Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Superconducting Qubits
Benchmarking 16-element quantum search algorithms on superconducting quantum processors
arXiv
Authors: Jan Gwinner, Marcin Briański, Wojciech Burkot, Łukasz Czerwiński, Vladyslav Hlembotskyi
Year
2020
Paper ID
22267
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
100
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We present experimental results on running 4-qubit unstructured search on IBM quantum processors. Our best attempt attained probability of success around 24.5%. We try several algorithms and use the most recent developments in quantum search to reduce the number of entangling gates that are currently considered the main source of errors in quantum computations. Comparing theoretical expectations of an algorithm performance with the actual data, we explore the hardware limits, showing sharp, phase-transition-like degradation of performance on quantum processors. We conclude that it is extremely important to design hardware-aware algorithms and to include any other low level optimizations on NISQ devices.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Superconducting Qubits research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We present experimental results on running 4-qubit unstructured search on IBM quantum processors.
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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.