- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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

Ancilla-free implementation of generalized measurements for qubits embedded in a qudit space

Laurin E. Fischer*, Daniel Miller, Francesco Tacchino, Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos, Daniel J. Egger†, and Ivano Tavernelli‡

  • IBM Quantum, IBM Research Europe - Zurich, Säumerstrasse 4, CH-8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland

  • *aur@zurich.ibm.com
  • †deg@zurich.ibm.com
  • ‡ita@zurich.ibm.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 4, 033027 – Published 11 July, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033027

Abstract

Informationally complete (IC) positive operator-valued measures (POVMs) are generalized quantum measurements that offer advantages over the standard computational basis readout of qubits. For instance, IC-POVMs enable efficient extraction of operator expectation values, a crucial step in many quantum algorithms. POVM measurements are typically implemented by coupling one additional ancilla qubit to each logical qubit, thus imposing high demands on the device size and connectivity. Here, we show how to implement a general class of IC-POVMs without ancilla qubits. We exploit the higher-dimensional Hilbert space of a qudit in which qubits are often encoded. POVMs can then be realized by coupling each qubit to two of the available qudit states, followed by a projective measurement. We develop the required control pulse sequences and numerically establish their feasibility for superconducting transmon qubits through pulse-level simulations. Finally, we present an experimental demonstration of a qudit-space POVM measurement on IBM Quantum hardware. This paves the way to making POVM measurements broadly available to quantum computing applications.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (86)

  1. D. Grinko, J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, and S. Wörner, Iterative quantum amplitude estimation, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 52 (2021).
  2. D. J. Egger, J. Marecek, and S. Wörner, Warm-starting quantum optimization, Quantum 5, 479 (2021).
  3. I. O. Sokolov, W. Dobrautz, H. Luo, A. Alavi, and I. Tavernelli, Orders of magnitude reduction in the computational overhead for quantum many-body problems on quantum computers via an exact transcorrelated method, arXiv:2201.03049
  4. A. P. M. Place, L. V. H. Rodgers, P. Mundada, B. M. Smitham, M. Fitzpatrick, Z. Leng, A. Premkumar, J. Bryon, A. Vrajitoarea, S. Sussman, G. Cheng, T. Madhavan, H. K. Babla, X. H. Le, Y. Gang, B. Jäck, A. Gyenis, N. Yao, R. J. Cava, N. P. de Leon et al., New material platform for superconducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds, Nat. Commun. 12, 1779 (2021).
  5. P. Jurcevic, A. Javadi-Abhari, L. S. Bishop, I. Lauer, D. F. Bogorin, M. Brink, L. Capelluto, O. Günlük, T. Itoko, N. Kanazawa, A. Kandala, G. A. Keefe, K. Krsulich, W. Landers, E. P. Lewandowski, D. T McClure, G. Nannicini, A. Narasgond, H. M. Nayfeh, E. Pritchett et al., Demonstration of quantum volume 64 on a superconducting quantum computing system, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 025020 (2021).
  6. B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science, Chem. Rev. 120, 12685 (2020).
  7. S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020).
  8. M. Motta and J. E. Rice, Emerging quantum computing algorithms for quantum chemistry, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 12, e1580 (2022).
  9. P. J. Ollitrault, A. Kandala, C.-F. Chen, P. Kl. Barkoutsos, A. Mezzacapo, M. Pistoia, S. Sheldon, S. Wörner, J. M. Gambetta, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum equation of motion for computing molecular excitation energies on a noisy quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043140 (2020).
  10. I. O. Sokolov, P. Kl. Barkoutsos, P. J. Ollitrault, D. Greenberg, J. Rice, M. Pistoia, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum orbital-optimized unitary coupled cluster methods in the strongly correlated regime: Can quantum algorithms outperform their classical equivalents? J. Chem. Phys. 152, 124107 (2020).
  11. P. J. Ollitrault, A. Baiardi, M. Reiher, and I. Tavernelli, Hardware efficient quantum algorithms for vibrational structure calculations, Chem. Sci. 11, 6842 (2020).
  12. M. Kühn, S. Zanker, P. Deglmann, M. Marthaler, and H. Weiß, Accuracy and resource estimations for quantum chemistry on a near-term quantum computer, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 4764 (2019).
  13. A. Robert, P. Kl. Barkoutsos, S. Wörner, and I. Tavernelli, Resource-efficient quantum algorithm for protein folding, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 38 (2021).
  14. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017).
  15. C. Hempel, C. Maier, J. Romero, J. McClean, T. Monz, H. Shen, P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Love, R. Babbush, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Quantum Chemistry Calculations on a Trapped-Ion Quantum Simulator, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031022 (2018).
  16. B. P. Lanyon, J. D. Whitfield, G. G. Gillett, M. E. Goggin, M. P. Almeida, I. Kassal, J. D. Biamonte, M. Mohseni, B. J. Powell, M. Barbieri, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and A. G. White, Towards quantum chemistry on a quantum computer, Nat. Chem. 2, 106 (2010).
  17. J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016).
  18. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021).
  19. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O'Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014).
  20. S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Commun. 12, 6961 (2021).
  21. A. Eddins, M. Motta, T. P. Gujarati, S. Bravyi, A. Mezzacapo, C. Hadfield, and S. Sheldon, Doubling the size of quantum simulators by entanglement forging, PRX Quantum 3, 010309 (2022).
  22. Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus, PRX Quantum 3, 010313 (2022).
  23. S. Wang, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Can error mitigation improve trainability of noisy variational quantum algorithms? arXiv:2109.01051.
  24. J. F. Gonthier, M. D. Radin, C. Buda, E. J. Doskocil, C. M. Abuan, and J. Romero, Identifying challenges towards practical quantum advantage through resource estimation: the measurement roadblock in the variational quantum eigensolver, arXiv:2012.04001.
  25. D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015).
  26. A. Wack, H. Paik, A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Jurcevic, I. Faro, J. M. Gambetta, and B. R. Johnson, Quality, speed, and scale: Three key attributes to measure the performance of near-term quantum computers, arXiv:2110.14108.
  27. P. Gokhale, O. Angiuli, Y. Ding, K. Gui, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, O(N3) measurement cost for variational quantum eigensolver on molecular Hamiltonians, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 1, 1 (2020).
  28. V. Verteletskyi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, Measurement optimization in the variational quantum eigensolver using a minimum clique cover, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 124114 (2020).
  29. I. Hamamura and T. Imamichi, Efficient evaluation of quantum observables using entangled measurements, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 56 (2020).
  30. O. Crawford, B. van Straaten, D. Wang, T. Parks, E. Campbell, and S. Brierley, Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli operators in the presence of finite sampling error, Quantum 5, 385 (2021).
  31. D. Miller, L. E. Fischer, I. O. Sokolov, P. Kl. Barkoutsos, and I. Tavernelli, Hardware-tailored diagonalization circuits, arXiv:2203.03646.
  32. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050 (2020).
  33. C. Hadfield, S. Bravyi, R. Raymond, and A. Mezzacapo, Measurements of quantum Hamiltonians with locally-biased classical shadows, Comm. Math. Phys. 391, 951 (2022).
  34. A. Zhao, N. C. Rubin, and A. Miyake, Fermionic Partial Tomography via Classical Shadows, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 110504 (2021).
  35. G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, G. Carleo, and A. Mezzacapo, Precise measurement of quantum observables with neural-network estimators, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 022060(R) (2020).
  36. Z. Jiang, A. Kalev, W. Mruczkiewicz, and H. Neven, Optimal fermion-to-qubit mapping via ternary trees with applications to reduced quantum states learning, Quantum 4, 276 (2020).
  37. X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Babbush, and T. E. O'Brien, Nearly Optimal Measurement Scheduling for Partial Tomography of Quantum States, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031064 (2020).
  38. G. Garcia-Perez, M. A.C. Rossi, B. Sokolov, F. Tacchino, P. Kl. Barkoutsos, G. Mazzola, I. Tavernelli, and S. Maniscalco, Learning to measure: Adaptive informationally complete generalized measurements for quantum algorithms, PRX Quantum 2, 040342 (2021).
  39. P.-X. Chen, J. A. Bergou, S.-Y. Zhu, and G.-C. Guo, Ancilla dimensions needed to carry out positive-operator-valued measurement, Phys. Rev. A 76, 060303(R) (2007).
  40. G. Brida, L. Ciavarella, I. P. Degiovanni, M. Genovese, A. Migdall, M. G. Mingolla, M. G. A. Paris, F. Piacentini, and S. V. Polyakov, Ancilla-Assisted Calibration of a Measuring Apparatus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 253601 (2012).
  41. J. Weidenfeller, L. C. Valor, J. Gacon, C. Tornow, L. Bello, S. Wörner, and D. J. Egger, Scaling of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on superconducting qubit based hardware, arXiv:2202.03459.
  42. M. J. Peterer, S. J. Bader, X. Jin, F. Yan, A. Kamal, T. J. Gudmundsen, P. J. Leek, T. P. Orlando, W. D. Oliver, and S. Gustavsson, Coherence and Decay of Higher Energy Levels of a Superconducting Transmon Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 010501 (2015).
  43. P. J. Low, B. M. White, A. A. Cox, M. L. Day, and C. Senko, Practical trapped-ion protocols for universal qudit-based quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033128 (2020).
  44. X.-F. Shi, Quantum logic and entanglement by neutral Rydberg atoms: Methods and fidelity, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7023002 (2021).
  45. I. Gelfand and M. Neumark, On the imbedding of normed rings into the ring of operators in Hilbert space, Mat. Sb. 12, 197 (1943).
  46. S. B. Bravyi and A. Yu. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum computation, Ann. Phys. 298, 210 (2002).
  47. F. Vatan and C. Williams, Optimal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032315 (2004).
  48. B. Drury and P. Love, Constructive quantum Shannon decomposition from Cartan involutions, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 395305 (2008).
  49. N. Earnest, C. Tornow, and D. J. Egger, Pulse-efficient circuit transpilation for quantum applications on cross-resonance-based hardware, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 043088 (2021).
  50. 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).
  51. P. Murali, N. M. Linke, M. Martonosi, A. J. Abhari, N. H. Nguyen, and C. H. Alderete, Full-stack, real-system quantum computer studies: Architectural comparisons and design insights, in Proceedings of the 46th International Symposium on Computer Architecture (Assocation for Computing Machinery, New York, 2019), pp. 527–540.
  52. 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).
  53. G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, 3rd ed., Johns Hopkins Studies in the Mathematical Sciences (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1996).
  54. S. Sheldon, L. S. Bishop, E. Magesan, S. Filipp, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Characterizing errors on qubit operations via iterative randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012301 (2016).
  55. J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007).
  56. IBM Quantum, https://quantum-computing.ibm.com/.
  57. S. S. Elder, C. S. Wang, P. Reinhold, C. T. Hann, K. S. Chou, B. J. Lester, S. Rosenblum, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, High-Fidelity Measurement of Qubits Encoded in Multilevel Superconducting Circuits, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011001 (2020).
  58. A. Cervera-Lierta, M. Krenn, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and A. Galda, Experimental High-Dimensional Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger Entanglement with Superconducting Transmon Qutrits, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 024062 (2022).
  59. A. Galda, M. Cubeddu, N. Kanazawa, P. Narang, and N. Earnest-Noble, Implementing a ternary decomposition of the Toffoli gate on fixed-frequency transmon qutrits, arXiv:2109.00558.
  60. X. Wu, S. L. Tomarken, N. A. Petersson, L. A. Martinez, Y. J. Rosen, and J. L. DuBois, High-Fidelity Software-Defined Quantum Logic on a Superconducting Qudit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 170502 (2020).
  61. D. J. Egger, M. Werninghaus, M. Ganzhorn, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, P. Müller, and S. Filipp, Pulsed Reset Protocol for Fixed-Frequency Superconducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied 10, 044030 (2018).
  62. D. J. Egger, M. Ganzhorn, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, P. Müller, P. Kl. Barkoutsos, N. Moll, I. Tavernelli, and S. Filipp, Entanglement Generation in Superconducting Qubits Using Holonomic Operations, Phys. Rev. Applied 11, 014017 (2019).
  63. G. Catelani, S. E. Nigg, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and L. I. Glazman, Decoherence of superconducting qubits caused by quasiparticle tunneling, Phys. Rev. B 86, 184514 (2012).
  64. A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Approaching Unit Visibility for Control of a Superconducting Qubit with Dispersive Readout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 060501 (2005).
  65. M. S. Blok, V. V. Ramasesh, T. Schuster, K. O'Brien, J.-M. Kreikebaum, D. Dahlen, A. Morvan, B. Yoshida, N. Y. Yao, and I. Siddiqi, Quantum Information Scrambling on a Superconducting Qutrit Processor, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021010 (2021).
  66. 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).
  67. J. M. Gambetta, F. Motzoi, S. T. Merkel, and F. K. Wilhelm, Analytic control methods for high-fidelity unitary operations in a weakly nonlinear oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 83, 012308 (2011).
  68. M. Werninghaus, D. J. Egger, F. Roy, S. Machnes, F. K. Wilhelm, and S. Filipp, Leakage reduction in fast superconducting qubit gates via optimal control, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 14 (2021).
  69. T. Alexander, N. Kanazawa, D. J. Egger, L. Capelluto, C. J. Wood, A. Javadi-Abhari, and D. C McKay, Qiskit pulse: Programming quantum computers through the cloud with pulses, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 044006 (2020).
  70. D. C. McKay, T. Alexander, L. Bello, M. J. Biercuk, L. Bishop, J. Chen, J. M. Chow, A. D. Córcoles, D. Egger, S. Filipp, J. Gomez, M. Hush, A. Javadi-Abhari, D. Moreda, P. Nation, B. Paulovicks, E. Winston, C. J. Wood, J. Wootton, and J. M. Gambetta, Qiskit backend specifications for OpenQASM and OpenPulse experiments, arXiv:1809.03452.
  71. G. M. D'Ariano, L. Maccone, and P. L. Presti, Quantum Calibration of Measurement Instrumentation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 250407 (2004).
  72. J. S. Lundeen, A. Feito, H. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, K. L. Pregnell, C. Silberhorn, T. C. Ralph, J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio, and I. A. Walmsley, Tomography of quantum detectors, Nat. Phys. 5, 27 (2009).
  73. J. Fiurasek, Maximum-likelihood estimation of quantum measurement, Phys. Rev. A 64, 024102 (2001).
  74. F. B. Maciejewski, Z. Zimboras, and M. Oszmaniec, Mitigation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography, Quantum 4, 257 (2020).
  75. Z. Puchala, L. Pawela, A. Krawiec, and R. Kukulski, Strategies for optimal single-shot discrimination of quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042103 (2018).
  76. J. Carrasquilla, G. Torlai, R. G. Melko, and L. Aolita, Reconstructing quantum states with generative models, Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 155 (2019).
  77. A. Acharya, S. Saha, and A. M. Sengupta, Shadow tomography based on informationally complete positive operator-valued measure, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052418 (2021).
  78. IBM, the IBM logo, and ibm.com are trademarks of International Business Machines Corp., registered in many jurisdictions worldwide. Other product and service names might be trademarks of IBM or other companies. The current list of IBM trademarks is available at https://www.ibm.com/legal/copytrade.
  79. J. M. Gambetta, Control of superconducting qubits, in Quantum Information Processing—Lecture Notes of the 44th IFF Spring School 2013, edited by D. P. DiVincenzo (Forschungszentrum Jülich, Zentralbibliothek, 2013).
  80. J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Majer, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Suppressing charge noise decoherence in superconducting charge qubits, Phys. Rev. B 77, 180502(R) (2008).
  81. D. Riste, N. Bultink, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, K. W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, Millisecond charge-parity fluctuations and induced decoherence in a superconducting transmon qubit, Nat. Commun. 4, 1913 (2013).
  82. M. Neugebauer, L. Fischer, A. Jäger, S. Czischek, S. Jochim, M. Weidemüller, and M. Gärttner, Neural-network quantum state tomography in a two-qubit experiment, Phys. Rev. A 102, 042604 (2020).
  83. Z. Hradil, J. Rehacek, J. Fiurasek, and M. Jezek, 3 maximum-likelihood methods in quantum mechanics, in Quantum State Estimation, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 649, edited by M. Paris and J. Rehacek (Springer, Berlin, 2004), pp. 59–112.
  84. Y. Chen, M. Farahzad, S. Yoo, and T.-C. Wei, Detector tomography on IBM quantum computers and mitigation of an imperfect measurement, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052315 (2019).
  85. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012).
  86. M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical operation, Phys. Lett. A 303, 249 (2002).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 4, 033027– Published 11 July, 2022
  • Received 28 March 2022
  • Accepted 14 June 2022
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