Experimental neural network enhanced quantum tomography

Quantum tomography is currently ubiquitous for testing any implementation of a quantum information processing device. Various sophisticated procedures for state and process reconstruction from measured data are well developed and benefit from precise knowledge of the model describing state-preparation-and-measurement (SPAM) apparatus. However, physical models suffer from intrinsic limitations as actual measurement operators and trial states cannot be known precisely. This scenario inevitably leads to SPAM errors degrading reconstruction performance. Here we develop a framework based on machine learning which generally applies to both the tomography and SPAM mitigation problem. We experimentally implement our method. We trained a supervised neural network to filter the experimental data and hence uncovered salient patterns that characterize the measurement probabilities for the original state and the ideal experimental apparatus free from SPAM errors. We compared the neural network state reconstruction protocol with a protocol treating SPAM errors by process tomography, as well as to an SPAM-agnostic protocol with idealized measurements. The average reconstruction fidelity is shown to be enhanced by 10% and 27%, respectively. The presented methods apply to the vast range of quantum experiments which rely on tomography.

[1]  Andrew G. White,et al.  Measurement of qubits , 2001, quant-ph/0103121.

[2]  Matthias Troyer,et al.  Neural-network quantum state tomography , 2018 .

[3]  Zdenek Hradil,et al.  Self-calibration for self-consistent tomography , 2012 .

[4]  Jens Eisert,et al.  Recovering quantum gates from few average gate fidelities , 2018, Physical review letters.

[5]  S. Straupe,et al.  Experimental adaptive Bayesian tomography , 2013, 1303.1792.

[6]  Christopher S. Jackson,et al.  Detecting correlated errors in state-preparation-and-measurement tomography , 2015 .

[7]  Jay M. Gambetta,et al.  Self-Consistent Quantum Process Tomography , 2012, 1211.0322.

[8]  Guigang Zhang,et al.  Deep Learning , 2016, Int. J. Semantic Comput..

[9]  Michael A. Osborne,et al.  Efficiently measuring a quantum device using machine learning , 2018, npj Quantum Information.

[10]  Erik Nielsen,et al.  Robust, self-consistent, closed-form tomography of quantum logic gates on a trapped ion qubit , 2013, 1310.4492.

[11]  Z. Hradil Quantum-state estimation , 1996, quant-ph/9609012.

[12]  Peter Maunz,et al.  Demonstration of qubit operations below a rigorous fault tolerance threshold with gate set tomography , 2016, Nature Communications.

[13]  Erik Nielsen,et al.  Optimization of a solid-state electron spin qubit using gate set tomography , 2016, 1606.02856.

[14]  S. Straupe,et al.  Self-calibrating tomography for angular Schmidt modes in spontaneous parametric down-conversion , 2011, 1112.3806.

[15]  Jun Li,et al.  Local-measurement-based quantum state tomography via neural networks , 2018, npj Quantum Information.

[16]  Jens Eisert,et al.  Tomography of quantum detectors , 2009 .

[17]  Giacomo Torlai,et al.  Latent Space Purification via Neural Density Operators. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[18]  Joseph Emerson,et al.  Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. , 2010, Physical review letters.

[19]  A. Vaziri,et al.  Entanglement of the orbital angular momentum states of photons , 2001, Nature.

[20]  Ebrahim Karimi,et al.  Exact solution to simultaneous intensity and phase encryption with a single phase-only hologram. , 2013, Optics letters.

[21]  Isaac L. Chuang,et al.  Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box , 1997 .

[22]  Yusuke Nomura,et al.  Constructing exact representations of quantum many-body systems with deep neural networks , 2018, Nature Communications.

[23]  Simone Severini,et al.  Learning hard quantum distributions with variational autoencoders , 2017, npj Quantum Information.

[24]  S. Kulik,et al.  Spatial Bell-State Generation without Transverse Mode Subspace Postselection. , 2017, Physical review letters.

[25]  ChristopherGranade Practical adaptive quantum tomography * , 2017 .

[26]  Steven T. Flammia,et al.  Randomized benchmarking with confidence , 2014, 1404.6025.

[27]  S. Kulik,et al.  Tomography of spatial mode detectors. , 2014, Optics express.

[28]  Roger G. Melko,et al.  Reconstructing quantum states with generative models , 2018, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[29]  Robert Fickler,et al.  Measuring azimuthal and radial modes of photons. , 2018, Optics express.

[30]  Ruediger Schack,et al.  Unknown Quantum States and Operations, a Bayesian View , 2004, quant-ph/0404156.

[31]  Igor Radchenko,et al.  Experimental adaptive process tomography , 2016, 1611.01064.

[32]  R. Boyd,et al.  Experimental Realization of Quantum Tomography of Photonic Qudits via Symmetric Informationally Complete Positive Operator-Valued Measures , 2015 .

[33]  N. Houlsby,et al.  Adaptive Bayesian quantum tomography , 2011, 1107.0895.

[34]  Sebastian Ruder,et al.  An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms , 2016, Vestnik komp'iuternykh i informatsionnykh tekhnologii.

[35]  Jaromir Fiurasek Maximum-likelihood estimation of quantum measurement , 2001 .

[36]  Nathan Wiebe,et al.  Robust online Hamiltonian learning , 2012, TQC.

[37]  G. D’Ariano,et al.  Maximum-likelihood estimation of the density matrix , 1999, quant-ph/9909052.

[38]  Nicolas Gisin,et al.  Imperfect measurement settings: Implications for quantum state tomography and entanglement witnesses , 2012, 1203.0911.

[39]  E. Eliel,et al.  Full-field quantum correlations of spatially entangled photons. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[40]  Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano,et al.  Quantum calibration of measurement instrumentation. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[41]  Lutz Prechelt,et al.  Early Stopping - But When? , 2012, Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade.

[42]  P. Zoller,et al.  Complete Characterization of a Quantum Process: The Two-Bit Quantum Gate , 1996, quant-ph/9611013.

[43]  Lee A. Rozema,et al.  Self-calibrating quantum state tomography , 2011, Frontiers in Optics 2011/Laser Science XXVII.

[44]  A. Zeilinger,et al.  Generation and confirmation of a (100 × 100)-dimensional entangled quantum system , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[45]  E. Knill,et al.  Randomized Benchmarking of Quantum Gates , 2007, 0707.0963.

[46]  M. Paris,et al.  Ancilla-assisted calibration of a measuring apparatus. , 2012, Physical review letters.