A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.

Questions tagged [google-sycamore]

A 54-qubit superconducting quantum processor by Google Quantum AI which is claimed to have been used to demonstrate quantum computational supremacy.

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
3
votes
1answer
63 views

Where are the physical gates in the Google processor?

Google's article Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor states that the processor "53 qubits, 1,113 single-qubit gates, 430 two-qubit gates, and a measurement on each qubit, ...
3
votes
1answer
93 views

Can we conclude that errors on Sycamore are Poisson-distributed Pauli errors?

In Martinis' recent Caltech lecture on the Sycamore paper, he appears to make much of the fact that FIG. 4 of the paper show straight-line fidelity - that is, the fidelity decreases log-linearly with ...
3
votes
2answers
131 views

How exactly is solving the random circuit sampling problem a computation in the Church-Turing thesis sense?

Note: This has been cross-posted to CS Theory SE. If we assume $\mathsf{BQP} \neq \mathsf{BPP}$, then we can say with reasonable certainty that Google's random sampling experiment falsifies the ...
3
votes
1answer
376 views

Making sense of the Sycamore's computing prowess - power consumption

I came here after reading about the announcement regarding the Sycamore processor and Google's Quantum Supremacy claim. I am hung up on several key things and I am hoping that I could find those ...
19
votes
2answers
4k views

What does Google's claim of “Quantum Supremacy” mean for the question of BQP vs BPP vs NP?

Google recently announced that they have achieved "Quantum Supremacy": "that would be practically impossible for a classical machine." Does this mean that they have definitely proved that BQP ≠ BPP ?...
6
votes
2answers
233 views

Why does Google's quantum processor outperform IBM's?

I understand that both have 53 qubit devices, yet it is Google that has demonstrated quantum supremacy (although IBM refutes this!). I'm not sure if this is true but it seems like IBM cannot replicate ...
11
votes
3answers
371 views

Why do the IBM and Google processors both have 53 qubits?

As I understand from this IBM post both the IBM and Google teams have independently built 53-qubit processors. What is the significance of the number 53? It is purely coincidental, or is there a ...
7
votes
1answer
156 views

Are 20 repetitions of Sycamore's one- and 2-qubit gates sufficient to produce a uniformly random state?

In the answer to this question about random circuits, James Wootton states: One way to see how well we [fully explore the Hilbert space] is to focus on just randomly producing $n$ qubit states. ...
5
votes
3answers
978 views

Quantum Supremacy: Some questions on cross-entropy benchmarking

I was skimming through the Google quantum supremacy paper but got stuck on this section: For a given circuit, we collect the measured bit-strings $\{x_i\}$ and compute the linear XEB fidelity [24-...
5
votes
1answer
157 views

Number of qubits to achieve quantum supremacy?

Google's Sycamore paper describes achieving quantum supremacy on a $53$-qubit quantum computer. The layout of Sycamore is $n=6\times 9=54$ nearest neighbors, with one qubit nonfunctional. They apply ...
4
votes
2answers
186 views

Location of “bad” qubits on Sycamore

The Sycamore paper from Google notes that Sycamore is a $54$-qubit quantum processor, but for their experiments only $53$ qubits were working. The "bad" qubit was on the edge of the array. Is ...
2
votes
1answer
341 views

Understanding Google's “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor” (Part 3): sampling

In Google's 54 qubit Sycamore processor, they created a 53 qubit quantum circuit using a random selection of gates from the set $\{\sqrt{X}, \sqrt{Y}, \sqrt{W}\}$ in the following pattern: ...
4
votes
1answer
378 views

Understanding Google's “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor” (Part 2): simplifiable and intractable tilings

In Google's 54 qubit Sycamore processor, they created a 53 qubit quantum circuit using a random selection of gates from the set $\{\sqrt{X}, \sqrt{Y}, \sqrt{W}\}$ in the following pattern: ...
8
votes
2answers
498 views

Understanding Google's “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor” (Part 1): choice of gate set

I was recently going through the paper titled "Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor" by NASA Ames Research Centre and the Google Quantum AI team (note that the paper was ...
3
votes
2answers
246 views

Do quantum supremacy experiments repeatedly apply the same random unitary?

It is my understanding that, given a quantum computer with $n$ qubits and a way to apply $m$ single- and 2-qubit gates, quantum supremacy experiments Initialize the $n$ qubits into the all-zero's ket ...