4.7 Article

Efficient experimental characterization of quantum processes via compressed sensing on an NMR quantum processor

期刊

QUANTUM INFORMATION PROCESSING
卷 21, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11128-022-03695-3

关键词

NMR quantum computing; Quantum process tomography; Compressed sensing; Reduced data set

资金

  1. [DST/ICPS/QuST/Theme-1/2019/Q-68]
  2. [DST/ICPS/QuST/Theme-2/2019/Q-74]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the compressed sensing (CS) algorithm and a heavily reduced data set were used to perform true quantum process tomography on an NMR quantum processor. The CS algorithm demonstrated significantly better performance in the Pauli-error basis for estimating process matrices corresponding to various quantum gates.
We employ the compressed sensing (CS) algorithm and a heavily reduced data set to experimentally perform true quantum process tomography (QPT) on an NMR quantum processor. We obtain the estimate of the process matrix chi corresponding to various two- and three-qubit quantum gates with a high fidelity. The CS algorithm is implemented using two different operator bases, namely the standard Pauli basis and the Pauli-error basis. We experimentally demonstrate that the performance of the CS algorithm is significantly better in the Pauli-error basis, where the constructed chi matrix is maximally sparse. We compare the standard least square (LS) optimization QPT method with the CS-QPT method and observe that, provided an appropriate basis is chosen, the CS-QPT method performs significantly better as compared to the LS-QPT method. In all the cases considered, we obtained experimental fidelities greater than 0.9 from a reduced data set, which was approximately 5-6 times smaller in size than a full data set. We also experimentally characterized the reduced dynamics of a two-qubit subsystem embedded in a three-qubit system and used the CS-QPT method to characterize processes corresponding to the evolution of two-qubit states under various J-coupling interactions.

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

4.7
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