MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070857954

A Purity Benchmarking Study of Superconducting Single-qubit Fluctuations

2023· dissertation· en· W7070857954 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmonQuantum error correctionNoise (video)Quantum noiseQuantumQubitCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Quantum technologyOpen quantum system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum processes are susceptible to errors. Over the years, numerous noise models, \nsuch as two-level system noise and flux noise, have been proposed by physicists to describe \nthe mechanisms behind the error sources affecting quantum processes. However, a compre- \nhensive understanding of the quantum noise landscape, particularly on longer timescales, \nis still under active exploration. This thesis contributes to this ongoing effort, exploring \nlong-term quantum noise through the lens of a superconducting Xmon transmon qubit. \nIn our study, we explore the long-term qubit noises by conducting continuous purity \nbenchmarking experiments, utilizing a set of established metrics to gauge the quantum \nerrors. These metrics, namely the average gate fidelity and unitarity, provides a more \ndetailed characterization of quantum error compared to the commonly studied variables \nsuch as T1 and frequency detuning, including characterization of the coherence property. \nThese metrics are also the subject of intense discussions, particularly in the fields of quan- \ntum algorithms and quantum information processing hardware development. We measured \nthe coherent and incoherent quantum error for very long time periods, up to 440 hours. \nThrough these experiments. we gain valuable insights into the nature of the quantum noise \nand its impact on qubit coherence. \nFollowing the experiments, we further attempt to reconcile our observations with well- \nestablished models, namely the two-level system and flux noise, through simultaneous \nmeasurements and comprehensive simulations. While we succeed in explaining certain \naspects of the experimental results, our findings also highlight intriguing discrepancies \nbetween experimental observations and simulations, thus prompting further research.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207