Performance Optimization for Drift-Robust Fidelity Improvement of Two-Qubit Gates

Quantum system characterisation techniques represent the front-line in the identification and mitigation of noise in quantum computing, but can be expensive in terms of quantum resources and time to repeatedly employ. Another challenging aspect is that parameters governing the performance of various operations tend to drift over time, and monitoring these is hence a difficult task. One of the most promising characterisation techniques, gate set tomography (GST), provides a self-consistent estimate of the completely positive, trace-preserving (CPTP) maps for a complete set of gates, as well as preparation and measurement operators. We develop a method for performance optimisation seeded by tomography (POST), which couples the power of GST with a classical optimisation routine to achieve a consistent gate improvement in just a short number of steps within a given calibration cycle. By construction, the POST procedure finds the best available gate operation given the hardware, and is therefore robust to the effects of drift. Further, in comparison to other quantum error mitigation techniques, it builds upon a one-time application of GST. To demonstrate the performance of this method on a real quantum computer, we map out the operations of six qubit pairs on the superconducting \emph{IBM Q Poughkeepsie} quantum device. Under the restriction of logical-only control, we monitor the performance of the POST approach on a chosen CNOT gate over a period of six weeks. In this time, we achieve a consistent improvement in gate fidelity, averaging a fidelity increase of 21.1\% as measured by randomised benchmarking. The POST approach should find wide applicability as it is hardware agnostic, and can be applied at the upper logical level or at a deeper pulse control level.

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

[2]  P. D. Drummond,et al.  A ATOMIC , MOLECULAR , AND OPTICAL PHYSICS , 1999 .

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

[4]  T. F. Jordan,et al.  Maps and inverse maps in open quantum dynamics , 2007, 0710.4554.

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

[6]  Lixing Han,et al.  Implementing the Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm with adaptive parameters , 2010, Computational Optimization and Applications.

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

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

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

[10]  A N Cleland,et al.  Optimal quantum control using randomized benchmarking. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[11]  M. Veldhorst,et al.  Nonexponential fidelity decay in randomized benchmarking with low-frequency noise , 2015, 1502.05119.

[12]  Steven T. Flammia,et al.  Estimating the coherence of noise , 2015, 1503.07865.

[13]  Daniel Greenbaum,et al.  Introduction to Quantum Gate Set Tomography , 2015, 1509.02921.

[14]  T. Harty,et al.  High-Fidelity Trapped-Ion Quantum Logic Using Near-Field Microwaves. , 2016, Physical review letters.

[15]  Sarah Sheldon,et al.  Characterizing errors on qubit operations via iterative randomized benchmarking , 2015, 1504.06597.

[16]  Kristan Temme,et al.  Error Mitigation for Short-Depth Quantum Circuits. , 2016, Physical review letters.

[17]  Philip Walther,et al.  Integrated-optics heralded controlled-NOT gate for polarization-encoded qubits , 2017, 1708.06778.

[18]  Kenneth Rudinger,et al.  What Randomized Benchmarking Actually Measures. , 2017, Physical review letters.

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

[20]  L. DiCarlo,et al.  Density-matrix simulation of small surface codes under current and projected experimental noise , 2017, 1703.04136.

[21]  H. Neven,et al.  Fluctuations of Energy-Relaxation Times in Superconducting Qubits. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[22]  S. Benjamin,et al.  Practical Quantum Error Mitigation for Near-Future Applications , 2017, Physical Review X.

[23]  John C. Platt,et al.  Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor , 2019, Nature.

[24]  Ying Li,et al.  Quantum computation with universal error mitigation on a superconducting quantum processor , 2018, Science Advances.

[25]  Robin Blume-Kohout,et al.  Direct Randomized Benchmarking for Multiqubit Devices. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[26]  M. Y. Simmons,et al.  A two-qubit gate between phosphorus donor electrons in silicon , 2019, Nature.

[27]  D. J. Twitchen,et al.  A Ten-Qubit Solid-State Spin Register with Quantum Memory up to One Minute , 2019, Physical Review X.

[28]  Morten Kjaergaard,et al.  Superconducting Qubits: Current State of Play , 2019, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics.

[29]  Eyob A. Sete,et al.  Demonstration of a parametrically activated entangling gate protected from flux noise , 2019, Physical Review A.

[30]  Yao Lu,et al.  Error-mitigated quantum gates exceeding physical fidelities in a trapped-ion system , 2019, Nature Communications.