Arxiv:2007.08532V2 [Quant-Ph]

Home , Clifford gates

arXiv:2007.08532v2 [quant-ph] 14 Mar 2021 u npeetdyniyqatmdvcs[ devices quantum oc- noisy that near-term day errors present however the on by problems, cur restricted of heavily are classes applications certain up ing rud10 around in n igeetnln w-ui ae[ gate rota- two-qubit single-qubit entangling arbitrary single of a consisting typically and set hardware tions coherence quantum gate the Current a to close use as possible. the get as Thus to is limit correction. calibration limit error gate fundamental active of the goal without set rates would error qubits on the of time ence ihfieiyCnrle-O CO)gt [ gate (CNOT) Controlled-NOT fidelity high a interac- (CR) [ cross-resonance tion the may using gate implemented transmon entangling be two-qubit fixed-frequency microwave-only using a qubits systems qubit systems ducting these in rates error gate 2 single-qubit approach art the of a implement to used gates [ the computation quantum in qubits, device environ- errors of calibration the times and coherence with the interactions by are quantified to devices ment, current due on errors sources [ incoherent gates error error significant highest most the the in of done by use error be the overall should the minimizing reduce transpilation to This manner hardware-efficient gates. a circuit of the set transpiling which this then – gates and to circuit rates, of quantum error arbitrary set low an has small implement which a to – used cali- be set can first gate requires universal a processor brating quantum a on computation ∗ † xeietlipeetto fnnCioditrevdr interleaved non-Clifford of implementation Experimental orsodn author: Corresponding orsodn author: Corresponding unu optto od ra rms o speed- for promise great holds computation Quantum fagt e ol epretyclbae h coher- the calibrated perfectly be could set gate a If 10 .TeC neato a eue oimplement to used be can interaction CR The ]. 2 B unu,IMRsac oy,1-1Nhnah Hakozaki Nihonbashi 19-21 Tokyo, Research IBM Quantum, IBM − 1 3 × B unu,IMRsac af,HiaUiest aps M Campus, University Haifa Haifa, Research IBM Quantum, IBM ici eopstosadas losmr eiiiyi o in Controlled- flexibility non-Clifford error more two-q low allows a non-Clifford of also a calibration and to en access decompositions Clifford qua two-qubit applications circuit noisy single some on a in with algorithms however, gateset quantum a of utilize execution devices the for sential banagt ro f5 of randomi error g gate interleaved the a measure CNOT-Dihedral obtain To non-Clifford framework. perform Pulse we Qiskit the using computing h soitdqbt,adlwrerrta h aknssta backends the than error lower and qubits, associated the [ 10 7 adaeecettasiaino unu icist qua a to circuits quantum of transpilation efficient Hardware – .INTRODUCTION I. − 9 ,seas Appendix also see ], 4 3 B unu,TJ asnRsac etr okonHeights Yorktown Center, Research Watson T.J. Quantum, IBM [ 6 McKay, ,weetoqbtgt rosare errors gate two-qubit where ], [email protected] [email protected] 3 , 4 hlyGarion, Shelly B unu,AmdnRsac etr a oe A91,USA 9512, CA Jose, San Center, Research Almaden Quantum, IBM 4 ]. 3 aa Sheldon, Sarah . 9(7) × 1, A 10 ∗ nsupercon- In . ihacnrle- gate controlled-S a with − ak Kanazawa, Naoki 1 3 .T u a run To ]. 4 2 tagt egh23n,wihi ls otechrnelmto limit coherence the to close is which ns, 263 length gate a at 11 5 .Toof Two ]. nrwW Cross, W. Andrew .State ]. .Gate ]. π 2 hs C)gt nacodbsdIMQuantum IBM based cloud a on gate (CS) phase int rpr al-oeaty[ fault-tolerantly distilla- prepare magic-state to as tion such resources gates the non-Clifford additional in as require correction important error is quantum which of gates, context (CS) non-Clifford gates of CS ber + [ Clifford developed the into was circuits two-qubit for rithm ui nagiggt hti nvra hncombined when [ universal group Clifford is the that with two- the gate non-Clifford is entangling a gate is qubit such which One gate, (CS) errors. and Controlled-Phase gate calibration more the additional of of enables overhead characterization how- it the circuits, adds if relevant this set ever of gate compilation a efficient to hardware gate two-qubit ditional w-ui ae nisdcmoiini h SadCS and CS 5 the 6 only if into requires decomposition but decomposed its gates, in be qubit gates can two-qubit single which and gate gates Toffoli [ CNOT gates the developed CS is been and ple CNOT- CNOT recently of the also number opti- the by has of generated An terms de- in gates a Dihedral for gates. in decomposition non-Clifford gates mal to than two-qubit preferable of rather often number composition is total it the devices minimize term near tolerant fault randomized can various gateset [ using Clifford protocols measured (RB) a robustly benchmarking in be errors appealing can averaged are be of CNOT variety like a two-qubit as Clifford a with sets aei ebrteCO-ierlgopadcnbe [ can bench- and marking randomized group CNOT-Dihedral CNOT-Dihedral using the CS benchmarked member the Furthermore a is limit. coherence gate cal- the poten- when to gate power, two-qubit close lower fidelity ibrated higher or a duration to gate leading gate, tially shorter CNOT the a as with techniques but same it the using since calibrated to interaction, equivalent CR the locally using is as implemented be systems can qubit it transmon fixed-frequency to attractive 2, nsm ae tmyb aoal oitouea ad- an introduce to favorable be may it cases some In † agiLanda, Haggai 3 agiggt e aro ope qubits, coupled of pair per gate tangling tmzn vrnie edemonstrate We noise. over ptimizing dr airtdCO gate. CNOT calibrated ndard n hitpe .Wood J. Christopher and btgt a euti oeoptimal more in result can gate ubit 17 e ecmrig eaeal to able are We benchmarking. zed tmcmues yia quantum Typical computers. ntum co hok,Tko 0-50 Japan 103-8510, Tokyo, Chuo-ku, -cho, t ro fteclbae Sgate CS calibrated the of error ate tmdvcsntv aee ses- is gateset native devices ntum .Rcnl notmldcmoiinalgo- decomposition optimal an Recently ]. utCre,Hia395 Israel 31905, Haifa Carmel, ount 18 .Ti ehdmnmzstenum- the minimizes method This ]. 1 noie benchmarking andomized Y158 USA 10598, NY , ai C. David √ 17 NT hsmasi a be can it means This CNOT. .TeC aei particularly is gate CS The ]. 4 , 19 12 3 20 .Hwvr nnon- in However, ]. – 16 .Aohrexam- Another ]. ]. f − 1 2 gates are also available [21]. Assuming each gate gi has an associated error Λi(ρ), −1 In this work we calibrate CS and CS gates of varying the sequence Sjl is implemented as durations on an IBM Quantum system and benchmark ˜ l the gate error rates by performing the first experimental Sjl := Λj l gj l [Λji gji ] (1) ( +1) ◦ ( +1) ◦ i=1 ◦ demonstration of interleaved CNOT-Dihedral random- ˜ ized benchmarking. For specific gate durations we are The expectation value of E is E jl = T r[ESjl (ρ)]. able to obtain a high-fidelity CS gate approaching the Averaging this overlap over K independenth i sequences of coherence limit, which due to the shorter CR interaction length l gives an estimate of the average sequence fidelity time results in a lower error rate than can be obtained for ˜ a CNOT gate. In addition to RB we also compute the av- Fseq (l,E,ρ) := T r[ESl(ρ)] (2) erage gate error of the CS gate using two-qubit quantum ˜ 1 ˜ process tomography (QPT) and compare to the values where Sl(ρ) := K jl Sjl (ρ) is the average quantum obtained from RB. Pulse-level calibration was done us- channel. P ing Qiskit Pulse [22], and the RB and QPT experiments We decompose the input state and this final measurement operator in the Pauli basis (an orthonormal basis were implemented using the open source Qiskit comput- P ing software stack [23] through the IBM Quantum cloud of the n-qubit Hermitian operators space, constructed of n provider. single-qubit Pauli matrices). This gives ρ = ΣP xP P/2 ′ and E =ΣP eP P . Given that the gate errors are close to the average of all errors [17], the average sequence fidelity II. CNOT-DIHEDRAL RANDOMIZED is BENCHMARKING l l Fseq (l,E,ρ)= AZ αZ + ARαR + eI We describe the protocol for estimating the average where AZ = ΣP ∈Z\{I}eP xP and AR = ΣP ∈P\Z eP xP , gate error of the CS gate using interleaved CNOT- with being tensor products of Z and I gates. Dihedral Randomized Benchmarking, which is a natu- Z l l Each of the two exponential decays αZ and αR can ral generalization of the CNOT-Dihedral RB procedure be observed by choosing appropriate input states. For described in [17] with interleaved RB [13] to estimate example, if we choose the input state 0 ... 0 then Fseq = individual gate fidelities for the CS gate l | i eI + A0αZ where A0 =ΣP ∈Z\{I}eP . On the other hand, l if we choose + + then F = e + A+α where 1000 | ··· i seq I R 0100 A+ = ΣP ∈X \{I}eP , with tensor products of X and I CS =   . X 0010 gates. 0 0 0 i The channel parameters αZ and αR can be extracted   by fitting the average sequence fidelity to an exponential. In the following we let G denote the CNOT-Dihedral From αZ , αR the average depolarizing channel parameter group on n qubits and g G denote a unitary element α for a group element g is given by of G. Here the CNOT-Dihedral∈ group is generated by n n the single-qubit gates X,T and the CNOT gate. More α = (αZ +2 αR)/(2 + 1) (3) precisely, and the corresponding average gate error is given by G = Xi,Ti, CNOTi,j / λI : λ C , h i h ∈ i r = (2n 1)(1 α)/2n. (4) where i, j 0,...,n 1 ,i = j. We denote I, X, Y , Z − − ∈{ − } 6 1 0 as the single-qubit Pauli matrices and T = . 0 eπi/4 Step 2: Interleaved CNOT-Dihedral sequences.

Choose a sequence of unitary gates where the ﬁrst el- Step 1: Standard CNOT-Dihedral benchmarking. ement gj1 is chosen uniformly at random from G, the second is always chosen to be g, and alternate between

Randomly sample l elements gj1 ,...,gjl uniformly uniformly random elements from G and fixed g up to the from G, and compute the (l + 1)th element from the l-th random gate. The (l +1) element is chosen to be the −1 inverse of their composition, gj(l+1) = (gjl gj1 ) . inverse of the composition of the first l random gates and ◦···◦ −1 Denote by j the l-tuple (j ,...,j ). For each sequence, l interlaced g gates, gj(l+1) = (g gjl g gj1 ) . We l 1 l ◦ ◦···◦ ◦ we prepare an input state ρ, and apply the composition adopt the convention of defining the length of a sequence of the l + 1 gates that ideally would be by the number of random gates l. For each sequence, we prepare an input state ρ, apply

Sjl := g l g l g , j( +1) ◦ j ◦···◦ j1 νjl := gj(l+1) g gjl g gj1 and then measure the expectation value of an observable ◦ ◦ ◦···◦ ◦ E. and measure an operator E. 3

Assuming that the gate g has an associated error Λg(ρ) noise, the ideal CR evolution for a constant-amplitude and that each gate gi has an associated error Λi(ρ), the pulse is written as an unitary operator sequence νjl is implemented as UCR(A, φ) = exp itCRHCR(A, φ) , (8) l − ν˜jl := Λ l g l [Λ g Λ i g i ] . (5) j( +1) ◦ j( +1) ◦ i=1 g ◦ ◦ j ◦ j where tCR is the length of the CR pulse. We also deﬁne the unitary operator created by an arbitrary two-qubit The overlap with E is T r[Eν˜jl (ρ)]. Averaging this overlap over K independent sequences of length l gives generator as an estimate of the new sequence ﬁdelity θ [BC] = exp i (B C) (9) θ − 2 ⊗ Fseq (l,E,ρ) := T r[Eν˜l(ρ)]

1 where B, C are arbitrary single qubit operators, and we whereν ˜l(ρ) := K jl ν˜jl (ρ) is the average quantum channel. use [BC] [BC]π. P As can≡ be seen by examining Eq. (7), the CR pulse in- Similarly to Step 1, we fit F (l,E,ρ) and obtain the seq duces three entangling interaction terms (ZX, ZY , and depolarizing parameter α , according to Eq. (3). Using g¯ ZZ), in addition to potentially many unwanted local ro- the values obtained for α and α , the gate error of Λ , g¯ g tations with different amplitudes. By appropriately cal- which is given by ibrating the phase of the CR drive φ, the ZX term is n the dominant term among the interactions and is the key (2 1)(1 αg¯/α) rrb = − − , (6) term for executing two-qubit gates in this system. As g 2n with the standard CNOT gate, we can compose a CS rb rb gate by isolating the ZX interaction with a refocusing and must lie in the range [rg ǫ, min(rg + ǫ, 1)], where ǫ can be estimated using [13] Eq.− (5), or [24] Eq. (VI.1). sequence and single qubit pre- and post-rotations: Note that one has to be careful in interpreting the results CS = [IH] [IX] π [ZI] π [ZX]− π [IH], (10) of an interleaved experiment, as in some cases ǫ might be ◦ 4 ◦ 4 ◦ 4 ◦ large compared to rrb. g where H is the Hadamard operator. As shown in Eq. (10), we need to develop the calibration procedure to find an amplitude A and a phase φ where ωZX tCR = III. IMPLEMENTING THE CONTROLLED-S π/4 and the other terms become zero. The| CR Hamil-| GATE tonian includes a large ZI term as a result of the off- resonant driving of the control qubit; IX, ZZ and IZ We calibrate CS gates of varying gate durations using can also be large for transmon qubits [26]. However, the Qiskit Pulse and measure the average gate error using strengths of ZZ and IZ terms are expected to be negli- the interleaved CNOT-Dihedral RB protocol in II. We gibly weak in our device. We note that both ZI and IX use the CR pulse sequence as a generator of two-qubit terms commute with the ZX term of interest, while ZI entanglement [10, 25]. The CR pulse is realized by ir- and ZX terms anti-commute with the inversion of the radiating one (control) qubit with a microwave pulse at control qubit XI. In addition, the ZI term is the even the transition frequency of another (target) qubit. The function and both IX and ZX terms are odd functions stimulus drives the quantum state of the target qubit of the drive amplitude A. Accordingly, we can effectively with the direction of rotation depending on the quantum eliminate the impact of those unwanted terms with the state of the control qubit. This controlled rotation is two-pulse echoed CR sequence [28] expressed as used to create two-qubit entangling gates such as CNOT and CS. Uecho(A, φ) = [XI] UCR( A, φ) [XI] UCR(A, φ). (11) The two-qubit system driven by the CR pulse with ◦ − ◦ ◦ amplitude A and phase φ can be approximated by an This sequence consists of two CR pulses with opposite effective block-diagonal time-independent Hamiltonian drive amplitude, each one followed by a π-rotation refo- [26, 27] cus pulse XI on the control qubit. Here we also assume the negligible impact of the IY term which is generally ωZP (A, φ) introduced by the physical crosstalk between the control HCR(A, φ)= Z P (7) 2 ⊗ and the target qubit [11]. P =I,X,Y,ZX ω (A, φ) + IQ I Q, 2 ⊗ A. Gate Calibration and Benchmarks Q=XX,Y,Z where the qubit ordering is control target, and ω To experimentally implement the CS and CS† gates ⊗ ZP and ωIQ represent the interaction strength of the cor- we use the 27 qubit IBM Quantum system ibmq paris responding Pauli Hamiltonian terms. In the absence of with fixed-frequency and dispersively coupled transmon 4

qubits. Qubit 0 and the qubit 1 of this system are as- (a) X( ) X( ) signed as the control and the target qubit, respectively. The resonance frequency and anharmonicity of the con- d0 ( ) trol (target) qubit are 5.072 (5.020) GHz and -336.0 (- 4 VZ 321.0) MHz. u0 ( ) The pulses realized in practice are not constant- 4 amplitude pulses, rather the amplitude is increased and CR decreased smoothly. We implement the CR pulse as a Y(2 ) VZ( ) flat top Gaussian, with flat-top length τsq, and Gaussian d1 () rising and falling edges each with length τedge (τCR = (4 ) Y( ) τsq + 2τedge). We use a constant Gaussian edge with 2 τ = 28.16 ns with 14.08 ns standard deviation and 0.0 35.6 113.8 149.3 227.6 263.1 edge Time (ns) vary the length of the duration of the square flat-top 1.0 pulse τsq. The minimum pulse duration is τsq = 0 ns, yielding a pure Gaussian shape. The overhead of 0.9 single-qubit gates in the echoed CS sequence in Eq. (10) 0.8 for the ibmq paris backend is 106.7 ns, giving a to- 0.7 tal echoed CS gate time of τCS = 2τCR + 106.7 ns. The single-qubit gates are optimized by merging consec- 0.6 utive rotations using the Qiskit circuit transpiler with 0.5 optimization level = 1 followed by conversion to a 0.4 pulse schedule [22]. Ground state population We performed calibration to a CR rotation angle 0.3 ωZX (A, φ)τCR π/4 for different values of τsq. This was 0.2 ≃ 0 30 60 90 120 150 done by first performing a rough calibration of (A, φ) Number of gates by scanning those parameters, followed by the closed- loop fine calibration with standard error amplification FIG. 1. The CS gate realized with a closed-loop calibra- sequences (see Appendix C for details). The calibrated tion. (a) Pulse schedule with the flat-top width τsq = 21.3 pulse schedule of the CS gate with τ = 21.3 ns (τ = sq CS ns. The schedule consists of two CR pulses CR− and CR+ 263.1 ns) is shown in Fig. 1(a). on the ControlChannel u0 with echo pulses X(π) applied on The average gate error of the calibrated DriveChannel d0 of the control qubit. Local gates in Eq. CS gate is evaluated by using the interleaved (10) are also applied to the DriveChannel d1 of the target CNOT-Dihedral RB with 10 sequence lengths qubit. Pulse instructions in d0 and d1 are played in the ro- l (1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150), and 10 samples tating frame of the control and the target qubits, respectively. for∈ each l. Each experiment is executed 1024 times for The ControlChannel u0 is physically connected to the con- both input states 00 and ++ both with and without trol qubit, whereas pulses are played in the rotating frame of interleaving the CS| i gate.| Ani example of measured the target qubit to drive CR interaction. A Circular arrow of VZ(θ) represents the virtual-Z rotations with rotation angle RB decay curves for τsq = 21.3 ns are shown in Fig. θ. (b) CNOT-Dihedral interleaved RB. Dotted lines show fit 1(b). The exponential fit of the decay curves yields curves of the ground state population measured by standard −1 −1 α = 9.78(1) 10 and α¯ = 9.73(1) 10 , giving × g × RBs in |00i and |++i basis, while solid lines show fits of inter- an estimated average gate error of the CS gate of leaved RB. Triangle and cross symbols show raw experiment rb −3 rg =5.2(7) 10 . In addition to RB we also perform data of 10 different random circuits. quantum process× tomography (QPT) [29] and compute the average gate fidelity from the reconstructed process, see the Appendix B for the details. The average gate periment, we use a reduced set of RB sequence lengths error calculated from the tomographic fit for τsq = 21.3 l (1, 10, 25, 50, 100, 150) to reduce the total number of ns was rqpt = 1.36 10−2 which is slightly higher ∈ g × experiments while keeping the accuracy of the estimated but still comparable to the value estimated from the gate error high. interleaved CNOT-Dihedral RB experiment. We measure the qubit coherence times T1 and T2 with relaxation and Hahn echo sequences [30], respectively, to monitor the stability of physical properties B. Gate Duration Dependence of qubits. These experiments are inserted immediately before each calibration experiment and yield coherence We perform the same calibration and benchmarking times of T1 = 59.6 15.6 (77.1 7.3) µs and T2 = ± ± procedures for different flat-top width τsq from 0 ns 92.5 22.1 (69.1 4.8) µs for the control (target) qubit ± ± to 355.6 ns (τCS from 219.3 ns to 930.5 ns) and mea- during the experiment. Here, the error bars correspond sure the average gate errors by both the interleaved to the standard deviation over the duration of the whole CNOT-Dihedral RB experiment and QPT. In this ex- set of calibration and benchmarking experiments. A 5

Total gate time CS (ns) from the coherence limit possibly indicates the presence 220.4 320.4 420.4 520.4 620.4 720.4 820.4 920.4 0.035 of coherent errors due to imperfection of calibration. In the region τsq . 21.3 ns, both gate errors show a sig- 0.030 niﬁcant increase from the coherence limit. In this regime the drive amplitude of the CR pulse rapidly increases in 0.025 order to guarantee that the total accumulated rotation angle is π/4 for shorter τCR. The amplitude of crosstalk 0.020 2 2 ωIX + ωIY measured at τsq = 0 ns is 176.2 kHz, while 0.015 pone at τsq = 355.6 ns is 19.4 kHz. Although the IX term is refocused and has negligible contribution, the re-

Average gate error 0.010 mained IY term can still impact on the measured gate errors. Thus, at τsq = 0 we calibrate a CS gate with a 0.005 compensation tone on the target qubit to suppress the physical crosstalk between qubits (see Appendix D for 0.000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 details). The calibrated pulse sequences with and with- rb −2 Flat-top width sq (ns) out the compensation tone yield r of 2.1(3) 10 and g × 2.2(2) 10−2, respectively. These comparable results in- FIG. 2. Average gate errors as a function of the flat-top dicate× the physical crosstalk is relatively suppressed in width of the CR pulse τsq estimated by different benchmark this quantum device and other noise sources are dom- techniques. The corresponding total gate time τCS is shown rb inant for τsq . 21.3 ns. For example, at high power in the top axis. Blue circles and red triangles represent rg qpt the perturbation theory used to obtain the average CR and rg , respectively. The Green dotted line shows the the- oretical lower bound of the average gate error calculated by Hamiltonian may break down, and hence also calibration the total gate time τCS and the average T1 and T2 values of scheme based on this decomposition. the qubits during the experiment. The filled area represents The reasons for imperfection of two-qubit gates in su- the coherence limit with T1 and T2 values with variance of perconducting qubits have been investigated and asso- 1σ. See text for a detailed discussion. ciated with various mechanisms such as nonideal signal generation, residual ZZ coupling, CR-induced ZZ interaction [34–36], and leakage to the higher energy levels lower bound of gate error at τsq is calculated based on the [15, 37]. Although a further analysis of the error mecha- measured T1 and T2 values with the total gate duration nisms in this regime of high-power pulses is beyond the τCS, see Appendix G of Ref. [31]. The coherence limit scope of this study, initial results indicate that coherent function in Qiskit Ignis [32] is used for the calculation, population transfer out of the two-qubit manifold into presented in Fig. 2. The device was accessed via the the higher levels, and ZZ interaction terms, are not the cloud through a fair-share queuing model used in IBM relevant mechanisms [38]. At the same time, the coher- Quantum systems. The time in between experiments was ence limit can be further lowered by reducing the time about 168 minutes on average, thus the experiment could spent on single-qubit gates. At τsq = 21.3 ns with the be subject to some parameter fluctuations due to noise minimum rrb of 5.9(7) 10−3, the refocusing pulse and g × with a long characteristic time [33]. local rotations occupy 40% of the total gate time τCS, rb Nevertheless, as rg in Fig. 2 shows, our calibration yielding a non-negligible impact on the gate error. method provides highly accurate results and allows to ap- The interleaved CNOT-Dihedral Randomized Bench- proach the coherence limit for appropriately chosen gate marking technique can be used to evaluate any quantum times. This dependence on τsq agrees well with the slope gate in the CNOT-Dihedral group regardless of its phys- predicted by the coherence limit for τsq & 21.3 ns. We ical qubit implementation. The calibration protocol is qpt also plot rg as a reference since QPT is conventionally also general to devices which are capable of driving the used to evaluate the performance of non-Clifford gates. CR interaction. qpt These lines show reasonable agreement though rg tends rb to show slightly higher gate errors than rg . This is expected as QPT is sensitive to state preparation and mea- IV. CONCLUSION surement errors, though measurement errors have been reduced by using readout error mitigation. The inter- We have demonstrated calibration of a high fidelity leaved CNOT-Dihedral RB experiment requires only 24 non-Clifford CS gate on 27 qubit IBM Quantum sys- circuit executions per single error measurement, while the tem ibmq paris. This gate is not currently included in two-qubit QPT requires 148 circuit executions with the the standard basis gates of IBM Quantum systems, and readout error mitigation. The smaller experimental cost it was calibrated and benchmarked entirely using open rb to measure rg enables us to average the result over 10 source software available in Qiskit. Since the CS gate different random circuits, which is empirically sufficient is non-Clifford, robust characterization of the average to obtain a reproducible outcome, at a practical queuing gate error cannot be done using standard RB. To bench- rb time with ibmq paris. The nearly stable offset of rg mark performance of the non-Clifford gate we performed 6 the first experimental demonstration of two-qubit inter- The expansion of the native two-qubit gateset of a leaved CNOT-Dihedral RB, which allow efficient and ro- Cloud quantum device with additional low error cali- bust characterization of a universal gateset containing brated gates allows for improved hardware efficient tran- the CS gate. spilation of quantum circuits. This is important for executing quantum algorithms on noisy quantum devices We obtained a minimal gate error of 5.9(7) 10−3 without error correction, and for reducing the error cor- with appropriately shaped echoes and a total gate× time of rection overhead when fault-tolerant devices with active 263.1 ns. The gate error reported for the standard two- error correction are available. qubit CNOT gate provided by ibmq paris is 1.3 10−2. Thus the presented CS gate error is comparable with× half the CNOT error. By performing RB and QPT for a vari- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ety of gate lengths we were also able to study the performance of the CS gate in different regimes and observed a We thank Ken Xuan Wei for discussion about the CS break down in performance if gate lengths were reduced gate calibration and providing us with the pulse sequence below the best value obtained for 263.1 ns. This is consis- to investigate local coherent errors. DCM and SS ac- tent with previous literature on CNOT calibration using knowledge partial support from the ARO under Contract the cross-resonance interaction in the high power regime. No. W911NF-14-1-0124.

[1] John Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and R. Graff, M. Harrigan, T. Huang, S. V. Isakov, E. Jef- beyond,” Quantum 2, 79 (2018). frey, Z. Jiang, D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, P. Klimov, A. Ko- [2] Antonio D. Corcoles, Abhinav Kandala, Ali Javadi- rotkov, F. Kostritsa, D. Landhuis, E. Lucero, J. McClean, Abhari, Douglas T. McClure, Andrew W. Cross, M. McEwen, X. Mi, M. Mohseni, J. Y. Mutus, O. Naa- Kristan Temme, Paul D. Nation, Matthias Stef- man, M. Neeley, M. Niu, A. Petukhov, C. Quintana, fen, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Challenges and oppor- N. Rubin, D. Sank, V. Smelyanskiy, A. Vainsencher, tunities of near-term quantum computing systems,” T. C. White, Z. Yao, P. Yeh, A. Zalcman, H. Neven, and Proceedings of the IEEE 108, 1338–1352 (2020). J. M. Martinis (Google AI Quantum), “Demonstrating a [3] Sarah Sheldon, Lev S. Bishop, Easwar Magesan, Stefan continuous set of two-qubit gates for near-term quantum Filipp, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Charac- algorithms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 120504 (2020). terizing errors on qubit operations via iterative random- [10] Jerry M. Chow, A. D. Córcoles, Jay M. Gambetta, ized benchmarking,” Phys. Rev. A 93, 012301 (2016). Chad Rigetti, B. R. Johnson, John A. Smolin, J. R. [4] Joel Wallman, Chris Granade, Robin Harper, and Rozen, George A. Keefe, Mary B. Rothwell, Mark B. Steven T Flammia, “Estimating the coherence of noise,” Ketchen, and M. Steffen, “Simple all-microwave entan- New J. Phys. 17, 113020 (2015). gling gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits,” [5] David C. McKay, Thomas Alexander, Luciano Bello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 080502 (2011). Michael J. Biercuk, Lev Bishop, Jiayin Chen, Jerry M. [11] Sarah Sheldon, Easwar Magesan, Jerry M. Chow, Chow, Antonio D. Córcoles, Daniel J. Egger, Ste- and Jay M. Gambetta, “Procedure for systematically fan Filipp, Juan Gomez, Michael Hush, Ali Javadi- tuning up cross-talk in the cross-resonance gate,” Abhari, Diego Moreda, Paul Nation, Brent Paulovicks, Phys. Rev. A 93, 060302 (2016). Erick Winston, Christopher J. Wood, James Wootton, [12] Easwar Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and Joseph Emerson, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Qiskit backend specifications “Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quan- for OpenQASM and OpenPulse experiments,” (2018), tum processes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011). arXiv:1809.03452 [quant-ph]. [13] Easwar Magesan, Jay M. Gambetta, B. R. John- [6] David C. McKay, Christopher J. Wood, Sarah son, Colm A. Ryan, Jerry M. Chow, Seth T. Sheldon, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gam- Merkel, Marcus P. da Silva, George A. Keefe, betta, “Efficient z gates for quantum computing,” Mary B. Rothwell, Thomas A. Ohki, Mark B. Ketchen, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022330 (2017). and M. Steffen, “Efficient measurement of quantum [7] Jay M. Gambetta, Jerry M. Chow, and Matthias Steffen, gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking,” “Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 080505 (2012). computing system,” npj Quantum Information 3 (2017). [14] Christopher J. Wood and Jay M. Gambetta, “Quan- [8] Yuan Xu, Ji Chu, Jiahao Yuan, Jiawei Qiu, Yuxuan tification and characterization of leakage errors,” Zhou, Libo Zhang, Xinsheng Tan, Yang Yu, Song Liu, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032306 (2018). Jian Li, Fei Yan, and Dapeng Yu, “High-fidelity, high- [15] David C. McKay, Stefan Filipp, Antonio Mezzacapo, scalability two-qubit gate scheme for superconducting Easwar Magesan, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gam- qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240503 (2020). betta, “Universal gate for fixed-frequency qubits via a [9] B. Foxen, C. Neill, A. Dunsworth, P. Roushan, B. Chiaro, tunable bus,” Phys. Rev. Applied 6 (2016). A. Megrant, J. Kelly, Zijun Chen, K. Satzinger, [16] David C McKay, Andrew W Cross, Christopher J Wood, R. Barends, F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, and Jay M Gambetta, “Correlated randomized bench- J. C. Bardin, S. Boixo, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Yu Chen, marking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.02354 (2020). R. Collins, E. Farhi, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, 7

[17] Andrew W Cross, Easwar Magesan, Lev S Bishop, Alexey V. Ustinov, and Martin Weides, “Correlating John A Smolin, and Jay M Gambetta, “Scal- decoherence in transmon qubits: Low frequency noise by able randomised benchmarking of non-clifford gates,” single fluctuators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 190502 (2019). npj Quantum Information 2 (2016). [34] M. Ganzhorn, G. Salis, D. J. Egger, A. Fuhrer, M. Mer- [18] Andrew N. Glaudell, Neil J. Ross, and Ja- genthaler, C. Müller, P. Müller, S. Paredes, M. Pechal, cob M. Taylor, “Optimal two-qubit circuits for uni- M. Werninghaus, and S. Filipp, “Benchmarking the noise versal fault-tolerant quantum computation,” (2020), sensitivity of different parametric two-qubit gates in a arXiv:2001.05997 [quant-ph]. single superconducting quantum computing platform,” [19] Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev, “Universal quantum Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033447 (2020). computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas,” [35] Atsushi Noguchi, Alto Osada, Shumpei Masuda, Shingo Phys. Rev. A 71 (2005). Kono, Kentaro Heya, Samuel Piotr Wolski, Hi- [20] Shelly Garion and Andrew W. Cross, “Synthesis of roki Takahashi, Takanori Sugiyama, Dany Lachance- CNOT-Dihedral circuits with optimal number of two Quirion, and Yasunobu Nakamura, “Fast parametric qubit gates,” Quantum 4, 369 (2020). two-qubit gates with suppressed residual interaction us- [21] Adriano Barenco, Charles H. Bennett, Richard Cleve, ing the second-order nonlinearity of a cubic transmon,” David P. DiVincenzo, Norman Margolus, Peter Shor, Phys. Rev. A 102, 062408 (2020). Tycho Sleator, John A. Smolin, and Harald Wein- [36] Jaseung Ku, Xuexin Xu, Markus Brink, David C. furter, “Elementary gates for quantum computation,” McKay, Jared B. Hertzberg, Mohammad H. Ansari, Phys. Rev. A 52, 3457–3467 (1995). and B. L. T. Plourde, “Suppression of unwanted [22] Thomas Alexander, Naoki Kanazawa, Daniel J zz interactions in a hybrid two-qubit system,” Egger, Lauren Capelluto, Christopher J Wood, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 200504 (2020). Ali Javadi-Abhari, and David C McKay, [37] M. A. Rol, F. Battistel, F. K. Malinowski, C. C. Bultink, “Qiskit pulse: programming quantum com- B. M. Tarasinski, R. Vollmer, N. Haider, N. Muthusub- puters through the cloud with pulses,” ramanian, A. Bruno, B. M. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo, Quantum Science and Technology 5, 044006 (2020). “Fast, high-fidelity conditional-phase gate exploiting [23] Héctor Abraham and et al, “Qiskit: An open-source leakage interference in weakly anharmonic superconduct- framework for quantum computing,” (2019). ing qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 120502 (2019). [24] Shelby Kimmel, Marcus P. da Silva, Colm A. Ryan, [38] N. Kanazawa, unpublished. Blake R. Johnson, and Thomas Ohki, “Robust extrac- [39] Sergey Bravyi, Sarah Sheldon, Abhinav Kandala, tion of tomographic information via randomized bench- David C. Mckay, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Mitigating marking,” Phys. Rev. X 4 (2014). measurement errors in multi-qubit experiments,” (2020), [25] Chad Rigetti and Michel Devoret, “Fully microwave- arXiv:2006.14044 [quant-ph]. tunable universal gates in superconducting qubits [40] S. Krinner, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, P. Magnard, with linear couplings and fixed transition frequencies,” J. Heinsoo, R. Keller, J. Lütolf, C. Eichler, and Phys. Rev. B 81, 134507 (2010). A. Wallraff, “Engineering cryogenic setups for [26] Easwar Magesan and Jay M. Gambetta, “Effec- 100-qubit scale superconducting circuit systems,” tive hamiltonian models of the cross-resonance gate,” EPJ Quantum Technology 6, 2 (2019). Phys. Rev. A 101, 052308 (2020). [41] Mustafa Ahmed Ali Ahmed, Gonzalo A. Alvarez,´ and [27] Moein Malekakhlagh, Easwar Magesan, and David C. Dieter Suter, “Robustness of dynamical decoupling se- McKay, “First-principles analysis of cross-resonance gate quences,” Phys. Rev. A 87, 042309 (2013). operation,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 042605 (2020). [28] A. D. Córcoles, Jay M. Gambetta, Jerry M. Chow, John A. Smolin, Matthew Ware, Joel Strand, B. L. T. Plourde, and M. Steffen, “Process verification of two- qubit quantum gates by randomized benchmarking,” Phys. Rev. A 87, 030301 (2013). [29] M. Mohseni, A. T. Rezakhani, and D. A. Lidar, “Quantum-process tomography: Resource analysis of dif- Appendix A: Basis Gate Information ferent strategies,” Phys. Rev. A 77, 032322 (2008). [30] Jonas Bylander, Simon Gustavsson, Fei Yan, Fumiki Yoshihara, Khalil Harrabi, George Fitch, David G. Cory, Yasunobu Nakamura, Jaw-Shen Tsai, and In this paper all experiments are performed via cloud William D. Oliver, “Noise spectroscopy through dy- access to IBM Quantum system ibmq paris. The back- namical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit,” end provider calibrates single-qubit and two-qubit basis Nature Physics 7, 565–570 (2011). gates on a regular basis and provides pulse schedules and [31] Neereja Sundaresan, Isaac Lauer, Emily Pritchett, gate errors to users. The gate error distribution at the Easwar Magesan, Petar Jurcevic, and Jay M. time of experiment (2020-05-20 05:48 UTC) is shown in Gambetta, “Reducing unitary and spectator errors −4 in cross resonance with optimized rotary echoes,” Fig. 3. The averaged single-qubit gate error is 5.0 10 , while that of two-qubit gates is 1.4 10−2. The× single- PRX Quantum 1, 020318 (2020). × [32] IBM, “Qiskit Ignis,” https://github.com/Qiskit/ qubit gate error of the qubit 0 and 1, which are use in −4 −4 qiskit-ignis (2019), version 0.3. the CS gate, are 4.0 10 and 3.7 10 , respectively. × × [33] Steffen Schlör, Jürgen Lisenfeld, Clemens Müller, The two-qubit CNOT gate error between these qubits is Alexander Bilmes, Andre Schneider, David P. Pappas, 1.3 10−2. × 8

1.0 (a) 6 17 0.9 0.8 0 1 4 7 10 12 15 18 21 23 z 0.7 2 13 24 0.6

3 5 8 11 14 16 19 22 25 26 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 9 20 CR pulse amplitude A (arb. unit) 1.0 (b) H error rate (%) CNOT error rate (%) 0.5

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 y 0.0

0.5 FIG. 3. Distribution of single-qubit and two-qubit gate errors of ibmq paris at the time of experiment. Single-qubit 1.0 gate errors measured by the Hadamard operation are shown 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 in nodes of the qubit coupling map, while two-qubit gate er- CR pulse phase (rad.) rors measured by CNOT operation are shown in graph edges. 0.2 Error values are represented by color maps shown in the bot- (c) tom. 0.1

z 0.0

Appendix B: Quantum process tomography 0.1

0.2 QPT was done using convex maximum likelihood 0 2 4 6 8 estimation fitter with completely positive and trace- Number of CR sequence N preserving (CPTP) constraints from the tomogra- 1.0 phy module of Qiskit Ignis. The preparation basis (d) 0 , 1 , + , +i and measurement basis X,Y,Z 0.5 {| i | i | i | i} { } was used for each qubit. We performed M = 1024 repeti- z 0.0 tions (shots) for each QPT basis configuration and readout error calibration circuit. This requires 148 differ- 0.5 ent experimental circuit executions per single rqpt eval- g 1.0 uation. The readout error calibration circuit data was 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 used to construct a 2-qubit measurement assignment Number of XY4 sequence N matrix characterizing the Z-basis classical readout errors [39]. This was used to compute noisy measurement FIG. 4. Typical experimental results for calibration experi- basis POVM elements in the QPT fitter objective func- ments. Measured population is converted into the expectation tion to apply readout error mitigation during the QPT value of Pauli operators. (a) Rough amplitude calibration. fit. Note that this only mitigates the readout errors from The blue and black line show the cosinusoidal fit for the experimental results and the optimal amplitude A0. (b) Rough the final Z-basis measurement. Measurement errors aris- phase calibration. The blue and red line show the cosinu- ing from gate errors in the gates to change tomography scan scan soidal fit for the experimental result of Sφg (φ) and Sφe (φ), measurement bases will not be affected. respectively. The black line show the optimal phase φ0. (c) The interval of each experiment trigger in this device Rough amplitude calibration. The solid and dotted line show is set to 1000 µs, therefore the minimum execution time the fit for the result of initial (A = 0.236) and final experiment of the whole experiment is estimated to be about 2.5 (A = 0.237) within the closed-loop calibration. The cosinu- minutes. soidal function is used for the fit with N-dependent decay and −αN baseline F (N)= e cos(4(π/4+δA)N +π/2)+aN +b. Here α, a and b are additional fit parameters introduced empirically. The residual error per gate after the final experiment Appendix C: Calibrating CS Gate is −1.25 × 10−3 rad., which is lower than the threshold of 10−3π. (d) Compensation tone calibration. The blue and red xy4 The single qubit gates used for the echo sequence and line show the result of S without and with the calibrated local rotations are provided by ibmq paris. We calibrate compensation tone, respectively. The cosinusoidal fit with decay for those curves yields crosstalk amplitude of 176.2 kHz the CR pulse amplitude A and its phase φ by the rough and 6.7 kHz. All data in (a)–(c) are measured with τsq = 21.3 parameter scan followed by the closed-loop calibration. ns, while (d) is measured with τsq = 0 ns. These parameters are determined based on the two-pulse echoed CR sequence Uecho shown in Eq. (11). This ap- 9 proach simplifies the calibration, namely, we don’t need repeat the echo sequence 4N times to apply a controlled to take non-negligible ZI and IX terms into account rotation of Nπ. Because the initial guess of A0 is esti- when we fit the experimental results for calibration pa- mated by the parameter scan in the coarse precision with π fine rameters. Calibrated sequence Uecho [ZX] is used to a finite error δA, repeating A for different N can ac- ∼ 4 S realize the CS with local rotations shown in Eq. (10). cumulate δA and this error appears as over rotation from the superposition state, as shown in Fig. 4(c). The fit for the over rotation as a function of N yields precise es- 1. Rough Parameter Scan timate of δA, and we iteratively update the initial guess to optimize the CR pulse amplitude to A1 where δ 0. A ∼ We initialized both qubits in the ground state and per- Here we use N =0, 1, 2..., 9 and repeat updating the CR form a rough scan of the CR pulse amplitude with the amplitude until the over rotation error reaches below the −3 pulse schedule: threshold value of 10 π rad. With the optimized amplitude A1, we tune the CR scan (A) Uecho(A, 0). phase with following experiment: SA ≡ fine π N π The schedule is followed by the measurement of the target φ (φ) [IY ] (Uecho(A1, φ) [IY ]) [IX] . S ≡ 2 ◦ ◦ ◦ 2 qubit in the Z-basis. The sinusoidal fit for the measured population of the target qubit with scan with different A This sequence also accumulates the small phase error δφ SA as function of N. We iteratively update the CR phase gives an estimate of the CR amplitude A0 where the angle of controlled rotation is approximately π/4. A typical until the same threshold value with the amplitude calibration to obtain the optimal phase φ1 where δφ 0. experimental result for τsq = 21.3 ns is shown in Fig. ∼ 4(a). By using this A , we scan the CR phase with two pulse 0 Appendix D: Crosstalk Estimation schedules scan and scan: Sφg Sφe

scan π π 2 The unwanted local rotation terms IX and IY can (φ) [IZ] [IX] Uecho(A0, φ) , Sφg ≡ 2 ◦ 2 ◦ be simultaneously amplified with the following sequence scan 2 (φ) [IZ] π [IX] π Uecho(A0, φ) [XI]. Sφe ≡ 2 ◦ 2 ◦ ◦ combined with the XY-4 dynamical decoupling [41] on scan scan the control qubit: The schedule φg ( φe ) drives the echo sequence S S xy4 2N Uecho(A0, φ) twice with the control qubit of the ground ([Y I] UCR [XI] UCR) , (excited) state. Note that the last two operations cor- S ≡ ◦ ◦ ◦ respond to the projection into Y -basis for the following where UCR = UCR(A1, φ1). Here, the CR pulse with measurement. The flip of the state of the control qubit the same sign is repeatedly applied while changing the leads the controlled rotation of the target qubit state with state of control qubit. This pulse sequence refocuses (and opposite direction as illustrated in Fig. 4(b). This oppo- hence eliminates) controlled rotation terms such as ZX site rotation of π/2 around an azimuthal angle θ = θ0 φ and ZY , allowing us to precisely estimate the strength − 2 2 of the target qubit Bloch sphere yields measured outcome of weak local rotation terms ωIX + ωIY , amplified in of 1 for scan and scan, respectively, at the optimal the absence of strong two-qubitp interactions. ∓ Sφg Sφe phase φ = φ0 where θ = 0. Here θ0 is the phase offset This technique can be used to calibrate a compensation from the unknown transfer function of the coaxial cable tone that eliminates the IY term caused by the physical assembly [40]. The phase φ0 gives a rough estimate of the crosstalk between qubits [11]. The compensation tone is CR phase where the ZX term of interest is maximized applied to the drive channel of the target qubit d1, in while the unwanted ZY term is eliminated. parallel with UCR. This single-qubit pulse is shaped as a flat-top pulse with Gaussian edges of identical duration as the UCR pulse, with its own calibrated amplitude and 2. Closed-loop Fine Calibration phase (A′, φ′). First, we repeat xy4 for N =0, 2, 4, ..., 32 without the compensation toneS and measure the Pauli Z

We use the roughly estimated parameters (A0, φ0) as expectation value of the target qubit. The fit for the an initial guess of closed-loop calibrations. We first opti- oscillation over the total CR gate time 8τCRN yields the mize the CR pulse amplitude with following experiment: strength of the total unwanted local rotation terms. At τsq = 0 ns, the unwanted local rotation strength of 176.2 fine 4 (A) U (A, φ ) N [IX] π , kHz was observed. This strength was reduced to 6.7 kHz A echo 0 2 S ≡ ◦ with the calibrated compensation tone with A′ =0.00102 where N is number of repeated sequences. This schedule and φ′ = 0.962 rad. The experimental result is shown prepares the target qubit in the superposition state and in Fig. 4(d).−