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
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Characterization of control in a superconducting qutrit using randomized benchmarking

M. Kononenko1,2,*, M. A. Yurtalan1,2,†, S. Ren1,2, J. Shi1,2, S. Ashhab3,4, and A. Lupascu1,2,5,‡

  • 1Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
  • 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
  • 3Qatar Environment and Energy Research Institute, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Ar-Rayyan, Qatar
  • 4Advanced ICT Research Institute, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT), 4-2-1, Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8795, Japan
  • 5Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

  • *mkononen@uwaterloo.ca
  • †mayurtalan@uwaterloo.ca
  • ‡alupascu@uwaterloo.ca

Phys. Rev. Research 3, L042007 – Published 22 October, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.L042007

Abstract

We characterize control of a qutrit implemented in the lowest three energy levels of a capacitively shunted flux-biased superconducting circuit. Randomized benchmarking over the qutrit Clifford group yields an average fidelity of 98.89±0.05%. For a selected subset of the Clifford group, we perform quantum process tomography and observe the behavior of repeated gate sequences. Each qutrit gate is generated using only two-state rotations via a method applicable to any unitary. We find that errors are due primarily to decoherence and have a significant contribution from level shifts. This work demonstrates high-fidelity qutrit control and outlines avenues for future work on the optimal control of superconducting qudits.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (30)

  1. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  2. J. S. Otterbach, R. Manenti, N. Alidoust, A. Bestwick, M. Block, B. Bloom, S. Caldwell, N. Didier, E. Schuyler Fried, S. Hong et al., Unsupervised machine learning on a hybrid quantum computer, arXiv:1712.05771.
  3. A. D. Córcoles, A. Kandala, A. Javadi-Abhari, D. T. McClure, A. W. Cross, K. Temme, P. D. Nation, M. Steffen, and J. M. Gambetta, Challenges and opportunities of near-term quantum computing systems, Proc. IEEE 108, 1338 (2020).
  4. K. Wright, K. M. Beck, S. Debnath, J. M. Amini, Y. Nam, N. Grzesiak, J.-S. Chen, N. C. Pisenti, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins et al., Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 10, 5464 (2019).
  5. E. T. Campbell, Enhanced Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing in d-Level Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 230501 (2014).
  6. H. Anwar, B. J. Brown, E. T. Campbell, and D. E. Browne, Fast decoders for qudit topological codes, New J. Phys. 16, 063038 (2014).
  7. A. Krishna and J.-P. Tillich, Towards Low Overhead Magic State Distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070507 (2019).
  8. S. Prakash, Magic state distillation with the ternary Golay code, Proc. R. Soc. A 476, 20200187 (2020).
  9. A. R. Shlyakhov, V. V. Zemlyanov, M. V. Suslov, A. V. Lebedev, G. S. Paraoanu, G. B. Lesovik, and G. Blatter, Quantum metrology with a transmon qutrit, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022115 (2018).
  10. M. V. Suslov, G. B. Lesovik, and G. Blatter, Quantum abacus for counting and factorizing numbers, Phys. Rev. A 83, 052317 (2011).
  11. F. Bouchard, R. Fickler, R. W. Boyd, and E. Karimi, High-dimensional quantum cloning and applications to quantum hacking, Sci. Adv. 3, e1601915 (2017).
  12. C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, The Solovay-Kitaev algorithm, Quantum Inf. Comput. 6, 81 (2006).
  13. M. A. Yurtalan, J. Shi, G. J. K. Flatt, and A. Lupascu, Characterization of multi-level dynamics and decoherence in a high-anharmonicity capacitively shunted flux circuit, arXiv:2008.00593.
  14. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.L042007 for additional information related to qubit parameters, simulations, and a proof of the Givens error approximation.
  15. S. G. Schirmer, A. D. Greentree, V. Ramakrishna, and H. Rabitz, Constructive control of quantum systems using factorization of unitary operators, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, 8315 (2002).
  16. F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Simple Pulses for Elimination of Leakage in Weakly Nonlinear Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 110501 (2009).
  17. Z. Chen, J. Kelly, C. Quintana, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Lucero et al., Measuring and Suppressing Quantum State Leakage in a Superconducting Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 020501 (2016).
  18. D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficient Z gates for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022330 (2017).
  19. 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).
  20. M. A. Yurtalan, J. Shi, M. Kononenko, A. Lupascu, and S. Ashhab, Implementation of a Walsh-Hadamard Gate in a Superconducting Qutrit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 180504 (2020).
  21. M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical operation, Phys. Lett. A 303, 249 (2002).
  22. A. N. Glaudell, N. J. Ross, and J. M. Taylor, Canonical forms for single-qutrit Clifford+T operators, Ann. Phys. (NY) 406, 54 (2019).
  23. M. Jafarzadeh, Y.-D. Wu, Y. R. Sanders, and B. C. Sanders, Randomized benchmarking for qudit Clifford gates, New J. Phys. 22, 063014 (2020).
  24. J. Emerson, R. Alicki, and K. Zyczkowski, Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 7, S347 (2005).
  25. E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Scalable and Robust Randomized Benchmarking of Quantum Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011).
  26. D. Gottesman, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with higher-dimensional systems, in Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications, edited by C. P. Williams, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer, Berlin, 1999), pp. 302–313.
  27. J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013).
  28. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013).
  29. C. J. Wood and J. M. Gambetta, Quantification and characterization of leakage errors, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032306 (2018).
  30. A. Morvan, V. V. Ramasesh, M. S. Blok, J. M. Kreikebaum, K. O'Brien, L. Chen, B. K. Mitchell, R. K. Naik, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Qutrit Randomized Benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 210504 (2021).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation