4 ms·

You can save time by first looking at the required noise performance of these schemes. From the abstract of the paper: >On superconducting architectures with 1

You can save time by first looking at the required noise performance of these schemes. From the abstract of the paper: >On superconducting architectures with 10−3 physical error rates... So good old 0.1% noise performance again. That seems to have come from the "20 million noisy qubits to break RSA" scheme[1] from back in 2019. That level of noise performance is still wildly out of reach and for all we know might be physically impossible. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09749 https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09749

adgjlsfhk1 7mo ago
> That level of noise performance is still wildly out of reach It's only ~1 order of magnitude away from current capability. current gen QCs are around 1% gate error rate, and a decade ago SOTA was ~10% error rate, so if progress continues it should be achievable relatively soon.
- api 7mo ago
  People don't understand the exponential function. Let's say you start adding water to a fish tank drop by drop, and double the number of drops each time. One drop, two, four, eight, and so on. When is the fish tank half full? When it's like 1/16 of the way full, or something like that.
Strilanc 7mo ago
> [0.1% gate error rate] is still wildly out of reach This is false. When Fowler et al assumed 0.1% gate error rates would be reached for his estimates in 2012 [0], that was ostentatious. Now it's frankly a bit overly conservative. All the big architectures are approaching or surpassing 0.1% gate error rates. From 2022 to 2024, the google team improved mean two qubit gate error rate from 0.6% [1] to 0.4% [2]. Quantinuum's Helios has a two qubit gate error rate of 0.08% [3]. IBM has Heron processors available on their cloud service with two qubit gate error rates ranging from 0.2% to 0.7% [4]. Neutral atom machines have demonstrated 0.5% gate error rates [5]. [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0928 https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0928 [1]: fig 1c of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.06431 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.06431 [2]: fig 1b of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.13687 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.13687 [3]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.05465 https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.05465 [4]: https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/computers?processorType=Heron https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/computers?processorType=Heron (numbers may vary as the website is not static) [5]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05420 https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05420
- upofadown 7mo ago
  I can think of a case where it turned out that there was some aspect of the noise performance that made the technology unsuitable for running Shor's algorithm. So would one of the presented low noise approaches actually work for Shor's?

adgjlsfhk1 7mo ago

> That level of noise performance is still wildly out of reach It's only ~1 order of magnitude away from current capability. current gen QCs are around 1% gate error rate, and a decade ago SOTA was ~10% error rate, so if progress continues it should be achievable relatively soon.

api 7mo ago
People don't understand the exponential function. Let's say you start adding water to a fish tank drop by drop, and double the number of drops each time. One drop, two, four, eight, and so on. When is the fish tank half full? When it's like 1/16 of the way full, or something like that.

Strilanc 7mo ago

> [0.1% gate error rate] is still wildly out of reach This is false. When Fowler et al assumed 0.1% gate error rates would be reached for his estimates in 2012 [0], that was ostentatious. Now it's frankly a bit overly conservative. All the big architectures are approaching or surpassing 0.1% gate error rates. From 2022 to 2024, the google team improved mean two qubit gate error rate from 0.6% [1] to 0.4% [2]. Quantinuum's Helios has a two qubit gate error rate of 0.08% [3]. IBM has Heron processors available on their cloud service with two qubit gate error rates ranging from 0.2% to 0.7% [4]. Neutral atom machines have demonstrated 0.5% gate error rates [5]. [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0928 https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0928 [1]: fig 1c of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.06431 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.06431 [2]: fig 1b of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.13687 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.13687 [3]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.05465 https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.05465 [4]: https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/computers?processorType=Heron https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/computers?processorType=Heron (numbers may vary as the website is not static) [5]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05420 https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05420

upofadown 7mo ago
I can think of a case where it turned out that there was some aspect of the noise performance that made the technology unsuitable for running Shor's algorithm. So would one of the presented low noise approaches actually work for Shor's?