Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Superconducting Qubits
Benchmarking the readout of a superconducting qubit for repeated measurements
arXiv
Authors: S. Hazra, W. Dai, T. Connolly, P. D. Kurilovich, Z. Wang, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret
Year
2024
Paper ID
65384
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
155
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Readout of superconducting qubits faces a trade-off between measurement speed and unwanted back-action on the qubit caused by the readout drive, such as T1 degradation and leakage out of the computational subspace. The readout is typically benchmarked by integrating the readout signal and choosing a binary threshold to extract the "readout fidelity". We show that readout fidelity may significantly overlook readout-induced leakage errors. Such errors are detrimental for applications that rely on continuously repeated measurements, e.g., quantum error correction. We introduce a method to measure the readout-induced leakage rate by repeatedly executing a composite operation - a readout preceded by a randomized qubit-flip. We apply this technique to characterize the readout of a superconducting qubit, optimized for fidelity across four different readout durations. Our technique highlights the importance of an independent leakage characterization by showing that the leakage rates vary from 0.12\% to 7.76\% across these readouts even though the fidelity exceeds 99.5\% in all four cases.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Superconducting Qubits research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Readout of superconducting qubits faces a trade-off between measurement speed and unwanted back-action on the qubit caused by the readout drive, such as T1 degradation and...
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.