Characterizing coherent errors using matrix-element amplification
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
Repeating a gate sequence multiple times amplifies systematic errors coherently, making it a useful tool for characterizing quantum gates. However, the precision of such an approach is limited by low-frequency noise, while its efficiency is hindered by time-consuming scans required to match up the phases of the off-diagonal matrix elements being amplified. Here, we overcome both challenges by interleaving the gate of interest with dynamical decoupling sequences in a protocol we call Matrix-Element Amplification using Dynamical Decoupling (MEADD). Using frequency-tunable superconducting qubits from a Google Sycamore quantum processor, we experimentally demonstrate that MEADD surpasses the accuracy and precision of existing characterization protocols for estimating systematic errors in single- and two-qubit gates. We use MEADD to estimate coherent parameters of CZ gates with 5 to 10 times the precision of existing methods and to characterize previously undetectable coherent crosstalk, reaching a precision below one milliradian.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it