Experimental non-Markovian process characterisation and control on a quantum processor

As experimentally available quantum devices increase in precision and accessibility, attention is turning to understanding and eliminating correlated -- or non-Markovian -- noise. Here, we develop and experimentally test a framework for characterising non-Markovian dynamics in quantum systems. Applying this technique over four different \emph{IBM Q} superconducting quantum devices, we achieve a consistent reconstruction infidelity of $10^{-3}$. Our approach is based on the recently proposed process tensor. With this, we infer the non-Markovian process by measuring the system's response to a basis of control operations. As a consequence, the effects of \emph{any} control operation in the span are discernible, independent of the interaction with the environment. With our technique, we demonstrate several applications: We first estimate a statistically significant lower-bound on memory size for all of the devices. We demonstrate that the dynamical characterisation remains high in fidelity where conventional Markovian characterisation models suffer from an appreciable reduction in quality. Finally, we turn these high fidelity predictions into an adaptive control technique for non-Markovian systems and demonstrate decoupling of a qubit interacting with another qubit with an unknown Hamiltonian. We further show how the coupling can be manipulated to implement a non-unitary gate of our choosing. The results and methods have widespread application both to the study of fully general dynamics, and to optimal device control.

[1]  Thomas Frauenheim,et al.  Operational Markov Condition for Quantum Processes. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[2]  L. Hollenberg,et al.  Performance optimisation for drift-robust fidelity improvement of two-qubit gates. , 2019, 1911.12096.

[3]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[4]  Philipp Strasberg,et al.  Classical quantum stochastic processes , 2019, Physical Review A.

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

[6]  Kavan Modi,et al.  Kolmogorov extension theorem for (quantum) causal modelling and general probabilistic theories , 2017, Quantum.

[7]  Philip Taranto,et al.  When Is a Non-Markovian Quantum Process Classical? , 2019, Physical Review X.

[8]  Robert B. Griffiths,et al.  Quantum Error Correction , 2011 .

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

[10]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Demonstration of Fidelity Improvement Using Dynamical Decoupling with Superconducting Qubits. , 2018, Physical review letters.

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

[12]  R. Blume-Kohout,et al.  Probing quantum processor performance with pyGSTi , 2020, Quantum Science and Technology.

[13]  K. Modi,et al.  Reconstructing non-Markovian quantum dynamics with limited control , 2016, Physical Review A.

[14]  Kavan Modi,et al.  Quantum Markov Order. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[15]  Kavan Modi,et al.  Non-Markovian quantum control as coherent stochastic trajectories , 2018, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical.

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

[17]  Diego A. Wisniacki,et al.  Measuring and using non-Markovianity , 2015, 1505.03503.

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

[19]  Sabrina Maniscalco,et al.  Non-Markovianity as a Resource for Quantum Technologies , 2013, 1301.2585.

[20]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Open Quantum Assembly Language , 2017, 1707.03429.

[21]  L. Vinet,et al.  A ‘missing’ family of classical orthogonal polynomials , 2010, 1011.1669.

[22]  Stefano Mancini,et al.  Mutually unbiased unitary bases of operators on d-dimensional hilbert space , 2020 .

[23]  N. Maskara,et al.  Advantages of versatile neural-network decoding for topological codes , 2018, Physical Review A.

[24]  Andrew J. P. Garner,et al.  Resource theories of multi-time processes: A window into quantum non-Markovianity , 2019, Quantum.

[25]  M B Plenio,et al.  Controllable Non-Markovianity for a Spin Qubit in Diamond. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[26]  R. Blume-Kohout,et al.  Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors , 2019, Quantum.

[27]  Li Li,et al.  Concepts of quantum non-Markovianity: A hierarchy , 2017, Physics Reports.

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

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

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

[31]  John A Smolin,et al.  Efficient method for computing the maximum-likelihood quantum state from measurements with additive Gaussian noise. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[32]  K. Modi,et al.  Tensor-network-based machine learning of non-Markovian quantum processes , 2020, Physical Review A.

[33]  Philip Taranto,et al.  Memory Strength and Recoverability of Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Processes , 2019 .

[34]  Benjamin J. Brown,et al.  Analysing correlated noise on the surface code using adaptive decoding algorithms , 2017 .

[35]  C. M. Chandrashekar,et al.  Enhanced non-Markovian behavior in quantum walks with Markovian disorder , 2018, Scientific Reports.