Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
A framework for randomized benchmarking over compact groups
arXiv
Authors: Linghang Kong
Year
2021
Paper ID
41444
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
196
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Characterization of experimental systems is an essential step in developing and improving quantum hardware. A collection of protocols known as Randomized Benchmarking (RB) was developed in the past decade, which provides an efficient way to measure error rates in quantum systems. In a recent paper (arxiv:2010.07974), a general framework for RB was proposed, which encompassed most of the known RB protocols and overcame the limitation on error models in previous works. However, even this general framework has a restriction: it can only be applied to a finite group of gates. This does not meet the need posed by experiments, in particular the demand for benchmarking non-Clifford gates and continuous gate sets on quantum devices. In this work we generalize the RB framework to continuous groups of gates and show that as long as the noise level is reasonably small, the output can be approximated as a linear combination of matrix exponential decays. As an application, we numerically study the fully randomized benchmarking protocol (i.e. RB with the entire unitary group as the gate set) enabled by our proof. This provides a unified way to estimate the gate fidelity for any quantum gate in an experiment.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Characterization of experimental systems is an essential step in developing and improving 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.