| Literature DB >> 28513587 |
C A Riofrío1, D Gross2,3, S T Flammia3, T Monz4, D Nigg4, R Blatt4,5, J Eisert1.
Abstract
Well-controlled quantum devices with their increasing system size face a new roadblock hindering further development of quantum technologies. The effort of quantum tomography-the reconstruction of states and processes of a quantum device-scales unfavourably: state-of-the-art systems can no longer be characterized. Quantum compressed sensing mitigates this problem by reconstructing states from incomplete data. Here we present an experimental implementation of compressed tomography of a seven-qubit system-a topological colour code prepared in a trapped ion architecture. We are in the highly incomplete-127 Pauli basis measurement settings-and highly noisy-100 repetitions each-regime. Originally, compressed sensing was advocated for states with few non-zero eigenvalues. We argue that low-rank estimates are appropriate in general since statistical noise enables reliable reconstruction of only the leading eigenvectors. The remaining eigenvectors behave consistently with a random-matrix model that carries no information about the true state.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28513587 PMCID: PMC5442320 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1Example of quantum state reconstruction for the logical state vector.
(a) Trace norm minimizer (TNM) estimate with minimal error-level =1.1 (F=0.43), corresponding to equation (8). (b) Least squares (LS) estimate (F=0.30), corresponding to equation (9). (c) Rank 21 leading subspace projection of the LS estimate (F=0.32) obtained by our spectral thresholding method, equation (18). The plots are two-dimensional plots of the absolute values of the entries of the density matrix in the standard basis with magnitude represented by the grey scale. The axes are labelled by the computational basis vectors. For reasons of clarity, the basis vectors are numbered as x∈{1, 2, …, d}, where is the state vector in the standard computational basis, and χ(x−1) is the binary representation of x−1. So x=1 corresponds to , x=2 to and so on. The performance of the reconstruction is measured by the fidelity , where is the estimated state. While all three estimators produce roughly similar looking estimates, they differ in the fidelity with the anticipated state for the reasons explained in the main text.
Figure 2Coherent versus incoherent error analysis for the logical state vector.
(a) Trace norm minimizer (TNM) estimate with large =1.8. (b) Least squares (LS) estimate. (c) Diagonal element comparison. (a,b) Two-dimensional plots of the absolute values of the entries of the difference between the anticipated state and the reconstructed state density matrices in the stabilizer basis of the anticipated state for the logical state vector. In this basis, the anticipated state is exactly diagonal with only one non-zero entry in the diagonal. While only the TNM (with large ) and LS estimates are shown, the spectral thresholding estimate is very similar to (b) and is omitted. (c) In the same basis, we plot the diagonal elements of the reconstructed density matrices in order of decreasing magnitude. The log–log plot shows that after a rapid initial decay, most of the diagonal elements follow an exponential decay curve. The TNM (with minimal ) has slightly less heavier tails than the LS and spectral thresholding estimates. For comparison, the result of the TNM estimator with a large parameter has almost all its support in few diagonal elements and thus is biased heavily towards pure states, as expected. As discussed in the main text, the TNM estimate with large parameter is detecting coherent noise, while the LS estimate achieves a more mixed reconstruction and is better-suited to detect incoherent errors.