Timeline for Can we conclude that errors on Sycamore are Poisson-distributed Pauli errors?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2020 at 4:26 | vote | accept | Mark Spinelli | ||
| Jan 29, 2020 at 0:17 | vote | accept | Mark Spinelli | ||
| Jan 29, 2020 at 0:17 | |||||
| Nov 4, 2019 at 23:26 | comment | added | forky40 | re: "In other words you would just march down the line of FIG. 4 to some ridiculously low fidelity" - well, that would be great! My argument here is that the burden of evidence is on Google to show that this is the case. Since its expected that a complete noise model is necessary to model arbitrary hardware circuit outcomes, it will require more empirical results to demonstrate that a independent qubit error model is sufficient for predicting general hardware behavior. | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 23:21 | comment | added | forky40 | There are scenarios that might call for non-Markovian noise models. Two examples are qubits coupling to a common fluctuator (TLS or otherwise) and $1/f^\alpha$ noise (1-over-f noise is a huge topic in SC qubits). White noise = Markovian only occurs if the spectral noise is flat, which is fairly unphysical | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 20:15 | comment | added | forky40 | re: correlated errors, its more about the type of circuit than the gateset. It is probably a special case that errors in the outcomes they were calculating from the random circuits (Porter-Thomas distribution etc.) could be modeled using 1- and 2-qubit gate errors (plus some extra) only. I imagine that circuits involving preparation and manipulation of a 20-qubit GHZ state wouldn't behave so nicely (but will be pleasantly surprised if thats the case) | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 20:11 | comment | added | forky40 | here I'm using "Markovian" to refer to the noise model applied to the qubit - basically the noise channels are parameterized by time-independent values. I think this is different than the model you're describing. | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 18:12 | comment | added | Mark Spinelli | Thanks! I read "Markovian" (time-independent with respect to the firing of microwave pulses) as "Poissonian" (space-independent with respect to adding a a bit flip/phase shift to the written-out circuit diagram). As for "types of circuits for which correlated errors contribute" - the Sycamore gate set was universal, right? So even if there are other circuits with correlated errors, if they are Markovian on a universal gate set, then why not use the universal gate set instead? | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 17:57 | history | answered | forky40 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |