Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor Complexity Theory Computer Science News by ComputeNow - November 10, 2019November 10, 20190 Share on Facebook Share Share on TwitterTweet Share on Pinterest Share Share on LinkedIn Share Share on Digg Share Send email Mail Print Print Quantum computers is that certain computational tasks might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on a classical processor. A fundamental challenge is to build a high-fidelity processor capable of running quantum algorithms in an exponentially large computational space. Here we report the use of a processor with programmable superconducting qubits to create quantum states on 53 qubits, corresponding to a computational state-space of dimension 253. Measurements from repeated experiments sample the resulting probability distribution, which we verify using classical simulations. Our Sycamore processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance of a quantum circuit a million times—our benchmarks currently indicate that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years. This dramatic increase in speed compared to all known classical algorithms is an experimental realization of quantum supremacy or this specific computational task, heralding a much-anticipated computing paradigm. In the early 1980s, Richard Feynman proposed that a quantum computer would be an effective tool with which to solve problems in physics and chemistry, given that it is exponentially costly to simulate large quantum systems with classical computers. Realizing Feynman’s vision poses substantial experimental and theoretical challenges. First, can a quantum system be engineered to perform a computation in a large enough computational (Hilbert) space and with a low enough error rate to provide a quantum speedup? Second, can we formulate a problem that is hard for a classical computer but easy for a quantum computer? By computing such a benchmark task on our superconducting qubit processor, we tackle both questions. Our experiment achieves quantum supremacy, a milestone on the path to full-scale quantum computing This experiment, referred to as a quantum supremacy experiment, provided direction for our team to overcome the many technical challenges inherent in quantum systems engineering to make a computer that is both programmable and powerful. To test the total system performance we selected a sensitive computational benchmark that fails if just a single component of the computer is not good enough. Left: Artist’s rendition of the Sycamore processor mounted in the cryostat. (Full Res Version; Forest Stearns, Google AI Quantum Artist in Residence) Right: Photograph of the Sycamore processor. (Full Res Version; Erik Lucero, Research Scientist and Lead Production Quantum Hardware) The Experiment To get a sense of how this benchmark works, imagine enthusiastic quantum computing neophytes visiting our lab in order to run a quantum algorithm on our new processor. They can compose algorithms from a small dictionary of elementary gate operations. Since each gate has a probability of error, our guests would want to limit themselves to a modest sequence with about a thousand total gates. Assuming these programmers have no prior experience, they might create what essentially looks like a random sequence of gates, which one could think of as the “hello world” program for a quantum computer. Because there is no structure in random circuits that classical algorithms can exploit, emulating such quantum circuits typically takes an enormous amount of classical supercomputer effort. Each run of a random quantum circuit on a quantum computer produces a bitstring, for example 0000101. Owing to quantum interference, some bitstrings are much more likely to occur than others when we repeat the experiment many times. However, finding the most likely bitstrings for a random quantum circuit on a classical computer becomes exponentially more difficult as the number of qubits (width) and number of gate cycles (depth) grow. Process for demonstrating quantum supremacy. In the experiment, we first ran random simplified circuits from 12 up to 53 qubits, keeping the circuit depth constant. We checked the performance of the quantum computer using classical simulations and compared with a theoretical model. Once we verified that the system was working, we ran random hard circuits with 53 qubits and increasing depth, until reaching the point where classical simulation became infeasible. Estimate of the equivalent classical computation time assuming 1M CPU cores for quantum supremacy circuits as a function of the number of qubits and number of cycles for the Schrödinger-Feynman algorithm. The star shows the estimated computation time for the largest experimental circuits. This result is the first experimental challenge against the extended Church-Turing thesis, which states that classical computers can efficiently implement any “reasonable” model of computation. With the first quantum computation that cannot reasonably be emulated on a classical computer, we have opened up a new realm of computing to be explored. The Sycamore Processor The quantum supremacy experiment was run on a fully programmable 54-qubit processor named “Sycamore.” It’s comprised of a two-dimensional grid where each qubit is connected to four other qubits. As a consequence, the chip has enough connectivity that the qubit states quickly interact throughout the entire processor, making the overall state impossible to emulate efficiently with a classical computer. The success of the quantum supremacy experiment was due to our improved two-qubit gates with enhanced parallelism that reliably achieve record performance, even when operating many gates simultaneously. We achieved this performance using a new type of control knob that is able to turn off interactions between neighboring qubits. This greatly reduces the errors in such a multi-connected qubit system. We made further performance gains by optimizing the chip design to lower crosstalk, and by developing new control calibrations that avoid qubit defects. We designed the circuit in a two-dimensional square grid, with each qubit connected to four other qubits. This architecture is also forward compatible for the implementation of quantum error-correction. We see our 54-qubit Sycamore processor as the first in a series of ever more powerful quantum processors. Heat map showing single- (e1; crosses) and two-qubit (e2; bars) Pauli errors for all qubits operating simultaneously. The layout shown follows the distribution of the qubits on the processor. (Courtesy of Nature magazine.) Testing Quantum Physics To ensure the future utility of quantum computers, we also needed to verify that there are no fundamental roadblocks coming from quantum mechanics. Physics has a long history of testing the limits of theory through experiments, since new phenomena often emerge when one starts to explore new regimes characterized by very different physical parameters. Prior experiments showed that quantum mechanics works as expected up to a state-space dimension of about 1000. Here, we expanded this test to a size of 10 quadrillion and find that everything still works as expected. We also tested fundamental quantum theory by measuring the errors of two-qubit gates and finding that this accurately predicts the benchmarking results of the full quantum supremacy circuits. This shows that there is no unexpected physics that might degrade the performance of our quantum computer. Our experiment therefore provides evidence that more complex quantum computers should work according to theory, and makes us feel confident in continuing our efforts to scale up. Applications The Sycamore quantum computer is fully programmable and can run general-purpose quantum algorithms. Since achieving quantum supremacy results last spring, our team has already been working on near-term applications, including quantum physics simulation and quantum chemistry, as well as new applications in generative machine learning, among other areas. We also now have the first widely useful quantum algorithm for computer science applications: certifiable quantum randomness. Randomness is an important resource in computer science, and quantum randomness is the gold standard, especially if the numbers can be self-checked (certified) to come from a quantum computer. Testing of this algorithm is ongoing, and in the coming months we plan to implement it in a prototype that can provide certifiable random numbers. What’s Next? Our team has two main objectives going forward, both towards finding valuable applications in quantum computing. First, in the future we will make our supremacy-class processors available to collaborators and academic researchers, as well as companies that are interested in developing algorithms and searching for applications for today’s NISQ processors. Creative researchers are the most important resource for innovation — now that we have a new computational resource, we hope more researchers will enter the field motivated by trying to invent something useful. Second, we’re investing in our team and technology to build a fault-tolerant quantum computer as quickly as possible. Such a device promises a number of valuable applications. For example, we can envision quantum computing helping to design new materials — lightweight batteries for cars and airplanes, new catalysts that can produce fertilizer more efficiently (a process that today produces over 2% of the world’s carbon emissions), and more effective medicines. Achieving the necessary computational capabilities will still require years of hard engineering and scientific work. But we see a path clearly now, and we’re eager to move ahead. More you can find here: Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor Quantum Supremancy – Google AI Author information Affiliations Google AI Quantum, Mountain View, CA, USA Frank Arute , Kunal Arya , Ryan Babbush , Dave Bacon , Joseph C. Bardin , Rami Barends , Sergio Boixo , Fernando G. S. L. Brandao , David A. Buell , Brian Burkett , Yu Chen , Zijun Chen , Roberto Collins , William Courtney , Andrew Dunsworth , Edward Farhi , Brooks Foxen , Austin Fowler , Craig Gidney , Marissa Giustina , Rob Graff , Keith Guerin , Steve Habegger , Matthew P. Harrigan , Michael J. Hartmann , Alan Ho , Markus Hoffmann , Trent Huang , Sergei V. Isakov , Evan Jeffrey , Zhang Jiang , Dvir Kafri , Kostyantyn Kechedzhi , Julian Kelly , Paul V. Klimov , Sergey Knysh , Alexander Korotkov , Fedor Kostritsa , David Landhuis , Mike Lindmark , Erik Lucero , Jarrod R. McClean , Anthony Megrant , Xiao Mi , Masoud Mohseni , Josh Mutus , Ofer Naaman , Matthew Neeley , Charles Neill , Murphy Yuezhen Niu , Eric Ostby , Andre Petukhov , John C. Platt , Chris Quintana , Pedram Roushan , Nicholas C. Rubin , Daniel Sank , Kevin J. Satzinger , Vadim Smelyanskiy , Kevin J. Sung , Matthew D. Trevithick , Amit Vainsencher , Benjamin Villalonga , Theodore White , Z. Jamie Yao , Ping Yeh , Adam Zalcman , Hartmut Neven & John M. Martinis Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA Joseph C. Bardin Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (QuAIL), NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA Rupak Biswas , Salvatore Mandrà & Eleanor G. Rieffel Institute for Quantum Information and Matter, Caltech, Pasadena, CA, USA Fernando G. S. L. Brandao Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Ben Chiaro , Brooks Foxen , Matthew McEwen & John M. Martinis Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Department of Physics, Erlangen, Germany Michael J. Hartmann Quantum Computing Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA Travis S. Humble Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA Alexander Korotkov Scientific Computing, Oak Ridge Leadership Computing, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA Dmitry Lyakh Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies Inc., Greenbelt, MD, USA Salvatore Mandrà Institute for Advanced Simulation, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany Kristel Michielsen RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany Kristel Michielsen Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Kevin J. Sung Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA Benjamin Villalonga Contributions The Google AI Quantum team conceived the experiment. The applications and algorithms team provided the theoretical foundation and the specifics of the algorithm. The hardware team carried out the experiment and collected the data. The data analysis was done jointly with outside collaborators. All authors wrote and revised the manuscript and the Supplementary Information. Corresponding author Correspondence to John M. Martinis. Share this:Share on TumblrTweetWhatsAppMoreRedditTelegramPocketPrint Share on Facebook Share Share on TwitterTweet Share on Pinterest Share Share on LinkedIn Share Share on Digg Share Send email Mail Print Print