Quick Navigation
Topics
Superconducting Qubits
Quantum Simulation
Quantum Foundations
Benchmarks of Nonclassicality for Qubit Arrays
arXiv
Authors: Mordecai Waegell, Justin Dressel
Year
2018
Paper ID
22606
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
199
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We present a set of practical benchmarks for N-qubit arrays that economically test the fidelity of achieving multi-qubit nonclassicality. The benchmarks are measurable correlators similar to 2-qubit Bell correlators, and are derived from a particular set of geometric structures from the N-qubit Pauli group. These structures prove the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) theorem, while the derived correlators witness genuine N-partite entanglement and establish a tight lower bound on the fidelity of particular stabilizer state preparations. The correlators need only M leq N+1 distinct measurement settings, as opposed to the 22N-1 settings that would normally be required to tomographically verify their associated stabilizer states. We optimize the measurements of these correlators for a physical array of qubits that can be nearest-neighbor-coupled using a circuit of controlled-Z gates with constant gate depth to form N-qubit linear cluster states. We numerically simulate the provided circuits for a realistic scenario with N=3,...,9 qubits, using ranges of T1 energy relaxation times, T2 dephasing times, and controlled-Z gate-fidelities consistent with Google's 9-qubit superconducting chip. The simulations verify the tightness of the fidelity bounds and witness nonclassicality for all nine qubits, while also showing ample room for improvement in chip performance.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2018 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We present a set of practical benchmarks for N-qubit arrays that economically test the fidelity of achieving multi-qubit nonclassicality.
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.