Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Counting collisions in random circuit sampling for benchmarking quantum computers

Published 7 Dec 2023 in quant-ph | (2312.04222v2)

Abstract: We show that counting the number of collisions (re-sampled bitstrings) when measuring a random quantum circuit provides a practical benchmark for the quality of a quantum computer and a quantitative noise characterization method. We analytically estimate the difference in the expected number of collisions when sampling bitstrings from a pure random state and when sampling from the classical uniform distribution. We show that this quantity, if properly normalized, can be used as a "collision anomaly" benchmark or as a "collision volume" test which is similar to the well-known quantum volume test, with advantages (no classical computing cost) and disadvantages (high sampling cost). We also propose to count the number of cross-collisions between two independent quantum computers running the same random circuit in order to obtain a cross-validation test of the two devices. Finally, we quantify the sampling cost of quantum collision experiments. We find that the sampling cost for running a collision volume test on state-of-the-art processors (e.g.~20 effective clean qubits) is quite small: less than $105$ shots. For large-scale experiments in the quantum supremacy regime the required number of shots for observing a quantum signal in the observed number of collisions is currently infeasible ($>10{12}$), but not completely out of reach for near-future technology.

Authors (1)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (37)
  1. Quantum certification and benchmarking. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(7):382–390, 2020.
  2. Defining standard strategies for quantum benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.02108, 2023.
  3. Sok: Benchmarking the performance of a quantum computer. Entropy, 24(10):1467, 2022.
  4. Benchmarking quantum computers and the impact of quantum noise. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(7):1–35, 2021.
  5. John Preskill. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018.
  6. Challenges and opportunities of near-term quantum computing systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 108(8):1338–1352, 2019.
  7. Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators. Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, 7(10):S347, 2005.
  8. Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. Physical review letters, 106(18):180504, 2011.
  9. Quantum volume. Quantum Volume. Technical Report, 2017.
  10. Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices. Quantum Science and Technology, 3(3):030503, 2018.
  11. Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits. Physical Review A, 100(3):032328, 2019.
  12. A volumetric framework for quantum computer benchmarks. Quantum, 4:362, 2020.
  13. Re-examining the quantum volume test: Ideal distributions, compiler optimizations, confidence intervals, and scalable resource estimations. Quantum, 6:707, 2022.
  14. Effective quantum volume, fidelity and computational cost of noisy quantum processing experiments. Future Generation Computer Systems, 2023.
  15. Error mitigation increases the effective quantum volume of quantum computers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05489, 2022.
  16. General framework for randomized benchmarking. PRX Quantum, 3(2):020357, 2022.
  17. Shadow estimation of gate-set properties from random sequences. Nature Communications, 14(1):5039, 2023.
  18. Cross-platform verification of intermediate scale quantum devices. Physical Review Letters, 124(1):010504, 2020.
  19. Application-oriented performance benchmarks for quantum computing. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 2023.
  20. Optimization applications as quantum performance benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02278, 2023.
  21. Application-motivated, holistic benchmarking of a full quantum computing stack. Quantum, 5:415, 2021.
  22. Experimental benchmarking of an automated deterministic error-suppression workflow for quantum algorithms. Physical Review Applied, 20(2):024034, 2023.
  23. QASMbench: A low-level quantum benchmark suite for NISQ evaluation and simulation. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 4(2):1–26, 2023.
  24. Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices. Nature Physics, 14(6):595–600, 2018.
  25. Urmila Mahadev. Classical verification of quantum computations. In 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 259–267. IEEE, 2018.
  26. On the classical hardness of spoofing linear cross-entropy benchmarking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.12085, 2019.
  27. John Preskill. Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.5813, 2012.
  28. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019.
  29. Strong quantum computational advantage using a superconducting quantum processor. Physical Review Letters, 127(18):180501, 2021.
  30. Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor. Nature, 606(7912):75–81, 2022.
  31. Quantum computational advantage using photons. Science, 370(6523):1460–1463, 2020.
  32. Yinchen Liu. Moments of random quantum circuits and applications in random circuit sampling. Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo, 2021.
  33. Cross-verification of independent quantum devices. Physical Review X, 11(3):031049, 2021.
  34. Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(13):3305–3310, 2017.
  35. Gregory D Scholes. Green quantum computers. Nature Physics, 6(6):402–403, 2010.
  36. Establishing the quantum supremacy frontier with a 281 Pflop/s simulation. Quantum Science and Technology, 5(3):034003, 2020.
  37. Alexia Auffeves. Quantum technologies need a quantum energy initiative. PRX Quantum, 3(2):020101, 2022.
Citations (2)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.