Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Scalable randomized benchmarking of non-Clifford gates
arXiv
Authors: Andrew W. Cross, Easwar Magesan, Lev S. Bishop, John A. Smolin, Jay M. Gambetta
Year
2015
Paper ID
26797
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
125
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Randomized benchmarking is a widely used experimental technique to characterize the average error of quantum operations. Benchmarking procedures that scale to enable characterization of n-qubit circuits rely on efficient procedures for manipulating those circuits and, as such, have been limited to subgroups of the Clifford group. However, universal quantum computers require additional, non-Clifford gates to approximate arbitrary unitary transformations. We define a scalable randomized benchmarking procedure over n-qubit unitary matrices that correspond to protected non-Clifford gates for a class of stabilizer codes. We present efficient methods for representing and composing group elements, sampling them uniformly, and synthesizing corresponding poly(n)-sized circuits. The procedure provides experimental access to two independent parameters that together characterize the average gate fidelity of a group element.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2015 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Randomized benchmarking is a widely used experimental technique to characterize the average error of quantum operations.
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.