Analyzing and mitigating the errors of quantum gates presents a critical challenge in quantum computing.This article reviews the errors of quantum gates in superconducting quantum circuits, starting with an introduction to the basic concepts of quantum gates, including error sources and benchmarking methods. It subsequently discusses the crosstalk errors induced by quantum gates operating in parallel.Finally, the article summarizes the primary factors affecting system stability, and provides a reference for pushing forward the industrialization of superconducting quantum computing.Analyzing and mitigating the errors of quantum gates presents a critical challenge in quantum computing.This article reviews the errors of quantum gates in superconducting quantum circuits, starting with an introduction to the basic concepts of quantum gates, including error sources and benchmarking methods. It subsequently discusses the crosstalk errors induced by quantum gates operating in parallel.Finally, the article summarizes the primary factors affecting system stability, and provides a reference for pushing forward the industrialization of superconducting quantum computing.

Zhongguo kexue. Wulixue Lixue TianwenxueDec 26, 20240 citations

The Promise of Quantum Computing

Jeff Kabachinski

Biomedical Instrumentation & TechnologyDec 1, 20130 citations

Two-way quantum computers adding CPT analog of state preparation

Jarek Duda

Standard one-way quantum computers (1WQC) combine time symmetric unitary evolution, with asymmetric treatment of boundaries: state preparation allows to enforce a chosen initial state, however, for the final state measurement chooses a random value instead. As e.g. pull/push, negative/positive pressure, stimulated emission/absorption causing deexcitation/excitation are CPT analogs, and one can be used for state preparation, the second should allow for its CPT analog, referred here as CPT(state preparation) - allowing for additional chosen enforcement of the final state, its more active treatment than measurement. It should act similarly to postselection, but through applied physical constraints (instead of running multiple times). Like pumped to $|1\rangle$ prepared state vs its "unpumped" $\langle 0|$ CPT analog, hopefully allowing to construct two-way quantum computers (2WQC) e.g. hydrodynamical, and hopefully photonic: seen as $\langle Φ_{\textrm{final}}|U_{\textrm{quantum gates}}|Φ_{\textrm{initial}}\rangle$ like for scattering matrix, with influenced both initial and final states. If possible, for example for an instance of 3-SAT problem on $n$ variables, we could prepare ensemble of $2^n$ inputs with Hadamard gates, calculate 3-SAT alternatives for them, and use CPT(state preparation) to enforce outcomes of all these alternatives to '1'. This way hopefully restricting this ensemble to satisfying given 3-SAT problem: $\sum_{a:\textrm{SAT}(a)} |a\rangle$ , in theory allowing to attack NP problems by simultaneously pushing and pulling information through the system for better control.Standard one-way quantum computers (1WQC) combine time symmetric unitary evolution, with asymmetric treatment of boundaries: state preparation allows to enforce a chosen initial state, however, for the final state measurement chooses a random value instead. As e.g. pull/push, negative/positive pressure, stimulated emission/absorption causing deexcitation/excitation are CPT analogs, and one can be used for state preparation, the second should allow for its CPT analog, referred here as CPT(state preparation) - allowing for additional chosen enforcement of the final state, its more active treatment than measurement. It should act similarly to postselection, but through applied physical constraints (instead of running multiple times). Like pumped to $|1\rangle$ prepared state vs its "unpumped" $\langle 0|$ CPT analog, hopefully allowing to construct two-way quantum computers (2WQC) e.g. hydrodynamical, and hopefully photonic: seen as $\langle Φ_{\textrm{final}}|U_{\textrm{quantum gates}}|Φ_{\textrm{initial}}\rangle$ like for scattering matrix, with influenced both initial and final states. If possible, for example for an instance of 3-SAT problem on $n$ variables, we could prepare ensemble of $2^n$ inputs with Hadamard gates, calculate 3-SAT alternatives for them, and use CPT(state preparation) to enforce outcomes of all these alternatives to '1'. This way hopefully restricting this ensemble to satisfying given 3-SAT problem: $\sum_{a:\textrm{SAT}(a)} |a\rangle$, in theory allowing to attack NP problems by simultaneously pushing and pulling information through the system for better control.

arXiv:2308.13522Jul 27, 20230 citations

Quantum Computing: Stepping Closer to Reality

Nancy Forbes, Seth Lloyd

Computers in PhysicsJan 1, 19980 citations

The future of quantum computing

Jeremy J. Ramsden

Nanotechnology PerceptionsMar 18, 20210 citations

|1\rangle

prepared state vs its "unpumped"

\langle 0|

CPT analog, hopefully allowing to construct two-way quantum computers (2WQC) e.g. hydrodynamical, and hopefully photonic: seen as

\langle Φ_{\textrm{final}}|U_{\textrm{quantum gates}}|Φ_{\textrm{initial}}\rangle

like for scattering matrix, with influenced both initial and final states. If possible, for example for an instance of 3-SAT problem on

n

variables, we could prepare ensemble of

2^n

inputs with Hadamard gates, calculate 3-SAT alternatives for them, and use CPT(state preparation) to enforce outcomes of all these alternatives to '1'. This way hopefully restricting this ensemble to satisfying given 3-SAT problem:

\sum_{a:\textrm{SAT}(a)} |a\rangle

, in theory allowing to attack NP problems by simultaneously pushing and pulling information through the system for better control.