Photonic processor benchmarking for variational quantum process tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a quantum-analogous experimental demonstration of variational quantum process tomography using an optical processor. This approach leverages classical one-hot encoding and unitary decomposition to perform the variational quantum algorithm on a photonic platform. We create the first benchmark for variational quantum process tomography evaluating the performance of the quantum-analogous experiment on the optical processor against several publicly accessible quantum computing platforms, including IBM's 127-qubit Sherbrooke processor, QuTech's 5-qubit Tuna-5 processor, and Quandela's 12-mode Ascella quantum optical processor. We evaluate each method using process fidelity, cost function convergence, and processing time per iteration for variational quantum circuit depths of $d=3$ and $d=6$. Our results indicate that the optical processors outperform their superconducting counterparts in terms of fidelity and convergence behavior reaching fidelities of $0.8$ after $9$ iterations, particularly at higher depths, where the noise of decoherence and dephasing affect the superconducting processors significantly. We further investigate the influence of any additional quantum optical effects in our platform relative to the classical one-hot encoding. From the process fidelity results it shows that the (classical) thermal noise in the phase-shifters dominates over other optical imperfections, such as mode mismatch and dark counts from single-photon sources. The benchmarking framework and experimental results demonstrate that photonic processors are strong contenders for near-term quantum algorithm deployment, particularly in hybrid variational contexts. This analysis is valuable not only for state and process tomography but also for a wide range of applications involving variational quantum circuit based algorithms.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".