Counting collisions in random circuit sampling for benchmarking quantum computers

We show that counting the number of collisions (re-sampled bitstrings) when measuring a random quantum circuit provides a practical benchmark for the quality of a quantum computer and a quantitative noise characterization method. We analytically estimate the difference in the expected number of collisions when sampling bitstrings from a pure random state and when sampling from the classical uniform distribution. We show that this quantity, if properly normalized, can be used as a collision anomaly benchmark or as a collision volume test, which is similar to the well-known quantum volume test, with advantages (no classical computing cost) and disadvantages (high sampling cost). We also propose to count the number of cross-collisions between two independent quantum computers running the same random circuit in order to obtain a cross-validation test of the two devices. Finally, we quantify the sampling cost of quantum collision experiments. We find that the sampling cost for running a collision volume test on state-of-the-art processors (e.g., 20 effective clean qubits) is quite small: less than 105 shots. For large-scale experiments in the quantum supremacy regime, the required number of shots for observing a quantum signal in the observed number of collisions is currently infeasible (>1012), but not completely out of reach for near-future technology.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
APL Quantum
Published
2024-11-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0219266
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.69

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Counting collisions in random circuit sampling for benchmarking quantum computers

Andrea Mari
2 citations
APL Quantum
Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
0.69
article

Counting collisions in random circuit sampling for benchmarking quantum computers

Andrea Mari
article en
2 citations

Abstract

We show that counting the number of collisions (re-sampled bitstrings) when measuring a random quantum circuit provides a practical benchmark for the quality of a quantum computer and a quantitative noise characterization method. We analytically estimate the difference in the expected number of collisions when sampling bitstrings from a pure random state and when sampling from the classical uniform distribution. We show that this quantity, if properly normalized, can be used as a collision anomaly benchmark or as a collision volume test, which is similar to the well-known quantum volume test, with advantages (no classical computing cost) and disadvantages (high sampling cost). We also propose to count the number of cross-collisions between two independent quantum computers running the same random circuit in order to obtain a cross-validation test of the two devices. Finally, we quantify the sampling cost of quantum collision experiments. We find that the sampling cost for running a collision volume test on state-of-the-art processors (e.g., 20 effective clean qubits) is quite small: less than 105 shots. For large-scale experiments in the quantum supremacy regime, the required number of shots for observing a quantum signal in the observed number of collisions is currently infeasible (>1012), but not completely out of reach for near-future technology.

APL QuantumVol. 1(4)
Unitary Fund (US)
Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
0.69
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.