BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Robin Blume-Kohout

Robin Blume-Kohout contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Measuring the Capabilities of Quantum Computers

A quantum computer has now solved a specialized problem believed to be intractable for supercomputers, suggesting that quantum processors may soon outperform supercomputers on scientifically important problems. But flaws in each quantum processor limit its capability by causing errors in quantum programs, and it is currently difficult to predict what programs a particular processor can successfully run. We introduce techniques that can efficiently test the capabilities of any programmable quantum computer, and we apply them to twelve processors. Our experiments show that current hardware suffers complex errors that cause structured programs to fail up to an order of magnitude earlier - as measured by program size - than disordered ones. As a result, standard error metrics inferred from random disordered program behavior do not accurately predict performance of useful programs. Our methods provide efficient, reliable, and scalable benchmarks that can be targeted to predict quantum computer performance on real-world problems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Precision tomography of a three-qubit donor quantum processor in silicon

Nuclear spins were among the first physical platforms to be considered for quantum information processing, because of their exceptional quantum coherence and atomic-scale footprint. However, their full potential for quantum computing has not yet been realized, due to the lack of methods to link nuclear qubits within a scalable device combined with multi-qubit operations with sufficient fidelity to sustain fault-tolerant quantum computation. Here we demonstrate universal quantum logic operations using a pair of ion-implanted 31P donor nuclei in a silicon nanoelectronic device. A nuclear two-qubit controlled-Z gate is obtained by imparting a geometric phase to a shared electron spin, and used to prepare entangled Bell states with fidelities up to 94.2(2.7)%. The quantum operations are precisely characterised using gate set tomography (GST), yielding one-qubit average gate fidelities up to 99.95(2)%, two-qubit average gate fidelity of 99.37(11)% and two-qubit preparation/measurement fidelities of 98.95(4)%. These three metrics indicate that nuclear spins in silicon are approaching the performance demanded in fault-tolerant quantum processors. We then demonstrate entanglement between the two nuclei and the shared electron by producing a Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger three-qubit state with 92.5(1.0)% fidelity. Since electron spin qubits in semiconductors can be further coupled to other electrons or physically shuttled across different locations, these results establish a viable route for scalable quantum information processing using donor nuclear and electron spins.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

A taxonomy of small Markovian errors

Errors in quantum logic gates are usually modeled by quantum process matrices (CPTP maps). But process matrices can be opaque, and unwieldy. We show how to transform a gate's process matrix into an error generator that represents the same information more usefully. We construct a basis of simple and physically intuitive elementary error generators, classify them, and show how to represent any gate's error generator as a mixture of elementary error generators with various rates. Finally, we show how to build a large variety of reduced models for gate errors by combining elementary error generators and/or entire subsectors of generator space. We conclude with a few examples of reduced models, including one with just $9N^2$ parameters that describes almost all commonly predicted errors on an N-qubit processor.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Characterizing mid-circuit measurements on a superconducting qubit using gate set tomography

Measurements that occur within the internal layers of a quantum circuit -- mid-circuit measurements -- are an important quantum computing primitive, most notably for quantum error correction. Mid-circuit measurements have both classical and quantum outputs, so they can be subject to error modes that do not exist for measurements that terminate quantum circuits. Here we show how to characterize mid-circuit measurements, modelled by quantum instruments, using a technique that we call quantum instrument linear gate set tomography (QILGST). We then apply this technique to characterize a dispersive measurement on a superconducting transmon qubit within a multiqubit system. By varying the delay time between the measurement pulse and subsequent gates, we explore the impact of residual cavity photon population on measurement error. QILGST can resolve different error modes and quantify the total error from a measurement; in our experiment, for delay times above 1000 ns we measured a total error rate (i.e., half diamond distance) of $ε_{\diamond} = 8.1 \pm 1.4 \%$, a readout fidelity of $97.0 \pm 0.3\%$, and output quantum state fidelities of $96.7 \pm 0.6\%$ and $93.7 \pm 0.7\%$ when measuring $0$ and $1$, respectively.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors

Crosstalk occurs in most quantum computing systems with more than one qubit. It can cause a variety of correlated and nonlocal crosstalk errors that can be especially harmful to fault-tolerant quantum error correction, which generally relies on errors being local and relatively predictable. Mitigating crosstalk errors requires understanding, modeling, and detecting them. In this paper, we introduce a comprehensive framework for crosstalk errors and a protocol for detecting and localizing them. We give a rigorous definition of crosstalk errors that captures a wide range of disparate physical phenomena that have been called "crosstalk", and a concrete model for crosstalk-free quantum processors. Errors that violate this model are crosstalk errors. Next, we give an equivalent but purely operational (model-independent) definition of crosstalk errors. Using this definition, we construct a protocol for detecting a large class of crosstalk errors in a multi-qubit processor by finding conditional dependencies between observed experimental probabilities. It is highly efficient, in the sense that the number of unique experiments required scales at most cubically, and very often quadratically, with the number of qubits. We demonstrate the protocol using simulations of 2-qubit and 6-qubit processors.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Probing quantum processor performance with pyGSTi

PyGSTi is a Python software package for assessing and characterizing the performance of quantum computing processors. It can be used as a standalone application, or as a library, to perform a wide variety of quantum characterization, verification, and validation (QCVV) protocols on as-built quantum processors. We outline pyGSTi's structure, and what it can do, using multiple examples. We cover its main characterization protocols with end-to-end implementations. These include gate set tomography, randomized benchmarking on one or many qubits, and several specialized techniques. We also discuss and demonstrate how power users can customize pyGSTi and leverage its components to create specialized QCVV protocols and solve user-specific problems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2006arXiv

Optimal, reliable estimation of quantum states

Accurately inferring the state of a quantum device from the results of measurements is a crucial task in building quantum information processing hardware. The predominant state estimation procedure, maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), generally reports an estimate with zero eigenvalues. These cannot be justified. Furthermore, the MLE estimate is incompatible with error bars, so conclusions drawn from it are suspect. I propose an alternative procedure, Bayesian mean estimation (BME). BME never yields zero eigenvalues, its eigenvalues provide a bound on their own uncertainties, and it is the most accurate procedure possible. I show how to implement BME numerically, and how to obtain natural error bars that are compatible with the estimate. Finally, I briefly discuss the differences between Bayesian and frequentist estimation techniques.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access