PreprintCited by 4Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum many-body systemsQuantum Information and Cryptography
A sharp phase transition in linear cross-entropy benchmarking
Open accessWare, Brayden, Deshpande, Abhinav, Hangleiter, Dominik, Niroula, Pradeep, Fefferman, Bill, Gorshkov, Alexey V., Gullans, Michael J.·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2305.04954arXiv 2305.04954
Abstract
Demonstrations of quantum computational advantage and benchmarks of quantum processors via quantum random circuit sampling are based on evaluating the linear cross-entropy benchmark (XEB). A key question in the theory of XEB is whether it approximates the fidelity of the quantum state preparation. Previous works have shown that the XEB generically approximates the fidelity in a regime where the noise rate per qudit $\varepsilon$ satisfies $\varepsilon N \ll 1$ for a system of $N$ qudits and that this approximation breaks down at large noise rates. Here, we show that the breakdown of XEB as a fidelity proxy occurs as a sharp phase transition at a critical value of $\varepsilon N$ that depends on the circuit architecture and properties of the two-qubit gates, including in particular their entangling power. We study the phase transition using a mapping of average two-copy quantities to statistical mechanics models in random quantum circuit architectures with full or one-dimensional connectivity. We explain the phase transition behavior in terms of spectral properties of the transfer matrix of the statistical mechanics model and identify two-qubit gate sets that exhibit the largest noise robustness.
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
DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.04954
Cites
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.
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 XEB is a better benchmark for IQP circuits than for generic random circuit sampling settings such as Haar-random circuits.
“Moreover, the XEB turns out to be a better benchmark for IQP circuits than for generic random circuit sampling settings (such as Haar-random circuits)102–104.”
From Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays (2024) · cites this paper as [104]
The Introduction describes XEB as a benchmark for random circuit sampling, and the Random circuit observables section studies circuits with Haar-random gates. Neither passage compares XEB’s suitability for IQP circuits with its suitability for generic or Haar-random circuits. Searches for “IQP,” “instantaneous quantum polynomial,” and the proposed comparison found no passage addressing it. (LLM, conf=0.76)
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.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 4
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Marti- nis, and H. Neven, Characterizing Quantum Supremacy in Near-Term Devices, Nature Phys 14, 595 (2018), arxiv:1608.00263. · DOI · Paper page
- F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S. Humble, S. V. Isakov, E. Jeffrey, Z. Jiang, D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, J. Kelly, P. V. Klimov, S. Knysh, A. Korotkov, F. Kostritsa, D. Landhuis, M. Lind- mark, E. Lucero, D. Lyakh, S. Mandrà, J. R. Mc- Clean, M. McEwen, A. Megrant, X. Mi, K. Michielsen, M. Mohseni, J. Mutus, O. Naaman, M. Neeley, C. Neill, M. Y. Niu, E. Ostby, A. Petukhov, J. C. Platt, C. Quin- tana, E. G. Rieffel, P. Roushan, N. C. Rubin, D. Sank, K. J. Satzinger, V. Smelyanskiy, K. J. Sung, M. D. Tre- vithick, A. Vainsencher, B. Villalonga, T. White, Z. J. Yao, P. Yeh, A. Zalcman, H. Neven, and J. M. Martinis, Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Supercon- ducting Processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
- Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, C. Lin, J. Lin, H. Qian, D. Qiao, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, L. Wang, S. Wang, D. Wu, Y. Xu, K. Yan, W. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. Ye, J. Yin, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zha, C. Zhang, H. Zhang, K. Zhang, Y. Zhang, H. Zhao, Y. Zhao, L. Zhou, Q. Zhu, C.-Y. Lu, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Strong Quantum Computational Advantage Using a Superconducting Quantum Processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180501 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
- Q. Zhu, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.- H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, C. Lin, J. Lin, H. Qian, D. Qiao, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, L. Wang, S. Wang, D. Wu, Y. Wu, Y. Xu, K. Yan, W. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. Ye, J. Yin, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zha, C. Zhang, H. Zhang, K. Zhang, Y. Zhang, H. Zhao, Y. Zhao, L. Zhou, C.-Y. Lu, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum Computational Advantage via 60- Qubit 24-Cycle Random Circuit Sampling, Science Bul- letin 67, 240 (2022), arxiv:2109.03494. · DOI · Paper page
- D. Hangleiter and J. Eisert, Computational Advantage of Quantum Random Sampling, (2023), arxiv:2206.04079. · arXiv
- M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. J. Shep- herd, Average-Case Complexity Versus Approximate Simulation of Commuting Quantum Computations, Physical Review Letters 117 (2016), 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.117.080501. · DOI · Paper page
- S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Characterizing Quantum Supremacy in Near-Term Devices, arXiv:1608.00263 [quant-ph] (2016), arxiv:1608.00263. · arXiv
- A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, C. Nirkhe, and U. Vazirani, On the Complexity and Verification of Quantum Random Circuit Sampling, Nature Phys 15, 159 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
- R. Movassagh, Quantum Supremacy and Random Cir- cuits, (2020), arxiv:1909.06210. · arXiv
- H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Efficient Esti- mation of Pauli Observables by Derandomization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 030503 (2021), arxiv:2103.07510. · DOI
- M. Kliesch and I. Roth, Theory of Quantum Sys- tem Certification, PRX Quantum 2, 010201 (2021), arxiv:2010.05925. · DOI
- A. M. Dalzell, N. Hunter-Jones, and F. G. S. L. Brandão, Random Quantum Circuits Transform Local Noise into Global White Noise, (2021), arXiv:2111.14907 [quant- ph]. · arXiv
- X. Gao, M. Kalinowski, C.-N. Chou, M. D. Lukin, B. Barak, and S. Choi, Limitations of Linear Cross- Entropy as a Measure for Quantum Advantage, (2021), arxiv:2112.01657. · arXiv
- J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, I. S. Madjarov, X. Xie, R. Finkel- stein, J. P. Covey, J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, A. Kale, H. Pichler, F. G. S. L. Brandão, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Emergent Quantum Randomness and Benchmarking from Hamiltonian Many-body Dynamics, Nature 613, 468 (2023), arXiv:2103.03535 [cond-mat, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]. · DOI
- D. K. Mark, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, M. Endres, and S. Choi, Benchmarking Quantum Simulators Using Quantum Chaos, (2022), arxiv:2205.12211 [cond-mat, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]. · DOI
- Y. Li, Y. Zou, P. Glorioso, E. Altman, and M. P. A. Fisher, Cross Entropy Benchmark for Measurement- Induced Phase Transitions, (), 2209.00609. · DOI
- X. Gao, M. Kalinowski, C.-N. Chou, M. D. Lukin, B. Barak, and S. Choi, Limitations of Linear Cross- Entropy as a Measure for Quantum Advantage, (2021), arXiv:2112.01657 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]. · arXiv
- T. Zhou and A. Nahum, Emergent Statistical Mechanics of Entanglement in Random Unitary Circuits, Phys. Rev. B 99, 174205 (2019). · DOI
- R. Vasseur, A. C. Potter, Y.-Z. You, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, Entanglement Transitions from Holographic Ran- dom Tensor Networks, 100, 134203. · DOI
- N. Hunter-Jones, Unitary Designs from Statistical Mechanics in Random Quantum Circuits, (2019), arxiv:1905.12053. · arXiv
- B. Barak, C.-N. Chou, and X. Gao, Spoofing Lin- ear Cross-Entropy Benchmarking in Shallow Quantum Circuits, in 12th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2021), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 185, edited by J. R. Lee (Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2021) pp. 30:1-30:20, arxiv:2005.02421. · DOI
- Z. Li, S. Sang, and T. H. Hsieh, Entanglement Dynamics of Noisy Random Circuits, 107, 014307 (). · DOI
- A. Deshpande, P. Niroula, O. Shtanko, A. V. Gorshkov, B. Fefferman, and M. J. Gullans, Tight Bounds on the Convergence of Noisy Random Circuits to the Uniform Distribution, (2022), arxiv:2112.00716. · arXiv
- Y. Rinott, T. Shoham, and G. Kalai, Statistical Aspects of the Quantum Supremacy Demonstration, Statistical Science 37, 322 (2022), arxiv:2008.05177. · DOI
- Y. Liu, M. Otten, R. Bassirianjahromi, L. Jiang, and B. Fefferman, Benchmarking Near-Term Quantum Com- puters via Random Circuit Sampling, arXiv:2105.05232 [quant-ph] (2022), arxiv:2105.05232. · arXiv
- A. M. Dalzell, N. Hunter-Jones, and F. G. S. L. Brandão, Random Quantum Circuits Anti-Concentrate in Log Depth, PRX Quantum 3, 010333 (2022), arXiv:2011.12277 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]. · DOI
- J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V. B. Shah, Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM review 59, 65 (2017). · DOI
- U. Schollwöck, The Density-Matrix Renormalization Group in the Age of Matrix Product States, Annals of Physics January 2011 Special Issue, 326, 96. · DOI · Paper page
- G. Vidal, Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly Entan- gled Quantum Computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
- G. Vidal, Efficient Simulation of One-Dimensional Quantum Many-Body Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
- S. Paeckel, T. Köhler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Schollwöck, and C. Hubig, Time-Evolution Meth- ods for Matrix-Product States, Annals of Physics 411, 167998. · DOI · Paper page
- B. Foxen, C. Neill, A. Dunsworth, P. Roushan, B. Chiaro, A. Megrant, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, K. Satzinger, R. Barends, F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, S. Boixo, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, R. Collins, E. Farhi, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, M. Harrigan, T. Huang, S. V. Isakov, E. Jef- frey, Z. Jiang, D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, P. Klimov, A. Ko- rotkov, F. Kostritsa, D. Landhuis, E. Lucero, J. McClean, M. McEwen, X. Mi, M. Mohseni, J. Y. Mutus, O. Naa- man, M. Neeley, M. Niu, A. Petukhov, C. Quintana, N. Rubin, D. Sank, V. Smelyanskiy, A. Vainsencher, T. C. White, Z. Yao, P. Yeh, A. Zalcman, H. Neven, J. M. Martinis, and Google AI Quantum, Demonstrating a Continuous Set of Two-qubit Gates for Near-term Quan- tum Algorithms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 120504 (2020). · DOI
- P. Zanardi, C. Zalka, and L. Faoro, Entangling Power of Quantum Evolutions, Phys. Rev. A 62, 030301 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
- X. Wang, B. C. Sanders, and D. W. Berry, Entan- gling Power and Operator Entanglement in Qudit Sys- tems, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042323 (2003). · DOI
- D. Aharonov, X. Gao, Z. Landau, Y. Liu, and U. Vazi- rani, A Polynomial-Time Classical Algorithm for Noisy Random Circuit Sampling, (2022), arxiv:2211.03999 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
- A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandrà, A. Bengts- son, P. V. Klimov, Z. Chen, S. Hong, C. Erickson, I. K. Drozdov, J. Chau, G. Laun, R. Movassagh, A. As- faw, L. T. A. N. Brandāo, R. Peralta, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, K. Anderson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bilmes, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bo- vaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, J. Campero, H. S. Chang, B. Chiaro, D. Chik, C. Chou, J. Co- gan, R. Collins, P. Conner, W. Courtney, A. L. Crook, B. Curtin, D. M. Debroy, A. D. T. Barba, S. De- mura, A. Di Paolo, A. Dunsworth, L. Faoro, E. Farhi, R. Fatemi, V. S. Ferreira, L. F. Burgos, E. Forati, A. G. Fowler, B. Foxen, G. Garcia, E. Genois, W. Gi- ang, C. Gidney, D. Gilboa, M. Giustina, R. Gosula, A. G. Dau, J. A. Gross, S. Habegger, M. C. Hamil- ton, M. Hansen, M. P. Harrigan, S. D. Harrington, P. Heu, M. R. Hoffmann, T. Huang, A. Huff, W. J. Huggins, L. B. Ioffe, S. V. Isakov, J. Iveland, E. Jef- frey, Z. Jiang, C. Jones, P. Juhas, D. Kafri, T. Khat- tar, M. Khezri, M. Kieferová, S. Kim, A. Kitaev, A. R. Klots, A. N. Korotkov, F. Kostritsa, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. Landhuis, P. Laptev, K.-M. Lau, L. Laws, J. Lee, K. W. Lee, Y. D. Lensky, B. J. Lester, A. T. Lill, W. Liu, A. Locharla, F. D. Malone, O. Martin, S. Mar- tin, J. R. McClean, M. McEwen, K. C. Miao, A. Mieszala, S. Montazeri, W. Mruczkiewicz, O. Naaman, M. Neeley, C. Neill, A. Nersisyan, M. Newman, J. H. Ng, A. Nguyen, M. Nguyen, M. Y. Niu, T. E. O'Brien, S. Omonije, A. Opremcak, A. Petukhov, R. Potter, L. P. Pryadko, C. Quintana, D. M. Rhodes, C. Rocque, P. Roushan, N. C. Rubin, N. Saei, D. Sank, K. Sankaragomathi, K. J. Satzinger, H. F. Schurkus, C. Schuster, M. J. Shearn, A. Shorter, N. Shutty, V. Shvarts, V. Sivak, J. Skruzny, W. C. Smith, R. D. Somma, G. Sterling, D. Strain, M. Szalay, D. Thor, A. Torres, G. Vidal, C. V. Heid- weiller, T. White, B. W. K. Woo, C. Xing, Z. J. Yao, P. Yeh, J. Yoo, G. Young, A. Zalcman, Y. Zhang, N. Zhu, N. Zobrist, E. G. Rieffel, R. Biswas, R. Babbush, D. Ba- con, J. Hilton, E. Lucero, H. Neven, A. Megrant, J. Kelly, I. Aleiner, V. Smelyanskiy, K. Kechedzhi, Y. Chen, and S. Boixo, Phase transition in Random Circuit Sampling, (2023), arXiv:2304.11119 [quant-ph]. · DOI · Paper page
- Y. Makhlin, Nonlocal Properties of Two-Qubit Gates and Mixed States and Optimization of Quantum Computa- tions, Quantum Information Processing 1, 243 (2002). · DOI
- J. Zhang, Geometric Theory of Nonlocal Two-Qubit Op- erations, Physical Review A 67 (2003), 10.1103/Phys- RevA.67.042313. · DOI · Paper page
- S. Balakrishnan and R. Sankaranarayanan, Entangling Power and Local Invariants of Two-Qubit Gates, Physical Review A 82, 034301 (2010). Appendix A: Derivations of statistical model rules · DOI
- Authors
- Ware, B., Deshpande, A., Hangleiter, D., Niroula, P., Fefferman, B., Gorshkov, A. V., & Gullans, M. J.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Joint Center for Quantum Information and Computer Science (US)
- University of Chicago (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2305.04954
- OpenAlex
- W4376122463
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2120757, 1748958, DE-SC0019040)
- U.S. Department of Defense
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (OMA-2120757)
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
- Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (DE-SC0019040)
- Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara (1748958, PHY-1748958)
- Advanced Scientific Computing Research (DE- sc0019040, DESC0020312)
- Air Force Office of Scientific Research (OMA-2120757, DE-SC0019040, DE-SC0020312)
- Army Research Office (DE-SC0019040)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Keywords
- fidelity assessment, quantum advantage, phase transitions, statistical mechanical model, noise robustness
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
