Observational Bayesian Optimization for Quantum Calibration

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for calibrating quantum-computing operations on quantum computers are inefficient due to the indirect and noisy nature of the results from characterization experiments, which hinders the optimization of control parameters.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of observational Bayesian optimization, which inserts an observational decoder between the characterization experiment and the model, allowing for the computation of decoder estimates of the objective function and the refinement of the model using these estimates, along with uncertainty exchange to accelerate convergence and improve accuracy.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If traditional calibration methods are used to optimize quantum-computing control parameters, then the calibration process can be performed, but the process is inefficient due to indirect and noisy experimental results

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecalibration efficiencyVSAvoidexperimental result accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces an observational decoder as an intermediary component between the quantum characterization experiment and the Bayesian optimization model. This decoder translates noisy experimental outcomes into reliable objective function estimates, enabling accurate gradient computation without directly observing quantum states. The decoder acts as a mediator that converts indirect measurements into meaningful optimization signals.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements a feedback mechanism where the observational decoder continuously refines objective function estimates based on experimental results, which are then fed back into the Bayesian optimization process. This feedback loop enables iterative improvement of control parameter calibration by using decoded information to guide subsequent experimental designs and parameter selections.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Manufacturing precision

If more characterization experiments are conducted to improve calibration accuracy, then better control parameter optimization may be achieved, but the time and resources required increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol parameter optimization accuracyVSAvoidcalibration time
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The observational decoder serves as a time-efficient intermediary that extracts maximum information from limited experimental data. By decoding objective function estimates and uncertainties from characterization experiments, the system achieves accurate calibration without requiring extensive experimental campaigns, thus reducing calibration time while maintaining precision.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the parameter representation by transforming raw experimental outcomes into decoded objective function estimates with associated uncertainties. This parameter transformation enables the Bayesian optimization model to work with more informative data structures, improving convergence speed and reducing the number of experiments needed for accurate calibration.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS12210932B2Observational bayesian optimization of quantum-computing operations
Publication Date: 2025.01.28 MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC
  • US12210932B2 patent drawing
  • US12210932B2 patent drawing
  • US12210932B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method for calibrating a quantum-computing operation comprises: (a) providing a trial control-parameter value to the quantum computer; (b) receiving from the quantum computer a result of a characterization experiment enacted according to the trial control-parameter value; (c) computing a decoder estimate of an objective function evaluated at the trial control-parameter value based on decoding the result of the characterization experiment; (d) consuming the trial control-parameter value and the decoder estimate in a machine trained to return a model estimate of the objective function evaluated at the trial control-parameter value; and (e) selecting a new trial control-parameter value based on the model estimate.