4.8 Article

Recovering Quantum Gates from Few Average Gate Fidelities

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 121, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.170502

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG [SPP1798 CoSIP, CRC 183, EI 519/7-1, EI 519/14-1, SPP1798]
  2. ERC
  3. Templeton Foundation
  4. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [817482]
  5. Air Force Office of Scientific Research
  6. Excellence Initiative of the German Federal Government [ZUK 81]
  7. ARO [W911NF-14-1-0098]
  8. Universities Australia
  9. DAAD's Joint Research Co-operation Scheme (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research)
  10. National Science Centre, Poland within the project Polonez from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant [2015/19/P/ST2/03001, 665778]
  11. Excellence Initiative of the German State Government [ZUK 81]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characterizing quantum processes is a key task in the development of quantum technologies, especially at the noisy intermediate scale of today's devices. One method for characterizing processes is randomized benchmarking, which is robust against state preparation and measurement errors and can be used to benchmark Clifford gates. Compressed sensing techniques achieve full tomography of quantum channels essentially at optimal resource efficiency. In this Letter, we show that the favorable features of both approaches can be combined. For characterizing multiqubit unitary gates, we provide a rigorously guaranteed and practical reconstruction method that works with an essentially optimal number of average gate fidelities measured with respect to random Clifford unitaries. Moreover, for general unital quantum channels, we provide an explicit expansion into a unitary 2-design, allowing for a practical and guaranteed reconstruction also in that case. As a side result, we obtain a new statistical interpretation of the unitarity-a figure of merit characterizing the coherence of a process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据