CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 383Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Mechanics and Applications

Quantum certification and benchmarking

Open access
Eisert, Jens, Hangleiter, Dominik, Walk, Nathan, Roth, Ingo, Markham, Damian, Parekh, Rhea, Chabaud, Ulysse, Kashefi, Elham·2020·Freie Universität Berlin
DOI 10.17169/refubium-30074
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With the rapid development of quantum technologies, a pressing need has emerged for a wide array of tools for the certification and characterization of quantum devices. Such tools are critical because the powerful applications of quantum information science will only be realized if stringent levels of precision of components can be reached and their functioning guaranteed. This Technical Review provides a brief overview of the known characterization methods for certification, benchmarking and tomographic reconstruction of quantum states and processes, and outlines their applications in quantum computing, simulation and communication.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.17169/refubium-30074

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 intractability of quantum computation by classical devices poses the challenge to verify the correct functioning of quantum devices and the correctness of the final output.

    “The intractability of quantum computation by classical devices poses the challenge to verify the correct functioning of the quantum devices as well as the correctness of the final output (Eisert et al. , 2020).”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Eisert et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. S. Aaronson. The learnability of quantum states. Proc. Royal Soc. A, 463:3089-3114, 2007.
  2. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov. Bosonsampling is far from uni- form. 2013. arXiv:1309.7460. · arXiv
  3. S. Aaronson and L. Chen. Complexity-theoretic foundations of quantum supremacy experiments. 2016. arXiv:1612.05903. · arXiv
  4. G. Alagic, A. M. Childs, and S.-H. Hung. Two-message ver- ification of quantum computation. arXiv:1911.08101 [quant- ph]. arXiv: 1911.08101. · arXiv
  5. R. Blume-Kohout. Robust error bars for quantum tomography. 2012. arXiv:1202.5270. · arXiv
  6. R. Blume-Kohout, J. K. Gamble, E. Nielsen, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Sterk, and P. Maunz. Robust, self-consistent, closed-form to- mography of quantum logic gates on a trapped ion qubit. 2013. arXiv:1310.4492. · arXiv
  7. U. Chabaud, T. Douce, F. Grosshans, E. Kashefi, and D. Markham. Building trust for continuous variable quantum states. 2019. arXiv:1905.12700. · arXiv
  8. A. Coladangelo, A. Grilo, S. Jeffery, and T. Vidick. Verifier- on-a-leash: New schemes for verifiable delegated quantum computation, with quasilinear resources. 2017. arXiv: 1708.07359. · arXiv
  9. S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe. Demonstration of a small pro- grammable quantum computer with atomic qubits. Nature, 536(7614):63-66, 2016.
  10. A. Elben, B. Vermersch, R. van Bijnen, C. Kokail, T. Brydges, C. Maier, M. Joshi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller. Cross- platform verification of intermediate scale quantum devices. 2019. arXiv: 1909.01282. · arXiv
  11. S. Ferracin, T. Kapourniotis, and A. Datta. Verifying quantum computations on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices. 2018. arXiv:1811.09709. · arXiv
  12. S. T. Flammia and J. J. Wallman. Efficient estimation of Pauli channels. 2019. arXiv:1907.12976. · arXiv
  13. A. Gheorghiu and T. Vidick. Computationally-secure and composable remote state preparation. 2019. arXiv:1904.06320. · arXiv
  14. M. Guta, J. Kahn, R. Kueng, and J. A. Tropp. Fast state tomog- raphy with optimal error bounds. 2018. arXiv:1809.11162. · arXiv
  15. J. Helsen, J. J. Wallman, S. T. Flammia, and S. Wehner. Mul- tiqubit randomized benchmarking using few samples. Phys. Rev. A, 100(3):032304, 2019.
  16. Z. Hradil, J. Rehacek, J. Fiurasek, and M. Jezek. Three maximum-likelihood methods in quantum mechanics. In Quantum state estimation, pages 59-112. Springer, 2004.
  17. N. M. Linke, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, S. Debnath, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe. Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures. Proc. Natl. Ac. Sc., 114:3305-3310, 2017.
  18. U. Mahadev. Classical Verification of Quantum Computa- tions. In 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 259-267, 2018.
  19. D. Markham and A. Krause. A simple protocol for certify- ing graph states and applications in quantum networks. 2018. arXiv:1801.05057. · arXiv
  20. M. McKague. Self-testing graph states. In Theory of Quan- tum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography, Lec- ture Notes in Computer Science, pages 104-120. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011.
  21. A. Natarajan and T. Vidick. Low-degree testing for quantum states. 2018. arXiv:1801.03821. · arXiv
  22. C. Portmann and R. Renner. Cryptographic security of quan- tum key distribution. 2014. arXiv:1409.3525. · arXiv
  23. V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev. The security of practical quan- tum key distribution. Rev. Mod. Phys., 81(3):1301-1350, September 2009.
  24. J. Y. Sim, J. Shang, H. K. Ng, and B.-G. Englert. Proper error bars for self-calibrating quantum tomography. 2019. arXiv: 1904.11202. · arXiv
  25. I. Supic and J. Bowles. Self-testing of quantum systems: a review. 2019. arXiv:1904.10042. · arXiv
  26. J. Watrous. Simpler semidefinite programs for completely bounded norms. 2012. arXiv:1207.5726. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eisert, J., Hangleiter, D., Walk, N., Roth, I., Markham, D., Parekh, R., Chabaud, U., & Kashefi, E.
Affiliations
  • Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie (DE)
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
  • Eisert, Jens
  • Hangleiter, Dominik
ORCID
Venue
Freie Universität Berlin
Publisher
Freie Universität Berlin
Published
2020
Volume
2
Issue
7
Pages
382-390
ISSN
2522-5820 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17169/refubium-30074
OpenAlex
W3036000280
Cited by
383
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.fu-berlin.de/sites/refubium/rechtliches/Nutzungsbedingungen
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Physics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HZB Repository (Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie GmbH (HZB)) (submittedVersion)
  • Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Universitätsbibliothek der FU Berlin Hochschulschriftenstelle u. Dokumentenserver
Funders
  • John Templeton Foundation
  • European Commission
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-13-BS04-0014)
  • Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/T001062/1, EP/N003829/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Keywords
quantum certification, quantum benchmarking, quantum device characterization, quantum state tomography, quantum process tomography, quantum computing, quantum simulation, quantum communication, quantum technologies

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