CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 237Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Learning-based quantum error mitigation

Open access
Strikis, Armands, Qin, Dayue, Chen, Yanzhu, Benjamin, Simon C., Li, Ying·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2005.07601arXiv 2005.07601
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

If NISQ-era quantum computers are to perform useful tasks, they will need to employ powerful error mitigation techniques. Quasi-probability methods can permit perfect error compensation at the cost of additional circuit executions, provided that the nature of the error model is fully understood and sufficiently local both spatially and temporally. Unfortunately these conditions are challenging to satisfy. Here we present a method by which the proper compensation strategy can instead be learned ab initio. Our training process uses multiple variants of the primary circuit where all non-Clifford gates are substituted with gates that are efficient to simulate classically. The process yields a configuration that is near-optimal versus noise in the real system with its non-Clifford gate set. Having presented a range of learning strategies, we demonstrate the power of the technique both with real quantum hardware (IBM devices) and exactly-emulated imperfect quantum computers. The systems suffer a range of noise severities and types, including spatially and temporally correlated variants. In all cases the protocol successfully adapts to the noise and mitigates it to a high degree.

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.2005.07601

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.

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?

  • Learning-based and AI-inspired methods employ machine learning techniques such as regression for error mitigation.

    “Learning-based and AI-inspired methods employ machine learning techniques such as regression for error mitigation.”

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

    The Introduction describes learning an error-mitigation strategy by minimizing error on training tasks, and Section IX discusses a restricted Boltzmann machine as a possible variational model. These support the broad description of learning-based methods, but our copy does not identify regression as a technique used in this method. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
  2. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell, and B. Burkett, Quantum supremacy using a pro- grammable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  3. A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cle- land, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  4. F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Simple Pulses for Elimination of Leakage in Weakly Nonlinear Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 110501 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Y. Li and S. Benjamin, Efficient Variational Quantum Sim- ulator Incorporating Active Error Minimisation, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017).
  6. K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error Mitigation for Short-Depth Quantum Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  7. S. Endo, S. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Practical Quantum Error Mitigation for Near-Future Applications, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031027 (2018).
  8. A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. Córcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Extending the computa- tional reach of a noisy superconducting quantum processor Nature 567, 491 (2019). ArXiv:1805.04492. · DOI
  9. C. Song, J. Cui, H. Wang, J. Hao, H. Feng, and Y. Li, Quantum computation with universal error mitigation on a superconducting quantum processor, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw5686 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  10. S. Zhang, Y. Lu, K. Zhang, W. Chen, Y. Li, J.-N. Zhang, and K. Kim, Error-mitigated quantum gates exceeding physical fidelities in a trapped-ion system, Nat. Commun. 11, 587 (2020). · DOI
  11. H. Kwon and J. Bae, A hybrid quantum-classical approach to mitigating measurement errors, ArXiv:2003.12314. · arXiv
  12. Y. Chen, M. Farahzad, S. Yoo, and T.-C. Wei, Detector tomography on IBM quantum computers and mitigation of an imperfect measurement, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052315 (2019). · DOI
  13. M. R. Geller and M. Sun, Toward efficient correction of multiqubit measurement errors: Pair correlation method, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 025009 (2021). · DOI
  14. S. McArdle, X. Yuan, and S. Benjamin, Error-Mitigated Digital Quantum Simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 180501 (2019). · DOI
  15. X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. E. O'Brien, Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verifica- tion, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062339 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  16. J. R. McClean, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. Carter, and W. A. de Jong, Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042308 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  17. J. Sun, X. Yuan, T. Tsunoda, V. Vedral, S. C. Benjamin, and S. Endo, Practical quantum error mitigation for analog quantum simulation, ArXiv:2001.04891. · arXiv
  18. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O'Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  19. P. J. J. O'Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, and B. Campbell, Scalable Quantum Simulation of Molecular Energies, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031007 (2016).
  20. D. F. Wise, J. J. L. Morton, and S. Dhomkar, Using deep learning to understand and mitigate the qubit noise environment, ArXiv:2005.01144. · arXiv
  21. D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers, ArXiv:quant-ph/9807006. · arXiv
  22. S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, ArXiv:quant-ph/0406196. · arXiv
  23. S. Anders and H. J. Briegel, Fast simulation of stabilizer circuits using a graph-state representation, Phys. Rev. A 73, 022334 (2006). · DOI
  24. T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lucas, High-Fidelity Preparation, Gates, Memory, and Readout of a Trapped-Ion Quantum bit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 220501 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  25. C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, High-Fidelity Quantum Logic Gates Using Trapped-Ion Hyperfine Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060504 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  26. J. P. Gaebler, T. R. Tan, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, A. C. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, High-Fidelity Universal Gate set for 9 Be + ion Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060505 (2016). · DOI
  27. S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gambetta, J. A. Smolin, S. Poletto, A. D. Córcoles, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, and M. Steffen, Self-consistent quantum process tomography, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062119 (2013). · DOI
  28. D. Greenbaum, Introduction to quantum gate set tomogra- phy, ArXiv:1509.02921. · arXiv
  29. A. Fischer and C. Igel, An Introduction to Restricted Boltz- mann Machines, In: L. Alvarez, M. Mejail, L. Gomez, J. Jacobo (eds) Progress in Pattern Recognition, Image Analysis, Computer Vision, and Applications. CIARP 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7441. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  30. G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  31. T. Jones and S. Benjamin, QuESTlink-mathematica embiggened by a hardware-optimised quantum emulator, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 034012 (2020). · DOI
  32. T. Jones, A. Brown, I. Bush, and S. Benjamin, QuEST and high performance simulation of quantum computers, Sci. Rep. 9, 10736 (2019). · DOI
  33. A. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. Ross, and Y. Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 9456 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  34. M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Kil- loran, Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032331 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  35. B. Koczor and S. Benjamin, Quantum Analytic Descent, ArXiv:2008.13774. · arXiv
  36. K. Sharma, Noise resilience of variational quantum compil- ing, New J. Phys. 22, 043006 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  37. M.-X. Huo and Y. Li, Learning time-dependent noise to reduce logical errors: Real time error rate estimation in quantum error correction, New J. Phys. 19, 123032 (2017). · DOI
  38. S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 15003 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  39. Multi-exponential Error Extrapolation and Combining Error Mitigation Techniques for NISQ Applications, ArXiv:2007.01265. · arXiv
  40. P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cin- cio, Error mitigation with Clifford quantum-circuit data, ArXiv:2005.10189. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Strikis, A., Qin, D., Chen, Y., Benjamin, S. C., & Li, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Graduate School of China Academy of Engineering Physics (CN)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
2
Issue
4
ISSN
2691-3399 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2005.07601
arXiv
2005.07601
OpenAlex
W3024350329
Cited by
237
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 6
FWCI
12.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PRX Quantum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1915165)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (PHY 1915165, U1930403, 11875050)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M013243/1)
  • National Safety Academic Fund (Grant No. U1930403, U1930403)
  • Laboratory Directed Research and Development (19-002)
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 mitigation, machine learning, noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing, non-Clifford gates, classical simulation, correlated noise, IBM quantum hardware

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