Assessment of the errors of high-fidelity two-qubit gates in silicon quantum dots
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
Abstract Achieving high-fidelity entangling operations between qubits consistently is essential for the performance of multi-qubit systems. Solid-state platforms are particularly exposed to errors arising from materials-induced variability between qubits, which leads to performance inconsistencies. Here we study the errors in a spin qubit processor, tying them to their physical origins. We use this knowledge to demonstrate consistent and repeatable operation with above 99% fidelity of two-qubit gates in the technologically important silicon metal-oxide-semiconductor quantum dot platform. Analysis of the physical errors and fidelities in multiple devices over extended periods allows us to ensure that we capture the variation and the most common error types. Physical error sources include the slow nuclear and electrical noise on single qubits and contextual noise that depends on the applied control sequence. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of qubit design, feedback systems and robust gate design to inform the design of future scalable, high-fidelity control strategies. Our results highlight both the capabilities and challenges for the scaling-up of silicon spin-based qubits into full-scale quantum processors.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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