Estimating the Coherence of Noise in Quantum Control of a Solid-State Qubit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To exploit a given physical system for quantum information processing, it is critical to understand the different types of noise affecting quantum control. Distinguishing coherent and incoherent errors is extremely useful as they can be reduced in different ways. Coherent errors are generally easier to reduce at the hardware level, e.g., by improving calibration, whereas some sources of incoherent errors, e.g., T_{2}^{*} processes, can be reduced by engineering robust pulses. In this work, we illustrate how purity benchmarking and randomized benchmarking can be used together to distinguish between coherent and incoherent errors and to quantify the reduction in both of them due to using optimal control pulses and accounting for the transfer function in an electron spin resonance system. We also prove that purity benchmarking provides bounds on the optimal fidelity and diamond norm that can be achieved by correcting the coherent errors through improving calibration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".