Editing
Standard Randomised Benchmarking
(section)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Further Information== * Fitting models are described and derived as seen in [https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6887v2 E. Mageson et al]. The coefficients derived are: ** <math>A_0</math> = Tr<math>[E_\psi \Lambda(\rho_\psi - \frac{\mathbb{1}}{d})]</math> ** <math>B_0</math> = Tr<math>[E_\psi \Lambda(\frac{\mathbb{1}}{d})]</math> ** <math>A_1</math> = Tr<math>[E_\psi \Lambda(\frac{Q_1\rho_\psi}{p} - \rho_\psi + \frac{(p-1)\mathbb{1}}{pd})]</math> + Tr<math>[E_\psi R_{m+1}(\frac{\rho_\psi}{p} - \frac{\mathbb{1}}{pd})]</math> ** <math>B_1</math> = Tr<math>[E_\psi R_{m+1}(\frac{\mathbb{1}}{d})]</math> ** <math>C_1</math> = Tr<math>[E_\psi \Lambda(\rho_\psi - \frac{\mathbb{1}}{d})]</math> * The case where Randomized benchmarking fails: Suppose the noise is time dependent and for each <math>i, \Lambda_i = C_i^{\dagger}</math>. Then <math>F_g(m, \psi) = 1</math> for every <math>m</math> even though there is a substantial error on each <math>C_i</math> and so benchmarking fails. * [https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.080505 Interleaved Randomized Benchmarking]: This protocol consists of interleaving random Clifford gates between the gate of interest and provides an estimate as well as theoretical bounds for the average error of the gate under test, so long as the average noise variation over all Clifford gates is small. Here the procedure followed is: ** Choose <math>K</math> sequences of Clifford elements where the first Clifford <math>C_{i_1}</math> in each sequence is chosen uniformly at random from Clif<math>_n</math>, the second is always chosen to be <math>C</math>(gate of interest), and alternate between uniformly random Clifford elements and deterministic <math>C</math> up to the <math>m^{th}</math> random gate. ** The <math>(m+1)^{th}</math> gate is chosen to be the inverse of the composition of the first <math>m</math> random gates and interlaced <math>C</math> gates. ** The rest of the steps remain the same and finally after plotting the new average sequence fidelity with the sequence length and fitting it into either the gate and time dependent or the gate and time independent model, we receive the new depolarizing parameter obtained is <math>p_c</math>, which replaces <math>p</math>. ** The new gate error is calculated as <math>r_c = \frac{(d-1)(1-p_c/p)}{d}</math> * Wallman, Granade, Harper, F., NJP 2015 [[Purity benchmarking]]: A unitarity can be estimated via purity benchmarking, which is an RB-like experiment that estimates a decay rate.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Quantum Protocol Zoo may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Quantum Protocol Zoo:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Log in
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
News
Protocol Library
Certification Library
Nodal Subroutines
Codes Repository
Knowledge Graphs
Submissions
Categories
Supplementary Information
Recent Changes
Contact us
Help
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information