Reliability of IBM’s Public Quantum Computers.

Raquel Pérez Antón; Alberto Corbi; José Ignacio López Sánchez; Daniel Burgos

doi:10.9781/ijimai.2023.04.005

Authors

Raquel Pérez Antón Universidad Internacional de La Rioja.
Alberto Corbi Research Institute for Innovation & Technology in Education (UNIR iTED).
José Ignacio López Sánchez Universidad Internacional de La Rioja.
Daniel Burgos Research Institute for Innovation & Technology in Education (UNIR iTED).

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2023.04.005

Keywords:

Error Correction, IBM Q, Quantum

Supporting Agencies

This research is partially funded by the Universidad Internacional de la Rioja (UNIR) through the Research Institute for Innovation & Technology in Education (UNIR iTED). The authors would also like to express their gratitude towards IBM for allowing public access to their hardware and for fostering the free use of their remarkable equipment.

Abstract

One of the challenges of the current ecosystem of quantum computers (QC) is the stabilization of the coherence associated with the entanglement of the states of their inner qubits. In this empirical study, we monitor the reliability of IBM’s public-access QCs network on a daily basis. Each of these state-of-the-art machines has a totally different qubit association, and this entails that for a given (same) input program, they may output a different set of probabilities for the assembly of results (including both the right and the wrong ones). Although we focus on the computing structure provided by the “Big Blue” company, our survey can be easily transferred to other currently available quantum mainframes. In more detail, we probe these quantum processors with an ad hoc designed computationally demanding quaternary search algorithm. As stated, this quantum program is executed every 24 hours (for nearly 100 days) and its goal is to put to the limit the operational capacity of this novel and genuine type of equipment. Next, we perform a comparative analysis of the obtained results according to the singularities of each computer and over the total number of executions. In addition, we subsequently apply (for 50 days) an improvement filtering to perform noise mitigation on the results obtained proposed by IBM. The Yorktown 5-qubit computer reaches noise filtering of up to 33% in one day, that is, a 90% confidence level is reached in the expected results. From our continuous and long-term tests, we derive that room still exists regarding the improvement of quantum calculators in order to guarantee enough confidence in the returned outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

J. Gao, M. A. Thompson, et al., Combined quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical methods, vol. 712. ACS Publications, 1998.

M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, F. Petruccione, “An introduction to quantum machine learning,” Contemporary Physics, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 172–185, 2015.

A. Furusawa, J. L. Sørensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. Kimble, E. S. Polzik, “Unconditional quantum teleportation,” Science, vol. 282, no. 5389, pp. 706–709, 1998.

M. Barrett, J. Chiaverini, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, W. Itano, J. Jost, E. Knill, C. Langer, D. Leibfried, R. Ozeri, et al., “Deterministic quantum teleportation of atomic qubits,” Nature, vol. 429, no. 6993, pp. 737–739, 2004.

T. Aoki, G. Takahashi, T. Kajiya, J.-i. Yoshikawa, S. L. Braunstein, P. Van Loock, A. Furusawa, “Quantum error correction beyond qubits,” Nature Physics, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 541–546, 2009.

M. A. Thornton, “Introduction to quantum computation reliability,” in 2020 IEEE International Test Conference (ITC), 2020, pp. 1–10, IEEE.

W. K. Wootters, W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nature, vol. 299, no. 5886, pp. 802–803, 1982.

S. S. Tannu, M. K. Qureshi, “Not all qubits are created equal: a case for variability-aware policies for nisq- era quantum computers,” in Proceedings of the Twenty- Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, 2019, pp. 987–999.

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018.

J. Cramer, N. Kalb, M. A. Rol, B. Hensen, M. S. Blok, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, R. Hanson, T. H. Taminiau, “Repeated quantum error correction on a continuously encoded qubit by real-time feedback,” Nature communications, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2016.

M. Otten, S. K. Gray, “Recovering noise-free quantum observables,” Physical Review A, vol. 99, no. 1, 2019.

P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, T. Monz, V. Nebendahl, D. Nigg, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, R. Blatt, “Experimental repetitive quantum error correction,” Science, vol. 332, no. 6033, pp. 1059–1061, 2011.

N. M. Linke, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, S. Debnath, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, C. Monroe, “Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 114, no. 13, pp. 3305–3310, 2017.

T. Ayral, F.-M. Le Régent, Z. Saleem, Y. Alexeev, M. Suchara, “Quantum divide and compute: Hardware demonstrations and noisy simulations,” in 2020 IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI), 2020, pp. 138–140, IEEE.

S. Bhattacharyya, S. Bhattacharyya, “Holonomic control of a three-qubits system in an NV center using a near-term quantum computer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08061, 2022.

J. Montanez-Barrera, M. R. von Spakovsky, C. Damian- Ascencio, S. Cano-Andrade, “Decoherence predictions in a superconductive quantum device using the steepest- entropy-ascent quantum thermodynamics framework,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08329, 2022.

A. Francis, J. Freericks, A. Kemper, “Quantum computation of magnon spectra,” Physical Review B, vol. 101, no. 1, p. 014411, 2020.

J. Chow, J. Gambetta, “Quantum takes flight: Moving from laboratory demonstrations to building systems,” IBM Research Blog, 2020.

IBM, “IBM Quantum Experience,” 2016.

W. Heisenberg, “Schwankungserscheinungen und quantenmechanik,” Zeitschrift für Physik, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 501–506, 1927.

B. D. Josephson, “Supercurrents through barriers,” Advances in Physics, vol. 14, no. 56, pp. 419–451, 1965.

D. P. DiVincenzo, “The physical implementation of quantum computation,” Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics, vol. 48, no. 9-11, pp. 771–783, 2000.

P. Høyer, J. Neerbek, Y. Shi, “Quantum complexities of ordered searching, sorting, and element distinctness,” Algorithmica, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 429–448, 2002.

L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1996, pp. 212–219.

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, “Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,” Physical review, vol. 47, no. 10, p. 777, 1935.

J. P. Hecht, Fundamentos de Computación Cuántica orientados a la criptología teórica. 2012.

D. C. McKay, T. Alexander, L. Bello, M. J. Biercuk, L. Bishop, J. Chen, J. M. Chow, A. D. Córcoles, D. Egger, S. Filipp, et al., “Qiskit backend specifications for openqasm and openpulse experiments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.03452, 2018.

M. Tilves, “IBM lleva la computación cuántica a las aulas,” Silicon.es, 2020.

P. Murali, D. C. McKay, M. Martonosi, A. Javadi-Abhari, “Software mitigation of crosstalk on noisy intermediate- scale quantum computers,” in Proceedings of the Twenty- Fifth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, 2020, pp. 1001–1016.

IBM, “Measurement error mitigation,” 2020.

J. J. Litchfield, F. Wilcoxon, “A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments,” Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 99–113, 1949.