Abstract
We point out that realization of quantum communication protocols in programmable quantum computers provides a deep benchmark for capabilities of real quantum hardware. Particularly, it is prospective to focus on measurements of entropy-based characteristics of the performance and to explore whether a “quantum regime” is preserved. We perform proof-of-principle implementations of superdense coding and quantum key distribution BB84 using 5- and 16-qubit superconducting quantum processors of IBM Quantum Experience. We focus on the ability of these quantum machines to provide an efficient transfer of information between distant parts of the processors by placing Alice and Bob at different qubits of the devices. We also examine the ability of quantum devices to serve as quantum memory and to store entangled states used in quantum communication. Another issue we address is an error mitigation. Although it is at odds with benchmarking, this problem is nevertheless of importance in a general context of quantum computation with noisy quantum devices. We perform such a mitigation and noticeably improve some results.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G.: Quantum cryptography: public key distribution and coin tossing. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, p. 175
Gisin, N., Ribordy, G., Tittel, W., Zbinden, H.: Quantum cryptography. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002)
Scarani, V., Bechmann-Pasquinucci, H., Cerf, N.J., Dušek, M., Lütkenhaus, N., Peev, M.: The security of practical quantum key distribution. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1301 (2009)
Korzh, B., Wen Lim, C.C., Houlmann, R., Gisin, N., Li, M.J., Nolan, D., Sanguinetti, B., Thew, R., Zbinden, H.: Provably secure and practical quantum key distribution over 307 km of optical fibre. Nat. Photon. 9, 163 (2015)
Fröhlich, B., Lucamarini, M., Dynes, J.F., Comandar, L.C., Tam, W.W.-S., Plews, A., Sharpe, A.W., Yuan, Z., Shields, A.J.: Long-distance quantum key distribution secure against coherent attacks. Optica 4, 163 (2017)
Liao, S.-K., et al.: Long-distance free-space quantum key distribution in daylight towards inter-satellite communication. Nat. Photon. 11, 509 (2017)
Elliott, C., Colvin, A., Pearson, D., Pikalo, O., Schlafer, J., Yeh, H.: Current status of the DARPA quantum. Netw. Proc. SPIE 5815, 138 (2005)
Peev, M., et al.: The SECOQC quantum key distribution network in Vienna. New J. Phys. 11, 075001 (2009)
Kiktenko, E.O., Pozhar, N.O., Duplinskiy, A.V., Kanapin, A.A., Sokolov, A.S., Vorobey, S.S., Miller, A.V., Ustimchik, V.E., Anufriev, M.N., Trushechkin, A.T., Yunusov, R.R., Kurochkin, V.L., Kurochkin, YuV, Fedorov, A.K.: Demonstration of a quantum key distribution network in urban fibre-optic communication lines. Quantum Electron. 47, 798 (2017)
Tysowski, P.K., Ling, X., Lütkenhaus, N., Mosca, M.: The engineering of a scalable multi-site communications system utilizing quantum key distribution (QKD). Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 024001 (2018)
Long, G.L., Liu, X.S.: Theoretically efficient high-capacity quantum-key-distribution scheme. Phys. Rev. A 65, 032302 (2002)
Jian-Yong, Hu, Bo, Yu., Jing, Ming-Yong, Xiao, Lian-Tuan, Jia, Suo-Tang, Qin, Guo-Qing, Long, Gui-Lu: Experimental quantum secure direct communication with single photons. Light Sci. Appl. 5, e16144 (2016)
Zhang, Wei, Ding, Dong-Sheng, Sheng, Yu-Bo, Zhou, Lan, Shi, Bao-Sen, Guo, Guang-Can: Quantum secure direct communication with quantum memory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 220501 (2017)
Bennett, C.H., Wiesner, S.J.: Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992)
Ren, Ji-Gang, et al.: Ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation. Nature 549, 70 (2017)
Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., Wootters, W.K.: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)
Schoelkopf, R.J., Girvin, S.M.: Wiring up quantum systems. Nature 451(7179), 664 (2008)
Blatt, R., Roos, C.F.: Quantum simulations with trapped ions. Nat. Phys. 8(4), 277 (2012)
Kelly, J., Barends, R., Fowler, A.G., Megrant, A., Jeffrey, E., White, T.C., Sank, D., Mutus, J.Y., Campbell, B., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Chiaro, B., Dunsworth, A., Hoi, I.C., Neill, C., O’Malley, P.J.J., Quintana, C., Roushan, P., Vainsencher, A., Wenner, J., Cleland, A.N., Martinis, J.M.: State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit. Nature 519(7541), 66 (2015)
Ristè, D., Poletto, S., Huang, M.Z., Bruno, A., Vesterinen, V., Saira, O.P., DiCarlo, L.: Detecting bit-flip errors in a logical qubit using stabilizer measurements. Nat. Commun. 6(1), 6983 (2015)
Córcoles, A., Magesan, E., Srinivasan, S.J., Cross, A.W., Steffen, M., Gambetta, J.M., Chow, J.M.: Demonstration of a quantum error detection code using a square lattice of four superconducting qubits. Nat. Commun. 6(1), 6979 (2015)
Gambetta, J.M., Chow, J.M., Steffen, M.: Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system. npj Quantum Inf. 3(1), 2 (2017)
Ghosh, D., Agarwal, P., Pandey, P., Behera, B.K., Panigrahi, P.K.: Automated error correction in IBM quantum computer and explicit generalization. Quantum Inf. Process. 17(6), 153 (2018)
Kandala, A., Mezzacapo, A., Temme, K., Takita, M., Brink, M., Chow, J.M., Gambetta, J.M.: Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature 549(7671), 242 (2017)
Barends, R., Lamata, L., Kelly, J., García-Álvarez, L., Fowler, A.G., Megrant, A., Jeffrey, E., White, T.C., Sank, D., Mutus, J.Y., Campbell, B., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Chiaro, B., Dunsworth, A., Hoi, I.C., Neill, C., O’Malley, P.J.J., Quintana, C., Roushan, P., Vainsencher, A., Wenner, J., Solano, E., Martinis, J.M.: Digital quantum simulation of fermionic models with a superconducting circuit. Nat. Commun. 6(1), 7654 (2015)
Langford, N.K., Sagastizabal, R., Kounalakis, M., Dickel, C., Bruno, A., Luthi, F., Thoen, D.J., Endo, A., DiCarlo, L.: Experimentally simulating the dynamics of quantum light and matter at ultrastrong coupling. Nat. Commun. 8, 1715 (2017)
Barends, R., Shabani, A., Lamata, L., Kelly, J., Mezzacapo, A., Heras, U.L., Babbush, R., Fowler, A.G., Campbell, B., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Chiaro, B., Dunsworth, A., Jeffrey, E., Lucero, E., Megrant, A., Mutus, J.Y., Neeley, M., Neill, C., O’Malley, P.J.J., Quintana, C., Roushan, P., Sank, D., Vainsencher, A., Wenner, J., White, T.C., Solano, E., Neven, H., Martinis, J.M.: Digitized adiabatic quantum computing with a superconducting circuit. Nature 534(7606), 222 (2016)
Roushan, P., Neill, C., Tangpanitanon, J., Bastidas, V.M., Megrant, A., Barends, R., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Chiaro, B., Dunsworth, A., Fowler, A., Foxen, B., Giustina, M., Jeffrey, E., Kelly, J., Lucero, E., Mutus, J., Neeley, M., Quintana, C., Sank, D., Vainsencher, A., Wenner, J., White, T., Neven, H., Angelakis, D.G., Martinis, J.: Spectral signatures of many-body localization with interacting photons. arXiv:1709.07108 (2017)
Ristè, D., da Silva, M.P., Ryan, C.A., Cross, A.W., Córcoles, A.D., Smolin, J.A., Gambetta, J.M., Chow, J.M., Johnson, B.R.: Demonstration of quantum advantage in machine learning. npj Quantum Inf. 3(1), 16 (2017)
Reagor, M., Osborn, C.B., Tezak, N., Staley, A., Prawiroatmodjo, G., Scheer, M., Alidoust, N., Sete, E.A., Didier, N., da Silva, M.P., Acala, E., Angeles, J., Bestwick, A., Block, M., Bloom, B., Bradley, A., Bui, C., Caldwell, S., Capelluto, L., Chilcott, R., Cordova, J., Crossman, G., Curtis, M., Deshpande, S., El Bouayadi, T., Girshovich, D., Hong, S., Hudson, A., Karalekas, P., Kuang, K., Lenihan, M., Manenti, R., Manning, T., Marshall, J., Mohan, Y., O’Brien, W., Otterbach, J., Papageorge, A., Paquette, J.P., Pelstring, M., Polloreno, A., Rawat, V., Ryan, C.A., Renzas, R., Rubin, N., Russel, D., Rust, M., Scarabelli, D., Selvanayagam, M., Sinclair, R., Smith, R., Suska, M., To, T.W., Vahidpour, M., Vodrahalli, N., Whyland, T., Yadav, K., Zeng, W., Rigetti, C.T.: Demonstration of universal parametric entangling gates on a multi-qubit lattice. Sci. Adv. 4(2) (2018)
Temme, Kristan, Bravyi, Sergey, Gambetta, Jay M.: Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017)
Li, Ying, Benjamin, Simon C.: Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization. Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017)
McClean, Jarrod R., Kimchi-Schwartz, Mollie E., Carter, Jonathan, de Jong, Wibe A.: Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states. Phys. Rev. A 95, 042308 (2017)
Endo, S., Benjamin, S.C., Li, Y.: Practical Quantum Error Mitigation for Near-Future Applications. arXiv:1712.09271
Zhukov, A.A., Remizov, S.V., Pogosov, W.V., Lozovik, YuE: Algorithmic simulation of far-from-equilibrium dynamics using quantum computer. Quantum Inf. Process. 17, 223 (2018)
Moll, Nikolaj, Barkoutsos, Panagiotis, Bishop, Lev S., Chow, Jerry M., Cross, Andrew, Egger, Daniel J., Filipp, Stefan, Fuhrer, Andreas, Gambetta, Jay M., Ganzhorn, Marc, Kandala, Abhinav, Mezzacapo, Antonio, Müller, Peter, Riess, Walter, Salis, Gian, Smolin, John, Tavernelli, Ivano, Temme, Kristan: Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices. Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 030503 (2018)
Devitt, S.J.: Performing quantum computing experiments in the cloud. Phys. Rev. A 94, 032329 (2016)
Michielsen, K., Nocon, M., Willsch, D., Jin, F., Lippert, T., De Raedt, H.: Benchmarking gate-based quantum computers. Comput. Phys. Commun. 220, 44 (2017)
Bai, G., Chiribella, G.: Test one to test many: a unified approach to quantum benchmarks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 150502 (2018)
Wootton, J.R.: Benchmarking of quantum processors with random circuits. arXiv:1806.02736
García-Martín, D., Sierra, G.: Five Experimental Tests on the 5-Qubit IBM Quantum Computer. arXiv:1712.05642
Dumitrescu, E.F., McCaskey, A.J., Hagen, G., Jansen, G.R., Morris, T.D., Papenbrock, T., Pooser, R.C., Dean, D.J., Lougovski, P.: Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 210501 (2018)
Pokharel, B., Anand, N., Fortman, B., Lidar, D.: Demonstration of fidelity improvement using dynamical decoupling with superconducting qubits. arXiv:1807.08768
Kiktenko, E.O., Trushechkin, A.S., Lim, C.C.W., Kurochkin, Y.V., Fedorov, A.K.: Symmetric blind information reconciliation for quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. Appl. 8, 044017 (2017)
Tomamichel, M., Lim, C.C.W., Gisin, N., Renner, R.: Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptography. Nat. Commun. 3, 634 (2012)
Magesan, E., Gambetta, J.M., Emerson, J.: Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011)
Proctor, T., Rudinger, K., Young, K., Sarovar, M., Blume-Kohout, R.: What randomized benchmarking actually measures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 130502 (2017)
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge use of the IBM Quantum Experience for this work. The viewpoints expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of IBM or the IBM Quantum Experience team. E. O. K. was supported by RFBR (Project No. 18-37-00096). W. V. P. acknowledges a support from RFBR (Project No. 15-02-02128). Yu. E. L. acknowledges a support from RFBR (Project No. 17-02-01134) and the Program of Basic Research of HSE.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
E. O. K. was supported by RFBR (Project No. 18-37-00096). W. V. P. acknowledges a support from RFBR (Project No. 15-02-02128). Yu. E. L. acknowledges a support from RFBR (Project No. 17-02-01134) and the Program of Basic Research of HSE.
Appendices
Appendix A: Output distributions for superdense coding
Table 1 shows output distributions for the superdense coding protocol for the situation corresponding to Fig. 2a for different number of SWAPs, as obtained from 16-qubit IBMqx5 device. Here, \((a_1, a_2)\) is Alice’s input, while \((b_1,b_2)\) is Bob’s output. Results presented in the table provide output distributions in connection to the input data. In the ideal situation, the input and output must be the same, so that the corresponding matrix for each given \((a_1, a_2)\) should be identity (unit) matrix. We see from Table 1 that, in reality, even for the zero number of SWAPs this matrix is rather different from the identity matrix.
Table 2 presents similar data for different values of delay time, as obtained from 5-qubit IBMqx4 device. We again see noticeable deviations from the ideal distribution even for zero waiting time.
Tables 3 and 4 provide output distributions without error correction and with error correction, respectively, for different values of waiting time, as obtained from 16-qubit IBMQx5 device. We again see that the distributions are rather different from ideal ones even at \(t=0\), but the error correction, in general, indeed improves the results.
Measurements for the superdense coding protocol have been taken between April 25, 2018, and May 21, 2018.
Appendix B: Correction of the coherent error
Figure 12 shows the experimentally determined overlap (fidelity) between the prepared state and the Bell states \(|\varPsi _+ \rangle \) (blue circles) and \(|\varPsi _- \rangle \) (brown triangles) as a function of time, provided the initial target state was \(|\varPsi _+ \rangle \). Figure 12a corresponds to direct measurements, while Fig. 12b deals with the results after our error correction, which compensates the drift of the internal phase. Similar oscillations have been also revealed for Bell states \(|\varPhi _+ \rangle \) and \(|\varPhi _- \rangle \).
Appendix C: Error distributions for BB84 protocol
Table 5 gives error distribution for different time delays and each possible choice of the basis and bit of information, as obtained from 5-qubit IBMQx4 device. In the ideal case, the errors should be absent.
Table 6 provides error distribution for different number of SWAPs and each possible choice of the basis and bit of information, as obtained from 5-qubit IBMQx4 device. Table 7 gives similar data, but using the encoding of the logical qubit into two physical qubits supplemented by post-selection procedure. The brackets contain fraction of algorithm’s runs used after the post-selection. The post-selection allowed us to improve the results, as seen from the comparison of data from Tables 6 and 7. We also note that the fraction of discarded data grows with the number of SWAPs, and this leads to the improvement in the performance.
Measurements for the BB84 protocol have been taken between April 4, 2018, and May 21, 2018.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhukov, A.A., Kiktenko, E.O., Elistratov, A.A. et al. Quantum communication protocols as a benchmark for programmable quantum computers. Quantum Inf Process 18, 31 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-018-2144-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-018-2144-y