Shamminuj Aktar
Andreas Bärtschi
ABSTRACT
Estimating the state preparation fidelity of highly entangled states on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices is an important task for benchmarking and application considerations. Unfortunately, exact fidelity measurements quickly become prohibitively expensive, as they scale exponentially as O(3N) for N-qubit states, using full state tomography with measurements in all Pauli bases combinations. However, Somma et al. [20] established that the complexity could be drastically reduced when looking at fidelity lower bounds for states that exhibit symmetries, such as Dicke States and GHZ States. For larger states, these bounds still need to be tight enough to provide reasonable estimations on NISQ devices.
For the first time and more than 15 years after the theoretical introduction, we report meaningful lower bounds for the state preparation fidelity of all Dicke States up to N = 10, and all GHZ states up to N = 20 on Quantinuum H1 ion-trap systems using efficient implementations of recently proposed scalable circuits for these states. Our achieved lower bounds match or exceed previously reported exact fidelities on superconducting systems for much smaller states. This work provides a path forward to benchmarking entanglement as NISQ devices improve in size and quality.
- 2021. Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2573505Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 2021. Quantinuum H1, Powered by Honeywell. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/Google Scholar
- Shamminuj Aktar, Andreas Bärtschi, Abdel-Hameed A Badawy, and Stephan Eidenbenz. 2022. A Divide-and-Conquer Approach to Dicke State Preparation. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 3 (2022), 1--16. https://doi.org/10.1109/TQE.2022.3174547 arXiv:2112.12435Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andreas Bärtschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. 2019. Deterministic Preparation of Dicke States. In 22nd International Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory, FCT'19. 126--139. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25027-0_9 arXiv:1904.07358Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andreas Bärtschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. 2022. Short-Depth Circuits for Dicke State Preparation. In IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing & Engineering QCE'22. arXiv:2207.09998 To appear.Google Scholar
- Andrew W Cross, Lev S Bishop, John A Smolin, and Jay M Gambetta. 2017. Open quantum assembly language. arXiv preprint (2017). arXiv:1707.03429Google Scholar
- Cruz, Diogo and Fournier, Romain and Gremion, Fabien and Jeannerot, Alix and Komagata, Kenichi and Tosic, Tara and Thiesbrummel, Jarla and Chan, Chun Lam and Macris, Nicolas and Dupertuis, Marc-André and Javerzac-Galy, Clément. 2019. Efficient Quantum Algorithms for GHZ and W States, and Implementation on the IBM Quantum Computer. Advanced Quantum Technologies 2, 5--6 (2019), 1900015. https://doi.org/10.1002/qute.201900015 arXiv:1807.05572Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andreas Elben, Steven T Flammia, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, Benoît Vermersch, and Peter Zoller. 2022. The randomized measurement toolbox. arXiv preprint (2022). arXiv:2203.11374Google Scholar
- Steven T Flammia and Yi-Kai Liu. 2011. Direct fidelity estimation from few Pauli measurements. Physical Review Letters 106, 23 (2011), 230501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.230501 arXiv:1104.4695Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Gottesman. 1997. Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. Caltech Ph. D. Ph.D. Dissertation. Thesis, eprint. arXiv:quant-ph/9705052Google Scholar
- Otfried Gühne, Chao-Yang Lu, Wei-Bo Gao, and Jian-Wei Pan. 2007. Toolbox for entanglement detection and fidelity estimation. Physical Review A 76, 3 (2007), 030305. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.030305 arXiv:0706.2432Google ScholarCross Ref
- Xinhe Jiang, Kun Wang, Kaiyi Qian, Zhaozhong Chen, Zhiyu Chen, Liangliang Lu, Lijun Xia, Fangmin Song, Shining Zhu, and Xiaosong Ma. 2020. Towards the standardization of quantum state verification using optimal strategies. npj Quantum Information 6, 1 (2020), 1--8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-020-00317-7 arXiv:2002.00640Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard Jozsa. 1994. Fidelity for mixed quantum states. Journal of Modern Optics 41, 12 (1994), 2315--2323.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zihao Li, Yun-Guang Han, and Huangjun Zhu. 2019. Efficient verification of bipartite pure states. Physical Review A 100, 3 (2019), 032316. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032316 arXiv:1901.09783Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zihao Li, Yun-Guang Han, and Huangjun Zhu. 2020. Optimal verification of greenberger-horne-zeilinger states. Physical Review Applied 13, 5 (2020), 054002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.13.054002 arXiv:1909.08979Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ye-Chao Liu, Xiao-Dong Yu, Jiangwei Shang, Huangjun Zhu, and Xiangdong Zhang. 2019. Efficient verification of Dicke states. Physical Review Applied 12, 4 (2019), 044020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.044020arXiv:1904.01979Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chandra Sekhar Mukherjee, Subhamoy Maitra, Vineet Gaurav, and Dibyendu Roy. 2020. Preparing Dicke States on a Quantum Computer. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 1 (2020), 1--17. https://doi.org/10.1109/TQE.2020.3041479Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2000. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sam Pallister, Noah Linden, and Ashley Montanaro. 2018. Optimal verification of entangled states with local measurements. Physical Review Letters 120, 17 (2018), 170502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.170502 arXiv:1709.03353Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rolando D Somma, John Chiaverini, and Dana J Berkeland. 2006. Lower bounds for the fidelity of entangled-state preparation. Physical Review A 74, 5 (2006), 052302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.052302 arXiv:quant-ph/0606023Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yuuki Tokunaga, Takashi Yamamoto, Masato Koashi, and Nobuyuki Imoto. 2006. Fidelity estimation and entanglement verification for experimentally produced four-qubit cluster states. Physical Review A 74, 2 (2006), 020301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.020301Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kun Wang and Masahito Hayashi. 2019. Optimal verification of two-qubit pure states. Physical Review A 100, 3 (2019), 032315. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032315 arXiv:1901.09467Google ScholarCross Ref
- Xiao-Dong Yu, Jiangwei Shang, and Otfried Gühne. 2019. Optimal verification of general bipartite pure states. npj Quantum Information 5, 1 (2019), 1--5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0226-z arXiv:1901.09856Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wen-Hao Zhang, Chao Zhang, Zhe Chen, Xing-Xiang Peng, Xiao-Ye Xu, Peng Yin, Shang Yu, Xiang-Jun Ye, Yong-Jian Han, Jin-Shi Xu, et al. 2020. Experimental optimal verification of entangled states using local measurements. Physical Review Letters 125, 3 (2020), 030506. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.030506 arXiv:1905.12175Google ScholarCross Ref
- Xiaoqian Zhang, Maolin Luo, Zhaodi Wen, Qin Feng, Shengshi Pang, Weiqi Luo, and Xiaoqi Zhou. 2021. Direct fidelity estimation of quantum states using machine learning. Physical Review Letters 127, 13 (2021), 130503. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.130503 arXiv:2102.02369Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. 2019. Efficient verification of hypergraph states. Physical Review Applied 12, 5 (2019), 054047. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.054047 arXiv:1806.05565Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. 2019. Efficient verification of pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario. Physical Review Letters 123, 26 (2019), 260504. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-021-00455-6 arXiv:1909.01900Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. 2019. General framework for verifying pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario. Physical Review A 100, 6 (2019), 062335. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.062335 arXiv:1909.01943Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. 2019. Optimal verification and fidelity estimation of maximally entangled states. Physical Review A 99, 5 (2019), 052346. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.052346 arXiv:1901.09772Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Scalable Experimental Bounds for Dicke and GHZ States Fidelities
Recommendations
Generation of entangled coherent-squeezed states: their entanglement and nonclassical properties
In this paper, after a brief review on the coherent states and squeezed states, we introduce two classes of entangled coherent-squeezed states. Next, in order to generate the introduced entangled states, we present a theoretical scheme based on the ...
The computational power of the W And GHZ States
It is well understood that the use of quantum entanglement significantly enhances the computational power of systems. Much of the attention has focused on Bell states and their multipartite generalizations. However, in the multipartite case it is known ...
Strong quantum nonlocality for multipartite entangled states
AbstractRecently, Halder et al. (in Phys Rev Lett 122:040403, 2019) present two sets of strong nonlocality of orthogonal product states based on the local irreducibility. However, for a set of locally indistinguishable orthogonal entangled states, the ...
Comments