Randomized Benchmarking as Convolution: Fourier Analysis of Gate Dependent Errors

Seth T. Merkel1, Emily J. Pritchett1, and Bryan H. Fong1,1

1HRL Laboratories, LLC 3011 Malibu Canyon Road, Malibu, CA 90265 USA

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

We show that the Randomized Benchmarking (RB) protocol is a convolution amenable to Fourier space analysis. By adopting the mathematical framework of Fourier transforms of matrix-valued functions on groups established in recent work from Gowers and Hatami [19], we provide an alternative proof of Wallman's [32] and Proctor's [28] bounds on the effect of gate-dependent noise on randomized benchmarking. We show explicitly that as long as our faulty gate-set is close to the targeted representation of the Clifford group, an RB sequence is described by the exponential decay of a process that has exactly two eigenvalues close to one and the rest close to zero. This framework also allows us to construct a gauge in which the average gate-set error is a depolarizing channel parameterized by the RB decay rates, as well as a gauge which maximizes the fidelity with respect to the ideal gate-set.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] Supplementary Mathematica notebook included as ancillary file of this arxiv submission.

[2] The GAP Group, GAP — Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, version 4.10.0, 2018. URL https:/​/​www.gap-system.org.
https:/​/​www.gap-system.org

[3] C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas. High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyperfine qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117: 060504, August 2016. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.117.060504. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.117.060504.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.117.060504

[4] R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, C. Neill, P. O'Malley, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cleland, and John M. Martinis. Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance. Nature, 508: 500–503, April 2014. 10.1038/​nature13171. URL https:/​/​www.nature.com/​articles/​nature13171.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature13171
https:/​/​www.nature.com/​articles/​nature13171

[5] Arnaud Carignan-Dugas, Joel J. Wallman, and Joseph Emerson. Characterizing universal gate sets via dihedral benchmarking. Phys. Rev. A, 92: 060302, December 2015. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.060302. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.060302.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.060302

[6] Arnaud Carignan-Dugas, Kristine Boone, Joel J. Wallman, and Joseph Emerson. From randomized benchmarking experiments to gate-set circuit fidelity: how to interpret randomized benchmarking decay parameters. New J. Phys., 20: 092001, September 2018. 10.1088/​1367-2630/​aadcc7. URL https:/​/​iopscience.iop.org/​article/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​aadcc7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​aadcc7

[7] T. Chasseur and F. K. Wilhelm. Complete randomized benchmarking protocol accounting for leakage errors. Phys. Rev. A, 92: 042333, October 2015. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.042333. URL https:/​/​journals.aps.org/​pra/​abstract/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.042333.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.042333

[8] J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. Tornberg, Jens Koch, Lev S. Bishop, A. A. Houck, B. R. Johnson, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf. Randomized benchmarking and process tomography for gate errors in a solid-state qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 102: 090502, March 2009. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.102.090502. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.102.090502.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.102.090502

[9] A. D. Córcoles, Jay M. Gambetta, Jerry M. Chow, John A. Smolin, Matthew Ware, Joel Strand, B. L. T. Plourde, and M. Steffen. Process verification of two-qubit quantum gates by randomized benchmarking. Phys. Rev. A, 87: 030301, March 2013. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.87.030301. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.87.030301.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.87.030301

[10] Andrew W Cross, Easwar Magesan, Lev S Bishop, John A Smolin, and Jay M Gambetta. Scalable randomised benchmarking of non-Clifford gates. npj Quantum Inf., 2: 16012, April 2016. 10.1038/​npjqi.2016.12. URL https:/​/​www.nature.com/​articles/​npjqi201612.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​npjqi.2016.12
https:/​/​www.nature.com/​articles/​npjqi201612

[11] Christoph Dankert, Richard Cleve, Joseph Emerson, and Etera Livine. Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation. Phys. Rev. A, 80: 012304, July 2009. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.80.012304. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.80.012304.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.80.012304

[12] Joseph Emerson, Robert Alicki, and Karol Życzkowski. Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators. J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt., 7 (10): S347, September 2005. 10.1088/​1464-4266/​7/​10/​021. URL https:/​/​iopscience.iop.org/​article/​10.1088/​1464-4266/​7/​10/​021.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1464-4266/​7/​10/​021

[13] Jeffrey M. Epstein, Andrew W. Cross, Easwar Magesan, and Jay M. Gambetta. Investigating the limits of randomized benchmarking protocols. Phys. Rev. A, 89: 062321, June 2014. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.89.062321. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.89.062321.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.89.062321

[14] M. A. Fogarty, M. Veldhorst, R. Harper, C. H. Yang, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. Flammia, and A. S. Dzurak. Nonexponential fidelity decay in randomized benchmarking with low-frequency noise. Phys. Rev. A, 92: 022326, August 2015. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.022326. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.022326.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.022326

[15] B. H. Fong and S. T. Merkel. Randomized benchmarking, correlated noise, and Ising models. arXiv:1703.09747, 2017. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1703.09747.
arXiv:1703.09747

[16] J. P. Gaebler, A. M. Meier, T. R. Tan, R. Bowler, Y. Lin, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. P. Home, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland. Randomized benchmarking of multiqubit gates. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108: 260503, June 2012. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.108.260503. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.108.260503.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.108.260503

[17] J. P. Gaebler, T. R. Tan, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, A. C. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland. High-fidelity universal gate set for ${^{9}\mathrm{Be}}^{+}$ ion qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117: 060505, August 2016. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.117.060505. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.117.060505.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.117.060505

[18] Jay M. Gambetta, A. D. Córcoles, S. T. Merkel, B. R. Johnson, John A. Smolin, Jerry M. Chow, Colm A. Ryan, Chad Rigetti, S. Poletto, Thomas A. Ohki, Mark B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen. Characterization of addressability by simultaneous randomized benchmarking. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109: 240504, December 2012. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.109.240504. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.109.240504.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.109.240504

[19] W. T. Gowers and O. Hatami. Inverse and stability theorems for approximate representations of finite groups. Sb. Math., 208 (12): 1784, 2017. 10.1070/​sm8872. URL https:/​/​iopscience.iop.org/​article/​10.1070/​SM8872.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1070/​sm8872
https:/​/​iopscience.iop.org/​article/​10.1070/​SM8872

[20] E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland. Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates. Phys. Rev. A, 77: 012307, January 2008. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.77.012307. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.77.012307.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.77.012307

[21] Thaddeus D. Ladd. Hyperfine-induced decay in triple quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B, 86: 125408, September 2012. 10.1103/​PhysRevB.86.125408. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.86.125408.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.86.125408

[22] Benjamin Lévi, Cecilia C. López, Joseph Emerson, and D. G. Cory. Efficient error characterization in quantum information processing. Phys. Rev. A, 75: 022314, February 2007. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.75.022314. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.75.022314.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.75.022314

[23] Easwar Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and Joseph Emerson. Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. Phys. Rev. Lett., 106: 180504, May 2011. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.106.180504. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.106.180504.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.106.180504

[24] Easwar Magesan, Jay M. Gambetta, and Joseph Emerson. Characterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking. Phys. Rev. A, 85: 042311, April 2012a. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.85.042311. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.85.042311.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.85.042311

[25] Easwar Magesan, Jay M. Gambetta, B. R. Johnson, Colm A. Ryan, Jerry M. Chow, Seth T. Merkel, Marcus P. da Silva, George A. Keefe, Mary B. Rothwell, Thomas A. Ohki, Mark B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen. Efficient measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109: 080505, August 2012b. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.109.080505. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.109.080505.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.109.080505

[26] Cristopher Moore and Alexander Russell. Approximate representations, approximate homomorphisms, and low-dimensional embeddings of groups. SIAM J. Discrete. Math., 29 (1): 182–197, 2015. 10.1137/​140958578. URL https:/​/​epubs.siam.org/​doi/​10.1137/​140958578.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​140958578

[27] S Olmschenk, R Chicireanu, K D Nelson, and J V Porto. Randomized benchmarking of atomic qubits in an optical lattice. New J. Phys., 12 (11): 113007, 2010. 10.1088/​1367-2630/​12/​11/​113007. URL https:/​/​iopscience.iop.org/​article/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​12/​11/​113007.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​12/​11/​113007

[28] Timothy Proctor, Kenneth Rudinger, Kevin Young, Mohan Sarovar, and Robin Blume-Kohout. What randomized benchmarking actually measures. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119: 130502, September 2017. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.130502. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.130502.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.130502

[29] Jiaan Qi and Hui Khoon Ng. Comparing the randomized benchmarking figure with the average infidelity of a quantum gate-set. Int. J. Quantum Inf., 17 (04): 1950031, 2019. 10.1142/​S021974991950031X. URL https:/​/​www.worldscientific.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1142/​S021974991950031X.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1142/​S021974991950031X

[30] C A Ryan, M Laforest, and R Laflamme. Randomized benchmarking of single- and multi-qubit control in liquid-state NMR quantum information processing. New J. Phys., 11 (1): 013034, 2009. 10.1088/​1367-2630/​11/​1/​013034. URL https:/​/​iopscience.iop.org/​article/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​11/​1/​013034.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​11/​1/​013034

[31] M. Veldhorst, J. C. C. Hwang, C. H. Yang, A. W. Leenstra, B. de Ronde, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak. An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity. Nature Nanotechnology, 9: 981–985, 10 2014. 10.1038/​nnano.2014.216. URL https:/​/​www.nature.com/​articles/​nnano.2014.216.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nnano.2014.216
https:/​/​www.nature.com/​articles/​nnano.2014.216

[32] Joel J. Wallman. Randomized benchmarking with gate-dependent noise. Quantum, 2: 47, January 2018. ISSN 2521-327X. 10.22331/​q-2018-01-29-47. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2018-01-29-47.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2018-01-29-47

[33] Joel J. Wallman, Chris Granade, Robin Harper, and Steven T Flammia. Estimating the coherence of noise. New J. Phys., 17 (11): 113020, 2015. 10.1088/​1367-2630/​17/​11/​113020. URL https:/​/​iopscience.iop.org/​article/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​17/​11/​113020.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​17/​11/​113020

[34] Joel J. Wallman, Marie Barnhill, and Joseph Emerson. Robust characterization of leakage errors. New J. Phys., 18 (4): 043021, 2016. 10.1088/​1367-2630/​18/​4/​043021. URL https:/​/​iopscience.iop.org/​article/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​18/​4/​043021.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​18/​4/​043021

[35] Christopher J. Wood and Jay M. Gambetta. Quantification and characterization of leakage errors. Phys. Rev. A, 97: 032306, March 2018. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.032306. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.032306.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.032306

[36] T. Xia, M. Lichtman, K. Maller, A. W. Carr, M. J. Piotrowicz, L. Isenhower, and M. Saffman. Randomized benchmarking of single-qubit gates in a 2d array of neutral-atom qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett., 114: 100503, March 2015. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.114.100503. URL https:/​/​link.aps.org/​doi/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.114.100503.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.114.100503

Cited by

[1] Matthew Girling, Cristina Cîrstoiu, and David Jennings, "Estimation of correlations and nonseparability in quantum channels via unitarity benchmarking", Physical Review Research 4 2, 023041 (2022).

The above citations are from Crossref's cited-by service (last updated successfully 2022-05-17 06:09:48). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

On SAO/NASA ADS no data on citing works was found (last attempt 2022-05-17 06:09:48).