Systematic Errors in Current Quantum State Tomography Tools
Open Access
- 26 February 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Physical Society (APS) in Physical Review Letters
- Vol. 114 (8), 080403
- https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.114.080403
Abstract
Common tools for obtaining physical density matrices in experimental quantum state tomography are shown here to cause systematic errors. For example, using maximum likelihood or least squares optimization to obtain physical estimates for the quantum state, we observe a systematic underestimation of the fidelity and an overestimation of entanglement. Such strongly biased estimates can be avoided using linear evaluation of the data or by linearizing measurement operators yielding reliable and computational simple error bounds.Keywords
All Related Versions
Funding Information
- European Research Council (GEDENTQOPT)
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- eu (CIG 293993/ENFOQI)
- QWAD
- Elite Network of Bavaria
- FQXi
This publication has 52 references indexed in Scilit:
- Randomized Benchmarking of Multiqubit GatesPhysical Review Letters, 2012
- Implementation of a Toffoli gate with superconducting circuitsNature, 2011
- Generation of three-qubit entangled states using superconducting phase qubitsNature, 2010
- Complete Methods Set for Scalable Ion Trap Quantum Information ProcessingScience, 2009
- Demonstration of two-qubit algorithms with a superconducting quantum processorNature, 2009
- Experimental Observation of Four-Photon Entangled Dicke State with High FidelityPhysical Review Letters, 2007
- Scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ionsNature, 2005
- Full Characterization of a Three-Photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger State Using Quantum State TomographyPhysical Review Letters, 2005
- Diagnosis, Prescription, and Prognosis of a Bell-State Filter by Quantum Process TomographyPhysical Review Letters, 2003
- Measurement of qubitsPhysical Review A, 2001