Experimental Estimation of Average Fidelity of a Clifford Gate on a 7-Qubit Quantum Processor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major experimental achievements in the past decades is the ability to control quantum systems to high levels of precision. To quantify the level of control we need to characterize the dynamical evolution. Full characterization via quantum process tomography is impractical and often unnecessary. For most practical purposes, it is enough to estimate more general quantities such as the average fidelity. Here we use a unitary 2-design and twirling protocol for efficiently estimating the average fidelity of Clifford gates, to certify a 7-qubit entangling gate in a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum processor. Compared with more than 10^{8} experiments required by full process tomography, we conducted 1656 experiments to satisfy a statistical confidence level of 99%. The average fidelity of this Clifford gate in experiment is 55.1%, and rises to at least 87.5% if the signal's decay due to decoherence is taken into account. The entire protocol of certifying Clifford gates is efficient and scalable, and can easily be extended to any general quantum information processor with minor modifications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".