Resonant Coupling Parameter Estimation with Superconducting Qubits

Today's quantum computers are comprised of tens of qubits interacting with each other and the environment in increasingly complex networks. In order to achieve the best possible performance when operating such systems, it is necessary to have accurate knowledge of all parameters in the quantum computer Hamiltonian. In this article, we demonstrate theoretically and experimentally a method to efficiently learn the parameters of resonant interactions for quantum computers consisting of frequency-tunable superconducting qubits. Such interactions include, for example, those to other qubits, resonators, two-level state defects, or other unwanted modes. Our method is based on a significantly improved swap spectroscopy calibration and consists of an offline data collection algorithm, followed by an online Bayesian learning algorithm. The purpose of the offline algorithm is to detect and roughly estimate resonant interactions from a state of zero knowledge. It produces a square-root reduction in the number of measurements. The online algorithm subsequently refines the estimate of the parameters to comparable accuracy as traditional swap spectroscopy calibration, but in constant time. We perform an experiment implementing our technique with a superconducting qubit. By combining both algorithms, we observe a reduction of the calibration time by one order of magnitude. We believe the method investigated will improve present medium-scale superconducting quantum computers and will also scale up to larger systems. Finally, the two algorithms presented here can be readily adopted by communities working on different physical implementations of quantum computing architectures.

[1]  C. T. Earnest,et al.  Substrate surface engineering for high-quality silicon/aluminum superconducting resonators , 2018, 1807.08072.

[2]  Masoud Mohseni,et al.  Commercialize quantum technologies in five years , 2017, Nature.

[3]  Jay M. Gambetta,et al.  Universal Gate for Fixed-Frequency Qubits via a Tunable Bus , 2016, 1604.03076.

[4]  M. Weides,et al.  Correlating Decoherence in Transmon Qubits: Low Frequency Noise by Single Fluctuators. , 2019, Physical review letters.

[5]  Gorjan Alagic,et al.  #p , 2019, Quantum information & computation.

[6]  P. Delsing,et al.  Decoherence benchmarking of superconducting qubits , 2019, npj Quantum Information.

[7]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[8]  Travis S. Humble,et al.  Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor , 2019, Nature.

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

[10]  Enrique Solano,et al.  Resonant quantum gates in circuit quantum electrodynamics , 2010 .

[11]  S. Lloyd,et al.  Quantum Coherent Tunable Coupling of Superconducting Qubits , 2007, Science.

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

[13]  Fei Yan,et al.  A quantum engineer's guide to superconducting qubits , 2019, Applied Physics Reviews.

[14]  Nathan Wiebe,et al.  Robust online Hamiltonian learning , 2012, TQC.

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

[16]  Hartmut Neven,et al.  The Snake Optimizer for Learning Quantum Processor Control Parameters , 2020, ArXiv.

[17]  M. V. Moghaddam,et al.  Carbon nanotube-based lossy transmission line filter for superconducting qubit measurements , 2019 .

[18]  Erik Lucero,et al.  Photon shell game in three-resonator circuit quantum electrodynamics , 2010, 1011.3080.

[19]  Robert König,et al.  Quantum advantage with shallow circuits , 2017, Science.

[20]  E. Knill,et al.  Quantum simulations of classical annealing processes. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[21]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Detecting arbitrary quantum errors via stabilizer measurements on a sublattice of the surface code , 2014, 1410.6419.

[22]  Ryan Babbush,et al.  Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes , 2018, Nature Communications.

[23]  V. S. Shumeikoa Quantum bits with Josephson junctions , 2007 .

[24]  Frank K Wilhelm,et al.  Efficient estimation of resonant coupling between quantum systems. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[25]  D. Russell,et al.  Parametrically Activated Entangling Gates Using Transmon Qubits , 2017, Physical Review Applied.

[26]  Yuval Sanders,et al.  Characterizing Errors in Quantum Information Processors , 2016 .

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

[28]  D. E. Prober,et al.  Impedance-matched low-pass stripline filters , 2008 .

[29]  C. T. Earnest,et al.  Mitigating leakage errors due to cavity modes in a superconducting quantum computer , 2018 .

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

[31]  Yasunobu Nakamura,et al.  Quantum computers , 2010, Nature.

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

[33]  J. Clarke,et al.  Superconducting quantum bits , 2008, Nature.

[34]  John M. Martinis,et al.  State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit , 2015, Nature.

[35]  J. E. Mooij,et al.  Parametric coupling for superconducting qubits , 2006 .

[36]  Anthony Lee,et al.  Parallel Resampling in the Particle Filter , 2013, 1301.4019.

[37]  장윤희,et al.  Y. , 2003, Industrial and Labor Relations Terms.

[38]  Soonwon Choi,et al.  Quantum convolutional neural networks , 2018, Nature Physics.

[39]  C. T. Earnest,et al.  Improving the Time Stability of Superconducting Planar Resonators , 2019, MRS Advances.

[40]  S. Poletto,et al.  Detecting bit-flip errors in a logical qubit using stabilizer measurements , 2014, Nature Communications.

[41]  M. Head‐Gordon,et al.  Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies , 2005, Science.

[42]  Clemens Müller,et al.  Towards understanding two-level-systems in amorphous solids: insights from quantum circuits , 2017, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[43]  G. Wendin Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: a review , 2016, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[44]  Erik Lucero,et al.  Implementing the Quantum von Neumann Architecture with Superconducting Circuits , 2011, Science.

[45]  John M. Martinis,et al.  Quantum process tomography of two-qubit controlled-Z and controlled-NOT gates using superconducting phase qubits , 2010, 1006.5084.

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

[47]  Hartmut Neven,et al.  Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors , 2018, 1802.06002.

[48]  M. Mariantoni,et al.  Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation , 2012, 1208.0928.

[49]  Masoud Mohseni,et al.  Efficient Population Transfer via Non-Ergodic Extended States in Quantum Spin Glass , 2018, TQC.

[50]  V. Shumeiko,et al.  Quantum bits with Josephson junctions (Review Article) , 2007 .

[51]  D. Gottesman An Introduction to Quantum Error Correction and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation , 2009, 0904.2557.

[52]  P. Alam ‘A’ , 2021, Composites Engineering: An A–Z Guide.

[53]  E. Lucero,et al.  Computing prime factors with a Josephson phase qubit quantum processor , 2012, Nature Physics.