Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor.
Journal
Nature
ISSN: 1476-4687
Titre abrégé: Nature
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0410462
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
received:
22
07
2019
accepted:
20
09
2019
entrez:
25
10
2019
pubmed:
28
10
2019
medline:
28
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The promise of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on a classical processor
Identifiants
pubmed: 31645734
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5
pii: 10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
505-510Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Feynman, R. P. Simulating physics with computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467–488 (1982).
doi: 10.1007/BF02650179
Devoret, M. H., Martinis, J. M. & Clarke, J. Measurements of macroscopic quantum tunneling out of the zero-voltage state of a current-biased Josephson junction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1908 (1985).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.1908
Nakamura, Y., Chen, C. D. & Tsai, J. S. Spectroscopy of energy-level splitting between two macroscopic quantum states of charge coherently superposed by Josephson coupling. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2328 (1997).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.2328
Mooij, J. et al. Josephson persistent-current qubit. Science 285, 1036–1039 (1999).
doi: 10.1126/science.285.5430.1036
Wallraff, A. et al. Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics. Nature 431, 162–167 (2004).
doi: 10.1038/nature02851
Koch, J. et al. Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box. Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042319
You, J. Q. & Nori, F. Atomic physics and quantum optics using superconducting circuits. Nature 474, 589–597 (2011).
doi: 10.1038/nature10122
Preskill, J. Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier. Rapporteur Talk at the 25th Solvay Conference on Physics, Brussels https://doi.org/10.1142/8674 (World Scientific, 2012).
Aaronson, S. & Arkhipov, A. The computational complexity of linear optics. In Proc. 43rd Ann. Symp. on Theory of Computing https://doi.org/10.1145/1993636.1993682 (ACM, 2011).
Bremner, M. J., Montanaro, A. & Shepherd, D. J. Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 080501 (2016).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.080501
Boixo, S. et al. Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices. Nat. Phys. 14, 595 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41567-018-0124-x
Bouland, A., Fefferman, B., Nirkhe, C. & Vazirani, U. On the complexity and verification of quantum random circuit sampling. Nat. Phys. 15, 159 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41567-018-0318-2
Aaronson, S. & Chen, L. Complexity-theoretic foundations of quantum supremacy experiments. In 32nd Computational Complexity Conf. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2017.22 (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz Zentrum für Informatik, 2017).
Neill, C. et al. A blueprint for demonstrating quantum supremacy with superconducting qubits. Science 360, 195–199 (2018).
doi: 10.1126/science.aao4309
Preskill, J. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
doi: 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79
Kechedzhi, K. et al. Efficient population transfer via non-ergodic extended states in quantum spin glass. In 13th Conf. on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2018/9256/pdf/LIPIcs-TQC-2018-9.pdf (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz Zentrum für Informatik, 2018).
Somma, R. D., Boixo, S., Barnum, H. & Knill, E. Quantum simulations of classical annealing processes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 130504 (2008).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.130504
Farhi, E. & Neven, H. Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.06002 (2018).
McClean, J. R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Babbush, R. & Neven, H. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4
Cong, I., Choi, S. & Lukin, M. D. Quantum convolutional neural networks. Nat. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0648-8 (2019).
Bravyi, S., Gosset, D. & König, R. Quantum advantage with shallow circuits. Science 362, 308–311 (2018).
doi: 10.1126/science.aar3106
Aspuru-Guzik, A., Dutoi, A. D., Love, P. J. & Head-Gordon, M. Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies. Science 309, 1704–1707 (2005).
doi: 10.1126/science.1113479
Peruzzo, A. et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/ncomms5213
Hempel, C. et al. Quantum chemistry calculations on a trapped-ion quantum simulator. Phys. Rev. X 8, 031022 (2018).
Shor, P. W. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring proceedings. In Proc. 35th Ann. Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700 (IEEE, 1994).
Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M. & Cleland, A. N. Surface codes: towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324
Barends, R. et al. Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance. Nature 508, 500–503 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/nature13171
Córcoles, A. D. et al. Demonstration of a quantum error detection code using a square lattice of four superconducting qubits. Nat. Commun. 6, 6979 (2015).
doi: 10.1038/ncomms7979
Ofek, N. et al. Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits. Nature 536, 441 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/nature18949
Vool, U. & Devoret, M. Introduction to quantum electromagnetic circuits. Int. J. Circuit Theory Appl. 45, 897–934 (2017).
doi: 10.1002/cta.2359
Chen, Y. et al. Qubit architecture with high coherence and fast tunable coupling circuits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 220502 (2014).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.220502
Yan, F. et al. A tunable coupling scheme for implementing high-fidelity two-qubit gates. Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 054062 (2018).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.054062
Schuster, D. I. et al. Resolving photon number states in a superconducting circuit. Nature 445, 515 (2007).
doi: 10.1038/nature05461
Jeffrey, E. et al. Fast accurate state measurement with superconducting qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190504 (2014).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.190504
Chen, Z. et al. Measuring and suppressing quantum state leakage in a superconducting qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 020501 (2016).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.020501
Klimov, P. V. et al. Fluctuations of energy-relaxation times in superconducting qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 090502 (2018).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.090502
Yan, F. et al. The flux qubit revisited to enhance coherence and reproducibility. Nat. Commun. 7, 12964 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/ncomms12964
Knill, E. et al. Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates. Phys. Rev. A 77, 012307 (2008).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.012307
Magesan, E., Gambetta, J. M. & Emerson, J. Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504 (2011).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.180504
Cross, A. W., Magesan, E., Bishop, L. S., Smolin, J. A. & Gambetta, J. M. Scalable randomised benchmarking of non-Clifford gates. npj Quant. Inform. 2, 16012 (2016).
Wallraff, A. et al. Approaching unit visibility for control of a superconducting qubit with dispersive readout. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 060501 (2005).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.060501
De Raedt, H. et al. Massively parallel quantum computer simulator, eleven years later. Comput. Phys. Commun. 237, 47–61 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.11.005
Markov, I. L., Fatima, A., Isakov, S. V. & Boixo, S. Quantum supremacy is both closer and farther than it appears. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10749 (2018).
Villalonga, B. et al. A flexible high-performance simulator for the verification and benchmarking of quantum circuits implemented on real hardware. npj Quant. Inform. (in the press); preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.09599 (2018).
Boixo, S., Isakov, S. V., Smelyanskiy, V. N. & Neven, H. Simulation of low-depth quantum circuits as complex undirected graphical models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05384 (2017).
Chen, J., Zhang, F., Huang, C., Newman, M. & Shi, Y. Classical simulation of intermediate-size quantum circuits. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.01450 (2018).
Villalonga, B. et al. Establishing the quantum supremacy frontier with a 281 pflop/s simulation. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.00444 (2019).
Pednault, E. et al. Breaking the 49-qubit barrier in the simulation of quantum circuits. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05867 (2017).
Chen, Z. Y. et al. 64-qubit quantum circuit simulation. Sci. Bull. 63, 964–971 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2018.06.007
Chen, M.-C. et al. Quantum-teleportation-inspired algorithm for sampling large random quantum circuits. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05003 (2019).
Shor, P. W. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493–R2496 (1995).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.52.R2493
Devoret, M. H. & Schoelkopf, R. J. Superconducting circuits for quantum information: an outlook. Science 339, 1169–1174 (2013).
doi: 10.1126/science.1231930
Mohseni, M. et al. Commercialize quantum technologies in five years. Nature 543, 171 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/543171a
Grover, L. K. Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325 (1997).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.325
Bernstein, E. & Vazirani, U. Quantum complexity theory. In Proc. 25th Ann. Symp. on Theory of Computing https://doi.org/10.1145/167088.167097 (ACM, 1993).