Paper detail

On the Quantum Performance Evaluation of Two Distributed Quantum Architectures

Distributed quantum applications impose requirements on the quality of the quantum states that they consume. When analyzing architecture implementations of quantum hardware, characterizing this quality forms an important factor in understanding their performance. Fundamental characteristics of quantum hardware lead to inherent tradeoffs between the quality of states and traditional performance metrics such as throughput. Furthermore, any real-world implementation of quantum hardware exhibits time-dependent noise that degrades the quality of quantum states over time. Here, we study the performance of two possible architectures for interfacing a quantum processor with a quantum network. The first corresponds to the current experimental state of the art in which the same device functions both as a processor and a network device. The second corresponds to a future architecture that separates these two functions over two distinct devices. We model these architectures as Markov chains and compare their quality of executing quantum operations and producing entangled quantum states as functions of their memory lifetimes, as well as the time that it takes to perform various operations within each architecture. As an illustrative example, we apply our analysis to architectures based on Nitrogen-Vacancy centers in diamond, where we find that for present-day device parameters one architecture is more suited to computation-heavy applications, and the other for network-heavy ones. Besides the detailed study of these architectures, a novel contribution of our work are several formulas that connect an understanding of waiting time distributions to the decay of quantum quality over time for the most common noise models employed in quantum technologies. This provides a valuable new tool for performance evaluation experts, and its applications extend beyond the two architectures studied in this work.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.