You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: 3qubit Swap-test.ipynb
+31-28Lines changed: 31 additions & 28 deletions
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -146,7 +146,11 @@
146
146
{
147
147
"cell_type": "markdown",
148
148
"metadata": {},
149
-
"source": []
149
+
"source": [
150
+
"We specify the expectation value function that computes the estimated expectation value from a set of quantum circuit experiment results.\n",
151
+
"\n",
152
+
"The repeating CNOTs implementation requires the expectation value function to return both the expectation value and the variances. The random Pauli-sampling implementation requires only the expectation value. To reuse code, we specify a filter to be passed to the function that specifies the method used."
"We plot the mitigated expectation value, as a function of the number of noise amplification factors used, and we can see a noticable improvement.\n",
405
+
"\n",
406
+
"From the plot above we observe that the noise amplified expectation values are being slightly over-estimated for the last amplification factors for the repeating CNOTs-method. Correspondingly, we observe that the mitigated expectation value flattens off and fails to improve when including these amplification factors."
"Zero noise extrapolation, mitigating noise on CNOT-gates, on the SWAP-test circuit. Now on the mock backend FakeVigo, which emulates IBMQ's Vigo quantum device.\n",
451
+
"Zero noise extrapolation, mitigating noise on CNOT-gates, on the SWAP-test circuit. Now on the mock backend FakeAthens that emulates the IBMQ Athens quantum device. This mock backend has the same configurations as the real device, and an noise model that aims to approximate the physical device as closely as possible.\n",
449
452
"\n",
450
453
"Noise amplification factors = [1,3,5,7,9]"
451
454
]
@@ -544,7 +547,11 @@
544
547
{
545
548
"cell_type": "markdown",
546
549
"metadata": {},
547
-
"source": []
550
+
"source": [
551
+
"For comparisons we run also the zero-noise extrapolation implementation with noise amplification by random Pauli gate-sampling.\n",
552
+
"\n",
553
+
"While the repeating CNOT-method requires odd noise amplificaiton factors (1, 3, 5, ..., 2n-1), the random Pauli-method seems to work best with powers of two (1, 2, 4, ..., 2^(n-1))."
554
+
]
548
555
},
549
556
{
550
557
"cell_type": "code",
@@ -596,6 +603,15 @@
596
603
"print(R[-1])"
597
604
]
598
605
},
606
+
{
607
+
"cell_type": "markdown",
608
+
"metadata": {},
609
+
"source": [
610
+
"We plot the mitigated expectation values as a function of the number of amplification factors used for both methods. We observe from the below plot that the repeating CNOTs-method converges a lot closer to the ideal expectation value than the random Pauli-method.\n",
611
+
"\n",
612
+
"The random Pauli-method relies on approximating the quantum noise as a two-qubit depolarizing noise model. Optionally, doing a pauli-twirling before applying this assumption. The repeating CNOTs-method have no such assumptions about the character of the quantum noise. Thus, we might expected the latter to work better for general noise models, and exp"
0 commit comments