You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As this package is targeted towards 1-qubit state tomography, the idea of performing the different tomography experiments in parallel across the different qubits of a chip was raised.
As far as I remember, this has been checked successfully at the beginning of the sqt implementation. But there is no trace/documentation of it, and this check happened a few years ago.
In particular, it would be nice to have a complete script that could check that automatically. Here is how I see the process:
perform the parallel experiment, exactly what is done by default in sqt right now,
perform single-qubit experiment(s) (or multi-qubit experiments with non-adjacent qubits?),
post-process both experiments and check if the difference between the two results is within the sample-error or not.
There are two effects that might impact this experiment and prove the above assumption wrong:
cross-talk, i.e., error happening on nearby qubits when a quantum gate is applied. This type of error seems to be predominant when 2-qubit gates are used, but I did not see a lot of studies about potential cross-talk using single-qubit gates. Simultaneous single-qubit driving of semiconductor spin qubits at the fault-tolerant threshold might be an interesting read for this.
As this package is targeted towards 1-qubit state tomography, the idea of performing the different tomography experiments in parallel across the different qubits of a chip was raised.
As far as I remember, this has been checked successfully at the beginning of the
sqt
implementation. But there is no trace/documentation of it, and this check happened a few years ago.In particular, it would be nice to have a complete script that could check that automatically. Here is how I see the process:
sqt
right now,There are two effects that might impact this experiment and prove the above assumption wrong:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: