You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.

Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Error Correction Fault Tolerance Quantum Simulation

Randomized benchmarking for qudit Clifford gates

arXiv
Authors: Mahnaz Jafarzadeh, Ya-Dong Wu, Yuval R. Sanders, Barry C. Sanders

Year

2019

Paper ID

14701

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

70

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We introduce unitary-gate randomized benchmarking (URB) for qudit gates by extending single-and multi-qubit URB to single- and multi-qudit gates. Specifically, we develop a qudit URB procedure that exploits unitary 2-designs. Furthermore, we show that our URB procedure is not simply extracted from the multi-qubit case by equating qudit URB to URB of the symmetric multi-qubit subspace. Our qudit URB is elucidated by using pseudocode, which facilitates incorporating into benchmarking applications.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2019 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We introduce unitary-gate randomized benchmarking (URB) for qudit gates by extending single-and multi-qubit URB to single- and multi-qudit gates.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #14701 #69978 Distribution Complexity of Elec... #69974 Hierarchical separation of rela... #69964 Bounded-depth spacetime lattice... #69945 Phase Stable Integrated Delay L...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.