Macroscopic instructions vs microscopic operations in quantum circuits

In many experiments on microscopic quantum systems, it is implicitly assumed that when a macroscopic procedure or "instruction" is repeated many times -- perhaps in different contexts -- each application results in the same microscopic quantum operation. But in practice, the microscopic effect of a single macroscopic instruction can easily depend on its context. If undetected, this can lead to unexpected behavior and unreliable results. Here, we design and analyze several tests to detect context-dependence. They are based on invariants of matrix products, and while they can be as data intensive as quantum process tomography, they do not require tomographic reconstruction, and are insensitive to imperfect knowledge about the experiments. We also construct a measure of how unitary (reversible) an operation is, and show how to estimate the volume of physical states accessible by a quantum operation.

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

[2]  A. Jamiołkowski.  Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators , 1972 .

[3]  Robert L. Kosut,et al.  Compressed sensing quantum process tomography for superconducting quantum gates , 2014, 1407.0761.

[4]  Man-Duen Choi.  Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices , 1975 .

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

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

[7]  Li Li,et al.  Canonical form of master equations and characterization of non-Markovianity , 2010, 1009.0845.

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

[9]  G. Milburn,et al.  Quantum Measurement and Control , 2009 .

[10]  T. Ralph,et al.  Demonstration of an all-optical quantum controlled-NOT gate , 2003, Nature.

[11]  S. Szarek,et al.  An analysis of completely positive trace-preserving maps on M2 , 2002 .

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

[13]  Robin Blume-Kohout,et al.  When quantum tomography goes wrong: drift of quantum sources and other errors , 2013 .

[14]  G. Lindblad.  On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups , 1976 .

[15]  Marcus P. da Silva,et al.  Implementation of a Toffoli gate with superconducting circuits , 2011, Nature.

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

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

[18]  Cyril J. Stark,et al.  Self-consistent tomography of the state-measurement Gram matrix , 2012, 1209.5737.

[19]  Lucia Schwarz,et al.  Error models in quantum computation: An application of model selection , 2013 .

[20]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[21]  S. Huelga,et al.  Quantum non-Markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection , 2014, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[22]  J. Cirac,et al.  Dividing Quantum Channels , 2006, math-ph/0611057.

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

[24]  Margarita A. Man’ko,et al.  Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics , 2003 .

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

[26]  L. DiCarlo,et al.  Demonstration of two-qubit algorithms with a superconducting quantum processor , 2009, Nature.

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

[28]  T. Monz,et al.  Realization of the quantum Toffoli gate with trapped ions. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[29]  I. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: Introduction to the Tenth Anniversary Edition , 2010 .

[30]  M. Horodecki,et al.  General teleportation channel, singlet fraction and quasi-distillation , 1998, quant-ph/9807091.

[31]  King,et al.  Demonstration of a fundamental quantum logic gate. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[32]  A. Yacoby,et al.  Demonstration of Entanglement of Electrostatically Coupled Singlet-Triplet Qubits , 2012, Science.

[33]  P. Barclay,et al.  Observation of the dynamic Jahn-Teller effect in the excited states of nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[34]  D. Golter,et al.  Optically driven Rabi oscillations and adiabatic passage of single electron spins in diamond. , 2014, Physical review letters.

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

[36]  Christopher A. Fuchs,et al.  Symmetric Informationally-Complete Quantum States as Analogues to Orthonormal Bases and Minimum-Uncertainty States , 2007, Entropy.

[37]  E. Sudarshan,et al.  Completely Positive Dynamical Semigroups of N Level Systems , 1976 .

[38]  M. Paternostro,et al.  Geometrical characterization of non-Markovianity , 2013, 1302.6673.