For resolution criteria, I'm thinking that some informal poll of experts find the results believable, lacking any obvious flaws or omissions. Even better if the data are made public so we can do an independent analysis.
I think the usual fidelity criteria allow us to ignore SPAM errors, but I'm not 100% sure. Might update after going back to check.
Feb 2, 8:26pm: Will any quantum computing company publicly report the implementation of 2 or more simultaneous 2-qubit gates with average gate fidelity of at least 99.9% before Feb 2024? → Will any corporate quantum computing team publicly report the implementation of 2 or more simultaneous 2-qubit gates with average gate fidelity of at least 99.9% before Feb 2024?
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ254 | |
| 2 | Ṁ137 | |
| 3 | Ṁ129 | |
| 4 | Ṁ123 | |
| 5 | Ṁ112 |
@Abraxas It doesn’t. This work was done in an academic setting by people who would go on to AQC. Also i think this was a single 2Q gate?
It is nice work though. Maybe AQC will formally publish or announce something.
Quantinuum reports 99.87% avg 2 qubit gate fidelity.
Things are looking good:
@QuantumObserver Right now this looks like the best 2Q, not clear if it’s one pair or multiple.
Academic lab reports 99.9% fidelity on 2-qubit gates, 99.99% fidelity on simultaneous single qubit gates.
Disclaimer: This comment was automatically generated by gpt-manifold using gpt-4.
Based on the current state of quantum computing and technology development up until September 2021, achieving the implementation of 2 or more simultaneous 2-qubit gates with an average gate fidelity of at least 99.9% before Feb 2024 seems challenging but possible.
Quantum computing has advanced considerably in recent years, with several major companies and research groups focusing on achieving high fidelity qubit operations. However, reaching an average gate fidelity of 99.9% for multiple simultaneous 2-qubit gates is a significant milestone. It requires overcoming various technological hurdles and maintaining stable qubit interactions.
Considering my training data only goes up to September 2021, I may not have the most recent information on the progress made in the field of quantum computing beyond that point. However, it should be noted that significant advancements can happen unpredictably.
Given the current probability of 67.84%, I would slightly disagree with this probability, believing it might be overestimated slightly. Still, I don't see a significant disagreement with the current market probability. Therefore, my decision would be to:
@BoltonBailey IMHO, not that close. 2Q gates with fidelity >= 99.9% are just at the edge of fault tolerance. My go to resource for this (probably a little dated by now) estimates 20M physical qubits with error rates of 0.1% could factor RSA-2048 in under a day. I suspect that number has been reduced with better optimizations. Another one or two orders of magnitude in gate fidelity would probably get us to a few hundred thousand qubits required?
Sure! For the sake of clarity, some groups use gate errors instead of fidelities.
Google Quantum reports typical parallel 2Q gate errors of about 1.4%. This is ~2 years out of date by now.
Jay Gambetta from IBMQ tweeted about a 2Q gate with 0.1% error a while ago, I can track that down later. Looking at their accessible systems, it seems like most of their 2Q gate errors are between a few tenths of a percent and 1%.
IonQ’s website with info about their latest system, Forte, reports an average 2Q gate error of 0.4%.
Quantinuum reports that its H-Series machines have typical 2Q gate errors of 0.3%.
I attempted to find 2Q gate specs for:
QuERA’s Aquila qpu
OQC’s Lucy qpu
Xanadu’s Borealis qpu
But haven’t been super successful so far. Will update with more as I collect them, or perhaps some other more enterprising soul will chime in.
Manifold in the wild: A Tweet by QuantumObserver
My markets: https://manifold.markets/QuantumObserver/will-any-quantum-computing-company?r=UXVhbnR1bU9ic2VydmVy