Engineering tour de force births programmable optical quantum computer

Re:Engineering tour de force births programmable optical qua... by Strilanc on Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:14AM (#17926846)

> The [two qubit] gates are about as reliable as any others you will find in the quantum computing world, which is to say that operations complete successfully around 93 percent of the time. For comparison, ion-based quantum computers are at 95 to 99 percent and superconducting quantum computers are around 90 to 95 percent. [...]

Those comparison numbers are incorrect. Ion-based and superconducting-based groups have reported two-qubit gate fidelities of 99.9% [1] and 99.4% [2] respectively.

[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04600

[2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4848

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineering tour de force births programmable optical qua... by jessriedel on Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:39AM (#17927032)

I don't know if there's a sensible way to define "typical" gate fidelities, and I agree "90 to 99 percent" is misleadingly low, but picking some of the highest reported numbers (possibly achieved in specialized non-scalable set ups) is also not very representative. The engineering of gate quality is too messily intertwined with the rest of the device.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineering tour de force births programmable optical qua... by Strilanc on Thursday September 06, 2018 @12:04PM (#17927210)

The article is also reporting numbers for a one-off setup that has scaling challenges, so it seems appropriate to compare against that type of number.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineering tour de force births programmable optical qua... by jessriedel on Thursday September 06, 2018 @12:14PM (#17927290)

Fair enough.

[ Parent | on HN ]