Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor

Quantum computation, a paradigm of computing that is completely different from classical methods, benefits from theoretically proved speed-ups for certain problems and can be used to study the properties of quantum systems1. Yet, because of the inherently fragile nature of the physical computing elements (qubits), achieving quantum advantages over classical computation requires extremely low error rates for qubit operations, as well as substantial physical qubits, to realize fault tolerance via quantum error correction2,3. However, recent theoretical work4,5 has shown that the accuracy of computation (based on expectation values of quantum observables) can be enhanced through an extrapolation of results from a collection of experiments of varying noise. Here we demonstrate this error mitigation protocol on a superconducting quantum processor, enhancing its computational capability, with no additional hardware modifications. We apply the protocol to mitigate errors in canonical single- and two-qubit experiments and then extend its application to the variational optimization6–8 of Hamiltonians for quantum chemistry and magnetism9. We effectively demonstrate that the suppression of incoherent errors helps to achieve an otherwise inaccessible level of accuracy in the variational solutions using our noisy processor. These results demonstrate that error mitigation techniques will enable substantial improvements in the capabilities of near-term quantum computing hardware.The accuracy of computations on noisy, near-term quantum systems can be enhanced by extrapolating results from experiments with various noise levels, without requiring additional hardware modifications.

[1]  P. Coveney,et al.  Scalable Quantum Simulation of Molecular Energies , 2015, 1512.06860.

[2]  Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al.  A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor , 2013, Nature Communications.

[3]  J. Carter,et al.  Hybrid Quantum-Classical Hierarchy for Mitigation of Decoherence and Determination of Excited States , 2016, 1603.05681.

[4]  T. Monz,et al.  Quantum Chemistry Calculations on a Trapped-Ion Quantum Simulator , 2018, Physical Review X.

[5]  Jay M. Gambetta,et al.  Process verification of two-qubit quantum gates by randomized benchmarking , 2012, 1210.7011.

[6]  Steane,et al.  Error Correcting Codes in Quantum Theory. , 1996, Physical review letters.

[7]  Chad Rigetti,et al.  Josephson amplifier for qubit readout , 2011, 1103.1405.

[8]  J. Gambetta,et al.  Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets , 2017, Nature.

[9]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Implementing a strand of a scalable fault-tolerant quantum computing fabric , 2013, Nature Communications.

[10]  J. Gambetta,et al.  Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic Hamiltonians , 2017, 1701.08213.

[11]  Ying Li,et al.  Efficient Variational Quantum Simulator Incorporating Active Error Minimization , 2016, 1611.09301.

[12]  R. J. Schoelkopf,et al.  Analog information processing at the quantum limit with a Josephson ring modulator , 2008, 0805.3452.

[13]  Daniel J. Egger,et al.  Pulsed Reset Protocol for Fixed-Frequency Superconducting Qubits , 2018, Physical Review Applied.

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

[15]  J. Gambetta,et al.  Procedure for systematically tuning up cross-talk in the cross-resonance gate , 2016, 1603.04821.

[16]  Joel J. Wallman,et al.  Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling , 2015, 1512.01098.

[17]  Blake R. Johnson,et al.  Simple all-microwave entangling gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits. , 2011, Physical review letters.

[18]  L. Lamata,et al.  From transistor to trapped-ion computers for quantum chemistry , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[19]  G. S. Paraoanu,et al.  Microwave-induced coupling of superconducting qubits , 2006, 0801.4541.

[20]  J. Spall.  Multivariate stochastic approximation using a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation , 1992 .

[21]  R. Feynman.  Simulating physics with computers , 1999 .

[22]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Demonstration of a quantum error detection code using a square lattice of four superconducting qubits , 2015, Nature Communications.

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

[24]  L. Richardson.  The Approximate Arithmetical Solution by Finite Differences of Physical Problems Involving Differential Equations, with an Application to the Stresses in a Masonry Dam , 1911 .

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

[26]  Stefano Poletto,et al.  Interacting two-level defects as sources of fluctuating high-frequency noise in superconducting circuits , 2015, 1503.01637.

[27]  B. Lanyon,et al.  Towards quantum chemistry on a quantum computer. , 2009, Nature chemistry.

[28]  Jay M. Gambetta,et al.  Effective Hamiltonian models of the cross-resonance gate , 2018, Physical Review A.

[29]  E. Farhi,et al.  A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm , 2014, 1411.4028.

[30]  J M Gambetta,et al.  Simple pulses for elimination of leakage in weakly nonlinear qubits. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[31]  S. Girvin,et al.  Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box , 2007, cond-mat/0703002.

[32]  J. Gambetta,et al.  Efficient Z gates for quantum computing , 2016, 1612.00858.

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

[34]  John Preskill,et al.  Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond , 2018, Quantum.

[35]  Chad Rigetti,et al.  Fully microwave-tunable universal gates in superconducting qubits with linear couplings and fixed transition frequencies , 2010 .

[36]  Ryan Babbush,et al.  The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms , 2015, 1509.04279.

[37]  Jonathan Carter,et al.  Computation of Molecular Spectra on a Quantum Processor with an Error-Resilient Algorithm , 2018 .

[38]  Shor,et al.  Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. , 1995, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[39]  R. Pooser,et al.  Cloud Quantum Computing of an Atomic Nucleus. , 2018, Physical Review Letters.