- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

APS Open Science

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Reconstructing quantum noise from symmetry-violating generators

Sebastian Raubitzek1,*, Krzysztof Werner2, Sebastian Schrittwieser3, Kamil Wereszczyński2, Krzysztof A. Cyran2, and Kevin Mallinger1

  • 1SBA Research gGmbH, Complexity and Resilience Research Group, Floragasse 7/5.OG, 1040 Vienna, Austria
  • 2merQlab, Department of Computer Graphics, Vision and Digital Systems, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland
  • 3Christian Doppler Laboratory for Assurance and Transparency in Software Protection, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Vienna, Kolingasse 14–16, 1090 Vienna, Austria

  • *Contact author: sraubitzek2@sba-research.org
PDF

APS Open Sci. 1, 000109 – Published 26 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/hg15-cjnx

Abstract

By systematically introducing small symmetry-violating terms into quantum gates, we examine whether such perturbations can reproduce the tomographic noise patterns observed on actual quantum hardware. This study fits into the broader context of quantum computing and quantum information processing, where realistic noise modeling remains essential for understanding device behavior. Our analytical framework mirrors Qiskit's tomography procedures and shot model, using transparent noise control. Our results show that weak generator perturbations can reproduce average deviations in Pauli transfer matrices (PTMs) with high fidelity (given the recorded hardware noise characteristics). These findings suggest that symmetry-violating generators provide a phenomenological model for relevant classes of hardware noise. This approach offers a reproducible analytic baseline for testing noise hypotheses and calibrating simplified models against experimental data. Beyond this descriptive role, the appearance of stable symmetry-violating perturbations in the fitted models supports their use as a phenomenological description. Because the analytical framework isolates these violations at the generator level, it links native-generator perturbations to reconstructed PTM signatures. As a result, the model not only reproduces experimental process tomography data but also tests which PTM structures can be reproduced and at what perturbation magnitude, providing information for calibration, simulation, and the development of symmetry-sensitive mitigation and error-correction strategies. The present analysis is restricted to single-qubit gates.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (51)

  1. R. Blume-Kohout, M. P. da Silva, E. Nielsen, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, M. Sarovar, and K. Young, A taxonomy of small Markovian errors, PRX Quantum 3, 020335 (2022).
  2. I. L. Chuang and M. A. Nielsen, Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2455 (1997).
  3. J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Complete characterization of a quantum process: The two-bit quantum gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 390 (1997).
  4. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 10th anniversary ed.
  5. Qiskit-Experiments Team, Qiskit experiments: State and process tomography (documentation), 2025, https://qiskit.org/, accessed 22 October 2025.
  6. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, 2007).
  7. P. Mundada, G. Zhang, T. Hazard, and A. Houck, Suppression of qubit crosstalk in a tunable coupling superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 054023 (2019).
  8. D. C. McKay, S. Sheldon, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Three-qubit randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 200502 (2019).
  9. A. Gilchrist, N. K. Langford, and M. A. Nielsen, Distance measures to compare real and ideal quantum processes, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062310 (2005).
  10. S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gambetta, J. A. Smolin, S. Poletto, A. D. Córcoles, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, and M. Steffen, Self-consistent quantum process tomography, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062119 (2013).
  11. R. Blume-Kohout, J. K. Gamble, E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, J. Mizrahi, K. Fortier, and P. Maunz, Demonstration of qubit operations below a rigorous fault tolerance threshold with gate set tomography, Nat. Commun. 8, 14485 (2017).
  12. E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011).
  13. A. Silva and E. Greplova, Hands-on introduction to randomized benchmarking, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 97 (2025).
  14. T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, M. Sarovar, and R. Blume-Kohout, What randomized benchmarking actually measures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 130502 (2017).
  15. B. R. Johnson, M. P. da Silva, C. A. Ryan, S. Kimmel, J. M. Chow, and T. A. Ohki, Demonstration of robust quantum gate tomography via randomized benchmarking, New J. Phys. 17, 113019 (2015).
  16. J. Wallman, C. Granade, R. Harper, and S. T. Flammia, Estimating the coherence of noise, New J. Phys. 17, 113020 (2015).
  17. K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017).
  18. Qiskit-Experiments Team, API reference, 2025, https://qiskit-community.github.io/qiskit-experiments/apidocs/index.html, accessed 22 October 2025.
  19. S. Raubitzek, S. Schrittwieser, A. Schatten, and K. Mallinger, Data obfuscation for privacy-preserving machine learning using quantum symmetry properties, Big Data Cogn. Comput. 9, 223 (2025).
  20. J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence, Complex Adaptive Systems (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992), Bradford Books imprint.
  21. D. E. Goldberg and J. H. Holland, Genetic algorithms and machine learning, Mach. Learn. 3, 95 (1988).
  22. D. Whitley, A genetic algorithm tutorial, Stat. Comput. 4, 65 (1994).
  23. M. Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, Complex Adaptive Systems (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996), Bradford Books imprint.
  24. A. E. Eiben and J. E. Smith, Introduction to Evolutionary Computing, Natural Computing Series (Springer, Berlin, 2015), includes 55 b/w and 12 color illustrations.
  25. K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6, 182 (2002).
  26. S. Raubitzek, T. Neubauer, J. Friedrich, and A. Rauber, Interpolating strange attractors via fractional Brownian bridges, Entropy 24, 718 (2022).
  27. Qiskit Development Team, Qiskit: Open-source quantum software for large-scale execution, 2024, https://qiskit.org/, accessed 3 November 2025.
  28. IBM Quantum, IBM Quantum documentation, 2024, https://quantum-computing.ibm.com/docs/, accessed 3 November 2025.
  29. D. Greenbaum, Introduction to quantum gate set tomography, arXiv:1509.02921.
  30. J. Thirunirai Selvam and S. Saravana Veni, Quantum circuit benchmarking on IBM Brisbane: Performance insights from superconducting qubit models, arXiv:2508.05331.
  31. C. J. Wood, J. D. Biamonte, and D. G. Cory, Tensor networks and graphical calculus for open quantum systems, Quantum Inf. Comput. 15, 759 (2015).
  32. E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Characterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. A 85, 042311 (2012).
  33. J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen, Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 2 (2017).
  34. S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. D. Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Herrmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. Müller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature (London) 605, 669 (2022).
  35. J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, A. D. Córcoles, S. T. Merkel, J. A. Smolin, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, J. R. Rozen, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Universal quantum gate set approaching fault-tolerant thresholds with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 060501 (2012).
  36. J. M. Martinis, Qubit metrology for building a fault-tolerant quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf. 1, 15005 (2015).
  37. A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. Córcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor, Nature (London) 567, 491 (2019).
  38. L. Sun, A. Petrenko, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, J. Blumoff, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Tracking photon jumps with repeated quantum non-demolition parity measurements, Nature (London) 511, 444 (2014).
  39. G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976).
  40. T. J. Proctor, A. Carignan-Dugas, K. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, Direct randomized benchmarking for multiqubit devices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 030503 (2019).
  41. R. Blume-Kohout, J. K. Gamble, E. Nielsen, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Sterk, and P. Maunz, Robust, self-consistent, closed-form tomography of quantum logic gates on a trapped ion qubit, arXiv:1310.4492.
  42. Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature (London) 618, 500 (2023).
  43. Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023).
  44. A. Rajput, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, Quantum error correction with gauge symmetries, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 41 (2023).
  45. M. Y. Niu, I. L. Chuang, and J. H. Shapiro, Hardware-efficient bosonic quantum error-correcting codes based on symmetry operators, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032323 (2018).
  46. Z.-W. Liu and S. Zhou, Approximate symmetries and quantum error correction, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 119 (2023).
  47. P. Faist, S. Nezami, V. V. Albert, G. Salton, F. Pastawski, P. Hayden, and J. Preskill, Continuous symmetries and approximate quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041018 (2020).
  48. https://github.com/Raubkatz/QuantumSymmetryViolations
  49. R. M. Wilcox, Exponential operators and parameter differentiation in quantum physics, J. Math. Phys. 8, 962 (1967).
  50. N. J. Higham, Functions of Matrices: Theory and Computation (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2008).
  51. A. H. Al-Mohy and N. J. Higham, Computing the Fréchet derivative of the matrix exponential, with an application to condition number estimation, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 30, 1639 (2009).

Outline

Information

APS Open Sci. 1, 000109– Published 26 August, 2026
Vol. 1
  • Received 19 February 2026
  • Revised 28 May 2026
  • Accepted 17 August 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation