skip to main content
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: What Randomized Benchmarking Actually Measures

Abstract

Randomized benchmarking (RB) is widely used to measure an error rate of a set of quantum gates, by performing random circuits that would do nothing if the gates were perfect. In the limit of no finite-sampling error, the exponential decay rate of the observable survival probabilities, versus circuit length, yields a single error metric r. For Clifford gates with arbitrary small errors described by process matrices, r was believed to reliably correspond to the mean, over all Clifford gates, of the average gate infidelity between the imperfect gates and their ideal counterparts. We show that this quantity is not a well-defined property of a physical gate set. It depends on the representations used for the imperfect and ideal gates, and the variant typically computed in the literature can differ from r by orders of magnitude. We present new theories of the RB decay that are accurate for all small errors describable by process matrices, and show that the RB decay curve is a simple exponential for all such errors. Here, these theories allow explicit computation of the error rate that RB measures (r), but as far as we can tell it does not correspond to the infidelity of a physicallymore » allowed (completely positive) representation of the imperfect gates.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1];  [1];  [2]
  1. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-CA), Livermore, CA (United States)
  2. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
IARPA; USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1406360
Report Number(s):
SAND-2017-10699J
Journal ID: ISSN 0031-9007; PRLTAO; 657513; TRN: US1703035
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Physical Review Letters
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 119; Journal Issue: 13; Journal ID: ISSN 0031-9007
Publisher:
American Physical Society (APS)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSICS

Citation Formats

Proctor, Timothy, Rudinger, Kenneth, Young, Kevin, Sarovar, Mohan, and Blume-Kohout, Robin. What Randomized Benchmarking Actually Measures. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.130502.
Proctor, Timothy, Rudinger, Kenneth, Young, Kevin, Sarovar, Mohan, & Blume-Kohout, Robin. What Randomized Benchmarking Actually Measures. United States. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.130502.
Proctor, Timothy, Rudinger, Kenneth, Young, Kevin, Sarovar, Mohan, and Blume-Kohout, Robin. Thu . "What Randomized Benchmarking Actually Measures". United States. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.130502. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1406360.
@article{osti_1406360,
title = {What Randomized Benchmarking Actually Measures},
author = {Proctor, Timothy and Rudinger, Kenneth and Young, Kevin and Sarovar, Mohan and Blume-Kohout, Robin},
abstractNote = {Randomized benchmarking (RB) is widely used to measure an error rate of a set of quantum gates, by performing random circuits that would do nothing if the gates were perfect. In the limit of no finite-sampling error, the exponential decay rate of the observable survival probabilities, versus circuit length, yields a single error metric r. For Clifford gates with arbitrary small errors described by process matrices, r was believed to reliably correspond to the mean, over all Clifford gates, of the average gate infidelity between the imperfect gates and their ideal counterparts. We show that this quantity is not a well-defined property of a physical gate set. It depends on the representations used for the imperfect and ideal gates, and the variant typically computed in the literature can differ from r by orders of magnitude. We present new theories of the RB decay that are accurate for all small errors describable by process matrices, and show that the RB decay curve is a simple exponential for all such errors. Here, these theories allow explicit computation of the error rate that RB measures (r), but as far as we can tell it does not correspond to the infidelity of a physically allowed (completely positive) representation of the imperfect gates.},
doi = {10.1103/physrevlett.119.130502},
journal = {Physical Review Letters},
number = 13,
volume = 119,
place = {United States},
year = {2017},
month = {9}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 17 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices
journal, June 1975


An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity
journal, October 2014

  • Veldhorst, M.; Hwang, J. C. C.; Yang, C. H.
  • Nature Nanotechnology, Vol. 9, Issue 12
  • DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2014.216

Optimal Quantum Control Using Randomized Benchmarking
journal, June 2014


Choi matrices, norms and entanglement associated with positive maps on matrix algebras
journal, January 2012


Randomized Benchmarking of Single-Qubit Gates in a 2D Array of Neutral-Atom Qubits
journal, March 2015


Measuring and Suppressing Quantum State Leakage in a Superconducting Qubit
journal, January 2016


Robust Characterization of Loss Rates
journal, August 2015


Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators
journal, September 2005

  • Emerson, Joseph; Alicki, Robert; Życzkowski, Karol
  • Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, Vol. 7, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1088/1464-4266/7/10/021

Self-consistent quantum process tomography
journal, June 2013


Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates
journal, January 2008


Demonstration of a quantum error detection code using a square lattice of four superconducting qubits
journal, April 2015

  • Córcoles, A. D.; Magesan, Easwar; Srinivasan, Srikanth J.
  • Nature Communications, Vol. 6, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7979

Characterizing errors on qubit operations via iterative randomized benchmarking
journal, January 2016


Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance
journal, April 2014


Quantifying the quantum gate fidelity of single-atom spin qubits in silicon by randomized benchmarking
journal, March 2015


Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation
journal, July 2009


Implementing a strand of a scalable fault-tolerant quantum computing fabric
journal, June 2014

  • Chow, Jerry M.; Gambetta, Jay M.; Magesan, Easwar
  • Nature Communications, Vol. 5, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5015

Scalable and Robust Randomized Benchmarking of Quantum Processes
journal, May 2011


Electrically controlling single-spin qubits in a continuous microwave field
journal, April 2015

  • Laucht, Arne; Muhonen, Juha T.; Mohiyaddin, Fahd A.
  • Science Advances, Vol. 1, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1500022

Accelerated randomized benchmarking
journal, January 2015


Effect of noise correlations on randomized benchmarking
journal, February 2016


Investigating the limits of randomized benchmarking protocols
journal, June 2014


Estimating the coherence of noise
journal, November 2015


Rolling quantum dice with a superconducting qubit
journal, September 2014


Complete randomized benchmarking protocol accounting for leakage errors
journal, October 2015


Nonexponential fidelity decay in randomized benchmarking with low-frequency noise
journal, August 2015


Scalable randomised benchmarking of non-Clifford gates
journal, April 2016

  • Cross, Andrew W.; Magesan, Easwar; Bishop, Lev S.
  • npj Quantum Information, Vol. 2, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1038/npjqi.2016.12

Efficient Measurement of Quantum Gate Error by Interleaved Randomized Benchmarking
journal, August 2012


Demonstration of qubit operations below a rigorous fault tolerance threshold with gate set tomography
journal, February 2017

  • Blume-Kohout, Robin; Gamble, John King; Nielsen, Erik
  • Nature Communications, Vol. 8, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14485

Symmetrized Characterization of Noisy Quantum Processes
journal, September 2007


Characterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking
journal, April 2012


Robust Extraction of Tomographic Information via Randomized Benchmarking
journal, March 2014


Randomized benchmarking in measurement-based quantum computing
journal, September 2016

  • Alexander, Rafael N.; Turner, Peter S.; Bartlett, Stephen D.
  • Physical Review A, Vol. 94, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.032303

Characterizing universal gate sets via dihedral benchmarking
journal, December 2015


Characterization of Addressability by Simultaneous Randomized Benchmarking
journal, December 2012


Process verification of two-qubit quantum gates by randomized benchmarking
journal, March 2013


Distance measures to compare real and ideal quantum processes
journal, June 2005


Quantum operation time reversal
journal, March 2008


Demonstration of robust quantum gate tomography via randomized benchmarking
journal, November 2015


Randomized benchmarking with confidence
journal, October 2014


    Works referencing / citing this record:

    Quantum process identification: a method for characterizing non-markovian quantum dynamics
    journal, August 2019