Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: quantum process tomography ( qpt ) @xcite is a way to completely characterize a quantum process . it is the main tool for experimental characterization of quantum gates , being developed for potential use in a quantum computer . qpt has been realized in numerous experiments , practically in all types of qubit systems , including , e.g. , nmr @xcite , linear optics @xcite , ion traps @xcite , and superconducting qubits @xcite . in this paper we mainly focus on qpt with superconducting qubits , even though our discussion is applicable to other systems as well . unfortunately , qpt requires resources , which scale exponentially with the number of qubits . for @xmath1 ( superconducting ) qubits the number of initial states is usually @xmath2 ( or sometimes @xmath3 ) , and the number of `` measurement directions '' ( state tomography `` rotations '' ) for each initial state is typically @xmath4 ( or @xmath3 ) . each such setup typically requires a few hundred or a few thousand experimental runs . from this scaling it is easy to estimate that the qpt of a 1-qubit or a 2-qubit quantum gate requires a manageable number of experimental runs , while a 3-qubit qpt is rather difficult to realize , and the full qpt with 4 and more qubits seems to be impractical . the problem of exponential scaling of qpt resources with the number of qubits can be mitigated if we do not need full information about a quantum gate operation , but instead need only some information . thus a partial characterization of a multi - qubit operation is an important area of theoretical research @xcite . this includes randomized benchmarking @xcite , which typically provides only one number : the gate fidelity . randomized benchmarking becomes increasingly preferable for superconducting qubits @xcite . another promising way to solve or a least alleviate the problem of exponential scaling is to use a compressed - sensing implementation of qpt @xcite . one more problem with qpt is its sensitivity to state preparation and measurement errors ( spam in the terminology of ref.@xcite ) . randomized benchmarking does not suffer from spam - errors , so this is another reason why this technique is increasingly popular . however , the obvious drawback of randomized benchmarking is that it gives only the total ( average ) error and does not give any information about particular kinds of error . hence , it does not tell us about the origin of a quantum gate imperfection .    in this paper we consider standard qpt , which gives full information about the quantum process . because of the scaling problem , we are essentially talking about quantum gates with less than 4 qubits , for which full qpt is a very useful tool . the standard way of representing qpt results is via the process matrix @xmath0 @xcite in the pauli basis ( see the next section ) . unfortunately , this matrix is a rather inconvenient object to work with . even though in principle it contains full information about the process , it does not show useful information in a straightforward way . thus the important problem of converting experimental qpt data into a useful characterization of particular decoherence processes @xcite is not quite simple . besides the standard matrix @xmath0 , there are other ways to represent qpt results . for example , they can be represented via the so - called pauli transfer matrix @xmath5 @xcite . the advantage of using @xmath5 is that it contains only real elements , from @xmath5 it is simple to see whether the quantum operation is trace preserving , also simple to see whether the process is unital , and for any clifford operation there is exactly one non - zero element in each row and column of @xmath5 with unit magnitude .    in this paper we discuss one more way of representing the experimental qpt results @xcite . it is essentially the standard @xmath0-matrix representation in the pauli basis , with the only difference being that we factor out the desired unitary operation @xmath6 , so that the error matrix @xmath7 describes only the imperfections of the experimental quantum gate . there are two natural ways to define such an error matrix ( @xmath7 and @xmath8 ) : we can assume that the @xmath6-operation is either before of after the error process ( see fig .  1 below ) . even though in theoretical analyses it is rather usual to separate the error channel and unitary operation , we are not aware of any detailed discussion of the qpt representation by the error matrices . as discussed in this paper , the error matrix @xmath7 ( as well as @xmath8 ) has a number of convenient properties . in particular , its main element is equal to the process fidelity @xmath9 , while other non - zero elements correspond to imperfections . unitary imperfections are directly given by the imaginary parts of the elements along the left column and/or top row . decoherence produces other elements , which have a relatively simple relation to kraus operators characterizing decoherence ( which are the operators in the lindblad equation ) . since the elements of the error matrix are small , most calculations can be approximated to first order , thus making them relatively simple . this includes a relatively simple rule for the composition of quantum operations and accumulation of the error - matrix elements due to the lindblad - form decoherence . the error - matrix representation has already been used in the experimental qpt @xcite . our paper is organized in the following way . in sec.[sec - standard ] we briefly review some properties of the standard process matrix @xmath0 . in sec . [ sec - chi - err ] we introduce the error matrices @xmath7 and @xmath8 , and then in sec .  [ sec - properties ] some of their properties are discussed , including physical interpretation . in sec.[sec - comp ] we consider composition of the error processes . then in sec . [ sec - corr ] we discuss the use of the error matrix to find the necessary unitary correction to an experimental quantum gate . in sec . [ sec - lindblad - error ] we consider the contribution to the error matrix from decoherence described by the lindblad - form master equation . a possible identification of spam errors and their subtraction from the error matrix are discussed in sec.[sec - spam ] . finally , sec . [ sec - concl ] is the conclusion . two appendices discuss topics that are somewhat different from the main text . in appendix a we consider several simple examples of the @xmath0-matrix calculation , and in appendix b we discuss an intuitive interpretation of decoherence described by the lindblad - form master equation , unraveling the quantum dynamics into the `` jump '' and `` no jump '' scenarios . a linear quantum operation @xmath10 ( transforming initial density matrix @xmath11 into the final state @xmath12 ) is usually described via the process matrix @xmath0 ( which is hermitian , with non - negative eigenvalues ) , defined as @xcite _ fin= _ m , n _ mn e_m _ ine_n^ , [ chi - def]where the matrices @xmath13 form a basis in the space of complex @xmath14 matrices , which are the linear operators in the @xmath15-dimensional hilbert space of the problem . for example , for @xmath1 qubits @xmath16 ; therefore there are @xmath17 matrices @xmath13 , and the matrix @xmath0 has dimensions @xmath18 . ( note that @xmath13 are operators in the space of wavefunctions , and these operators have the same dimension as density matrices . ) even though in principle any basis @xmath19 ( not necessarily orthogonal @xcite ) can be used in eq . ( [ chi - def ] ) , the most usual choice for a system of qubits is the use of pauli matrices . in this case for one qubit the basis @xmath19 consists of 4 matrices : i , x_x , y_y , z_z , and for several qubits the kronecker product of these matrices is used ; for example for two qubits @xmath20 . note that sometimes a different definition for @xmath21 is used : @xmath22 . also note that the basis of pauli matrices is orthogonal ( under the hilbert - schmidt inner product ) but not normalized @xcite , so that e_m|e_n ( e_m^e_n ) = _ mnd , d=2^n ; [ emen ] this is why normalization by @xmath15 in often needed in the qpt . in this paper we will always assume the pauli basis @xmath19 and use @xmath23 . therefore @xmath24 , but for clarity we will still write @xmath25 in formulas when appropriate . it is simple to find the matrix @xmath0 for a multi - qubit unitary operation @xmath6 . we first need to find its represention in the pauli basis , @xmath26 , and then compare @xmath27 with eq.([chi - def ] ) , which gives _ mn= u_m u_n^ * , u_n = tr(ue_n^ ) , [ chi - u]where the star notation means complex conjugation and the expression for @xmath28 follows from the orthogonality property ( [ emen ] ) . calculation of the matrix @xmath0 for a quantum process with decoherence is usually significantly more cumbersome . some examples are considered in appendix a ( see also , e.g. ,  @xcite ) . a process is called `` trace - preserving '' if the transformation ( [ chi - def ] ) preserves the trace of the density matrix , i.e.  if @xmath29 when @xmath30 . in this case the matrix @xmath0 should satisfy the condition @xmath31 ( which gives @xmath2 real equations ) , and therefore @xmath0 is characterized by @xmath32 real parameters instead of @xmath33 parameters in the general ( non - trace - preserving ) case . in this paper we always assume a trace - preserving operation . the fidelity of a trace - preserving quantum operation compared with a desired unitary operation is usually defined as f_=tr ( ^des ) , [ fidelity]where @xmath34 is for the desired unitary operation and @xmath0 is for the actual operation ( it is easy to show that @xmath35 ) . this definition has direct relation @xcite 1-f_=(1-f_av ) to the average state fidelity @xmath36 , which assumes uniform averaging over all pure initial states . sometimes @xcite @xmath37 is called `` gate fidelity '' while @xmath9 is called `` process fidelity '' . characterization by @xmath38 is usually used in randomized benchmarking @xcite ; it is easy to see that @xmath39 . note that the fidelity definition ( [ fidelity ] ) requires unitary desired operation and trace - preserving actual operation . for a general ( non - unitary ) desired operation ( still assuming trace - preserving operations ) it should be replaced with the `` uhlmann fidelity '' f_= ( tr)^2=(tr)^2 , which is essentially the same definition as for the fidelity between two density matrices @xcite . the process matrix @xmath0 for a non - trivial unitary operation typically has many non - zero elements ( e.g. , 16 elements for the two - qubit controlled-@xmath41 , controlled - not , and @xmath42 operations ) , and it is nice - looking on the standard bar ( `` cityscape '' ) chart used for visualization . however , a large number of non - zero elements ( we will call them `` peaks '' ) creates a problem in visual comparison between the desired and experimental @xmath0-matrices , especially for high - fidelity experiments . a natural way to make it easier to compare between the actual and desired operations is to show the difference between them , i.e. , to show the error . for example , it is possible to calculate and display the difference @xmath43 in the pauli basis . however , such element - by - element difference does not make much sense mathematically . instead , let us represent the actual quantum process as a _ composition _ of the desired unitary @xmath6 and the error process ( fig .  1 ) , and find the process matrix @xmath7 for this error operation . this essentially reduces the comparison between @xmath0 and desired @xmath6 ( we use a loose language here ) to the comparison between @xmath7 and the memory ( identity ) operation .     and @xmath8 via their relation to @xmath0 and the desired unitary operation @xmath6 . the time runs from left to right.,width=321 ]    so , the general idea is to convert the desired unitary @xmath6 into the memory operation , and this converts @xmath0 into the error process matrix @xmath7 . there are two ways of defining such error matrix : we can place the error process either before or after the desired unitary @xmath6 ( fig .  1 ) . thus , we define two error matrices : @xmath7 and @xmath8 using the relations [ see eq.([chi - def ] ) ] @xmath44    from fig .  1 it is obvious that the process @xmath7 can be represented as the composition of the inverse ideal unitary ( @xmath45 ) and the actual process @xmath0 after that . similarly , @xmath8 is the composition of @xmath0 and inverse unitary @xmath46 after that . hence , @xmath7 and @xmath8 represent legitimate quantum processes and therefore they satisfy all the properties of the usual matrix @xmath0 ( see the previous section ) ; in particular , @xmath7 and @xmath8 are positive hermitian matrices . we will use the standard pauli basis for the error matrices @xmath7 and @xmath8 .    using the composition relation , the error matrices can be calculated from @xmath0 as @xcite @xmath47 in an experiment the error process matrices can be calculated either from @xmath0 using these equations or by directly applying the definitions ( [ chi - err - def ] ) and ( [ tilde - chi - err - def ] ) to the experimental data . for example , to find @xmath8 the measured final density matrices can be transformed numerically as @xmath48 and then the usual procedure of @xmath0 calculation can be applied . note that the matrix @xmath7 can be thought of as the @xmath0-matrix in the rotated basis @xmath49 instead of @xmath19 ; similarly , @xmath8 is formally the @xmath0-matrix in the basis @xmath50 ; however , we will not use this language to avoid possible confusion .    in the ideal ( desired ) case both error processes @xmath7 and @xmath8 are equal to the perfect memory ( identity ) operation , @xmath51 , for which ^*i*_mn=_m0_n0 , [ memory]where with index 0 we denote the left column and/or the top row , which correspond to the unity basis element ( in the usual notation @xmath52 for one qubit , @xmath53 for two qubits , etc . ) ; the process matrix ( [ memory ] ) is given by eq . ( [ chi - u ] ) with @xmath54 . so , in the ideal case the error matrices have only one non - zero element at the top left corner : @xmath55 . therefore , _ any other non - zero element in @xmath7 ( or @xmath8 ) indicates an imperfection of the quantum operation_. this is the main advantage in working with @xmath7 or @xmath56 instead of the usual matrix @xmath0 . there are also some other advantages discussed below . the standard process fidelity ( [ fidelity ] ) for a trace - preserving operation has a very simple form for the error matrices . since @xmath0 , @xmath7 , and @xmath8 are essentially the same operator in different bases , we have @xmath57 . therefore f_= _ 00^err= _ 00^err , [ f - chi - error]i.e . the process fidelity is just the height of the main ( top left ) element of the error matrix @xmath7 or @xmath56 . a systematic unitary error can be easily detected ( to first order ) in the error matrix @xmath7 or @xmath8 because it appears at a special location : it produces non - zero imaginary elements along the top row and left column of the matrix , i.e.  the elements @xmath58 with @xmath59 ( similarly for @xmath8 ) . to see this fact , let us assume that instead of the desired unitary operation @xmath6 , the quantum gate actually realizes a slightly imperfect unitary @xmath60 . then @xmath7 corresponds to the unitary @xmath61 , which can be expanded in the pauli basis as @xmath62 . since @xmath63 , we have @xmath64 and @xmath65 . note that @xmath66 can always be chosen real because @xmath67 is defined up to an overall phase . now let us show that to first order all @xmath68 are purely imaginary . this follows from the first - order expansion of the equation @xmath69 , which gives @xmath70 . hence , @xmath71 for @xmath59 ( purely imaginary @xmath72 ) , and the difference @xmath73 is only of second order ( for a real @xmath66 ) . another way of showing that in the first order @xmath68 are imaginary is by using representation @xmath74 ( neglecting the overall phase ) with a hermitian matrix @xmath75 , so that the expansion @xmath76 contains all real coefficients , while to first order @xmath77 and @xmath78 .    now using eq . ( [ chi - u ] ) we see that to first order the only non - zero elements ( except @xmath79 ) are ( ^err_n0)=-im(^ err_0n ) -i u^err_n , n0 . [ imag - unitary]note that the diagonal elements @xmath80 ( as well as the change of @xmath79 ) in this case are of second order . in particular , in this approximation @xmath81 . as discussed later , if decoherence causes a significant decrease of the fidelity @xmath9 , then a better approximation of the systematic unitary error effect is eq . ( [ imag - unitary ] ) multiplied by the fidelity , ( ^err_n0)-i f_u^err_n . [ imag - unitary-2 ] using this equation it is possible to find @xmath82 from an experimental matrix @xmath7 and therefore estimate the systematic unitary error @xmath67 in the experiment . the same property ( [ imag - unitary ] ) [ and its version ( [ imag - unitary-2 ] ) corrected for @xmath9 ] can be shown for @xmath8 using the similar derivation for the unitary imperfection @xmath84 . the elements @xmath85 are different compared with the matrix elements of @xmath7 ; they are related via the equation @xmath86 or equivalent equation @xmath87 . decoherence produces additional small peaks in the error matrix @xmath7 ( and/or @xmath8 ) . as discussed later , to first order these peaks are linear in the decoherence strength and simply additive for different decoherence mechanisms . therefore , to first order we have a weighted sum of different patterns in @xmath7 for different mechanisms . if these patterns for the most common decoherence mechanisms are relatively simple , then there is a rather straightforward way of extracting information on decoherence from experimental @xmath7 matrix . in sec . [ sec - lindblad - error ] we will discuss the general way to calculate the first - order pattern for a particular decoherence mechanism ; for a practical quantum gate this pattern may contain many elements . a special role is played by the real elements along the top row and left column of @xmath7 ( or @xmath8 ) : they correspond to the gradual non - unitary ( `` bayesian '' ) evolution in the absence of the `` jumps '' due to decoherence ( in contrast to the imaginary elements , which correspond to the unitary imperfection )  see discussion later . note that the diagonal matrix elements of @xmath7 are the error probabilities in the so - called pauli twirling approximation @xcite . therefore these elements can be used in simulation codes , which use the pauli twirling approximation for the analysis of quantum algorithms in multi - qubit systems .    concluding this section , we emphasize that the error matrix @xmath7 ( and/or @xmath8 ) is just a minor modification of the standard @xmath0 matrix ; they are related by a linear transformation and therefore equivalent to each other . however , in the error matrix only one peak ( at the top left corner ) corresponds to the desired operation , while other peaks indicate imperfections . this makes the error matrix more convenient to work with , when we analyze deviations of an experimental quantum operation from a desired unitary and try to extract information about the main decoherence mechanisms . in this paper we always assume high - fidelity operations , 1-f_1 , [ high - fid]so that the first - order approximation of imperfections is quite accurate . since the error matrix @xmath7 is positive , its off - diagonal elements have the upper bound |^err_mn| . ( the same is true for @xmath8 , but for brevity we discuss here only @xmath7 . ) therefore for a high - fidelity operation ( [ high - fid ] ) only the elements in the left column and top row can be relatively large , @xmath88 , while other off - diagonal element have a smaller upper bound , @xmath89 , because all diagonal elements except @xmath90 are small . actually , it is possible to show ( see below ) that @xmath91 are also small , @xmath92 , so only @xmath93 can be relatively large . the elements @xmath93 and @xmath94 play a special role because a unitary imperfection produce them in the first order , while other elements are of second order [ see eq . ( [ chi - u ] ) and discussion in the previous section ] . it is easy to see that @xmath95 and @xmath94 can approach @xmath96 if the error is dominated by the unitary imperfection . the physical intuition in analyzing the error of a quantum gate is that the ( small ) infidelity @xmath97 comes from small unitary imperfections and from rare but `` strong '' decoherence processes , which cause `` jumps '' that significantly change the state . as discussed later , this picture should also be complemented by small non - unitary state change in the case when no jump occurred ( this change is essentially the quantum bayesian update @xcite due to the information that there was no jump ) . it is not easy to formalize this intuition mathematically ; however , there is a closely related procedure . let us diagonalize the error matrix @xmath7 , so that ^err= tdt^-1 , [ diag - chi - err]where @xmath98 is a unitary @xmath99 matrix and @xmath100 is the diagonal matrix containing @xmath101 real eigenvalues of @xmath7 . these eigenvalues are non - negative , and we can always choose @xmath98 so that in @xmath102 they are ordered as @xmath103 . the sum of the eigenvalues is equal 1 ( since we consider trace - preserving operations ) and the largest eigenvalue @xmath104 is close to 1 because @xmath105 . [ here @xmath106 because any diagonal element of a hermitian matrix should be in between the largest and smallest eigenvalues , as follows from expanding the corresponding basis vector in the eigenbasis . ] all other eigenvalues are small because @xmath107 . the diagonalization ( [ diag - chi - err ] ) directly gives the evolution representation via the kraus operators @xcite , @xmath108 in which the operators @xmath109 form an orthogonal basis , @xmath110 [ see eq . ( [ emen ] ) ] because @xmath98 is unitary . recall that @xmath6 is the desired unitary gate  see eq.([chi - err - def ] ) . the main term in the kraus - operator representation ( [ kraus - representation ] ) is the term with @xmath111 ; let us show that @xmath112 ( up to an overall phase , which can always be eliminated ) ; this means @xmath113 and @xmath114 for @xmath59 [ note that @xmath115 because @xmath98 is unitary ; therefore it is sufficient to show that @xmath113 ] . this can be done in the following way . since ^err_mn=_k _ k a_m^(k)(a_n^(k))^ * , [ chi - via - a]the fidelity is f_=_k_k |a_0^(k)|^2 . [ f - sum - k ] the contribution of the terms with @xmath117 to the fidelity is at least smaller than @xmath97 because this is the bound for @xmath118 and @xmath119 for a unitary @xmath98 ( this contribution is actually even much smaller , as discussed below ) . therefore @xmath120 , and so @xmath121 . choosing real @xmath122 , we obtain @xmath113 , and therefore @xmath123 .    since @xmath124 is close to @xmath125 and other @xmath109 are orthogonal to @xmath124 , the components @xmath126 are small for @xmath117 . using the relation @xmath127 ( since @xmath98 is unitary ) , we find the bound @xmath128 . now using @xmath129 , @xmath130 ( see the previous paragraph ) , we obtain @xmath131 , neglecting the terms of the order @xmath132 . this means that the contribution to the fidelity ( [ f - sum - k ] ) from the kraus operators with @xmath133 is limited at least by @xmath134 [ neglecting the order @xmath135 , and therefore a good approximation for the fidelity is f__0 |a_0^(0)|^2 , 1-f_(1-|a_0^(0)|^2 ) + ( 1-_0 ) , [ f - separation]which corresponds to the intuitive separation of the infidelity @xmath97 into the `` coherent '' error @xmath136 and the error @xmath137 due to rare but strong decoherence `` jumps '' . thus the kraus - operator representation ( [ kraus - representation ] ) can be crudely interpreted in the following way . after the desired unitary @xmath6 , we apply the kraus operator @xmath112 with the probability @xmath111 , while with small remaining probabilities @xmath138 we apply very different ( orthogonal to @xmath124 ) kraus operators @xmath109 . imperfection of @xmath124 ( compared with @xmath139 ) leads to the `` coherent '' error @xmath136 with @xmath140 . other kraus operators are practically orthogonal to @xmath141 , so they correspond to `` strong decoherence '' and practically always lead to an error , which happens with the total probability @xmath142 , thus explaining eq . ( [ f - separation ] ) . while this interpretation seems to be quite intuitive , there are two caveats . first , it is incorrect to say that @xmath109 is applied with the probability @xmath138 . instead , we should say @xcite that the evolution scenario |_in , _ in occurs with the probability @xmath143 , which depends on the initial state and is equal to @xmath138 only on average , @xmath144 , after averaging over pure initial states . [ this can be proven by using @xmath145 and @xmath146 . ] note that the operators @xmath109 can violate the inequality @xmath147 , even though @xmath148 is always satisfied . the second caveat is that @xmath124 is not necessarily unitary , as would be naively expected for the separation into a coherent operation and decoherence . the non - unitary part of @xmath124 can be interpreted as due to the absence of jumps @xmath149 , similar to the null - result evolution @xcite ( see below and also discussions in sec .  [ sec - lindblad - error ] and appendix b ) . we may include both contributions ( imperfect unitary part and non - unitary part of @xmath124 ) into what we call the `` coherent error '' , so it is characterized by the difference between @xmath124 and @xmath139 ( probably it is better to call it the `` gradual error '' ) . with understanding of these two caveats , the discussed above interpretation of the kraus representation ( [ kraus - representation ] ) can be useful for gaining some intuition . note that the contribution to @xmath7 [ see eq.([chi - via - a ] ) ] from the imperfection of the main kraus operator @xmath124 mainly causes the elements @xmath150 in the top row and left column of the error matrix ( other elements are of the second order in the imperfection ) . in contrast , other ( `` decoherence jump '' ) operators @xmath109 mainly produce other elements of @xmath151 ; their contribution to @xmath152 is limited by @xmath153 , as follows from the positivity of @xmath154 , which gives @xmath155 , and the derived above inequality @xmath156 . significant contributions to the diagonal elements of @xmath151 may come from both @xmath124 and @xmath149 . therefore , we can apply the following approximate procedure to crudely separate the error matrix , ^err=^coh + ^dec , ^coh_mn= _ 0 a_m^(0)(a_n^(0))^ * , [ chi - coh - dec]into the `` coherent '' ( or `` gradual '' ) part @xmath157 and `` strong decoherence '' @xmath158 [ see eq . ( [ chi - via - a ] ) ] . we first estimate the `` coherent probability '' @xmath104 as _ 0 f_/ ( 1-_n>0    estimation @xmath159 . using @xmath104 and @xmath160 we can construct @xmath161 , while the remaining part of @xmath7 is @xmath158 . the diagonal elements @xmath80 with @xmath59 ( error probabilities ) are thus separated into the contributions @xmath162 due to `` strong decoherence '' . a further simplification of this procedure is to approximate the coherent part as @xmath163 for @xmath164 , @xmath165 , and @xmath166 . one more useful approach for the intuitive understanding of @xmath7 elements along the left column and top row is the following . using the completeness relation ( [ kraus - representation ] ) we can write the main ( `` coherent '' ) kraus operator in the polar decomposition representation as @xmath167 where @xmath168 is some unitary , which corresponds to the unitary imperfection [ since the overall phase is arbitrary , we can choose @xmath169 . then let us expand the operators in the pauli basis , @xmath170 where @xmath82 and @xmath171 are the expansion components , and we introduced the naturally defined unitary error @xmath172 and decoherence error @xmath173 ( average probability of `` jumps '' ) . now using eq . ( [ f - separation ] ) and neglecting the second - order products @xmath174 , we find the intuitively expected formula for fidelity , f_1 - e_u -e_d . similarly , taking into account only the contribution from the main kraus operator , for the elements @xmath175 with @xmath59 we find ^err_n0 ( 1-_u- e_d ) u^err_n + ( 1-e_u-_d ) . [ chi - n0-approx]here @xmath176 are purely imaginary ( in the first order ) because @xmath67 is unitary , while @xmath171 are real because eq.([expansion - dec ] ) is the expansion of a hermitian operator . therefore , we see that the imaginary parts of the elements @xmath177 are due to unitary imperfection , while their real parts come from the absence of `` jumps '' ( described by kraus operators with @xmath133 ) via eq . ( [ a0-pd ] ) . it is easy to see that the evolution @xmath178 is essentially the bayesian update of the quantum state @xcite due the absence of jumps .    in experiments with superconducting qubits the quantum gate infidelity is usually dominated by decoherence , @xmath179 , unless the unitary part is very inaccurate . we will often assume this situation implicitly . in this case case @xmath180 , and from eq . ( [ chi - n0-approx ] ) we obtain eq . ( [ imag - unitary-2 ] ) .    using eqs . ( [ expansion - dec ] ) and ( [ chi - n0-approx ] ) we can show the bound @xmath181 . the starting point is to see that all components of @xmath182 in the pauli basis are not larger than 1 , i.e.  @xmath183 for any @xmath184 . this is because @xmath185 and the product of two pauli operators is a pauli operator ( with a phase factor ) ; therefore a particular ( say , @xmath184th ) component is essentially a sum of pairwise products of the `` vector coordinates '' @xmath186 and the same coordinates @xmath187 in a different order ( also , with phase factors ) . therefore , the sum of products is limited by the norms of the two vectors , which is 1 for both vectors ( @xmath188 are limited by 1 , the sum of @xmath189th contributions to @xmath171 in eq . ( [ expansion - dec ] ) is limited by @xmath190 . this gives @xmath191 via eq . ( [ chi - n0-approx ] ) .    since the elements @xmath192 are small , so that their second - order contributions to the diagonal elements are practically negligible , @xmath193 ^ 2\leq ( 1-f_\chi)^2/4 $ ] , it does not matter much whether we include the evolution due to the `` no - jump '' bayesian update into the `` coherent part '' ( [ chi - coh - dec ] ) or not . note that this bayesian evolution does not produce an additional error since @xmath194/d=1-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k>0}\lambda_k=1-(1-\lambda_0)/2 $ ] and therefore from eq . ( [ a0-pd ] ) we see that @xmath195 , i.e.  the `` no - jump '' scenario brings only the unitary error . in this section we discussed only the error matrix @xmath7 ; however , the same analysis can be also applied to @xmath8 . the relation between the error matrices is @xcite ^err = w_(u)^errw_(u)^ , ^err = w_(u)^^err w_(u ) , [ w - transf]where the unitary matrix @xmath196 corresponds to the effective change of the basis @xmath197 due to @xmath6 , w_(u),mn= tr ( e_m^u e_n u^)/d . [ w - def]note that @xmath198 . it is convenient to think that the @xmath199-transformation ( [ w - transf ] ) is due to the error matrix `` jumping over '' the unitary @xmath6 ( see fig .  1 ) . it is easy to see from eq . ( [ w - def ] ) that @xmath200 ; therefore for an ideal memory @xmath201 and eq . ( [ w - transf ] ) essentially transforms only the difference from the ideal memory . the @xmath202-transformation @xmath203 ( [ w - transf ] ) obviously corresponds to the unitary transformation of kraus operators @xmath109 , `` jumping over '' @xmath6 to the left ( fig .  1 ) , _ k= u^a_k u . these @xmath204 form the kraus - operator representation of @xmath8 with the same `` probabilities '' @xmath138 . let us calculate the error matrix @xmath7 for the composition of two quantum operations : desired unitary @xmath205 with error process @xmath206 and after that the desired unitary @xmath207 with error @xmath208 ( fig .  2 ) . it is obvious that the resulting desired unitary is @xmath209 ( note that the matrix multiplication is from right to left , while on the quantum circuit diagrams the time runs from left to right ) . we assume sufficiently high fidelity of both operations , @xmath210 , @xmath211 [ for brevity we omit the subscript @xmath0 in the notation ( [ f - chi - error ] ) for fidelity ] .     over the unitary @xmath207.,width=321 ]    let us start with the simple case when there are no unitaries , @xmath212 . then the relation between the initial state @xmath11 and the final state @xmath12 is _ fin = _ m , n , p , q ^err_1 , mn ^err_2 , pq e_p e_m _ in e_n^e_q^ , which leads to the usual lengthy expression for the composition of two operations : ^err_ab= _ m , n , p , q ^err_1 , mn ^err_2 , pq ( e_p e_m e_a^ ) tr ( e_q e_n e_b^)^ * , [ comp - gen]where we used relation e_p e_m= _ a ( e_p e_m e_a^ ) e_a ( actually there is only one non - zero term in this relation , but there is no simple way to write it ) . equation ( [ comp - gen ] ) is valid for any two operations ( not necessarily error processes ) and is very inconvenient to use . fortunately , it is greatly simplified for the error processes , since @xmath213 and @xmath214 contain only one large ( close to one ) element , @xmath215 and @xmath216 , while all other elements are small . therefore we can use the first order approximation of eq . ( [ comp - gen ] ) , which gives the simple additive relation @xmath217 for all elements except the main element @xmath79 . the approximation ( [ comp - err-2 ] ) can also be written as ^err _ 1^err+ _ 2^err-^*i*. [ comp - err - matrix ] obviously , it is much easier to deal with the composition of error processes than with the composition of general quantum processes . note that eq . ( [ comp - err ] ) can also be naturally understood using the kraus - operator representation ( [ kraus - representation ] ) in the case when infidelity is dominated by decoherence . the approximation ( [ comp - err ] ) neglects the second - order corrections due to possibly significant coherent errors . while this is good enough for the off - diagonal elements of @xmath7 , let us use a better approximation for the more important diagonal elements ( except @xmath90 ) , explicitly taking into account the top rows and left columns of @xmath218 and @xmath208 in eq . ( [ comp - gen ] ) , _ nn^err f_2 _ 1,nn^err+ f_1 _ 2,nn^err + 2 im(^err_1 , 0n ) im(^err_2 , 0n ) , [ comp - diag ] where the formally similar term @xmath219 is neglected , because the elements @xmath220 can not be relatively large , in contrast to @xmath221 .    for the fidelity the exact and approximate results are @xmath222 where the similar term @xmath223 is neglected again . note that @xmath224 calculated using approximations ( [ comp - diag ] ) and ( [ comp - err - fid2 ] ) is slightly smaller than 1 , but the difference is of second order in infidelity . the reason for taking a special care of the elements @xmath225 and @xmath226 becomes clear if we consider the composition of small unitaries @xmath227 and @xmath228 . then the approximate addition ( [ comp - err-2 ] ) is valid for the first - order off - diagonal elements of @xmath7 ( which are in the left column and top row ) ; however , the diagonal elements are of second order , and for them the errors add up `` coherently '' , generating the `` interference '' term @xmath229 in eq . ( [ comp - diag ] ) . note that the neglected terms @xmath230 have a somewhat similar origin , considering the `` coherent '' composition of the main ( `` no - jump '' ) kraus operators in the representation ( [ kraus - representation ] ) . we emphasize that eqs . ( [ comp - err])([comp - err - fid2 ] ) do not change if we exchange the sequence of @xmath218 and @xmath208 . so in this approximation small imperfections of quantum `` memory '' operations commute with each other , as intuitively expected . note that for the fidelity ( [ comp - err - fid1 ] ) this result is exact : commutation of arbitrary error processes does not change @xmath9 . so far we assumed @xmath212 . now let us consider arbitrary desired unitaries @xmath205 and @xmath207 . then @xmath7 for the composition can be calculated in two steps ( see fig .  2 ) : we first exchange the sequence of @xmath218 and @xmath207 , thus producing the effective error process @xmath231 , and then use the discussed above rule for the composition of two `` memory '' operations @xmath231 and @xmath232 . the transformation of @xmath218 when it `` jumps over '' @xmath207 ( fig . 2 ) is essentially the same as the transformation between @xmath8 and @xmath7 [ see fig .  1 ] and is given by the equation ^err_1(u_2 ) = w_(u_2 ) ^err_1w_(u_2)^ , [ chi - err - jump]where @xmath233 is given by eq . ( [ w - def ] ) . this transformation can also be written as ^err_1(u_2 ) = ^*i*+ w_(u_2 ) ( ^err_1-^*i * ) w^_(u_2 ) , so that only the small difference from the ideal memory operation @xmath234 is being transformed . note that this transformation does not change fidelity , @xmath235 . thus we have a relatively simple procedure to find @xmath7 for the composition of two quantum operations : we first apply the transformation ( [ chi - err - jump ] ) to move the two error processes together ( fig .  2 ) and then apply approximate rules ( [ comp - err])([comp - err - fid2 ] ) to the matrices @xmath236 and @xmath208 . the similar procedure can be used to calculate @xmath8 for the composition of two quantum operations . we should first move @xmath237 to the left by jumping it over @xmath205 , ^err_2(u_1)= w^_(u_1 ) ^ err_2w_(u_1 ) , [ chi-2-u1]and then use the approximate composition rules ( [ comp - err])([comp - err - fid2 ] ) for the error matrices @xmath238 and @xmath239 .    for the composition of several quantum operations @xmath240 , the error processes should be first moved to the end of the sequence by jumping them over the desired unitaries ( or moved to the beginning if we consider the language of @xmath8 ) and then we use the composition rules ( [ comp - err])([comp - err - fid2 ] ) . the procedure further simplifies if we can neglect `` coherent '' errors and use the simple additive rule ( [ comp - err-2 ] ) for all elements ( except @xmath241 ) . in experiments it is often useful to check how large the inaccuracy is of the unitary part of a realized quantum gate and find the necessary unitary corrections to improve fidelity of the gate . the error matrix @xmath7 ( or @xmath8 ) gives us a simple way to do this , because small unitary imperfections directly show up as the imaginary parts of the elements @xmath152 and @xmath177 . let us assume that we apply a small unitary correction @xmath242 after an operation characterized by the desired @xmath6 and error matrix @xmath7 with fidelity @xmath9 . then the process matrix @xmath243 for the correction operation mainly consists of the element @xmath244 and the imaginary first - order elements @xmath245 [ see eq . ( [ imag - unitary ] ) ] , while all other elements are of second order . using eq . ( [ comp - diag ] ) we see that after the correction the elements in the left column of the error matrix approximately change as _ n0^err _ n0^err + f_u_n^corr , [ corr - change]so to correct the unitary imperfection we need to choose u_n^corr - i i m ( _ n0^err)/f _ , [ corr - unitary]which cancels the imaginary part of the left - column elements ( here the factor @xmath246 needs an implicit assumption that the infidelity is dominated by decoherence ) . the increase of the gate fidelity @xmath247 due to this correction procedure can be estimated using eq . ( [ comp - err - fid2 ] ) , f__n0 ( im^ err_n0)^2/f_. [ delta - f]in this derivation the factor of 2 in the second term of eq.([comp - err - fid2 ] ) is compensated by the fidelity decrease due to the first term . the result ( [ delta - f ] ) in the case @xmath248 coincides with what we would expect from the unitary correction in absence of decoherence . the factor @xmath246 in eq . ( [ delta - f ] ) implicitly assumes that the infidelity is dominated by decoherence . note that the fidelity increase @xmath247 is of second order , so in an experiment we should not expect a significant improvement of fidelity due to unitary correction , unless the unitary imperfection is quite big . also note that in an experiment it may be easy to apply a unitary correction only in some `` directions '' , for example , by applying single - qubit pulses , while other corrections may be very difficult . in this case only some of the elements @xmath94 can be compensated , and then the fidelity improvement is given by eq . ( [ delta - f ] ) , in which summation is only over the elements , compensated by the correction procedure . the above analysis of the compensation procedure assumes a small compensation . if the unitary error is large , then to find the optimal correction @xmath249 we can use an iterative procedure , in which we first estimate the correction via eq.([corr - unitary ] ) , then use the exact composition relation ( [ comp - gen ] ) , and then again adjust the correction via eq.([corr - unitary ] ) . our analysis of the unitary compensation procedure assumed application of @xmath249 after the quantum gate . if the compensation is applied before the quantum gate , then it is more natural to use the language of @xmath8 ( see fig . 1 ) ; in this case eqs . ( [ corr - change])([delta - f ] ) remain valid , with @xmath7 replaced by @xmath8 . applying corrections both before and after the gate may in some cases increase the number of correctable `` directions '' in the space of unitary operators .    to illustrate analysis of the unitary corrections , let us consider the two - qubit controlled - z ( cz ) gate in the `` quantum von neumann architecture '' @xcite , in which single - qubit @xmath41-rotations are realizable very easily ( without an additional cost ) , and so such corrections can be easily applied . application of @xmath41-rotation over the small angle @xmath250 to the first qubit and @xmath41-rotation over the small angle @xmath251 to the second qubit produces the correction unitary @xmath252 in the basis @xmath253 . here @xmath254 , but if we can also introduce correction @xmath255 of the cz angle , then it will be @xmath256 . expansion of @xmath249 in the pauli basis gives four non - zero elements : @xmath257 where we used the standard notation for the two - qubit operator basis @xmath258 ; note that the index 0 in the notations of our paper corresponds to @xmath259 . it is important to emphasize that this expansion of @xmath249 is not exactly what we used in eqs.([corr - change ] ) and ( [ corr - unitary ] ) because we assumed real @xmath260 , while @xmath261 in eq.([u - corr - ii ] ) is not real . we therefore need to adjust the overall phase of @xmath249 to make @xmath261 real . this can be easily done by replacing @xmath249 with @xmath262 . however , for small angles @xmath263 this would produce only a small change in eqs.([u - corr - iz])([u - corr - zz ] ) . the left column of @xmath264 therefore contains the same non - zero elements , @xmath265    if we correct only @xmath250 and @xmath251 ( so that @xmath266 ) , then we should choose them [ see eq.([corr - unitary ] ) ] as _ 1 2 i m ( ^err_iz , ii)/f _ , _ 2 2 i m ( ^err_zi , ii)/f _ , [ correct - phi12]where @xmath7 and @xmath267 are measured experimentally . this will cancel the left - column elements @xmath268 and @xmath269 in the corrected quantum gate and produce fidelity improvement @xmath270/f_\chi $ ] . if we can also correct @xmath255 , then we should choose corrections @xmath271 this will cancel the left - column elements @xmath272 , @xmath273 , and @xmath274 in the corrected quantum gate and produce fidelity improvement @xmath275/f_\chi $ ] .    note that @xmath249 commutes with the cz gate , @xmath276 , so it does not matter if the single - qubit corrections are applied before or after the gate ( the @xmath255 correction is obviously a correction of the gate itself ) . similarly , it does not matter if we use @xmath7 or @xmath8 in this correction procedure . let us consider a quantum evolution described by the lindblad - form master equation = - [ h , ] + _ j _ j ( b_j b_j^- b^_jb_j -b^_jb_j ) , [ lindblad - evol]where @xmath277 is the hamiltonian ( which has a significant time dependence for a multi - stage quantum gate ) and @xmath278th decoherence mechanism is described by the kraus operator @xmath279 and the rate @xmath280 . mathematically it is natural to work with the combination @xmath281 ; however , we prefer to keep @xmath282 and @xmath279 separate because they both have clear physical meanings ( see appendix b ) . the imperfection of a quantum gate comes from imperfect control of the hamiltonian @xmath277 and from decoherence . if both imperfections are small , we can consider them separately . so , in this section we assume perfect @xmath277 and analyze the process error matrix due to decoherence only . moreover , we will consider only one decoherence mechanism , since summation over them is simple and can be done later . therefore we will drop the index @xmath278 in eq.([lindblad - evol ] ) and characterize the decoherence process by @xmath283 and @xmath284 .    to find the error matrix @xmath7 ( or @xmath8 ) of such operation , we can divide the total gate duration @xmath285 into small timesteps @xmath286 , for each of them representing the evolution as the desired unitary @xmath287 $ ] and the error process @xmath288 . then using the same idea as in section [ sec - comp ] , we can jump the error processes over the unitaries , moving them to the very end ( for @xmath7 ) or to the very beginning of the gate ( for @xmath8 ) . finally , we can add up the error processes for all @xmath286 using approximations ( [ comp - err])([comp - err - fid2 ] ) .    for small @xmath286 the error matrix @xmath289 can be found by expanding @xmath283 and @xmath290 in the pauli basis , @xmath291 , @xmath292 , and then comparing the decoherence terms in eq.([lindblad - evol ] ) with eq . ( [ chi - def ] ) , @xmath293 it is easy to see that @xmath294 since @xmath24 for the pauli basis , so the left - column and top - row contributions due to the @xmath295-terms in eq .  ( [ b - mn ] ) are real . note that we can always use the transformation @xmath296 in the lindblad equation , which compensates ( zeroes ) the component @xmath297 but changes the hamiltonian , @xmath298 with @xmath299 ( there is no change , @xmath300 , if @xmath283 is hermitian ) . therefore we can use @xmath301 in eq .  ( [ b - mn ] ) , and then the left - column and top - row elements come only from the @xmath295-terms , which correspond to the the terms @xmath302 of the lindblad equation and so correspond to the `` no - jump '' evolution ( see appendix b ) .    thus we have a clear physical picture of where the components of @xmath303 come from : the imaginary parts of the left - column and top - row elements come from the unitary imperfection ( which may also be related to the decoherence - induced change of the hamiltonian ) , the real parts of the left - column and top - row elements come from the `` no - jump '' evolution ( see appendix b ) , and other elements come from the decoherence `` jumps '' , which `` strongly '' change the state ( recall that @xmath283 have only components orthogonal to @xmath139 ) . a similar interpretation has been used in sec . [ sec - properties ] . note that @xmath304 for small @xmath286 because there is practically no unitary evolution . now let us use the language of @xmath8 , which relates the error process to the beginning of the gate ( @xmath305 ) . we can find @xmath8 by moving the error processes @xmath306 to the start of the gate using the transformation relation ( [ chi-2-u1 ] ) and then summing up the error contributions using the approximate additive rule ( [ comp - err - matrix ] ) . in this way we obtain @xmath307 , \\      & &   u(t)=\exp [ \frac{-i}{\hbar } \int_0^t h(t)\ , dt ] ,      \label{u(t ) }   \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath308 is given by eq . ( [ b - mn ] ) , @xmath309 is the unitary evolution occurring within the interval @xmath310 , and eq.([u(t ) ] ) assumes the time - ordering of operators . similar procedure can be used to find @xmath7 ; then we should move the errors to the end of the gate , by jumping them over the remaining unitary @xmath311 , @xmath312 . \qquad       \label{lindblad - w}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    note that the @xmath313-transformation of @xmath308 in eq.([lindblad - chi - err ] ) , @xmath314 , is equivalent to the @xmath315-transformation of the kraus operator @xmath283 , which relates it to the end of the gate , b(t)=u_rem(t ) b u_rem^ ( t ) . [ b(t ) ] therefore instead of eq . ( [ lindblad - chi - err ] ) we can use ^err^*i*+(t ) dt , [ lindblad - chi - err-2]in which @xmath316 is given by eqs . ( [ b - mn])([c - n ] ) using @xmath317 instead of @xmath283 . similarly , instead of eq . ( [ lindblad - chi - err - tilde ] ) we can use ^err^*i*+(t ) dt , in which @xmath318 is given by eqs.([b - mn])([c - n ] ) with ( t)u^(t ) b u(t ) [ tilde - b ] instead of @xmath283 . note that if @xmath283 is orthogonal to @xmath139 ( @xmath301 , see discussion above ) , then @xmath317 and @xmath319 are also orthogonal to @xmath139 , so they still describe `` strong '' error jumps .    since the element @xmath320 does not change in the transformation @xmath321 , in the approximation ( [ lindblad - chi - err ] ) the fidelity is f _ 1-_0^t_g _ n0 |b_n|^2 dt , [ lindblad - f]so that if @xmath322 does not depend on time , then @xmath323 decays linearly with the gate time @xmath285 . ( as discussed above , the element @xmath297 is equivalent to a unitary imperfection , and therefore brings infidelity , which scales quadratically with time . ) an interesting observation is that in this approximation the fidelity does not depend on the desired unitary evolution @xmath309 . therefore , for example , for _ any two - qubit gate _ ( which does not involve higher physical levels in the qubits ) the contribution to the infidelity due to the energy relaxation and ( markovian non - correlated ) pure dephasing of the qubits is 1-f_= + + + , [ lindbad - t1-t2]where @xmath324 is the energy relaxation time , @xmath325 is the pure dephasing time , and the qubits are labeled by superscripts @xmath326 and @xmath327 ( see appendix a ) . the independence of the fidelity ( [ lindblad - f ] ) on the unitary evolution can be understood in the following way . the process fidelity @xmath9 is related to the state fidelity , uniformly averaged over all pure initial states . a unitary evolution does not change the uniform distribution of pure states ; therefore , the average rate of rare `` decoherence jumps '' does not depend on the unitary part . the approximation ( [ lindblad - chi - err - tilde])([lindblad - f ] ) neglects the second - order corrections . in the case of significant coherent errors ( which is not typical when only lindblad - equation decoherence is discussed ) , the natural second - order correction is to add @xmath328 to the elements @xmath329 with @xmath164 and @xmath59 ( we assume @xmath330 ) . since this correction is small , it may be important only for the diagonal elements @xmath80 , because it affects the resulting fidelity @xmath331 . this will introduce correction into eq.([lindblad - f ] ) , which scales quadratically with the gate time @xmath285 . the similar second - order correction @xmath332 can be introduced to the elements of @xmath333 . note that in eqs . ( [ lindblad - chi - err ] ) and ( [ lindblad - chi - err-2 ] ) the elements of @xmath7 are linear in the decoherence rate @xmath322 . therefore the `` pattern '' of @xmath7 elements is determined by the decoherence mechanism characterized by the operator @xmath308 and its transformation @xmath334 , and this pattern is multiplied by the decoherence rate @xmath322 . ( the experimental @xmath151 may need subtraction of the discussed above second - order correction to become linear in @xmath322 . ) if there are several decoherence mechanisms in eq.([lindblad - evol ] ) , then in the first order their contributions to @xmath7 simply add up . therefore , if the patterns for the different decoherence mechanisms @xmath279 are sufficiently simple and distinguishable from each other , then the decoherence rates @xmath282 can be found directly from the experimentally measured @xmath7 ( again , subtraction of the second - order correction may be useful in the case of significant coherent errors ) . a very important difficulty in experimental implementation of the qpt is due to spam errors : imperfect preparation of the initial states and state tomography errors , which include imperfect tomographic single - qubit rotations and imperfect measurement of qubits . in this section we discuss a way , which may help solving this problem . first , let us assume that the imperfect state preparation can be represented as an error channel , which acts on the ideal initial state . if we use @xmath2 initial states of @xmath1 qubits , then the transformation between @xmath2 ideal and real density matrices of the initial states can always be described by a linear transformation , characterized by @xmath33 parameters . so by the number of parameters it seems that the representation of the preparation error by an error channel is always possible . the problem , however , is that this transformation may happen to be non - positive . also , if more than @xmath2 initial states are used in an experiment , then an error - channel representation may be impossible by the number of parameters . nevertheless , we will use this representation , arguing that it can somehow be introduced phenomenologically . similarly , we assume that the imperfections of the tomographic single - qubit rotations and measurement can also be represented as an error channel .     and @xmath335 . , width=302 ]    using these two assumptions , we describe the preparation errors by the error matrix @xmath335 ( which is close to the ideal memory @xmath234 ) , and the tomography / measurement errors are described by @xmath336 ( also close to @xmath234 )  see fig . thus the experimentally measured error matrix @xmath337 is due to @xmath335 , @xmath7 ( which we need to find ) and @xmath336 . the general idea is to measure @xmath335 and @xmath336 by doing the process tomography without the gate ( doing the tomography immediately on the initial states ) and then subtract this spam error from @xmath338 to obtain @xmath7 . so , the procedure which first comes to mind is to use @xmath339 , where @xmath340 is the experimentally measured @xmath0 without the gate . however , in general this would be wrong . the reason is that without the gate we measure the simple sum of the spam - error components [ see eq.([comp - err - matrix ] ) ] , ^err , i^prep+ ^meas -^*i * , but in the presence of the gate @xmath6 the preparation error @xmath341 changes because it is `` jumped over '' @xmath6 [ see sec.[sec - comp ] and eq . ( [ chi - err - jump ] ) ] , so that ^err , exp ^err + w_(u)(^prep -^*i*)w_(u)^+ ( ^meas -^*i * ) , [ spam - exp]where @xmath196 is given by eq . ( [ w - def ] ) . therefore to find the actual error matrix @xmath7 from the experimental @xmath338 , it is insufficient to know @xmath342 . we can still find @xmath7 from eq.([spam - exp ] ) , but we need to know @xmath335 and @xmath336 separately .    the idea how to find both @xmath335 and @xmath336 is to do a calibration qpt with a set of gates with very high fidelity , for which the error is negligible , and then use eq . ( [ spam - exp ] ) to separate the changing contribution from @xmath335 and non - changing contribution from @xmath343 . for example , in experiments with superconducting qubits the one - qubit @xmath344 and @xmath345 rotations about @xmath346 and @xmath21 axes usually have much better fidelity than two - qubit or multi - qubit gates . therefore , for the qpt of a two - qubit or multi - qubit gate we can rely on the spam - error identification using these one - qubit gates . let us start with considering a single qubit and discussing the change @xmath347 of the preparation error contribution , when we apply a high - fidelity @xmath346 gate , @xmath348 . by using eq . ( [ spam - exp ] ) or by simply comparing the terms in the equation @xmath349 , it is easy to find that this transformation flips the signs of the off - diagonal elements @xmath350 , @xmath351 , @xmath352 , and @xmath353 of @xmath341 ( the same for the symmetric , complex - conjugate elements ) , while the off - diagonal elements @xmath354 and @xmath355 ( and symmetric elements ) do not change . the diagonal elements do not change , as expected for a pauli twirling . similarly , if we apply the high - fidelity @xmath21 gate , then the off - diagonal elements @xmath354 , @xmath351 , @xmath352 , and @xmath355 flip the sign , while the elements @xmath350 and @xmath353 do not change . recall that the contribution from @xmath336 does not change . therefore , by comparing @xmath338 for the gates @xmath346 , @xmath21 , and @xmath356 ( no gate ) , we can find separately all the off - diagonal elements of @xmath335 and @xmath336 .    to find diagonal elements of @xmath335 and @xmath336 , we can use high - fidelity gates @xmath357 ( @xmath345 rotation over @xmath346 axis ) and @xmath358 ( @xmath345 rotation over @xmath21 axis ) . the gate @xmath357 exchanges diagonal elements @xmath359 and @xmath360 of @xmath335 ( it also exchanges and flips signs of some off - diagonal elements , but for simplicity we focus on the diagonal elements only ) . similarly , the operation @xmath358 exchanges the elements @xmath361 and @xmath360 of @xmath335 . since the elements of @xmath336 do not change , we can find the diagonal elements of @xmath335 and @xmath336 separately . actually , this can not be done in the unique way , because the contributions proportional to @xmath139 in @xmath362 and in @xmath363 are indistinguishable from each other ( these are the depolarization - channel contributions ) . however , this non - uniqueness is not important because any choice gives the same spam - error contribution to @xmath338 .    in this way , by doing qpt of the gates @xmath346 , @xmath21 , @xmath357 , @xmath358 and @xmath356 for a single qubit , we can find @xmath335 and @xmath336 ( assuming that these gate are nearly perfect in comparison with preparation and measurement errors ) . for two or more qubits we can do the similar procedure , applying the combinations of these 5 single - qubit gates , and thus identifying all the elements of the multi - qubit matrices @xmath335 and @xmath336 . in fact , the system of equations for this identification is overdetermined , so we can either use an ad - hoc way of calculating the elements or use the numerically efficient least - square method ( via the pseudo - inverse ) . note that the described procedure has an obvious relation to the pauli and clifford twirling , but for us it is sufficient to use only a small subset of operations , and we do not average the result .    the described procedure of the spam - error identification [ which is then subtracted from @xmath338 using eq.([spam - exp ] ) ] is surely very cumbersome . however , this is at least some way to deal with the spam problem , which does not seem to have a simple solution . moreover , there are several ways to make experimental procedure less cumbersome , which are discussed next . the situation is greatly simplified if the spam - error is dominated by only one component : either @xmath335 or @xmath336 . if @xmath335 is negligible , then from eq . ( [ spam - exp ] ) we see that the error matrix of the analyzed multi - qubit gate @xmath6 can be estimated as ^err^err , exp-(^err , i-^*i * ) , so besides the standard qpt of the @xmath6 gate we only need the qpt of no operation ( @xmath356 gate ) . in the opposite limit when @xmath343 is negligible , it is easier to use the language of @xmath364 , because we can neglect the change of @xmath336 when it is jumped over @xmath6 to the left . in this case ^err^err , exp-(^err , i-^*i * ) ; recall that @xmath365 .    when both @xmath335 and @xmath336 are significant in the spam - error , it is still possible to simplify the described above procedure by using the idea of compressed - sensing qpt @xcite . in contrast to the usual application of the compressed - sensing idea to the qpt of the gate @xmath6 , we can apply it to find @xmath335 and @xmath343 by using a small random subset of @xmath366 combinations of single - qubit gates in the procedure . it is also possible to combine the random choice of the gates with the random choice of initial states and measurement directions , thus further reducing the amount of experimental work . it is important to emphasize that we do not need to know the matrices @xmath335 and @xmath336 very precisely , so their compressed - sensing estimate should be sufficient . one more idea , which may be practically useful , is to measure @xmath367 and select only few significant peaks in it . for each of these peaks we identify which contribution to it comes from @xmath368 and from @xmath336 by applying just one or a few single - qubit rotations , which change this particular peak . it is beneficial to choose the rotations , which affect more than one significant peak of @xmath367 . in this way a relatively small number of qpts is sufficient to find the significant peaks of @xmath335 and @xmath336 . then by using eq . ( [ spam - exp ] ) we estimate the spam contribution for the multi - qubit gate @xmath6 and subtract it from the experimental error matrix @xmath338 to find `` actual '' @xmath7 . note that we do not need a complicated procedure to find the `` actual '' process fidelity @xmath9 of the gate @xmath6 . if the spam errors can be represented by the error channels ( fig . 3 ) and if there are no significant coherent spam errors , then f_f_^exp / f_^i , [ spam - fid]where @xmath369 and @xmath370 are the experimentally measured fidelities for the gate @xmath6 and no gate , respectively [ see eq . ( [ comp - err - fid2 ] ) ] . in this paper we have discussed representation of quantum operations via the error matrices . instead of characterizing an operation by the standard process matrix @xmath0 , we separate the desired unitary operation @xmath6 and the error process , which is placed either after or before @xmath6 ( fig .  1 ) . this defines two error matrices : @xmath7 and @xmath8 [ eqs.([chi - err - def ] ) and ( [ tilde - chi - err - def ] ) ] . we use the standard pauli basis @xmath197 for all process matrices . the error matrices @xmath7 and @xmath8 are related to @xmath0 via unitary transformations [ eqs . ( [ chi - err - chi ] ) and ( [ chi - tilde - err - chi ] ) ] , as well as to each other [ eqs.([w - transf ] ) and ( [ w - def ] ) ] . therefore the error matrices are equivalent to @xmath0 ; however , they are more convenient to use than @xmath0 . the error matrices have only one large element , which is located at the top left corner and is equal to the process fidelity @xmath9 . any other non - zero element corresponds to an imperfection of the quantum gate . therefore , the bar chart of @xmath7 ( or @xmath8 ) is a visually convenient way of representing the imperfections of an experimental quantum gate . the elements of @xmath7 ( or @xmath8 ) have more intuitive physical meaning related to the operation imperfection , than the elements of @xmath0 ( even though the meaning of most of the elements is still not as intuitive as we would wish ) . it is important that since the error - matrix elements are small for a high - fidelity gate , the first - order approximation is typically sufficient . the imaginary parts of the elements in the left column and top row correspond to the unitary imperfection , @xmath371 where the correction factor @xmath372 can be taken seriously only if most of infidelity comes from decoherence . the real parts of the elements in the left column and top row correspond to the small non - unitary change of the quantum state in the case when no `` jumps '' due to decoherence occur ( this change is due to the bayesian update , see appendix b ) . it is natural to combine this non - unitary change with the unitary imperfection into a `` coherent '' ( or `` gradual '' ) state change , which happens in absence of `` jumps '' . finally , other elements of @xmath329 , with @xmath164 and @xmath59 , correspond to the strong `` jumps '' of the quantum state due to decoherence . these jumps are characterized by kraus operators practically orthogonal to @xmath139 and therefore always bring an error ( see discussions in secs.[sec - properties ] and [ sec - lindblad - error ] ) . the diagonal elements @xmath373 with @xmath59 ( probabilities of @xmath13-type errors in the pauli twirling approximation @xcite ) have contributions from both the `` coherent '' imperfection and decoherence `` jump '' processes ; however , the `` coherent '' contribution to @xmath373 is of second order ( crudely , @xmath374 or @xmath375 ) , so typically the main contribution is expected to be from decoherence , unless the unitary part is very inaccurate . we mainly discuss @xmath7 , but everything is practically the same in the language of @xmath8 .    the composition of two error processes in the absence of desired unitary operations can be represented in the first order as a simple addition of the corresponding error matrices [ eqs.([comp - err])([comp - err - matrix ] ) ] . however , if for @xmath376 sequential error processes the `` coherent '' elements @xmath377 add up with the same phases and thus the sum grows linearly with @xmath376 , then the second - order contribution ( in particular , to the diagonal elements @xmath373 ) grows as @xmath378 , and for large @xmath376 it can become significant in comparison with the first - order decoherence contribution , which grows linearly with @xmath376 . for a composition of two quantum gates with non - trivial desired unitaries we need first to `` jump '' the error process over the unitary ( see fig . 2 ) , that is described by the transformation ( [ chi - err - jump ] ) , and then add the error matrices . essentially the same procedure can be done to calculate the error matrix contribution due to the lindblad - form decoherence in a quantum gate , which has finite duration and non - trivial evolution in time . for each short time step @xmath286 the decoherence produces a contribution to @xmath7 [ eq .  ( [ chi - err - b - mn ] ) ] , but this contribution should be `` jumped over '' the unitary evolution to the beginning or the end of the gate before being summed up [ eqs.([lindblad - chi - err - tilde ] ) and ( [ lindblad - chi - err ] ) ] . the equivalent language is to `` jump '' the decoherence kraus operators over the desired unitaries , before the summation of error matrices [ eqs . ( [ b(t)])([tilde - b ] ) ] . it is interesting that in the leading order the contribution to the infidelity @xmath97 from the decoherence ( if it occurs within the same hilbert space ) does not depend on the desired unitary evolution [ eqs . ( [ lindblad - f ] ) and ( [ lindbad - t1-t2 ] ) ] .    since the elements @xmath94 directly tell us about the unitary imperfection , it is easy to find the needed unitary correction [ eq . ( [ corr - unitary ] ) ] and the corresponding fidelity improvement [ eq . ( [ delta - f ] ) ] . however , the fidelity improvement is of second order and therefore is typically not expected to be significant . we have considered a particular example of correcting a cz gate using single - qubit @xmath41-rotations and cz - phase corrections [ eqs.([correct - phi12])([correct - czphase ] ) ] . the qpt suffers from errors in preparing the initial states and tomography measurement ( spam errors ) . while this problem does not seem to have a simple solution , in sec . [ sec - spam ] we have discussed a way , which may be helpful in alleviating this problem . a natural idea is to measure the error matrix @xmath367 in the absence of the gate and then subtract it from the measured error matrix @xmath338 of the characterized gate @xmath6 . however , this idea works only if the spam is dominated by one type of error : either at the preparation or at the tomography measurement . in general we need to know the contributions @xmath335 and @xmath336 from both errors separately because their addition depends on the gate @xmath6 [ eq .  ( [ spam - exp ] ) ] . this can be done if some high - fidelity single - qubit gates are available ; then analyzing the change of @xmath338 with application of different high - fidelity gates , we can separate the contributions from @xmath335 and @xmath336 . note that this method assumes that the spam - errors can be represented as error processes at the preparation and tomography stages ; the accuracy of this assumption is questionable . one of the ways to check this assumption is to check one of its predictions : eq . ( [ spam - fid ] ) says that the `` actual '' fidelity of a quantum gate is the ratio of its qpt - measured fidelity and fidelity of the no - gate operation . the gate fidelity calculated in this way can then be compared with the fidelity obtained from the randomized benchmarking . the appendices of this paper are to a significant extent separated from the main text . in appendix a we consider several simple examples of @xmath0-matrices for unitary evolution and decoherence , including the energy relaxation and pure dephasing ( markovian and non - markovian ) . in appendix b we discuss unraveling of the lindblad - form evolution into the `` jump '' and `` no - jump '' scenarios , which can bring useful intuition in the analysis of decoherence ; several examples are considered to illustrate the technique . reiterating the main point of this paper , we think that characterization of quantum gates by error matrices in the pauli basis is a convenient way of presenting experimental qpt results . the author thanks yuri bogdanov , abraham kofman , justin dressel , andrzej veitia , jay gambetta , michael geller , and john martinis for useful discussions . the research was funded by the office of the director of national intelligence ( odni ) , intelligence advanced research projects activity ( iarpa ) , through the army research office grant no . w911nf-10 - 1 - 0334 . all statements of fact , opinion , or conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the official views or policies of iarpa , the odni , or the u.s . government . we also acknowledge support from the aro muri grant no . w911nf-11 - 1 - 0268 . in this appendix we consider several simple examples of the quantum processes , for which we calculate the standard process matrix @xmath0 of the qpt . the matrix @xmath0 is defined via eq . ( [ chi - def ] ) , which is copied here for convenience , _ _ mn e_m _ ine_n^. [ chi - def-2]for the operator basis @xmath19 we use the pauli basis , so that for one qubit it consists of four pauli matrices , @xmath379 while for several qubits the kronecker ( direct , outer , tensor ) product of these matrices is used . we use the notation @xcite in which @xmath380 .        as a very simple example , let us calculate the matrix @xmath0 for a @xmath41-rotation of a qubit over the angle @xmath381 . this realizes the unitary operator @xmath6 , which acts as @xmath382 , we have in general @xmath383 . let us represent @xmath6 in the pauli basis , u = (    cc 1&0 + 0&e^i    ) = e^i/2 ( ( ) i -i ( ) z ) , [ u - z]where the unimportant overall phase factor @xmath384 does not affect the density matrix evolution , so that _ fin = [ ( ) i -i ( ) z ] _ in [ ( ) i + i ( ) z ] [ rho - for - z](note that the pauli matrices are herimitian , so we do not need to conjugate them ) . now by comparing eq . ( [ rho - for - z ] ) with eq . ( [ chi - def-2 ] ) we immediately find @xmath385 other elements are zero . it is easy to see that the method of finding @xmath0 by comparing eq . ( [ rho - for - z ] ) with eq.([chi - def-2 ] ) is equivalent to using eq . ( [ chi - u ] ) .    in a similar way we can calculate the matrix @xmath0 for a one - qubit @xmath346-rotation over angle @xmath381 . the result is obviously the same as eqs . ( [ chi - z-1])([chi - z-2 ] ) , with index @xmath41 replaced by @xmath346 : @xmath386 , @xmath387 , @xmath388 . similarly , for @xmath21-rotations we replace @xmath41 in eqs.([chi - z-1])([chi - z-2 ] ) with @xmath21 . a qubit rotation about an axis @xmath389 on the bloch sphere over an angle @xmath381 corresponds to the unitary operator @xcite u== ( ) i - i ( ) ( ) , where @xmath390 . note that this formula neglects the overall phase factor ( which does not exist in the bloch - sphere space ) , as seen by comparing it with eq . ( [ u - z ] ) . using eq . ( [ chi - u ] ) or , alternatively , comparing equation @xmath383 with the definition ( [ chi - def-2 ] ) , we still can easily find the elements of the @xmath0-matrix ; now all 16 elements are in general non - zero , though they are determined by only 3 real parameters . let us start with the case when the first qubit is @xmath41-rotated over the angle @xmath381 , while the second qubit is `` idling '' . then the unitary operator is @xmath391 \otimes i$ ] , and eq . ( [ rho - for - z ] ) becomes _ fin = [ ( i -i z)i ] _ in [ ( i + i z)i ] , [ rho - for - z-2]where for brevity we omit the argument @xmath392 of sines and cosines . comparing this equation with ( [ chi - def-2 ] ) , we have to use double - letter combinations for both indices @xmath393 and @xmath184 ; however , we see that the second - qubit letter is always @xmath356 , so we essentially obtain the single - qubit result ( [ chi - z-1])([chi - z-2 ] ) with added index @xmath356 for the second qubit : @xmath394    as another example , let us consider the controlled - phase operation ( note that our use of the name `` controlled - phase '' is different from the terminology of ref . @xcite ) , @xmath395 where in this ( rather sloppy ) notation we omit the kronecker product sign `` @xmath396 '' . by comparing @xmath397 with ( [ chi - def-2 ] ) we obtain 16 non - zero elements : @xmath398    the controlled - phase gate becomes the cz gate at @xmath399 . then @xmath400 , and all 16 elements of @xmath0 in eqs.([c - p-1])([c - p-5 ] ) become @xmath401 . note that if in an experimental realization the phase @xmath402 fluctuates symmetrically around @xmath344 with a small variance @xmath403 , then the element @xmath404 increases by @xmath405 , while other 15 elements decrease in absolute value by @xmath406 . for the perfect cnot gate ( with the first qubit being the control ) the unitary can be represented as u = i + x , [ u - cnot]where we used the relations @xmath407 and @xmath408 ( here we again use the notation `` @xmath396 '' for more clarity ) . then non - zero elements of @xmath0 are @xmath409 as directly follows from the combinations of 4 terms in eq.([u - cnot ] ) .    for the perfect @xmath42 gate the unitary is @xmath410 so the non - zero elements of the matrix @xmath0 are given by the pairwise products of these 4 terms , @xmath411        it is very easy to find the matrix @xmath0 for one qubit with pure dephasing ( assuming no other evolution ) . after waiting for time @xmath412 , the qubit is @xmath41-rotated over a random angle @xmath381 . from the definition @xmath413 we see that for a random evolution we simply need to average the @xmath0-matrix over the possible evolution realizations . therefore the @xmath0-matrix for pure dephasing is given by averaging eqs . ( [ chi - z-1])([chi - z-2 ] ) : @xmath414 where @xmath415 denotes averaging over realizations . for a symmetric probability density distribution of @xmath381 we get @xmath416 and therefore @xmath417 , so the only non - zero elements are @xmath418 and @xmath419 . it is important to emphasize that the result ( [ deph-1 ] ) does not assume exponential dephasing ; it remains valid for an `` inhomogeneous '' contribution to the dephasing ( slightly different qubit frequencies in different experimental runs ) and/or the `` 1/f '' contribution ( when the qubit frequency fluctuation has a broad range of timescales ) . it is also important that the value @xmath420 which determines @xmath419 can be directly obtained from the ramsey - fringes data . let us consider the ramsey protocol : start with @xmath421 , apply @xmath345 @xmath346-rotation , wait time @xmath412 , apply the second @xmath345 rotation about the axis , which is shifted from @xmath346 by an angle @xmath422 in the equatorial plane of the bloch sphere , and finally measure the probability @xmath423 of the state @xmath424 . it is easy to find that for a pure dephasing ( including non - exponential case ) p(|1 ) = + = + , where for the second equation we assumed @xmath425 . in the case of exponential dephasing characterized by the dephasing time @xmath325 , we have @xmath426 . in the general case the time dependence of @xmath427 is arbitrary ; however , it can be found experimentally from the amplitude of the ramsey oscillations and then can be used in eq . ( [ deph-1 ] ) to obtain @xmath419 . it is important to mention that experimentally @xmath325 is often defined as the time at which @xmath428 . if the qubit dephasing is due to fast ( `` white noise '' ) fluctuations of the qubit energy , then @xmath429 and correspondingly @xmath430 , so that at short time , @xmath431 , there is a linear dependence , _ zzt/2t_. however , if the pure dephasing is dominated by the very slow fluctuations of the qubit energy , then @xmath432 $ ] and the ramsey - fringes dependence has a gaussian shape . in this case at @xmath433 the dephasing error is quadratic in time , _ zzt^2/2t_^2 . in the presence of both mechanisms = ( -t / t _ , fast ) ; this formula can also be used as an approximation in the case of a broad range of the fluctuation timesclales . the corresponding @xmath419 is still given by eq . ( [ deph-1 ] ) .    note that in the presence of energy relaxation ( discussed later ) the value of @xmath427 can still be directly extracted from the ramsey - fringes data  see eq.([ramsey - t1-deph ] ) below . now let us calculate the matrix @xmath0 taking into account the qubit energy relaxation , but assuming the absence of pure dephasing . let us start with the zero - temperature case ( relaxation to the state @xmath421 only ) . using `` unraveling '' of the energy relaxation in the same way as in refs . @xcite and @xcite ( see also appendix b ) , we may think about two probabilistic scenarios : |0+|1\ {    c |0 with prob . p_r=||^2 ( 1-e^-t / t_1 ) + with prob . ( in the case of no relaxation the state evolves due to the bayesian update ) . this corresponds to the technique of kraus operators and for the density matrix gives _ in a_r _ in a_r^+ a_no _ in a_no^ , [ rel - kraus - eq]where the kraus operators @xmath434 ( for the scenario with relaxation ) and @xmath435 ( for the scenario with no relaxation ) are a_r =(    cc0 & + 0 & 0    ) , a_no =(    cc 1 & 0 + 0 & e^-t/2t_1    ) . note that @xmath436 ( the completeness relation ) . here we use the standard kraus - operator representation @xcite , in contrast to the somewhat modified representation ( [ kraus - representation ] ) .    to find the @xmath0-matrix , we expand the kraus operators in the pauli basis , @xmath437 now comparing evolution ( [ rel - kraus - eq ] ) with the form ( [ chi - def-2 ] ) , we collect the @xmath0-matrix elements ( the relaxation term brings elements involving @xmath346 and @xmath21 , while the no - relaxation term brings elements with @xmath356 and @xmath41 ) : @xmath438 note that at small @xmath439 the element @xmath419 is quadratic in time ( very small ) , while other elements ( except @xmath418 ) are linear in time ( in this case @xmath440 , as expected from the discussion in sec . [ sec - properties ] ) . also note that the non - zero elements in the left column and top row ( @xmath441 and @xmath442 ) are real and come from the no - relaxation scenario ( see sec . [ sec - properties ] ) .    for a non - zero temperature there are two kinds of the relaxation processes ( up and down ) with the rates @xmath443 and @xmath444 satisfying the standard relations @xmath445 and @xmath446 , where @xmath98 is temperature and @xmath447 is the energy difference between the qubit states ; this gives @xmath448 . correspondingly , there are three scenarios with the kraus operators @xmath449 then in a similar way as above we find the @xmath0-matrix elements : @xmath450      phase evolution commutes with the energy relaxation , therefore we may apply @xmath41-rotation over a random angle @xmath381 after the energy relaxation . the @xmath41-rotation does not affect scenario(s ) with relaxation , so we need to change only the kraus operator for the no - relaxation scenario : @xmath451 , then calculate the corresponding elements of the @xmath0-matrix in the same way as above and average over @xmath381 . therefore , the elements @xmath452 , @xmath453 , @xmath454 , @xmath455 due to energy relaxation will not be affected by the pure dephasing ( since they come from the relaxation scenario ) . the calculation shows that the elements @xmath441 and @xmath442 are also not affected when @xmath456 ( satisfied for a symmetric noise ) , so the only affected elements are @xmath419 and @xmath418 , which are non - zero for both decoherence mechanisms . using again the condition @xmath457 , it is easy to find @xmath458 where @xmath459 and @xmath460 correspond to pure dephasing and energy relaxation , and were calculated above [ eqs.([deph-1 ] ) and ( [ rel - temp-1])([rel - temp-5 ] ) ] . for completeness let us also show the unaffected elements : @xmath461    another way of deriving eqs.([deph+rel - zz])([deph+rel - iz ] ) is the following . let us apply pure dephasing after energy relaxation and write the composition of quantum operations as _ m , n _ mn _ mn^rel _ mn^deph e_m e_m _ ine_n^e_n^. [ chi - composition]even though a product of pauli matrices is a pauli matrix ( possibly with a phase factor ) and therefore @xmath0-matrix of a composition of operations can in principle be calculated in a straightforward way , usually this is a very cumbersome procedure . however , in our case the matrix @xmath459 has only two non - zero elements ( @xmath462 and @xmath463 ) , so the calculation is not very long and leads to eqs.([deph+rel - zz])([deph+rel - iz ] ) . now when we have explicit formulas for the @xmath0-matrix elements , which depend on @xmath439 , temperature , and @xmath464 , let us discuss again how to extract @xmath464 from the ramsey - fringes data . in the presence of energy relaxation ( at arbitrary temperature ) the ramsey oscillations are @xmath465 therefore , if the energy relaxation time @xmath324 is measured separately , the ramsey data give the value of @xmath466 at any time @xmath412 . this value can be used to calculate the @xmath0-matrix even in the case of arbitrary non - exponential dephasing . now let us discuss the @xmath0-matrix at a relatively short time @xmath412 and neglect the terms quadratic in time . then we obtain @xmath467 in the case of exponential pure dephasing @xmath468 , and then @xmath469 , where @xmath470 and @xmath471 is the dephasing time . in this appendix we discuss the technique of kraus operators applied to the evolution described by the standard lindblad - form master equation . we show that each lindblad term describes two evolutions : a `` jump '' process with some rate and a continuous evolution between the jumps caused by the absence of jumps . such interpretation can be useful in intuitive analysis of decoherence processes . a markovian evolution of a quantum system is usually described by the lindblad - form master equation [ for convenience we copy eq.([lindblad - evol ] ) here ] = - [ h , ] + _ n _ n ( b_nb_n^- b_n^b_n- b_n^b_n ) , [ lindblad]where the first term describes the unitary evolution due to the hamiltonian @xmath472 , while the @xmath184th decoherence mechanism is described by the `` rate '' @xmath473 ( real number with dimension s@xmath474 ) and dimensionless operator @xmath475 . note that mathematically @xmath473 can be absorbed by redefining @xmath476 ; however , we do not do this because @xmath473 and @xmath475 have separate physical meanings . our goal here is to discuss a simple physical interpretation of the decoherence terms in the lindblad equation . for simplicity let us neglect the unitary evolution ( @xmath477 ) and consider first only one decoherence mechanism ; then we can omit the index @xmath184 ( summation over @xmath184 is simple ) . it is easy to check that the term @xmath478 corresponds to the abrupt change ( `` jump '' ) of the state | = , = , [ jump]which occurs with the rate ( jump probability per second ) = || b|||^2 , = tr ( b b^ ) = tr ( b^b ) . [ rate](here we show the formulas in both the wavefunction and density matrix languages ; the wavefunction language is usually more convenient to use . ) note a possible confusion in terminology : both @xmath322 and @xmath479 are rates ; to distinguish them let us call @xmath322 the `` process rate '' or just `` rate '' , while @xmath479 will be called `` jump rate '' . the remaining term @xmath480 in the lindblad form corresponds to the jump process ( [ jump ] ) _ not happening_. the physical reason of this evolution `` when nothing happens '' is the same as the partial collapse in the null - result measurement @xcite : this is essentially the bayesian update @xcite , which accounts for the information that the jump did not happen . therefore , _ the physical meaning of the lindblad form is the description of two scenarios : the jump process either happening or not happening . _    to see this mathematically , let us use the technique of kraus operators @xcite , in which the evolution @xmath481 is unraveled into the probabilistic mixture of `` scenarios '' described by kraus operators @xmath109 ,    @xmath482 [ in the wavefunction language @xmath483 . the sum of the probabilities should be equal to 1 , which leads to the completeness relation _ k a_k^a_k = . [ completeness]note the change of notations compared with eq.([kraus - representation ] ) .    during a short time @xmath286 the evolution ( [ lindblad ] ) can be described by two scenarios : the jump either occurs or not , with the corresponding kraus operators @xmath484 and @xmath435 . for the jump scenario a_jump= b , so that @xmath485 gives the same contribution to @xmath486 as the term @xmath487 in eq.([lindblad ] ) . the no - jump kraus operator @xmath435 should satisfy the completeness relation ( [ completeness ] ) , @xmath488 . using the bayesian - update approach @xcite in which @xmath489 , we find @xmath490 note that @xmath491 is a positive hermitian operator and @xmath492 is also a positive operator . a square root of a positive operator is defined via taking square roots of its eigenvalues in the diagonalizing basis . this is why in eq . ( [ a - no ] ) we deal with operators essentially as with numbers .    using eq . ( [ a - no-2 ] ) for @xmath435 , we find in the linear order a_no a_no^- t b^b - t b^b , [ a - no - evol]with this linear - order approximation becoming exact at @xmath493 . it is easy to see that eq . ( [ a - no - evol ] ) gives the evolution described by the term @xmath494 in the lindblad form ( [ lindblad ] ) . thus we have shown that the lindblad - form master equation ( [ lindblad ] ) with one decoherence term describes a jump process @xmath283 [ see eq . ( [ jump ] ) ] occurring with the jump rate ( probability per second ) @xmath495 . in the case of several decoherence mechanisms there are several kraus operators @xmath496 describing the jumps @xmath497 during a short duration @xmath286 . the no - jump kraus operator in this case is @xmath498 , which contributes to all terms @xmath499 in eq . ( [ lindblad ] ) . note that eq . ( [ a - no ] ) and its generalization for several processes is not the unique form for @xmath435 , which follows from the completeness relation ( [ completeness ] ) . it is formally possible to add an arbitrary unitary rotation @xmath6 , so that @xmath500 , which does not affect @xmath501 . using a natural assumption that @xmath502 at @xmath503 , we can expand @xmath6 in the linear order as @xmath504 , where @xmath505 should be a hermitian matrix . then @xmath506 acquires the extra term @xmath507\delta t$ ] , from which we see that @xmath505 is essentially an addition to the hamiltonian @xmath472 . so the formalism permits a change of the hamiltonian due to decoherence , and therefore @xmath472 in eq.([lindblad ] ) should be considered as the effective hamiltonian ( which may include the `` lamb shift '' mechanism ) .        for a qubit relaxation from the excited state @xmath424 to the ground state @xmath421 with the rate @xmath508 , the jump operator is @xmath509 , where the ground state corresponds to the upper line , so that @xmath510 , @xmath511 . in this case @xmath512 , so that the no - jump evolution during time @xmath286 changes the qubit state as |0+|1 , [ qubit - relax - no - jump]while in the case of jump obviously @xmath513 can be taken into account in the similar way using an additional lindblad - form term . the physical mechanism of the markovian pure dephasing in superconducting qubits is the fast ( `` white noise '' ) fluctuations of the qubit energy , which leads to random fluctuations of the qubit phase @xmath514 , so that the random phase shift @xmath515 accumulated during a short time @xmath286 has the gaussian probability distribution with zero mean and variance @xmath516 , where @xmath325 is the dephasing time . it is easy to check that the correct evolution due to pure dephasing [ @xmath517 , @xmath518 , @xmath519 can be reproduced using the lindblad equation ( [ lindblad ] ) with @xmath520 and @xmath521 . this means that instead of the physically correct picture of continuous change of @xmath381 , we may use a completely different picture : random jumps of the phase @xmath381 by @xmath344 , |0+|1|0-|1 , occuring with the jump rate [ see eq . ( [ rate ] ) ] @xmath522 , which in this case is independent of the qubit state and equal to @xmath322 . note that @xmath523 , so in this case there is no no - jump evolution . since both pictures lead to the same evolution of @xmath524 , we can use any of them , depending on convenience in a particular problem . one more picture which can be used for pure dephasing is the `` random measurement of state @xmath421 '' , for which @xmath525 and @xmath526 . it is easy to see that it leads to the same lindblad equation , but has different jump process and non - trivial no - jump evolution . obviously , we can also use @xmath527 and @xmath526 for the same master equation ( see the brief discussion in sec.[sec - lindblad - error ] of the transformation @xmath528 in the lindblad equation ) . the decay of a resonator state is usually characterized by the energy decay rate @xmath529 , so that in the qubit terminology @xmath530 . the standard lindblad form ( [ lindblad ] ) in this case has @xmath531 and @xmath532 , where @xmath533 is the annihilation operator , @xmath534 . the jump evolution is then | , [ res - jump]with the jump rate [ see eq . ( [ rate ] ) ] @xmath535 , where @xmath536 is the average number of photons . the no - jump evolution during time @xmath286 is then _ n _ n |n , [ res - no - jump]which is similar to the no - jump evolution ( [ qubit - relax - no - jump ] ) for the qubit . note that the probability of the no - jump evolution is given by the squared norm , @xmath537 , so that the sum of the jump and no - jump probabilities is 1 . it is interesting to analyze the special case : evolution of a coherent state , @xmath538 . since it is the eigenstate of the operator @xmath533 , the jump evolution ( [ res - jump ] ) does not change the state , while the continuous no - jump evolution essentially changes the parameter @xmath539 in time , @xmath540 . therefore the energy decay is due to the no - jump evolution only . in this ( very unusual ) case a pure initial state remains pure because the jump does not change the state and therefore it is essentially a one - scenario ( no - jump ) evolution . the standard lindblad - form evolution for the resonator with @xmath531 and @xmath532 can be understood in the following way . let us assume that @xmath529 is the coupling with the outside modes , and let us imagine ( gedankenexperiment ) that we use an ideal photon detector , which clicks every time when a photon escapes from the resonator . when the detector clicks , we know that there is one photon less in the resonator . however , all transitions @xmath541 are indistinguishable ( because the energy levels are equidistant ) , and therefore the bayesian update of the quantum state @xcite involves only the rates , which are proportional to @xmath184 , _ it is easy to see that this bayesian update coincides with the jump process ( [ res - jump ] ) , and therefore the lindblad - form evolution can be interpreted as being due to an outside measurement with a single - photon detector . [ note that the lindblad - form master equation describes the ensemble - averaged evolution ; this is why we are free to choose any measurement model , in contrast to the case of individual ( selective ) evolution , which depends on what is actually measured . ]      the energy relaxation ( at zero temperature ) in a slightly ahnarmonic superconducting 3-level qubit is sometimes described by essentially the same lindblad equation as for the resonator , with @xmath542 and @xmath532 , so that latexmath:[$b|2\rangle = \sqrt{2 } \ ,    @xmath511 . this is actually incorrect . the reason is that the qubit is anharmonic , and therefore in the described above gedankenexperiment it is in principle possible to distinguish transitions @xmath544 where the top row corresponds to the state @xmath421 and the bottom row corresponds to @xmath545 . the formula @xmath546 is not exact because of anharmonicity . if for more accuracy we want to take into account direct transitions @xmath547)([3-level-2 ] ) , the ( incorrect ) one - process description ( with @xmath532 ) adds the extra term @xmath548 into @xmath549 , while other terms in these two approaches coincide .    concluding this appendix , we emphasize that unraveling of the lindblad - form evolution into the `` jump '' and `` no - jump '' processes is often useful for gaining intuition in the analysis of decoherence , and it may also be useful in analytical and numerical calculations . t. yamamoto , m. neeley , e. lucero , r. c. bialczak , j. kelly , m. lenander , m. mariantoni , a. d. oconnell , d. sank , h. wang , m. weides , j. wenner , y. yin , a. n. cleland , and j. m. martinis , phys . b * 82 * , 184515 ( 2010 ) .                          e. magesan , j. m. gambetta , b. r. johnson , c. a. ryan , j. m. chow , s. t. merkel , m. p. da silva , g. a. keefe , m. b. rothwell , t. a. ohki , m. b. ketchen , and m. steffen , phys . rev . lett . * 109 * , 080505 ( 2012 ) . j. kelly , r. barends , j. bochmann , b. campbell , y. chen , b. chiaro , e. jeffrey , m. mariantoni , a. megrant , j. mutus , c. neill , p. omalley , s. ohya , p. roushan , d. sank , a. vainsencher , j. wenner , t. white , a. n. cleland , and j. m. martinis , bull . . soc . * 58 * , g26.00005 ( 2013 ) .    j. m. chow , j. m. gambetta , a. d. corcoles , s. t. merkel , j. a. smolin , c. rigetti , s. poletto , g. a. keefe , m. b. rothwell , j. r. rozen , m. b. ketchen , and m. steffen , phys . rev 109 * , 060501 ( 2012 ) .                  to discuss orthogonality and normalization of matrices , we need to define the inner product of matrices @xmath551 and @xmath283 of equal size . this can be done by direct generalization of the innner product of two vectors : the matrices are treated as vectors , and the inner product is defined element - by - element as @xmath552 . this is called frobenius or hilbert - schmidt inner product ; we use the notation similar to the notation for vectors in quantum mechanics , while in mathematics notations @xmath553 or @xmath554 are often used . it is easy to see that @xmath555 . this definition leads to the frobenius ( hilbert - schmidt ) norm for a matrix : @xmath556 . m. mariantoni , h. wang , t. yamamoto , m. neeley , r.c . bialczak , y. chen , m. lenander , e. lucero , a.d . oconnell , d. sank , m. weides , j. wenner , y. yin , j. zhao , a.n . korotkov , a.n . cleland , and j.m . martinis , science * 334 * , 61 ( 2011 ) . a. galiautdinov , a. n. korotkov , and j. m. martinis , phys . a * 85 * , 042321 ( 2012 ) ; j. ghosh , a. galiautdinov , z. zhou , a. n. korotkov , j. m. martinis , and m. r. geller , phys . rev . a * 87 * , 022309 ( 2013 ) .
Abstract:

Answer: we discuss characterization of experimental quantum gates by the error matrix , which is similar to the standard process matrix @xmath0 in the pauli basis , except the desired unitary operation is factored out , by formally placing it either before or after the error process . the error matrix has only one large element , which is equal to the process fidelity , while other elements are small and indicate imperfections . the imaginary parts of the elements along the left column and/or top row directly indicate the unitary imperfection and can be used to find the needed correction . we discuss a relatively simple way to calculate the error matrix for a composition of quantum gates . similarly , it is rather straightforward to find the first - order contribution to the error matrix due to the lindblad - form decoherence . we also discuss a way to identify and subtract the tomography procedure errors due to imperfect state preparation and measurement . in appendices we consider several simple examples of the process tomography and also discuss an intuitive physical interpretation of the lindblad - form decoherence .