MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Context-aware fidelity estimation

2023· article· en· W4389348730 on OpenAlexaff
Dripto M. Debroy, Élie Genois, Jonathan A. Gross, Wojciech Mruczkiewicz, Sabrina Hong, Zijun Chen, Vadim Smelyanskiy, Jiang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingFidelityComputer scienceContext (archaeology)AlgorithmQubitDecoupling (probability)Unitary stateComputer engineeringQuantumPhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineeringQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present context-aware fidelity estimation (CAFE), a framework for benchmarking quantum operations that offers several practical advantages over existing methods such as randomized benchmarking (RB) and cross-entropy benchmarking. In CAFE, a gate or a subcircuit from some target experiment is repeated $n$ times before being measured. By using a subcircuit, we account for effects from the spatial and temporal circuit context. Since coherent errors accumulate quadratically while incoherent errors grow linearly, we can separate them by fitting the measured fidelity as a function of $n$. One can additionally interleave the subcircuit with dynamical decoupling sequences to remove certain coherent error sources from the characterization when desired. We have used CAFE to experimentally validate our single- and two-qubit unitary characterizations by measuring fidelity against estimated unitaries. In numerical simulations, we find that CAFE produces fidelity estimates at least as accurate as interleaved RB while using significantly fewer resources. We also introduce a compact formulation for preparing an arbitrary two-qubit state with a single entangling operation and use it to present a concrete example using CAFE to study controlled-$Z$ gates in parallel on a Sycamore processor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ResearchSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207