4.6 Article

Experimental characterization of a non-Markovian quantum process

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
Volume 104, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022432

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) by the Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems (EQUS) [CE170100009]
  2. University of Queensland
  3. Sydney Quantum Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship
  4. Westpac Bicentennial Foundation Research Fellowship
  5. L'Oreal-UNESCO FWIS Fellowship
  6. Australian Research Council [DE170100712]
  7. Australian Research Council [DE170100712] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, a more efficient method is proposed to estimate non-Markovianity using machine learning models, quantified by an information-theoretic measure, with tomographically incomplete measurement. The model was tested in a quantum optical experiment and achieved a 90% accuracy in predicting the non-Markovianity measure, paving the way for efficient detection of non-Markovian noise in large scale quantum computers.
Every quantum system is coupled to an environment. Such system-environment interaction leads to temporal correlation between quantum operations at different times, resulting in non-Markovian noise. In principle, a full characterization of non-Markovian noise requires tomography of a multitime processes matrix, which is both computationally and experimentally demanding. In this paper, we propose a more efficient solution. We employ machine learning models to estimate the amount of non-Markovianity, as quantified by an information-theoretic measure, with tomographically incomplete measurement. We test our model on a quantum optical experiment, and we are able to predict the non-Markovianity measure with 90% accuracy. Our experiment paves the way for efficient detection of non-Markovian noise appearing in large scale quantum computers.

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