4.6 Article

NMRCloudQ: a quantum cloud experience on a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer

期刊

SCIENCE BULLETIN
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 17-23

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scib.2017.12.022

关键词

Quantum cloud; Nuclear magnetic resonance; Gradient ascent pulse engineering; Randomized benchmarking

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11175094, 61771278, 11421063, 11534002, 11375167, 11605005]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB921002, 2014CB921403, 2016YFA0301201, 2014CB848700, 2013CB921800]
  3. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [11425523]
  4. NSAF [U1530401]
  5. Chinese Ministry of Education [20173080024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cloud-based quantum computing is anticipated to be the most useful and reachable form for public users to experience with the power of quantum. As initial attempts, IBM Q has launched influential cloud services on a superconducting quantum processor in 2016, but no other platforms has followed up yet. Here, we report our new cloud quantum computing service -NMRCloudQ (http://nmrcloudq.com/zh-hans/), where nuclear magnetic resonance, one of the pioneer platforms with mature techniques in experimental quantum computing, plays as the role of implementing computing tasks. Our service provides a comprehensive software environment preconfigured with a list of quantum information processing packages, and aims to be freely accessible to either amateurs that look forward to keeping pace with this quantum era or professionals that are interested in carrying out real quantum computing experiments in person. In our current version, four qubits are already usable with in average 99.10% single-qubit gate fidelity and 97.15% two-qubit fidelity via randomized benchmaking tests. Improved control precisions as well as a new seven-qubit processor are also in preparation and will be available later. (C) 2017 Science China Press. Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science China Press. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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