Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value.
Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error00:59

Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error

An experiment often consists of more than a single step. In this case, measurements at each step give rise to uncertainty. Because the measurements occur in successive steps, the uncertainty in one step necessarily contributes to that in the subsequent step. As we perform statistical analysis on these types of experiments, we must learn to account for the propagation of uncertainty from one step to the next. The propagation of uncertainty depends on the type of arithmetic operation performed on...
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error01:10

Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error

The atomic mass of an element varies due to the relative ratio of its isotopes. A sample's relative proportion of oxygen isotopes influences its average atomic mass. For instance, if we were to measure the atomic mass of oxygen from a sample, the mass would be a weighted average of the isotopic masses of oxygen in that sample. Since a single sample is not likely to perfectly reflect the true atomic mass of oxygen for all the molecules of oxygen on Earth, the mass we obtain from this particular...
Uncertainty in Measurement: Reading Instruments02:46

Uncertainty in Measurement: Reading Instruments

Counting is the type of measurement that is free from uncertainty, provided the number of objects being counted does not change during the process. Such measurements result in exact numbers. By counting the eggs in a carton, for instance, one can determine exactly how many eggs are there in the carton. Similarly, the numbers of defined quantities are also exact. For example, 1 foot is exactly 12 inches, 1 inch is exactly 2.54 centimeters, and 1 gram is exactly 0.001 kilograms. Quantities...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A millimeter-wave photometric camera for long-range imaging through optical obscurants using kinetic inductance detectors.

The Review of scientific instruments·2025
Same author

Hardware-efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits.

Nature·2025
Same author

Quantum computing requires high-performance software.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2025
Same author

Erratum: "The Simons Observatory: Cryogenic half wave plate rotation mechanism for the small aperture telescopes" [Rev. Sci. Instrum. 95, 024504 (2024)].

The Review of scientific instruments·2025
Same author

High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory.

Nature·2024
Same author

The Simons Observatory: Cryogenic half wave plate rotation mechanism for the small aperture telescopes.

The Review of scientific instruments·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 18, 2026

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source
12:19

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source

Published on: April 4, 2017

Efficient measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking.

Easwar Magesan1, Jay M Gambetta, B R Johnson

  • 1Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Physical Review Letters
|September 26, 2012
PubMed
Summary

We developed a scalable quantum gate error estimation protocol. This method accounts for state preparation and measurement errors, offering more accurate results than quantum process tomography for superconducting qubits.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 18, 2026

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source
12:19

Measurement of Quantum Interference in a Silicon Ring Resonator Photon Source

Published on: April 4, 2017

Area of Science:

  • Quantum Computing
  • Quantum Information Science
  • Experimental Physics

Background:

  • Accurate characterization of quantum computational gates is crucial for building reliable quantum computers.
  • Existing methods like quantum process tomography can be resource-intensive and difficult to scale.
  • Estimating average gate errors, including state preparation and measurement (SPAM) errors, is essential for performance evaluation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To introduce a scalable experimental protocol for estimating the average error of individual quantum computational gates.
  • To provide theoretical bounds for the average error of a gate under test.
  • To demonstrate the protocol's effectiveness on a superconducting qubit system.

Main Methods:

  • Interleaving random Clifford gates between the gate of interest.
  • Developing a protocol that accounts for state preparation and measurement errors.
  • Ensuring scalability with the number of qubits.

Main Results:

  • A bounded average error of 0.003 [0,0.016] was found for single-qubit gates X(π/2) and Y(π/2) on a superconducting qubit system.
  • The protocol provides tighter error bounds compared to quantum process tomography.
  • The method is shown to be scalable in the number of qubits.

Conclusions:

  • The proposed protocol offers a scalable and accurate method for estimating average quantum gate errors.
  • This technique improves upon existing methods by incorporating SPAM errors and offering better error bounds.
  • The findings are significant for the development and validation of future quantum computing hardware.