Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Distinguishing between statistical and systematic errors in quantum process tomography

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1808.10336 v2 pith:GWZVP4HV submitted 2018-08-30 quant-ph

Distinguishing between statistical and systematic errors in quantum process tomography

classification quant-ph
keywords experimentallyerrorspositivereconstructedstatisticalsystematiccompletelyexperiments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

It is generally assumed that every process in quantum physics can be described mathematically by a completely positive map. However, experimentally reconstructed processes are not necessarily completely positive due to statistical or systematic errors. In this paper, we introduce a test for discriminating statistical from systematic errors which is necessary to interpret experimentally reconstructed, non-completely positive maps.Wedemonstrate the significance of the test using several examples given by experiments and simulations. In particular, we demonstrate experimentally how an initial correlation between the system to be measured and its environment leads to an experimentally reconstructed map with negative eigenvalues. These experiments are carried out using atomic 171Yb+ ions confined in a linear Paul trap, addressed and coherently manipulated by radio frequency radiation.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.