Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 67 references

Model validation and error attribution for a drifting qubit

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Drifting RB error rates rule out wrong qubit noise models.

desk verdict Useful idea and careful statistics, but the headline claim is only demonstrated inside the simulated Gaussian OU family. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18715 v2 pith:JCETT3C7 submitted 2024-11-27 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Malick A. Gaye , Dylan Albrecht , Steve Young , Tameem Albash , N. Tobias Jacobson This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords randomizedbenchmarkingqubitnoisemodelvalidationKolmogorov-Smirnovtestlow-frequencydriftsinglet-tripletOrnstein-Uhlenbeckprocesserrorattribution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper shows that when randomized benchmarking (RB) is repeated many times on a qubit, the single reported error rate drifts from pass to pass, and the distribution of these drifting values carries information about the noise spectrum. Using wall-clock simulations of a singlet-triplet qubit with Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise, it demonstrates that a two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on the distribution of RB error rates can reject candidate noise models that are indistinguishable by the T2* dephasing time alone. This requires sampling over a long enough time window to capture the low-frequency noise components. Once a model passes the test, error attribution by splitting noise sources is also shown to be non-additive, meaning contributions cannot simply be summed.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is wall-clock randomized benchmarking simulation: a single noise trajectory built from independent Gaussian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes (one per decade, equal power, set by the measured charge and magnetic $T_2^*$) is maintained across 100 RB passes, and each pass yields an error rate $r$ (or, per circuit, a survival probability). The two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic compares the cumulative distributions of these metrics between a reference model and a tested model, with rejection thresholds chosen to give equal type I error rates; the result is an empirical error-rate grid of type I and type II errors. The K-S statistic is the discriminator, the OU family is the hypothesis class, and the experiment duration sets which noise frequencies are actually sampled.

What would settle it

Measure the power spectral density of the charge and magnetic noise of a singlet-triplet qubit from $10^{-3}$ Hz to $10^{7}$ Hz and compare it to the equal-power, one-OU-per-decade spectrum with the stated cutoffs and powers; if the measured spectrum deviates beyond what the OU family can represent, or if a non-Gaussian two-level fluctuator is present, the K-S error-rate grid computed from this family will not describe the real device. Alternatively, run the wall-clock RB protocol on a device with a known non-Gaussian noise source and check whether the K-S test still separates the ten Gaussian models: a failure to reject all models would show the Gaussian spectral-shape assumption is essential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the distribution of randomized benchmarking (RB) error rates obtained over repeated passes can serve as a validation test for noise models, using a statistic as simple as the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Ten noise models of a singlet-triplet qubit, all matched to the same charge and magnetic $T_2^*$ dephasing times, are simulated in wall-clock RB, and the K-S test on the resulting distributions of per-pass error rates produces an error-rate grid that separates the models. The discriminating power is largest when the experimental window captures the low-frequency components of the noise; models with only low-frequency noise have weak power. The paper further shows that once a model is validated, error attribution by separating noise sources is not simply additive, because different noise components can interfere and partially cancel.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true device noise lies within the family of sum-of-OU spectra used in the paper; if the real noise has a different spectral shape or non-Gaussian components that this family cannot represent, the specific discrimination and attribution results need not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Instead of reporting a single RB error rate, the distribution of error rates across passes can be reported and used to constrain noise models.
  • The test's power depends on the total experimental duration relative to the lowest noise frequency; adding delays between passes extends the frequency coverage.
  • Noise models with high-frequency components (up to $10^7$ Hz in this study) act as strong discriminators against models lacking such components.
  • Models with only low-frequency noise components have large rejection thresholds and weak discriminating power even with 100 independent noise realizations.
  • Error attribution on a validated model is not guaranteed to be additive: separate contributions can sum to more or less than the parent trajectory's error.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The distribution-based validation approach should extend to other drifting metrics, such as $T_2^*$ itself or single-gate fidelities, whenever the drift is driven by the same low-frequency noise.
  • A direct experimental realization on a singlet-triplet qubit with independent noise spectroscopy would test whether the K-S-based error grid reproduces the known model separation in real hardware.
  • The K-S test ignores temporal correlations in the error-rate time series; a test that uses the power spectrum of the drift could give even stronger model discrimination.
  • For error attribution, the observed non-additivity suggests that per-mechanism error budgets should be quoted as ensemble statistics, not for individual noise realizations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using the distribution of drifting randomized benchmarking (RB) error rates, compared via two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, to validate or rule out candidate noise models for a singlet-triplet qubit. The authors model charge and magnetic noise as sums of equal-power Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes, one per frequency decade, calibrate ten candidate models to the same T2* values, generate full wall-clock RB simulations over 100 passes, and construct type I/II error grids. They find that models with different low-frequency content can be distinguished, while models sharing similar high-frequency content are more difficult to separate. They then use a 'validated' model to attribute RB error to charge versus magnetic axes and to low- versus high-frequency components, emphasizing non-additivity and sensitivity to the chosen frequency partition.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a practical way to exploit RB drift data that experimentalists are likely already collecting, going beyond single-number T2* characterization. The statistical design is careful in several respects: per-model rejection thresholds are calibrated to equal type I error; Appendix K proves the monotone type I/II tradeoff; the FID/T2* analytic calculations in Appendix D are clean; RB fit quality and aliasing checks are documented. The demonstration is reproducible from the parameter tables. The main unverified step is that the reference 'experiment' is always drawn from the same Gaussian OU family used for the candidates, so the claim's external validity for out-of-family device noise is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III C, Table I] The demonstration only tests discrimination within a closed family: the reference 'experiment' is one of the ten Gaussian, equal-power, one-OU-per-decade models in Table I, and the candidates are the other nine. The abstract's claim that the test 'can be used to rule out noise models' is not tested for out-of-family noise (e.g., non-Gaussian two-level fluctuators, unequal OU powers, a different spectral exponent, or spectral features outside the IR/UV cutoffs), even though Sec. II B states that Gaussianity is not essential and that extension to such components is straightforward. Since the mapping from noise statistics to RB-rate distributions is nonlinear and Appendices G and H show additivity failures on individual realizations, an out-of-family process could conceivably match an in-family distribution and be falsely accepted. Please add simulation(s) with a reference outside the candidate family, or explicitly restrict the claim to decisions among a specified candidate family.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (12), Appendix H] The error attribution to low- and high-frequency components is built on the ad hoc partition in Eq. (12), chosen at the 1/e point of the survival probability. Appendix H shows that with a different partition (Eq. H1) the additivity at large error rates is not satisfied, so the main-text conclusion that high-frequency noise contributes an approximately constant error level and low-frequency noise dominates worst-case error is partition-dependent. The paper should either derive an objective partition criterion from the protocol or explicitly present the attribution as illustrative for a chosen partition.
  3. [Sec. II C and Appendix E] The RB error rate r per pass is a point estimate obtained by fitting survival probabilities from only 10 circuits per depth, and the fit uncertainties are visible in Figs. 7 and 8. These uncertainties are not propagated into the KS statistic, so the 'drift' in the distribution of r is partly contaminated by fit noise. Because reference and candidate datasets are processed identically, the type I calibration is not affected, but the type II error rates in Fig. 3 could overstate discriminating power if fit noise contributes substantially. Please quantify the effect of fit uncertainty, for example by repeating the analysis with more circuits per depth or by propagating parametric fit uncertainties into the KS procedure.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B] The labels 'false negative' and 'false positive' are reversed relative to standard usage: rejecting a true null hypothesis (the definition of α in Eq. (10)) is a false positive, while failing to reject a false null (the definition of β) is a false negative. Please correct the terminology.
  2. [Appendix H] The sentence 'Since a single RB pass takes approximately 1 s' conflicts with the main text, which states that 100 passes correspond to approximately 0.99 s. The pass duration should be corrected to the millisecond scale or the conflict explained.
  3. [Sec. III B] The notation α_{X,j} for the type I error rate and β_{X,jj'} for the type II error rate is clear, but the text could state explicitly that these are empirical rates estimated from a finite number of seeds; this is implied later in Sec. III C but would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RB error-rate distributions are genuine out-of-sample outputs of a wall-clock simulation, produced after noise powers are calibrated to T2*, and the KS thresholds and type II rates are disclosed calibration statistics rather than refits.

full rationale

The paper's only fitting step is the calibration of OU noise powers to the charge and magnetic T2* values (Sec. II B, Table I, Appendix D). The RB error-rate distributions used in the KS tests are then generated by full wall-clock simulations under each of the ten candidate models and are never used to refit or re-tune those models. The KS rejection thresholds are calibrated from same-model comparisons and are explicitly reported as hyperparameters (pX = 75), and the actual content of Fig. 3 is the type II error rates, which measure whether genuinely different models are distinguishable. This is a standard simulation-based identifiability study, not a fitted-input-called-prediction construction. The reference 'experiment' is itself generated from one of the candidate models, so the demonstration is confined to within-family discrimination; the abstract's claim is conditional on the candidate family and on sufficiently long measurement time. That is a scope limitation, not a circular step, and the paper itself identifies more realistic device models as future work in Sec. V. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the Clifford decomposition [36], the OU representation of 1/f noise [56], and the discrete PSD [58] are external technical results with stated assumptions. No equation in the paper reduces to its input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The Gaussianity-is-not-essential assertion (Sec. II B) is an extrapolation that is not demonstrated, but it is a robustness concern, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by the T2* calibration: all ten models are pinned to the same two short-time metrics, and every conclusion about RB distributions is a property of that calibrated family. The noise powers pV and pbz are the free parameters fitted to the FID data; the frequency cutoffs are hand-chosen to spread the family; the threshold percentile is a test hyperparameter. There are no invented physical entities. The practical force of the central claim rests on the axiom that real singlet-triplet qubit noise lies in this OU family, which is assumed rather than demonstrated.

free parameters (5)
  • charge noise power pV (per model) = sqrt(pV) = 134 to 201 microvolts across Models 1-10
    Chosen so the simulated charge T2* equals 1.2 microseconds (Sec. II B, Table I). This is a fit to the short-time FID metric, the quantity the RB distributions are meant to go beyond.
  • magnetic noise power pbz (per model) = sqrt(pbz)/h = 26.9 to 37.9 kHz across Models 1-10
    Chosen so the simulated magnetic T2* equals 4.2 microseconds (Sec. II B, Table I).
  • IR/UV frequency cutoffs f_IR, f_UV (charge and magnetic) = 10^-3 to 10^7 Hz ranges, varied by hand across models
    Model-defining choices, with one OU process per decade between cutoffs. Not fitted to data, but they set which models are in the family and drive the discrimination results.
  • KS rejection threshold percentile pX = 75 (type I error 0.25)
    Chosen hyperparameter for the KS test (Sec. III B). The paper analyzes the type I/II tradeoff in Appendix K.
  • RB error rate r per pass = varies, e.g., r about 4.3e-4 for Model 7
    Extracted by exponential fit to Eq. (9). Under time-correlated noise this is a fit artifact whose distribution across passes is the test statistic.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Gaussian noise: charge and magnetic fluctuations are zero-mean Gaussian OU processes
    Sec. II B. The authors state Gaussianity is not essential and could be extended to non-Gaussian components such as two-level fluctuators.
  • domain assumption A sum of independent OU processes, one per decade, approximates 1/f noise over the modeled band
    Sec. II B, citing Ref [56] for the point-process-to-Lorentzian construction.
  • domain assumption T2* values of 1.2 microseconds (charge) and 4.2 microseconds (magnetic) are representative device numbers
    Appendix A and Sec. II B, using typical singlet-triplet parameters from Refs [34, 35].
  • domain assumption First-order Magnus expansion is accurate and relaxation effects are negligible for state propagation
    Appendix B 1, with an explicit caveat that propagation should be updated if relaxation matters.
  • domain assumption The single-qubit Clifford group can be compiled from X(+-pi/2) and Z(+-pi/2) generator pulse sequences
    Sec. II A and Appendix B, using the tabulation of Ref [36]; the pulse optimization is numerical.
  • domain assumption SPAM error is negligible and does not affect the RB number
    Sec. II C. Stated explicitly; standard for RB but untested here against drifting SPAM.
  • ad hoc to paper The low/high frequency partition for attribution is set at the 1/e point of the survival probability versus depth, Eq. (12)
    Appendix H shows the attribution results change under a different partition, so the conclusions of Sec. IV B depend on this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model validation and error attribution for a drifting qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JCETT3C7

@misc{pith2026241118715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model validation and error attribution for a drifting qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JCETT3C7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18715}
}
read the original abstract

Qubit performance is often reported in terms of a variety of single-value metrics, each providing a facet of the underlying noise mechanism limiting performance. However, the value of these metrics may drift over long time-scales, and reporting a single number for qubit performance fails to account for the low-frequency noise processes that give rise to this drift. In this work, we demonstrate how we can use the distribution of these values to validate or invalidate candidate noise models. We focus on the case of randomized benchmarking (RB), where typically a single error rate is reported but this error rate can drift over time when multiple passes of RB are performed. We show that using a statistical test as simple as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic on the distribution of RB error rates can be used to rule out noise models, assuming the experiment is performed over a long enough time interval to capture relevant low frequency noise. With confidence in a noise model, we show how care must be exercised when performing error attribution using the distribution of drifting RB error rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18715 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Since these error rates are computed using a finite number of seeds, they are estimates of the true values. For example, models for which we perform 100 self-tests have an empirical type I error rate around 0.25 instead of our chosen value 0.25. A significant feature of the results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Survival probability of a single RB pass using Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Pass-to-pass RB number using Model 7 for a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    III is the RB error rate r

    RB number test The first metric we use in our model validation scheme outlined in Sec. III is the RB error rate r. We define our rejection threshold for our K-S test to be pX = 75. We show the empirical error rate grid for the X = r test in Fig. 3. Since these error rates are computed using a finite number of seeds, they are estimates of the true values. ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Using the same data generated by the 10 noise models from the previous section, we consider the K-S statistic for the per-circuit bitflip probability

    Per-circuit error test In addition to performing model validation using the RB number, we also consider the per-circuit bitflip prob- abilities X = PUi (1|0, ∆, ti) for a circuit Ui. Using the same data generated by the 10 noise models from the previous section, we consider the K-S statistic for the per-circuit bitflip probability. We denote this by DPUi ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, ...

    2024

  4. [4]

    since charge noise is the dominant source of error. We want to analyze the contribution of low and high- frequency components of the noise to the error, but we find that results can vary based on how we choose to partition the OU components. We show this sensitivity in Appendix H. Here, we choose the partitioning of our noise based on the 1 /e point of th...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Acharya, I

    R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ans- mann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, J. Cogan, R. Collins, P. C...

    2023

  6. [6]

    Postler, F

    L. Postler, F. Butt, I. Pogorelov, C. D. Marciniak, S. Heußen, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, M. Rispler, M. M¨ uller, and T. Monz, Demonstration of fault-tolerant steane quantum error correction, PRX Quantum 5, 030326 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Bylander, S

    J. Bylander, S. Gustavsson, F. Yan, F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, G. Fitch, D. G. Cory, Y. Nakamura, J.-S. Tsai, and W. D. Oliver, Noise spectroscopy through dy- namical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit, Nature Physics 7, 565 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, A. Chernoguzov, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, L. Grans-Samuelsson, D. Hayes, N. Hewitt, J. Johansen, D. Lucchetti, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, A. Paz, J. Pino, P. Siegfried, J. Strabley, A. Sundaram, D. Tom, S. J. Wernli, M. Zan- ner, R. P. Stutz, and K. ...

    arXiv 2024

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Mayer, C

    K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, N. Brown, E. Durso- Sabina, C. H. Baldwin, D. Hayes, J. M. Dreiling, 10 C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, N. Hewitt, C. V. Horst, J. Jo- hansen, T. Mengle, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, P. E. Siegfried, B. Neyenh...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Harris, M

    R. Harris, M. W. Johnson, S. Han, A. J. Berkley, J. Jo- hansson, P. Bunyk, E. Ladizinsky, S. Govorkov, M. C. Thom, S. Uchaikin, B. Bumble, A. Fung, A. Kaul, A. Kleinsasser, M. H. S. Amin, and D. V. Averin, Probing noise in flux qubits via macroscopic resonant tunneling, Phys. ...

    2008

  3. [11]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Charac- terizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. A 85, 042311 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    K. W. Chan, W. Huang, C. H. Yang, J. C. C. Hwang, B. Hensen, T. Tanttu, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Laucht, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, Assessment of a silicon quantum dot spin qubit environment via noise spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 044017 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Knill, D

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quan- tum gates, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012307 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Magesan, J

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Proctor, M

    T. Proctor, M. Revelle, E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, D. Lob- ser, P. Maunz, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, Detect- ing and tracking drift in quantum information processors, Nature Communications 11, 5396 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Proctor, K

    T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, M. Sarovar, and R. Blume-Kohout, What randomized benchmarking ac- tually measures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 130502 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    M. A. Fogarty, M. Veldhorst, R. Harper, C. H. Yang, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. Flammia, and A. S. Dzurak, Non- exponential fidelity decay in randomized benchmark- ing with low-frequency noise, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022326 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    P. V. Klimov, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, M. Neeley, A. Megrant, B. Burkett, R. Barends, K. Arya, B. Chiaro, Y. Chen, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. Huang, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, J. Y. Mutus, O. Naaman, C. Neill, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D. Sank...

    2018

  11. [19]

    M. D. Shulman, O. E. Dial, S. P. Harvey, H. Bluhm, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Demonstration of entan- glement of electrostatically coupled singlet-triplet qubits, Science 336, 202 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Levy, Universal quantum computation with spin-1 /2 pairs and heisenberg exchange, Phys

    J. Levy, Universal quantum computation with spin-1 /2 pairs and heisenberg exchange, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 147902 (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor quantum dots, Science 309, 2180 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    B. M. Maune, M. G. Borselli, B. Huang, T. D. Ladd, P. W. Deelman, K. S. Holabird, A. A. Kise- lev, I. Alvarado-Rodriguez, R. S. Ross, A. E. Schmitz, M. Sokolich, C. A. Watson, M. F. Gyure, and A. T. Hunter, Coherent singlet-triplet oscillations in a silicon- based double quant...

    2012

  15. [23]

    Cerfontaine, T

    P. Cerfontaine, T. Botzem, J. Ritzmann, S. S. Humpohl, A. Ludwig, D. Schuh, D. Bougeard, A. D. Wieck, and H. Bluhm, Closed-loop control of a gaas-based singlet- triplet spin qubit with 99.5% gate fidelity and low leak- age, Nature Communications 11, 4144 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    X. Wu, D. R. Ward, J. R. Prance, D. Kim, J. K. Gam- ble, R. T. Mohr, Z. Shi, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Two- axis control of a singlet–triplet qubit with an integrated micromagnet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Scie...

    2014

  17. [25]

    J. M. Nichol, L. A. Orona, S. P. Harvey, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, and A. Yacoby, High-fidelity en- tangling gate for double-quantum-dot spin qubits, npj Quantum Information 3, 3 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    R. M. Jock, N. T. Jacobson, P. Harvey-Collard, A. M. Mounce, V. Srinivasa, D. R. Ward, J. Anderson, R. Manginell, J. R. Wendt, M. Rudolph, T. Pluym, J. K. Gamble, A. D. Baczewski, W. M. Witzel, and M. S. Car- roll, A silicon metal-oxide-semiconductor electron spin- orbit qubit...

    2018

  19. [27]

    E. J. Connors, J. Nelson, H. Qiao, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Low-frequency charge noise in si/sige quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 100, 165305 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Cerfontaine, R

    P. Cerfontaine, R. Otten, M. A. Wolfe, P. Bethke, and H. Bluhm, High-fidelity gate set for exchange-coupled singlet-triplet qubits, Phys. Rev. B 101, 155311 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Fedele, A

    F. Fedele, A. Chatterjee, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, and F. Kuemmeth, Simultaneous operations in a two-dimensional array of singlet-triplet qubits, PRX Quantum 2, 040306 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Jirovec, A

    D. Jirovec, A. Hofmann, A. Ballabio, P. M. Mutter, G. Tavani, M. Botifoll, A. Crippa, J. Kukucka, O. Sagi, F. Martins, J. Saez-Mollejo, I. Prieto, M. Borovkov, J. Arbiol, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, and G. Katsaros, A singlet-triplet hole spin qubit in planar ge, Nature Mate- ria...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Dutta and P

    P. Dutta and P. M. Horn, Low-frequency fluctuations in solids: 1 f noise, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 497 (1981)

    1981

  24. [32]

    Struck, A

    T. Struck, A. Hollmann, F. Schauer, O. Fedorets, A. Schmidbauer, K. Sawano, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosi- mov, L. Cywi´ nski, D. Bougeard, and L. R. Schreiber, Low-frequency spin qubit energy splitting noise in highly purified 28si/sige, npj Quantum Information 6, 40 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    E. J. Connors, J. Nelson, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Charge-noise spectroscopy of si/sige quantum dots via dynamically-decoupled exchange oscillations, Nature Communications 13, 940 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Yoneda, J

    J. Yoneda, J. S. Rojas-Arias, P. Stano, K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, D. Loss, and S. Tarucha, Noise- correlation spectrum for a pair of spin qubits in silicon, Nature Physics 19, 1793 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Martins, F

    F. Martins, F. K. Malinowski, P. D. Nissen, E. Barnes, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, C. M. Mar- cus, and F. Kuemmeth, Noise suppression using symmet- ric exchange gates in spin qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 116801 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Paladino, Y

    E. Paladino, Y. M. Galperin, G. Falci, and B. L. Alt- 11 shuler, 1 /f noise: Implications for solid-state quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 361 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    M. D. Reed, B. M. Maune, R. W. Andrews, M. G. Borselli, K. Eng, M. P. Jura, A. A. Kiselev, T. D. Ladd, S. T. Merkel, I. Milosavljevic, E. J. Pritchett, M. T. Rakher, R. S. Ross, A. E. Schmitz, A. Smith, J. A. Wright, M. F. Gyure, and A. T. Hunter, Reduced sensitivity to charge...

    2016

  31. [39]

    M¨ uller, J

    C. M¨ uller, J. H. Cole, and J. Lisenfeld, Towards under- standing two-level-systems in amorphous solids: insights from quantum circuits, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 124501 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    X. Xue, T. F. Watson, J. Helsen, D. R. Ward, D. E. Sav- age, M. G. Lagally, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, S. Wehner, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Benchmarking gate fidelities in a si/sige two-qubit device, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021011 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Kirton and M

    M. Kirton and M. Uren, Noise in solid-state microstruc- tures: A new perspective on individual defects, interface states and low-frequency (1/ƒ) noise, Advances in Physics 38, 367 (1989)

    1989

  34. [42]

    M¨ uller, J

    C. M¨ uller, J. Lisenfeld, A. Shnirman, and S. Poletto, In- teracting two-level defects as sources of fluctuating high- frequency noise in superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. B 92, 035442 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    D. C. McKay, S. Sheldon, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Three-qubit randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 200502 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    H. Ball, T. M. Stace, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Biercuk, Effect of noise correlations on randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. A 93, 022303 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Qi and H

    J. Qi and H. K. Ng, Randomized benchmarking in the presence of time-correlated dephasing noise, Phys. Rev. A 103, 022607 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Maslov, Hadamard-free circuits expose the structure of the clifford group, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 67, 4546 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2417 (1999)

    1999

  40. [48]

    T. J. Proctor, A. Carignan-Dugas, K. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, Direct randomized benchmarking for multiqubit devices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 030503 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Hines, M

    J. Hines, M. Lu, R. K. Naik, A. Hashim, J.-L. Ville, B. Mitchell, J. M. Kriekebaum, D. I. Santiago, S. Seri- tan, E. Nielsen, R. Blume-Kohout, K. Young, I. Siddiqi, B. Whaley, and T. Proctor, Demonstrating scalable ran- domized benchmarking of universal gate sets, Phys. Rev. X...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Viola and S

    L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Dynamical suppression of deco- herence in two-state quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998)

    1998

  43. [51]

    J. U. Kim and L. B. Kish, Recognizing different types of stochastic processes, Fluctuation and Noise Letters 06, L1 (2006)

    2006

  44. [52]

    Grenander, Stochastic processes and statistical infer- ence, Arkiv f¨ or Matematik1, 195 (1950)

    U. Grenander, Stochastic processes and statistical infer- ence, Arkiv f¨ or Matematik1, 195 (1950)

    1950

  45. [53]

    Fleischer and A

    I. Fleischer and A. Kooharian, On the Statistical Treat- ment of Stochastic Processes, The Annals of Mathemat- ical Statistics 29, 544 (1958)

    1958

  46. [54]

    P. J. Diggle and N. I. Fisher, Nonparametric compar- ison of cumulative periodograms, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 40, 423 (1991)

    1991

  47. [55]

    X. Wang, F. A. Calderon-Vargas, M. S. Rana, J. P. Kest- ner, E. Barnes, and S. Das Sarma, Noise-compensating pulses for electrostatically controlled silicon spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B 90, 155306 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Maraj-Zygm¸ at, G

    K. Maraj-Zygm¸ at, G. Sikora, M. Pitera, and A. Wy loma´ nska, Goodness-of-fit test for stochastic processes using even empirical moments statistic, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 33, 013128 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Khodjasteh and L

    K. Khodjasteh and L. Viola, Dynamically error-corrected gates for universal quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 080501 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    X. Wang, L. S. Bishop, E. Barnes, J. P. Kestner, and S. D. Sarma, Robust quantum gates for singlet-triplet spin qubits using composite pulses, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022310 (2014)

    2014

  51. [60]

    Kaulakys, V

    B. Kaulakys, V. Gontis, and M. Alaburda, Point process model of 1/f noise vs a sum of lorentzians, Phys. Rev. E 71, 051105 (2005)

    2005

  52. [61]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Po- lat, Y...

    2020

  53. [62]

    Kasdin, Discrete simulation of colored noise and stochastic processes and 1 /f α power law noise genera- tion, Proceedings of the IEEE 83, 802 (1995)

    N. Kasdin, Discrete simulation of colored noise and stochastic processes and 1 /f α power law noise genera- tion, Proceedings of the IEEE 83, 802 (1995). Appendix A: Simulation Parameters In our simulations, we choose the following parame- ters for our singlet-triplet Hamilton...

    1995

  54. [63]

    (B2), ∆ t = 1/fs is the sampling time (chosen to be on the order of nanoseconds; see Appendix J for justi- fication of this choice)

    State propagation Given some time-dependent Hamiltonian H(t, J(t), ∆bz(t)), our simulator approximates uni- taries using a first order Magnus expansion: U (t, J(t), ∆bz(t)) ≈ t/∆tY k=1 exp − i∆t ℏ H(k∆t, J(t), ∆bz(t)) .(B2) In Eq. (B2), ∆ t = 1/fs is the sampling time (chosen ...

  55. [64]

    preferred

    Operator compilation In order to implement a target unitary operation Utgt, we specify J(t) and an elapsed time T such that U (T, J(t), ∆bz(t)) implements Utgt. We find the ex- change pulse sequence J(t) via optimization, which is the topic of the following sections. Pulse opt...

  56. [65]

    Charge T ∗ 2 Consider the first version of FID introduced in Sec. II B. Given the field gradient term is turned off (∆bz(t) = 0), a singlet-triplet qubit will evolve ac- cording to the Hamiltonian HST0 (t) = J(t)σz/2 = J0e(VFID+δV (t))/Iσz/2 = (JFID + δJ (t))σz/2, where VFID i...

  57. [66]

    Magnetic T ∗ 2 The derivation for mean Ramsey oscillations under magnetic noise with exchange off is similar to but sim- pler than the charge noise case. We now have the singlet state |0⟩ as the initial state evolving under the Hamilto- nian HST0 (t) = ∆ bz(t)σx/2 = (∆ bz + δb...

  58. [67]

    We identify the fit param- eter r in Eq

    Each simulation data point is the mean probability over 10 circuits at a given depth, and the error bars are the 2 σ confidence interval calculated using a bootstrap over the 10 circuits performed for each depth. We identify the fit param- eter r in Eq. (9) using the SciPy cur...

  59. [75]

    4 using the 10 circuits of depth 256

    We showcase the worst-case, median-case, and best- case type I and II error rates in Fig. 4 using the 10 circuits of depth 256. In these results, we see many of the same trends as were in the RB number test results, especially for the best and median cases. IV. ERROR A TTRIBUT...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.