips, S. G. J., Kawakami, E., Ward, D. R., Scarlino, P., Veldhorst, M., Savage, D. E., Lagally, M. G., Friesen, M. G., Coppersmith, S. N., et al. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature25766 · Cited by 739
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- J. Kelly, 2018, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Superconducting Qubits: Current State of Play
Kjaergaard, M., Schwartz, M. E., Braumüller, J., Krantz, P., Wang, J. I.-J., Gustavsson, S., & Oliver, W. D. (2020) · Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics · doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050605 · Cited by 1,544
Superconducting Qubits: Current State of PlayPreprint
Kjærgaard, M., Schwartz, M. E., Braumüller, J., Krantz, P., Wang, J. I.-J., Gustavsson, S., & Oliver, W. D. (2020) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 1,182
A Race-Track Trapped-Ion Quantum Processor
Moses, S. A., Baldwin, C. H., Allman, M. S., Ancona, R., Ascarrunz, L., Barnes, C., Bartolotta, J., Bjork, B., Blanchard, P., Bohn, M., et al. (2023) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041052 · Cited by 391
Quantum certification and benchmarking
Eisert, J., Hangleiter, D., Walk, N., Roth, I., Markham, D., Parekh, R., Chabaud, U., & Kashefi, E. (2020) · Nature Reviews Physics · doi:10.1038/s42254-020-0186-4 · Cited by 436
Quantum certification and benchmarking
Eisert, J., Hangleiter, D., Walk, N., Roth, I., Markham, D., Parekh, R., Chabaud, U., & Kashefi, E. (2020) · Freie Universität Berlin · doi:10.17169/refubium-30074 · Cited by 383
Metadata
- Authors
- Proctor, T. J., Carignan-Dugas, A., Rudinger, K., Nielsen, E., Blume-Kohout, R., & Young, K.
- Affiliations
- Sandia National Laboratories California (US)
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Sandia National Laboratories (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Physical Review Letters
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2019-07-19
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 030503-030503
- ISSN
- 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
- 1079-7114
- OpenAlex
- W2884175209
- Cited by
- 118
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 8.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Energy (DE-NA0003525)
- Office of the Director of National Intelligence
- Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
- 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, gate error rates, IBM Quantum Experience, quantum hardware characterization, exponential decay
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
