Bounded definition
The cited method derives bounds on a target gate’s error by comparing interleaved and reference sequence decays. Within this page, that proposition is limited to The models, apparatus, protocols, datasets, and comparisons reported in Efficient Measurement of Quantum Gate Error by Interleaved Randomized Benchmarking.
Definition and evidence boundary
A randomized-benchmarking variant that alternates a target gate with random reference operations. The bounded proposition retained by the canonical record is: The cited method derives bounds on a target gate’s error by comparing interleaved and reference sequence decays.
The applicable scope is The models, apparatus, protocols, datasets, and comparisons reported in Efficient Measurement of Quantum Gate Error by Interleaved Randomized Benchmarking. This definition must not be generalized beyond the cited source and exact record boundary.
Claims: urn:maha:claim:interleaved-randomized-benchmarking
Mechanism and technical context
The paper proposes interleaving a target gate with randomized sequences to estimate that gate’s error subject to derived bounds and assumptions. This is the source-bound technical context for the record; no uncited mechanism is added by the compiler.
The result remains an estimator under assumptions and is not identical to application-level failure probability. The mechanism or method is therefore presented as one component of a larger system, not as evidence for every downstream outcome.
Claims: urn:maha:claim:interleaved-randomized-benchmarking
How to interpret the evidence
No platform-independent uncertainty interval exists; numerical values remain attached to the source experiment or model and its stated assumptions. The evidence maturity recorded here is single study, and the claim kind is theoretical model.
This candidate records one bounded source package. Independent replications and contradictory measurements must be compiled as separate records before maturity is upgraded. The estimate is protocol- and noise-model-dependent and does not replace workload-level or correlated-error characterization. These qualifications travel with the claim whenever it is reused.
Claims: urn:maha:claim:interleaved-randomized-benchmarking
What the source supports and what remains unknown
The inspected source supports exactly this: The paper proposes interleaving a target gate with randomized sequences to estimate that gate’s error subject to derived bounds and assumptions. It was read at Abstract; interleaved protocol; bounds; numerical analysis.
What remains unknown is everything outside that locator. The result remains an estimator under assumptions and is not identical to application-level failure probability. No quantity, comparison, or downstream outcome is established here unless a separately scoped record measures it.
Claims: urn:maha:claim:interleaved-randomized-benchmarking
Source identity, locator, and reuse boundary
The bound source is “Efficient Measurement of Quantum Gate Error by Interleaved Randomized Benchmarking” by Easwar Magesan, Jay M. Gambetta, Joseph Emerson, published by Physical Review Letters, American Physical Society on 2012-08-24; its declared stable identity is doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.080505.
The inspected-content locator is Abstract; interleaved protocol; bounds; numerical analysis. Reuse is limited to citation-with-paraphrase. Maha paraphrases the source-level result and links to the version of record; no article passage is reproduced. This metadata establishes source identity and inspection scope, not the truth of claims outside the cited locator.
Claims: urn:maha:claim:interleaved-randomized-benchmarking
Comparison and calculation boundary
Applicability is decided explicitly, not filled with generic material.
This record carries 1 source-bound proposition and therefore has no second supported side. A comparison would have to be manufactured from an adjacent title rather than from a second inspected claim, which the gate forbids.
The canonical claim declares no reproducible numerical inputs, equation, units, or uncertainty propagation; recorded uncertainty kind is qualitative. Supplying sample values would invent an unsupported quantitative result.
Limitations and prohibited inference
The claim stops where its evidence stops.
- record boundary
The result remains an estimator under assumptions and is not identical to application-level failure probability.
- record boundary
A source-bounded mechanism, method, or measurement record does not establish manufacturing yield, economic advantage, safety, clinical benefit, or commercial readiness unless those outcomes are measured in a separately scoped record.
- prohibited inference
Do not infer general quantum-computing readiness from the interleaved randomized benchmarking record alone.
- prohibited inference
Do not transfer a reported result across hardware, organisms, protocols, datasets, operating conditions, or outcome definitions without a declared comparison contract.
- editorial
This compilation reorganizes an existing inspected claim and its declared source; it does not add a new experiment, measurement, or independent replication.
- editorial
Internal editorial inspection is not external peer review, and no result on this page has been independently reproduced.
Related records and mathematical bridges
Typed links expose context without asserting equivalence.
Circuit quantum electrodynamics
Same canonical domain (quantum-systems). Domain membership only: no shared source or declared edge links these two records.
Selection: domain adjacency
Randomized benchmarking
Declared mechanistic-dependency edge from this record. The edge is navigational and asserts no equivalence or causation beyond the cited source scope.
Selection: bridge edge
When no declared bridge edge is present, related records are linked by shared evidence or canonical domain adjacency. Those links are navigational and do not claim mathematical or physical equivalence.
Connected domain graph
Typed dependencies preserve publication state.
Only independently canonical records receive public links and relation statements. Draft graph topology remains private.
Randomized benchmarking
outbound connection · method
The interleaved protocol depends on a separately measured reference randomized-benchmarking decay.
Claim ledger
Every proposition keeps its own evidence state.
The cited method derives bounds on a target gate’s error by comparing interleaved and reference sequence decays.
- Scope
- The models, apparatus, protocols, datasets, and comparisons reported in Efficient Measurement of Quantum Gate Error by Interleaved Randomized Benchmarking.
- Boundary
- The result remains an estimator under assumptions and is not identical to application-level failure probability.
- Uncertainty
- No platform-independent uncertainty interval exists; numerical values remain attached to the source experiment or model and its stated assumptions.
- Replication
- This candidate records one bounded source package. Independent replications and contradictory measurements must be compiled as separate records before maturity is upgraded.
Primary sources
Citation, locator, rights, and boundary travel together.
Source 1 · Physical Review Letters, American Physical Society
Efficient Measurement of Quantum Gate Error by Interleaved Randomized Benchmarking
Easwar Magesan, Jay M. Gambetta, Joseph Emerson
- Exact locator
- Abstract; interleaved protocol; bounds; numerical analysis.
- Establishes
- The paper proposes interleaving a target gate with randomized sequences to estimate that gate’s error subject to derived bounds and assumptions.
- Boundary
- The estimate is protocol- and noise-model-dependent and does not replace workload-level or correlated-error characterization.
- Rights basis
- citation with paraphrase · Maha paraphrases the source-level result and links to the version of record; no article passage is reproduced.