CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 45Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum many-body systemsQuantum Information and Cryptography

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

The computational power of random quantum circuits in arbitrary geometries

Open access
DeCross, Matthew, Haghshenas, Reza, Liu, Minzhao, Rinaldi, Enrico, Gray, Johnnie, Alexeev, Yuri, Baldwin, Charles H., Bartolotta, John P., Bohn, Matthew, Chertkov, Eli, Cline, Julia, Colina, Jonhas, DelVento, Davide, Dreiling, Joan M., Foltz, Cameron, Gaebler, John P., Gatterman, Thomas M., Gilbreth, Christopher N., Giles, Joshua, Gresh, Dan, Hall, Alex, Hankin, Aaron, Hansen, Azure, Hewitt, Nathan, Hoffman, Ian, Holliman, Craig, Hutson, Ross B., Jacobs, Trent, Johansen, Jacob, Lee, Patricia J., Lehman, Elliot, Lucchetti, Dominic, Lykov, Danylo, Madjarov, Ivaylo S., Mathewson, Brian, Mayer, Karl, Mills, Michael, Niroula, Pradeep, Pino, Juan M., Roman, Conrad, Schecter, Michael, Siegfried, Peter E., Tiemann, Bruce G., Volin, Curtis, Walker, James, Shaydulin, Ruslan, Pistoia, Marco, Moses, Steven. A., Hayes, David, Neyenhuis, Brian, Stutz, Russell P., Foss-Feig, Michael·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2406.02501arXiv 2406.02501

Preprint — published as 10.1103/physrevx.15.021052

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Empirical evidence for a gap between the computational powers of classical and quantum computers has been provided by experiments that sample the output distributions of two-dimensional quantum circuits. Many attempts to close this gap have utilized classical simulations based on tensor network techniques, and their limitations shed light on the improvements to quantum hardware required to frustrate classical simulability. In particular, quantum computers having in excess of $\sim 50$ qubits are primarily vulnerable to classical simulation due to restrictions on their gate fidelity and their connectivity, the latter determining how many gates are required (and therefore how much infidelity is suffered) in generating highly-entangled states. Here, we describe recent hardware upgrades to Quantinuum's H2 quantum computer enabling it to operate on up to $56$ qubits with arbitrary connectivity and $99.843(5)\%$ two-qubit gate fidelity. Utilizing the flexible connectivity of H2, we present data from random circuit sampling in highly connected geometries, doing so at unprecedented fidelities and a scale that appears to be beyond the capabilities of state-of-the-art classical algorithms. The considerable difficulty of classically simulating H2 is likely limited only by qubit number, demonstrating the promise and scalability of the QCCD architecture as continued progress is made towards building larger machines.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.02501

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • State-of-the-art many-qubit platforms have only recently demonstrated entangling gates with 99.9% fidelity, far short of the <10−10 error rates needed for many applications.

    “State-of-the-art many-qubit platforms have only recently demonstrated entangling gates with 99.9% fidelity9,10, far short of the <10−10 error rates needed for many applications11,12.”

    From Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold (2025) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Abstract reports a recent upgrade to a 56-qubit computer with 99.843(5)% two-qubit gate fidelity, and Section II reports a gate error of 1.57(5) × 10⁻³. This supports the claim about recent high-fidelity entangling gates on a many-qubit platform, but not the stated 99.9% figure. The <10⁻¹⁰ requirement is attached to different citations, so it is not assessed against this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, Quantum low- density parity-check codes, PRX Quantum 2, 040101 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  2. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconduct- ing processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  3. H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature (London) 618, 500 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  5. A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris et al., Computational supremacy in quantum simulation, arXiv:2403.00910. · arXiv
  6. Y. Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, What limits the simulation of quantum computers?, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041038 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  7. T. Ayral, T. Louvet, Y. Zhou, C. Lambert, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, Density-matrix renormaliza- tion group algorithm for simulating quantum circuits with a finite fidelity, PRX Quantum 4, 020304 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  8. S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman, R. Ancona, L. Ascarrunz et al., A race-track trapped-ion quantum proc- essor, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041052 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  9. J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. S. Allman, C. H. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, and B. Neyenhuis, Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum CCD computer architecture, Nature (London) 592, 209 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  10. B. W. Reichardt, D. Aasen, R. Chao, A. Chernoguzov, W. van Dam, J. P. Gaebler, D. Gresh, D. Lucchetti, M. Mills, S. A. Moses et al., Demonstration of quantum computation and error correction with a tesseract code, arXiv: 2409.04628. · arXiv
  11. S. Olmschenk, K. C. Younge, D. L. Moehring, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, and C. Monroe, Manipulation and detection of a trapped Yb þ hyperfine qubit, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052314 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  12. E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Character- izing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. A 85, 042311 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  13. R. Harper, I. Hincks, C. Ferrie, S. T. Flammia, and J. J. Wallman, Statistical analysis of randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052350 (2019). · DOI
  14. A. M. Meier, Randomized benchmarking of Clifford oper- ators, Ph. D. thesis, University of Colorado, 2006.
  15. D. Hangleiter and J. Eisert, Computational advantage of quantum random sampling, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035001 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  16. D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature (London) 626, 58 (2024). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen et al., Strong quantum computational advantage using a super- conducting quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180501 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  18. Q. Zhu, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen et al., Quantum computational advantage via 60-qubit 24-cycle random circuit sampling, Sci. Bull. 67, 240 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  19. A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandrà, A. Bengtsson, P. V. Klimov, Z. Chen, S. Hong, C. Erickson, I. K. Drozdov et al., Phase transition in random circuit sampling, arXiv: 2304.11119. · arXiv
  20. X. Gao, M. Kalinowski, C.-N. Chou, M. D. Lukin, B. Barak, and S. Choi, Limitations of linear cross-entropy as a measure for quantum advantage, PRX Quantum 5, 010334 (2024). · DOI
  21. A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, C. Nirkhe, and U. Vazirani, On the complexity and verification of quantum random circuit sampling, Nat. Phys. 15, 159 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  22. A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, Z. Landau, and Y. Liu, Noise and the frontier of quantum supremacy, in Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE, New York, 2022), pp. 1308-1317.
  23. R. Movassagh, The hardness of random quantum circuits, Nat. Phys. 19, 1719 (2023). · DOI
  24. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity of linear optics, in Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2011), pp. 333-342.
  25. B. Ware, A. Deshpande, D. Hangleiter, P. Niroula, B. Fefferman, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. J. Gullans, A sharp phase transition in linear cross-entropy benchmarking, arXiv: 2305.04954. · arXiv
  26. I. L. Markov and Y. Shi, Simulating quantum computation by contracting tensor networks, SIAM J. Comput. 38, 963 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  27. F. Pan and P. Zhang, Simulating the sycamore quantum supremacy circuits, arXiv:2103.03074. · arXiv
  28. G. Kalachev, P. Panteleev, and M.-H. Yung, Multi-tensor contraction for XEB verification of quantum circuits, arXiv:2108.05665. · arXiv
  29. Y. Liu, Y. Chen, C. Guo, J. Song, X. Shi, L. Gan, W. Wu, W. Wu, H. Fu, X. Liu, D. Chen, Z. Zhao, G. Yang, and J. Gao, Verifying quantum advantage experiments with multiple amplitude tensor network contraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 030601 (2024). · DOI
  30. J. Gray and S. Kourtis, Hyper-optimized tensor network contraction, Quantum 5, 410 (2021). · DOI
  31. K. Mayer, A. Hall, T. Gatterman, S. K. Halit, K. Lee, J. Bohnet, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, K. Gilmore, J. Gerber, and J. Gaebler, Theory of mirror benchmarking and demon- stration on a quantum computer, arXiv:2108.10431. · arXiv
  32. T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, Measuring the capabilities of quantum computers, Nat. Phys. 18, 75 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  33. J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  34. M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical operation, Phys. Lett. A 303, 249 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  35. T. Proctor, S. Seritan, E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, K. Young, R. Blume-Kohout, and M. Sarovar, Establishing trust in quantum computations, arXiv:2204.07568. · arXiv
  36. J. Chen, F. Zhang, C. Huang, M. Newman, and Y. Shi, Classical simulation of intermediate-size quantum circuits, arXiv:1805.01450. · arXiv
  37. B. Villalonga, S. Boixo, B. Nelson, C. Henze, E. Rieffel, R. Biswas, and S. Mandrà, A flexible high-performance sim- ulator for verifying and benchmarking quantum circuits implemented on real hardware, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 86 (2019). · DOI
  38. S. Kourtis, C. Chamon, E. Mucciolo, and A. Ruckenstein, Fast counting with tensor networks, SciPost Phys. 7, 060 (2019). · DOI
  39. S. Atchley, C. Zimmer, J. Lange, D. Bernholdt, V. Melesse Vergara, T. Beck, M. Brim, R. Budiardja, S. Chandrasekaran, M. Eisenbach et al., Frontier: Exploring exascale, in Pro- ceedings of the International Conference for High Perfor- mance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (2023), pp. 1-16, arXiv:1807.10749. · arXiv
  40. I. L. Markov, A. Fatima, S. V. Isakov, and S. Boixo, Quantum supremacy is both closer and farther than it appears, arXiv:1807.10749. · arXiv
  41. D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291 (1993). · DOI · Paper page
  42. S. Schlag, V. Henne, T. Heuer, H. Meyerhenke, P. Sanders, and C. Schulz, k-way hypergraph partitioning via n-level recursive bisection, in Proceedings of the 2016 Meeting on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX), pp. 53-67, arXiv:1511.03137. · arXiv
  43. Y. Akhremtsev, T. Heuer, P. Sanders, and S. Schlag, Engineer- ing a direct k-way hypergraph partitioning algorithm, in Proceedings of the 2017 Meeting on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX), pp. 28-42, 10.1137/ 1.9781611974768.3. · DOI
  44. K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  45. W. C. Burton, B. Estey, I. M. Hoffman, A. R. Perry, C. Volin, and G. Price, Transport of multispecies ion crystals through a junction in a radio-frequency paul trap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 173202 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  46. R. D. Delaney, L. R. Sletten, M. J. Cich, B. Estey, M. Fabrikant, D. Hayes, I. M. Hoffman, J. Hostetter, C. Langer, S. A. Moses et al., Scalable multispecies ion transport in a grid based surface-electrode trap, arXiv:2403.00756. · arXiv
  47. S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices, Nat. Phys. 14, 595 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  48. D. Aharonov, X. Gao, Z. Landau, Y. Liu, and U. Vazirani, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy random circuit sampling, in Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2023 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2023), pp. 945-957.
  49. F. A. An, A. Ransford, A. Schaffer, L. R. Sletten, J. Gaebler, J. Hostetter, and G. Vittorini, High fidelity state preparation and measurement of ion hyperfine qubits with i > 1 2 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 130501 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  50. A. Erhard, J. J. Wallman, L. Postler, M. Meth, R. Stricker, E. A. Martinez, P. Schindler, T. Monz, J. Emerson, and R. Blatt, Characterizing large-scale quantum computers via cycle benchmarking, Nat. Commun. 10, 5347 (2019). · DOI
  51. J. Kenney and E. Keeping, Mathematics of statistics, pt. 2, 2nd ed. (Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 1951), Chap. 4.12, pp. 80-82.
  52. S. Janson, Random regular graphs: Asymptotic distributions and contiguity, Comb. Probab. Comput. 4, 369 (1995). · DOI
  53. M. S. O. Molloy, H. Robalewska, R. W. Robinson, and N. C. Wormald, 1-factorizations of random regular graphs, Random Struct. Algorithms 10, 305 (1997). · DOI
  54. B. Csaba, D. Kühn, A. Lo, D. Osthus, and A. Treglown, Proof of the 1-factorization and Hamilton decomposition conjectures, arXiv:1401.4164. · arXiv
  55. B. Bollobás, The isoperimetric number of random regular graphs, Eur. J. Combinatorics 9, 241 (1988). · DOI
  56. M. DeCross, E. Chertkov, M. Kohagen, and M. Foss-Feig, Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041057 (2023). · DOI
  57. H. Bayraktar, A. Charara, D. Clark, S. Cohen, T. Costa et al., cuquantum sdk: A high-performance library for accelerating quantum science, arXiv:2308.01999. · arXiv
  58. H. Tamaki, Positive-instance driven dynamic programming for treewidth, J. Comb. Optim. 37, 1283 (2019). · DOI
  59. C. Ibrahim, D. Lykov, Z. He, Y. Alexeev, and I. Safro, Constructing optimal contraction trees for tensor network quantum circuit simulation, in Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC) (IEEE, New York, 2022), pp. 1-8.
  60. Y. Liu et al., Validating quantum-supremacy experiments with exact and fast tensor network contraction, arXiv: 2212.04749. · arXiv
  61. F. Pan, K. Chen, and P. Zhang, Solving the sampling problem of the sycamore quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 090502 (2022). · DOI
  62. G. Kalachev, P. Panteleev, P. Zhou, and M.-H. Yung, Classical sampling of random quantum circuits with bounded fidelity, arXiv:2112.15083. · arXiv
  63. C. Huang, F. Zhang, M. Newman, J. Cai, X. Gao, Z. Tian, J. Wu, H. Xu, H. Yu, B. Yuan et al., Classical simulation of quantum supremacy circuits, arXiv: 2005.06787. · arXiv
  64. T. Vincent, L. J. O'Riordan, M. Andrenkov, J. Brown, N. Killoran, H. Qi, and I. Dhand, Jet: Fast quantum circuit simulations with parallel task-based tensor-network con- traction, Quantum 6, 709 (2022). · DOI
  65. J. Gray and G. K.-L. Chan, Hyperoptimized approximate contraction of tensor networks with arbitrary geometry, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011009 (2024). · DOI
  66. A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017). · DOI
  67. M. Ganahl, J. Beall, M. Hauru, A. G. M. Lewis, T. Wojno, J. H. Yoo, Y. Zou, and G. Vidal, Density matrix renorm- alization group with tensor processing units, PRX Quantum 4, 010317 (2023). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
DeCross, M., Haghshenas, R., Liu, M., Rinaldi, E., Gray, J., Alexeev, Y., Baldwin, C. H., Bartolotta, J. P., Bohn, M., Chertkov, E., Cline, J., Colina, J., DelVento, D., Dreiling, J. M., Foltz, C., Gaebler, J. P., Gatterman, T. M., Gilbreth, C. N., Giles, J., Gresh, D., Hall, A., Hankin, A., Hansen, A., Hewitt, N., Hoffman, I., Holliman, C., Hutson, R. B., Jacobs, T., Johansen, J., Lee, P. J., Lehman, E., Lucchetti, D., Lykov, D., Madjarov, I. S., Mathewson, B., Mayer, K., Mills, M., Niroula, P., Pino, J. M., Roman, C., Schecter, M., Siegfried, P. E., Tiemann, B. G., Volin, C., Walker, J., Shaydulin, R., Pistoia, M., Moses, S. A., Hayes, D., Neyenhuis, B., Stutz, R. P., & Foss-Feig, M.
Affiliations
  • Quantinuum (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Argonne National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
DeCross, Matthew
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
15
Issue
2
ISSN
2160-3308 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2406.02501
arXiv
2406.02501
OpenAlex
W4410344559
Cited by
45
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 2
FWCI
17.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Physical Review X (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐ AC02‐06CH11357, -AC02-05CH11231, AC02‐06CH11357, 05CH11231, DE AC02 05CH11231, 06CH11357, DE-AC02-)
  • National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (DE–AC02–05CH11231, 05CH11231, NERSC DDR-ERCAP0029825, AC02-05CH11231)
  • Office of Science (AC02‐06CH11357, DEAC02–05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231, DE-AC02, 06CH11357, DE-AC02-06CH11357)
  • Argonne National Laboratory (DE- AC02-06-CH11357, DE-AC02, AC02–06CH11357, DE-AC02-05CH11231, 06CH11357)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (DE-AC02-06CH11357, DE-AC02-05CH11231)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
random quantum circuits, classical simulation of quantum circuits, quantum advantage, gate fidelity, tensor networks, quantum charge-coupled device, entanglement, circuit depth

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review