Experimental estimation of average fidelity of a Clifford gate on a 7-qubit quantum processor.

One of the major experimental achievements in the past decades is the ability to control quantum systems to high levels of precision. To quantify the level of control we need to characterize the dynamical evolution. Full characterization via quantum process tomography is impractical and often unnecessary. For most practical purposes, it is enough to estimate more general quantities such as the average fidelity. Here we use a unitary 2-design and twirling protocol for efficiently estimating the average fidelity of Clifford gates, to certify a 7-qubit entangling gate in a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum processor. Compared with more than 10^{8} experiments required by full process tomography, we conducted 1656 experiments to satisfy a statistical confidence level of 99%. The average fidelity of this Clifford gate in experiment is 55.1%, and rises to at least 87.5% if the signal's decay due to decoherence is taken into account. The entire protocol of certifying Clifford gates is efficient and scalable, and can easily be extended to any general quantum information processor with minor modifications.

[1]  T. Ralph,et al.  Quantum process tomography of a controlled-NOT gate. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[2]  John M. Martinis,et al.  Logic gates at the surface code threshold: Superconducting qubits poised for fault-tolerant quantum computing , 2014 .

[3]  Zach DeVito,et al.  Opt , 2017 .

[4]  R. Martinez,et al.  An algorithmic benchmark for quantum information processing , 2000, Nature.

[5]  Zhan Shi,et al.  Quantum control and process tomography of a semiconductor quantum dot hybrid qubit , 2014, Nature.

[6]  I. Chuang,et al.  Experimental realization of Shor's quantum factoring algorithm using nuclear magnetic resonance , 2001, Nature.

[7]  E. Knill,et al.  Liquid-state nuclear magnetic resonance as a testbed for developing quantum control methods , 2008, 0803.1982.

[8]  Ny,et al.  Quantum process tomography of a universal entangling gate implemented with Josephson phase qubits , 2009, 0910.1118.

[9]  David Poulin,et al.  Practical characterization of quantum devices without tomography. , 2011, Physical review letters.

[10]  N. Taylor,et al.  Cyclobutanone mimics of penicillins: effects of substitution on conformation and hemiketal stability. , 2008, The Journal of organic chemistry.

[11]  Jens Koch,et al.  Randomized benchmarking and process tomography for gate errors in a solid-state qubit. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[12]  Raymond Laflamme,et al.  Practical experimental certification of computational quantum gates using a twirling procedure. , 2011, Physical review letters.

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

[14]  A. Kitaev,et al.  Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas (14 pages) , 2004, quant-ph/0403025.

[15]  R. Barends,et al.  Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance , 2014, Nature.

[16]  T. Monz,et al.  Process tomography of ion trap quantum gates. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[17]  J. Emerson,et al.  Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators , 2005, quant-ph/0503243.

[18]  Jingfu Zhang,et al.  Experimental magic state distillation for fault-tolerant quantum computing , 2011, Nature Communications.

[19]  J. Preskill Reliable quantum computers , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[20]  Yi-Kai Liu,et al.  Direct fidelity estimation from few Pauli measurements. , 2011, Physical review letters.

[21]  Timo O. Reiss,et al.  Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms. , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance.

[22]  R. Laflamme,et al.  Randomized benchmarking of single- and multi-qubit control in liquid-state NMR quantum information processing , 2008, 0808.3973.

[23]  Guilu Long,et al.  Experimental realization of nonadiabatic holonomic quantum computation. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[24]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Quantum process tomography of the quantum Fourier transform. , 2004, The Journal of chemical physics.

[25]  R. Blatt,et al.  Towards fault-tolerant quantum computing with trapped ions , 2008, 0803.2798.

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

[27]  Santosh S. Venkatesh The Theory of Probability by Santosh S. Venkatesh , 2012 .

[28]  Raymond Laflamme,et al.  Symmetrized Characterization of Noisy Quantum Processes , 2007, Science.

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

[30]  Santosh S. Venkatesh,et al.  The Theory of Probability: Explorations and Applications , 2012 .

[31]  Charles H. Bennett,et al.  Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction. , 1996, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[32]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  Improved Simulation of Stabilizer Circuits , 2004, ArXiv.

[33]  R. Lathe Phd by thesis , 1988, Nature.

[34]  Christoph Dankert,et al.  Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation , 2009 .

[35]  Debbie W. Leung,et al.  Realization of quantum process tomography in NMR , 2000, quant-ph/0012032.

[36]  M. Schenkel,et al.  Charles University in Prague Faculty of Mathematics and Physics , 2013 .

[37]  Santosh S. Venkatesh,et al.  The Theory of Probability: ELEMENTS , 2012 .