Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/0305001 · Physical Review Letters

Diagnosis, Prescription, and Prognosis of a Bell-State Filter by Quantum Process Tomography

Morgan W. Mitchell, Christopher W. Ellenor, Sara Schneider, Aephraim M. Steinberg

Published Sep 19, 2003• 125 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We apply the techniques of quantum process tomography to characterize errors and decoherence in a prototypical two-photon operation, a singlet-state filter. The quantum process tomography results indicate a large asymmetry in the process and also the required operation to correct for this asymmetry. We quantify residual errors and decoherence of the filtering operation after this modification.

DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.91.120402

Related papers

Experimental Investigation of a Nonideal Two-Qubit Quantum-State Filter by Quantum Process Tomography

Yoshihiro Nambu, Kazuo Torii Nakamura

We used quantum process tomography to investigate and identify the function of a nonideal two-qubit quantum-state filter subject to various degrees of decoherence. We present a simple decoherence model that explains the experimental results and point out that a beam splitter followed by a postselection process is not, as commonly believed, a singlet-state filter. In the ideal case it is a triplet-state filter.

arXiv:quant-ph/0405073•Physical Review Letters•Jan 11, 2005•10 citations

Quantum process tomography and the search for decoherence-free subspaces

Morgan W. Mitchell, Christopher W. Ellenor, Robert B. A. Adamson +2 more

We describe experiments with photon pairs to evaluate, correct for, and avoid sources of error in optical quantum information processing. It is well known that a simple beamsplitter can non-deterministicially prepare or select entangled polarization states. We use quantum process tomography (QPT) to fully characterize this effect, including loss and decoherence. The QPT results identify errors and indicate how well they can be corrected. To evade decoherence in a noisy quantum channel, we identify decoherence-free subspaces using experimental channel characterization, without need for a priori knowledge of the decoherence mechanism or simplifying assumptions. Working with pairs of polarization-encoded photonic qubits, we use tomographic and adaptive techniques to identify 2- and 3-state decoherence-free subspaces for encoding decoherence-free qubits and qutrits within the noisy channel.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Aug 24, 2004•2 citations

Quantum process tomography and the search for decoherence-free subspaces

Morgan W. Mitchell, Chris W. Ellenor, Rob B. Adamson +2 more

We describe experiments with photon pairs to evaluate, correct for, and avoid sources of error in optical quantum information processing. It is well known that a simple beamsplitter can non-deterministicially prepare or select entangled polarization states. We use quantum process tomography (QPT) to fully characterize this effect, including loss and decoherence. The QPT results identify errors and indicate how well they can be corrected. To evade decoherence in a noisy quantum channel, we identify decoherence-free subspaces using experimental channel characterization, without need for a priori knowledge of the decoherence mechanism or simplifying assumptions. Working with pairs of polarization-encoded photonic qubits, we use tomographic and adaptive techniques to identify 2- and 3-state decoherence-free subspaces for encoding decoherence-free qubits and qutrits within the noisy channel.

•Jan 5, 2004•0 citations

Error matrices in quantum process tomography

Alexander N. Korotkov

We discuss characterization of experimental quantum gates by the error matrix, which is similar to the standard process matrix $χ$ in the Pauli basis, except the desired unitary operation is factored out, by formally placing it either before or after the error process. The error matrix has only one large element, which is equal to the process fidelity, while other elements are small and indicate imperfections. The imaginary parts of the elements along the left column and/or top row directly indicate the unitary imperfection and can be used to find the needed correction. We discuss a relatively simple way to calculate the error matrix for a composition of quantum gates. Similarly, it is rather straightforward to find the first-order contribution to the error matrix due to the Lindblad-form decoherence. We also discuss a way to identify and subtract the tomography procedure errors due to imperfect state preparation and measurement. In appendices we consider several simple examples of the process tomography and also discuss an intuitive physical interpretation of the Lindblad-form decoherence.

arXiv:1309.6405•Sep 25, 2013•9 citations

Quantum process tomography of the quantum Fourier transform

Yaakov S. Weinstein, Timothy F. Havel, Joseph Emerson +4 more

The results of quantum process tomography on a three-qubit nuclear magnetic resonance quantum information processor are presented and shown to be consistent with a detailed model of the system-plus-apparatus used for the experiments. The quantum operation studied was the quantum Fourier transform, which is important in several quantum algorithms and poses a rigorous test for the precision of our recently developed strongly modulating control fields. The results were analyzed in an attempt to decompose the implementation errors into coherent (overall systematic), incoherent (microscopically deterministic), and decoherent (microscopically random) components. This analysis yielded a superoperator consisting of a unitary part that was strongly correlated with the theoretically expected unitary superoperator of the quantum Fourier transform, an overall attenuation consistent with decoherence, and a residual portion that was not completely positive-although complete positivity is required for any quantum operation. By comparison with the results of computer simulations, the lack of complete positivity was shown to be largely a consequence of the incoherent errors which occurred over the full quantum process tomography procedure. These simulations further showed that coherent, incoherent, and decoherent errors can often be identified by their distinctive effects on the spectrum of the overall superoperator. The gate fidelity of the experimentally determined superoperator was 0.64, while the correlation coefficient between experimentally determined superoperator and the simulated superoperator was 0.79; most of the discrepancies with the simulations could be explained by the cumulative effect of small errors in the single qubit gates.

arXiv:quant-ph/0406239•The Journal of Chemical Physics•Sep 27, 2004•178 citations

High-dimensional quantum process tomography with undetected photons

Salini Rajeev, Mayukh Lahiri

The goal of quantum process tomography is to fully characterize an operation performed on a quantum state. By considering high-dimensional quantum states (qudit), we show that it is possible to fully reconstruct an arbitrary operation without performing any measurement on the transformed qudit. Our method is interferometric and conceptually different from existing techniques of quantum process tomography that must perform a measurement on the transformed qudit.

quant-pharXiv:2608.02490•Aug 4, 2026•0 citations
We apply the techniques of quantum process tomography to characterize errors and decoherence in a prototypical two-photon operation, a singlet-state filter. The quantum process tomography results indicate a large asymmetry in the process and also the required operation to correct for this asymmetry. We quantify residual errors and decoherence of the filtering operation after this modification.
We describe experiments with photon pairs to evaluate, correct for, and avoid sources of error in optical quantum information processing. It is well known that a simple beamsplitter can non-deterministicially prepare or select entangled polarization states. We use quantum process tomography (QPT) to fully characterize this effect, including loss and decoherence. The QPT results identify errors and indicate how well they can be corrected. To evade decoherence in a noisy quantum channel, we identify decoherence-free subspaces using experimental channel characterization, without need for a priori knowledge of the decoherence mechanism or simplifying assumptions. Working with pairs of polarization-encoded photonic qubits, we use tomographic and adaptive techniques to identify 2- and 3-state decoherence-free subspaces for encoding decoherence-free qubits and qutrits within the noisy channel.
We describe experiments with photon pairs to evaluate, correct for, and avoid sources of error in optical quantum information processing. It is well known that a simple beamsplitter can non-deterministicially prepare or select entangled polarization states. We use quantum process tomography (QPT) to fully characterize this effect, including loss and decoherence. The QPT results identify errors and indicate how well they can be corrected. To evade decoherence in a noisy quantum channel, we identify decoherence-free subspaces using experimental channel characterization, without need for a priori knowledge of the decoherence mechanism or simplifying assumptions. Working with pairs of polarization-encoded photonic qubits, we use tomographic and adaptive techniques to identify 2- and 3-state decoherence-free subspaces for encoding decoherence-free qubits and qutrits within the noisy channel.
We discuss characterization of experimental quantum gates by the error matrix, which is similar to the standard process matrix χχχ in the Pauli basis, except the desired unitary operation is factored out, by formally placing it either before or after the error process. The error matrix has only one large element, which is equal to the process fidelity, while other elements are small and indicate imperfections. The imaginary parts of the elements along the left column and/or top row directly indicate the unitary imperfection and can be used to find the needed correction. We discuss a relatively simple way to calculate the error matrix for a composition of quantum gates. Similarly, it is rather straightforward to find the first-order contribution to the error matrix due to the Lindblad-form decoherence. We also discuss a way to identify and subtract the tomography procedure errors due to imperfect state preparation and measurement. In appendices we consider several simple examples of the process tomography and also discuss an intuitive physical interpretation of the Lindblad-form decoherence.
The results of quantum process tomography on a three-qubit nuclear magnetic resonance quantum information processor are presented and shown to be consistent with a detailed model of the system-plus-apparatus used for the experiments. The quantum operation studied was the quantum Fourier transform, which is important in several quantum algorithms and poses a rigorous test for the precision of our recently developed strongly modulating control fields. The results were analyzed in an attempt to decompose the implementation errors into coherent (overall systematic), incoherent (microscopically deterministic), and decoherent (microscopically random) components. This analysis yielded a superoperator consisting of a unitary part that was strongly correlated with the theoretically expected unitary superoperator of the quantum Fourier transform, an overall attenuation consistent with decoherence, and a residual portion that was not completely positive-although complete positivity is required for any quantum operation. By comparison with the results of computer simulations, the lack of complete positivity was shown to be largely a consequence of the incoherent errors which occurred over the full quantum process tomography procedure. These simulations further showed that coherent, incoherent, and decoherent errors can often be identified by their distinctive effects on the spectrum of the overall superoperator. The gate fidelity of the experimentally determined superoperator was 0.64, while the correlation coefficient between experimentally determined superoperator and the simulated superoperator was 0.79; most of the discrepancies with the simulations could be explained by the cumulative effect of small errors in the single qubit gates.