Randomized benchmarking with restricted gate sets

Standard randomized benchmarking protocols entail sampling from a unitary 2 design, which is not always practical. In this article we examine randomized benchmarking protocols based on subgroups of the Clifford group that are not unitary 2 designs. We introduce a general method for analyzing such protocols and subsequently apply it to two subgroups, the group generated by controlled-NOT, Hadamard, and Pauli gates and that generated by only controlled-NOT and Pauli gates. In both cases the error probability can be estimated to within a factor of two or less where the factor can be arranged to be conservative and to decay exponentially in the number of qubits. For randomized benchmarking of logical qubits even better accuracy will typically be obtained. Thus, we show that sampling a distribution which is close to a unitary 2 design, although sufficient, is not necessary for randomized benchmarking to high accuracy.

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

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

[3]  S. Olmschenk,et al.  Randomized benchmarking of atomic qubits in an optical lattice , 2010, 1008.2790.

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

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

[6]  M Steffen,et al.  Efficient measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[7]  Jonas Helsen,et al.  Multiqubit randomized benchmarking using few samples , 2017, Physical Review A.

[8]  Arnaud Carignan-Dugas,et al.  Characterizing universal gate sets via dihedral benchmarking , 2015, 1508.06312.

[9]  J. P. Dehollain,et al.  Quantifying the quantum gate fidelity of single-atom spin qubits in silicon by randomized benchmarking , 2014, Journal of physics. Condensed matter : an Institute of Physics journal.

[10]  M Saffman,et al.  Randomized benchmarking of single-qubit gates in a 2D array of neutral-atom qubits. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[11]  Joel J. Wallman,et al.  Randomized benchmarking with gate-dependent noise , 2017, 1703.09835.

[12]  E. Knill,et al.  Single-qubit-gate error below 10 -4 in a trapped ion , 2011, 1104.2552.

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

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

[15]  Jay M. Gambetta,et al.  Characterizing Quantum Gates via Randomized Benchmarking , 2011, 1109.6887.

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

[17]  E Knill,et al.  Randomized benchmarking of multiqubit gates. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[18]  M. Nielsen.  A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical operation [rapid communication] , 2002, quant-ph/0205035.

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

[20]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Investigating the limits of randomized benchmarking protocols , 2013, 1308.2928.

[21]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Scalable randomised benchmarking of non-Clifford gates , 2015, npj Quantum Information.

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

[23]  Li Liu,et al.  Near-linear constructions of exact unitary 2-designs , 2015, Quantum Inf. Comput..