CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 20Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Logical Randomized Benchmarking

Open access
Combes, Joshua, Granade, Christopher, Ferrie, Christopher, Flammia, Steven T.·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1702.03688arXiv 1702.03688
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Extrapolating physical error rates to logical error rates requires many assumptions and thus can radically under- or overestimate the performance of an error correction implementation. We introduce logical randomized benchmarking, a characterization procedure that directly assesses the performance of a quantum error correction implementation at the logical level, and is motivated by a reduction to the well-studied case of physical randomized benchmarking. We show that our method reliably reports logical performance and can estimate the average probability of correctable and uncorrectable errors for a given code and physical channel.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1702.03688

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • Further near-term experiments exploring quantum error correction are bound to advance our understanding of noise in quantum devices, and to suggest more effective techniques for noise mitigation and device validation.

    “Further near-term experiments exploring quantum error correction are bound to advance our understanding of noise in quantum devices, and to suggest more effective techniques for noise mitigation [53, 54] and device validation [55].”

    From Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond (2018) · cites this paper as [55]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [16][16] E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, J. M. Chow, S. T. Merkel, M. P. da Silva, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, 'Efficient measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking,' Physical Review Letters 109 , 080505 (2012). -
  2. [17][17] J. M. Gambetta, A. D. C´ orcoles, S. T. Merkel, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, C. A. Ryan, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, 'Characterization of Addressability by Simultaneous Randomized Benchmarking,' Physical Review Letters 109 , 240504 (2012). -
  3. [20][20] J. Wallman, C. Granade, R. Harper, and S. T. Flammia, 'Estimating the coherence of noise,' New Journal of Physics 17 , 113020 (2015). -
  4. [23][23] R. Harper and S. T. Flammia, 'Estimating the fidelity of T gates using standard interleaved randomized benchmarking,' arXiv:1608.02943 (2016). - · arXiv
  5. [24][24] T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, M. Sarovar, and R. Blume-Kohout, 'What randomized benchmarking actually measures,' arXiv:1702.01853 (2017). - · arXiv
  6. [26][26] N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory, 'Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources,' Physical Review Letters 112 , 190501 (2014). -
  7. [28][28] D. Puzzuoli, Honest Approximations to Realistic Fault Models and Their Applications to Efficient Simulation of Quantum Error Correction , Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo (2014). -
  8. [29][29] Y. R. Sanders, J. J. Wallman, and B. C. Sanders, 'Bounding quantum gate error rate based on reported average fidelity,' New Journal of Physics 18 , 012002 (2016). -
  9. [30][30] M. Guti´ errez and K. R. Brown, 'Comparison of a quantum error correction threshold for exact and approximate errors,' Physical Review A 91 , 022335 (2015). -
  10. [31][31] A. S. Darmawan and D. Poulin, 'Tensor-network simulations of the surface code under realistic noise,' arXiv:1607.06460 (2016). - · arXiv
  11. [32][32] D. Poulin, 'Surprising facts about quantum error correction,' talk presented at Coogee Workshop 2017, (unpublished) (2017). -
  12. [33][33] A. E. Ashikhmin, A. M. Barg, E. Knill, and S. N. Litsyn, 'Quantum error detection .I. Statement of the problem,' IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 46 , 778 (2000). -
  13. [39][39] R. Blume-Kohout, J. K. Gamble, E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, J. Mizrahi, K. Fortier, and P. Maunz, 'Demonstration of qubit operations below a rigorous fault tolerance threshold with gate set tomography,' arXiv:1605.07674 (2016). - · arXiv
  14. [40][40] G. Feng, J. J. Wallman, B. Buonacorsi, F. H. Cho, D. K. Park, T. Xin, D. Lu, J. Baugh, and R. Laflamme, 'Estimating the coherence of noise in quantum control of a solid-state qubit,' Physical Review Letters 117 , 260501 (2016). -
  15. [41][41] J. Combes, C. Ferrie, C. Cesare, M. Tiersch, G. J. Milburn, H. J. Briegel, and C. M. Caves, 'In-situ characterization of quantum devices with error correction,' arXiv:1405.5656 (2014). - · arXiv
  16. [43][43] H. Ball, T. M. Stace, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Biercuk, 'Effect of noise correlations on randomized benchmarking,' Physical Review A 93 , 022303 (2016). -
  17. [44][44] M. Guti´ errez, C. Smith, L. Lulushi, S. Janardan, and K. R. Brown, 'Errors and pseudothresholds for incoherent and coherent noise,' Physical Review A 94 , 042338 (2016). -
  18. [45][45] R. W. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, 'Implementing a Universal Gate Set on a Logical Qubit Encoded in an Oscillator,' arXiv:1608.02430 (2016). - · arXiv
  19. [46][46] M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, 'Dynamically protected cat-qubits: A new paradigm for universal quantum computation,' New Journal of Physics 16 , 045014 (2014). -
  20. [47][47] J. Florjanczyk and T. A. Brun, 'In-situ adaptive encoding for asymmetric quantum error correcting codes,' arXiv:1612.05823 (2016). - · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Combes, J., Granade, C., Ferrie, C., & Flammia, S. T.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1702.03688
arXiv
1702.03688
OpenAlex
W2596337598
Cited by
20
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
quantum error correction, logical error rate, quantum error-correcting codes, physical channels

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