13

Anyone who has written a paper, and asked themselves whether they could improve the notation, or present the analysis a bit differently to make it more elegant, is familiar with the fact that choices of notation, description, and analysis can be an accident — chosen without deep motivations. There's nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't have a strong ...


13

This is a greatly debated topic, and I'm not sure there is an answer to your question at the current time. However, the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has proposed PAR 7131 - Standard for Quantum Computing Performance Metrics & Performance Benchmarking: The purpose of this project is to provide a standardized set of ...


9

There have been efforts to implement construct "floating point" representation of small rotations of qubit states, such as: Floating Point Representations in Quantum Circuit Synthesis. But there doesn't seem to be any international standard like the one you mentioned i.e. IEEE 754. IEEE 7130 - Standard for Quantum Computing Definitions is an ongoing project. ...


8

While number of qubits should be part of such a metric, as you say, it's far from everything. However, comparing two different completely different devices (e.g. superconducting and linear optics) is not the most straightforward task1. Factors Asking about coherence and gate times is equivalent to asking about fidelity and gate times1. Gates being harder ...


7

IBM is promoting their quantum volume (see also this) idea to quantify the power of a gate model machine with a single number. Before IBM, there was an attempt from Rigetti to define a total quantum factor. Unclear if it captures what we want in terms of usefulness of devices for applications. Things such as quantum volume are be designed with supremacy ...


5

The log quantum volume of Quirk ( https://algassert.com/quirk ) is 16, because it has a maximum of 16 qubits and can easily do the ~200 gates that are part of the test circuit. The slowest part will be drawing the result. For state vector simulators that don't impose maximum qubit counts, like qsim, the limit is basically available memory and the size of ...


5

I think the answer depends on why you are comparing them. Things like the quantum volume, are perhaps better suited to defining progress in the development of devices rather than fully informing end users. For example, you are buying a new laptop, you probably use more than just a single number when comparing them. The same should be true for quantum ...


3

It seems to me that, from the point of view of quantum engineering, we are a few years away from being at the point of fixing standards. Standards are a good way to ensure the reproducibility of the behaviour of a piece of information technology, and the interoperability of the functionality of multiple pieces of information technology. It is clear that at ...


3

There is no notion of "standard eigenvalues" for general matrices. Some meaningful eigenvalues for 4x4 matrices are: {-3/2, -1/2, 1/2, 3/2} which are the possible z-projections of a spin-3/2 particle Instead of eigenvalues of X and Z, use the eigenvalues of the Dirac matrices, which are 4x4 matrices that are related to Pauli matrices Instead of ...


1

I'm probably late to party but I found this section today. In terms to answer your question[s] I made a lot of thoughts and read enough paper for a tree. I found 2 excellent experiments (very timely) that show their practical testing problems and solutions. And most important their preparation for a reproducible quantum state. The documentations of both ...


1

I am afraid that while interesting work is being done here, it should be clear that the quantum computer architecture is very much non-standardised and hence this is all subject to change. The IEEE 754 standard describes how to implement a feature that decades of engineering and research have shown to be useful and hence machines are to be expected to do ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible