Quantum Error Mitigation via Symmetry Verification and Extrapolation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current error mitigation techniques in quantum computing, such as symmetry verification, quasi-probability, and error extrapolation, face limitations in effectively reducing errors in noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices, including high costs, requirement for increased noise levels, and inability to detect undetectable errors.

Innovation Solution

A method that combines quasi-probability, symmetry verification, and error extrapolation by performing operations with different basis operations and symmetry measurements to fit state measurements to exponential decay curves, allowing for improved error estimation at reduced costs by modifying the effective error rate through random selection of basis operations.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If quasi-probability error mitigation is used, then error elimination is achieved, but the cost increases significantly requiring a high number of repetitions

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveerror eliminationVSAvoidnumber of repetitions
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent combines symmetry verification and error extrapolation techniques with quasi-probability methods to create a hybrid error mitigation approach. By integrating multiple techniques, the system achieves error elimination while reducing the number of repetitions needed compared to using quasi-probability alone.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent modifies the error mitigation approach by changing parameters such as using symmetry operations and adjusting probability distributions. This allows the system to achieve error elimination with reduced computational cost by optimizing the parameters of the error mitigation process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Ease of operation

If symmetry verification is used, then the method is straightforward to perform, but errors can combine in such a way that the overall error is undetectable

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestraightforward to performVSAvoiderror detection capability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent creates a composite error mitigation method that combines symmetry verification with other techniques. This composite approach maintains the ease of operation of symmetry verification while adding layers of error detection that prevent undetectable error combinations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #40Composite materials

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces intermediary error mitigation steps between the quantum circuit execution and measurement. These intermediary operations act as mediators that enhance error detectability while preserving the straightforward nature of symmetry verification.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Measurement precision

If error extrapolation is used, then noise-free expectation value can be predicted, but the noise level must be increased by physically altering the hardware

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvenoise-free expectation value predictionVSAvoidhardware alteration requirement
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent creates virtual copies of the quantum circuit with different noise characteristics through classical processing and simulation. Instead of physically altering hardware to increase noise levels, the system uses computational copies to achieve the same error extrapolation effect, thereby avoiding hardware modification complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces the mechanical/hardware-based noise injection required by traditional error extrapolation with a software-based approach. By using classical computation to simulate different noise levels, the system eliminates the need for physical hardware alterations while maintaining the ability to predict noise-free expectation values.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Measurement precision

If the number of basis operations is increased, then error mitigation accuracy is improved, but the cost given by the number of times the operation is performed increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveerror mitigation accuracyVSAvoidoperation cost
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies partial action by selecting a subset of basis operations that provide sufficient error mitigation accuracy without requiring all possible operations. This selective approach achieves adequate error correction while keeping the operation cost manageable.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary analysis to identify which basis operations provide the most significant error mitigation benefit. By pre-selecting the most effective operations before execution, the system achieves high accuracy without performing unnecessary operations, thereby reducing overall cost.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS12165012B2Error mitigation techniques
Publication Date: 2024.12.10 OXFORD UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD
  • US12165012B2 patent drawing
  • US12165012B2 patent drawing
  • US12165012B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method of mitigating errors in quantum computing, wherein the method comprises: performing (S101) an operation on the state of a qubit in a group of qubits a plurality of times, wherein the operation has a first error rate, and wherein each performance of the operation comprises: performing a first operation comprising: a gate operation, a symmetry operation, and a first basis operation; or performing a second operation comprising: the gate operation, the symmetry operation, and a second basis operation; wherein the first and second basis operations are different basis operations selected from a set of basis operations; and measuring the state of the qubit; wherein the probability of performing the first operation is a first probability, and the probability of performing the second operation is a second probability; obtaining (S102) a symmetry measurement for the group of qubits after each performance of the operation using the symmetry operation, wherein the group of qubits comprises a plurality of qubits; wherein the symmetry measurement is a first symmetry outcome if the number of errors is even or a second symmetry outcome if the number of errors is odd; obtaining (S103) a first state measurement by determining the average state of the qubit for the first symmetry outcome; obtaining (S104) a second state measurement by determining the average state of the qubit for the second symmetry outcome; fitting (S105) the first state measurement to a first curve having the form (I); fitting the second state measurement to a second curve having the form (II); wherein n is an error rate and A and γ are fitting parameters; and extrapolating (S106) the average state of the qubit at a second error rate using the first and second fitted curves; wherein the second error rate is lower than the first error rate.A⁢ cosh⁡((1-γ)⁢n)cosh⁡(n)(I)A⁢ sinh⁡((1-γ)⁢n)sinh⁡(n)(II)