Cited by 54Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques

Re-examining the quantum volume test: Ideal distributions, compiler optimizations, confidence intervals, and scalable resource estimations

Open access
Baldwin, Charles H., Mayer, Karl, Brown, Natalie C., Ryan-Anderson, Ciarán, Hayes, David·2022·Quantum

Abstract

The quantum volume test is a full-system benchmark for quantum computers that is sensitive to qubit number, fidelity, connectivity, and other quantities believed to be important in building useful devices. The test was designed to produce a single-number measure of a quantum computer's general capability, but a complete understanding of its limitations and operational meaning is still missing. We explore the quantum volume test to better understand its design aspects, sensitivity to errors, passing criteria, and what passing implies about a quantum computer. We elucidate some transient behaviors the test exhibits for small qubit number including the ideal measurement output distributions and the efficacy of common compiler optimizations. We then present an efficient algorithm for estimating the expected heavy output probability under different error models and compiler optimization options, which predicts performance goals for future systems. Additionally, we explore the original confidence interval construction and show that it underachieves the desired coverage level for single shot experiments and overachieves for more typical number of shots. We propose a new confidence interval construction that reaches the specified coverage for typical number of shots and is more efficient in the number of circuits needed to pass the test. We demonstrate these savings with a Q V = 2 10 experimental dataset collected from Quantinuum System Model H1-1. Finally, we discuss what the quantum volume test implies about a quantum computer's practical or operational abilities especially in terms of quantum error correction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22331/q-2022-05-09-707

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Detailed modeling predicts that the SPAM error is dominated by measurement error for 171Yb+.

    “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 [47]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baldwin, C. H., Mayer, K., Brown, N. C., Ryan-Anderson, C., & Hayes, D.
Affiliations
Quantinuum (United States) (US)
Venue
Quantum
Published
2022-05-09
Volume
6
Pages
707
ISSN
2521-327X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3208153744
Cited by
54
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quantum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Keywords
quantum volume, confidence intervals, compiler optimization, resource estimation, quantum error correction, qubit number

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