Defining Standard Strategies for Quantum Benchmarks
Authors:
Mirko Amico,
Helena Zhang,
Petar Jurcevic,
Lev S. Bishop,
Paul Nation,
Andrew Wack,
David C. McKay
Abstract:
As quantum computers grow in size and scope, a question of great importance is how best to benchmark performance. Here we define a set of characteristics that any benchmark should follow -- randomized, well-defined, holistic, device independent -- and make a distinction between benchmarks and diagnostics. We use Quantum Volume (QV) [1] as an example case for clear rules in benchmarking, illustrati…
▽ More
As quantum computers grow in size and scope, a question of great importance is how best to benchmark performance. Here we define a set of characteristics that any benchmark should follow -- randomized, well-defined, holistic, device independent -- and make a distinction between benchmarks and diagnostics. We use Quantum Volume (QV) [1] as an example case for clear rules in benchmarking, illustrating the implications for using different success statistics, as in Ref. [2]. We discuss the issue of benchmark optimizations, detail when those optimizations are appropriate, and how they should be reported. Reporting the use of quantum error mitigation techniques is especially critical for interpreting benchmarking results, as their ability to yield highly accurate observables comes with exponential overhead, which is often omitted in performance evaluations. Finally, we use application-oriented and mirror benchmarking techniques to demonstrate some of the highlighted optimization principles, and introduce a scalable mirror quantum volume benchmark. We elucidate the importance of simple optimizations for improving benchmarking results, and note that such omissions can make a critical difference in comparisons. For example, when running mirror randomized benchmarking, we observe a reduction in error per qubit from 2% to 1% on a 26-qubit circuit with the inclusion of dynamic decoupling.
△ Less
Submitted 3 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
Quality, Speed, and Scale: three key attributes to measure the performance of near-term quantum computers
Authors:
Andrew Wack,
Hanhee Paik,
Ali Javadi-Abhari,
Petar Jurcevic,
Ismael Faro,
Jay M. Gambetta,
Blake R. Johnson
Abstract:
Defining the right metrics to properly represent the performance of a quantum computer is critical to both users and developers of a computing system. In this white paper, we identify three key attributes for quantum computing performance: quality, speed, and scale. Quality and scale are measured by quantum volume and number of qubits, respectively. We propose a speed benchmark, using an update to…
▽ More
Defining the right metrics to properly represent the performance of a quantum computer is critical to both users and developers of a computing system. In this white paper, we identify three key attributes for quantum computing performance: quality, speed, and scale. Quality and scale are measured by quantum volume and number of qubits, respectively. We propose a speed benchmark, using an update to the quantum volume experiments that allows the measurement of Circuit Layer Operations Per Second (CLOPS) and identify how both classical and quantum components play a role in improving performance. We prescribe a procedure for measuring CLOPS and use it to characterize the performance of some IBM Quantum systems.
△ Less
Submitted 28 October, 2021; v1 submitted 26 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
