You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.
Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Easier randomizing gates provide more accurate fidelity estimation
arXiv
Authors: Debankan Sannamoth, Kristine Boone, Arnaud Carignan-Dugas, Akel Hashim, Irfan Siddiqi, Karl Mayer, Joseph Emerson
Year
2025
Paper ID
36026
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
170
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Accurate benchmarking of quantum gates is crucial for understanding and enhancing the performance of quantum hardware. A standard method for this is interleaved benchmarking, a technique which estimates the error on an interleaved target gate by comparing cumulative error rates of randomized sequences implemented with the interleaved gate and without it. In this work, we show both numerically and experimentally that the standard approach of interleaved randomized benchmarking (IRB), which uses the multi-qubit Clifford group for randomization, can produce highly inaccurate and even physically impossible estimates for the error on the interleaved gate in the presence of coherent errors. Fortunately we also show that interleaved benchmarking performed with cycle benchmarking, which randomizes with single qubit Pauli gates, provides dramatically reduced systematic uncertainty relative to standard IRB, and further provides as host of additional benefits including data reusability. We support our conclusions with a theoretical framework for bounding systematic errors, extensive numerical results comparing a range of interleaved protocols under fixed resource costs, and experimental demonstrations on three quantum computing platforms.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Accurate benchmarking of quantum gates is crucial for understanding and enhancing the performance of quantum hardware.
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.