MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399629990 · doi:10.22331/q-2024-06-13-1367

Estimating Coherent Contributions to the Error Profile Using Cycle Error Reconstruction

2024· article· en· W4399629990 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arnaud Carignan-Dugas, Shashank Kumar Ranu, Patrick Dreher

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmBenchmark (surveying)GeneralizationFidelityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitigation and calibration schemes are central to maximize the computational reach of today's Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum (NISQ) hardware, but these schemes are often specialized to exclusively address either coherent or decoherent error sources. Quantifying the two types of errors hence constitutes a desirable feature when it comes to benchmarking error suppression tools. In this paper, we present a scalable and cycle-centric methodology for obtaining a detailed estimate of the coherent contribution to the error profile of a hard computing cycle. The protocol that we suggest is based on Cycle Error Reconstruction (CER), also known as K-body Noise Reconstruction (KNR). This protocol is similar to Cycle Benchmarking (CB) in that it provides a cycle-centric diagnostic based on Pauli fidelity estimation \cite{erhard2019characterizing}. We introduce an additional hyper-parameter in CER by allowing the hard cycles to be folded multiple times before being subject to Pauli twirling. Performing CER for different values of our added hyper-parameter allows estimating the coherent error contributions through a generalization of the fidelity decay formula. We confirm the accuracy of our method through numerical simulations on a quantum simulator, and perform proof-of-concept experiments on three IBM chips, namely <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mml:mtext mathvariant="monospace">ibmq_guadalupe</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mml:mtext mathvariant="monospace">ibmq_manila</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math>, and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mml:mtext mathvariant="monospace">ibmq_montreal</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math>. In all three experiments, we measure substantial coherent errors biased in Z.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantumSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207