From randomized benchmarking experiments to gate-set circuit fidelity: how to interpret randomized benchmarking decay parameters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomized benchmarking (RB) protocols have become an essential tool for providing a meaningful partial characterization of experimental quantum operations. While the RB decay rate is known to enable estimates of the average fidelity of those operations under gate-independent Markovian noise, under gate-dependent noise this rate is more difficult to interpret rigorously. In this paper, we prove that single-qubit RB decay parameter $p$ coincides with the decay parameter of the gate-set circuit fidelity, a novel figure of merit which characterizes the expected average fidelity over arbitrary circuits of operations from the gate-set. We also prove that, in the limit of high-fidelity single-qubit experiments, the possible alarming disconnect between the average gate fidelity and RB experimental results is simply explained by a basis mismatch between the gates and the state-preparation and measurement procedures, that is, to a unitary degree of freedom in labeling the Pauli matrices. Based on numerical evidence and physically motivated arguments, we conjecture that these results also hold for higher dimensions.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it