4.6 Article

Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors

Journal

QUANTUM
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

VEREIN FORDERUNG OPEN ACCESS PUBLIZIERENS QUANTENWISSENSCHAF
DOI: 10.22331/q-2020-09-11-321

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-NA0003525]
  2. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA)
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research Quantum Testbed Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Crosstalk occurs in most quantum computing systems with more than one qubit. It can cause a variety of correlated and nonlocal crosstalk errors that can be especially harmful to fault-tolerant quantum error correction, which generally relies on errors being local and relatively predictable. Mitigating crosstalk errors requires understanding, modeling, and detecting them. In this paper, we introduce a comprehensive framework for crosstalk errors and a protocol for detecting and localizing them. We give a rigorous definition of crosstalk errors that captures a wide range of disparate physical phenomena that have been called crosstalk, and a concrete model for crosstalk-free quantum processors. Errors that violate this model are crosstalk errors. Next, we give an equivalent but purely operational (model-independent) definition of crosstalk errors. Using this definition, we construct a protocol for detecting a large class of crosstalk errors in a multi-qubit processor by finding conditional dependencies between observed experimental probabilities. It is highly efficient, in the sense that the number of unique experiments required scales at most cubically, and very often quadratically, with the number of qubits. We demonstrate the protocol using simulations of 2-qubit and 6-qubit processors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available