Talk:Quantum volume

IBM Quantum volume is 64. This should probably be updated in the main 104.158.189.50 (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC) article.https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2020/08/20/ibm-announces-it-doubled-quantum-volume-from-32-to-64/#20a8f60ca404[reply]

-- 10-02-2020 Updated article to add reference to the initial paper.

QV of 64 with N=6?[edit]

How does a QC with 6 qubits get a QV of 64? Based on this article (and the IBM paper), the max possible should be 36. Patallurgist (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reading further, it appears that Honeywell has not yet released their 6-qubit QC and is deeply confused about QV; their paper defines it as 2^N. I don't think the correct number is 36 either because they don't seem to discuss depth. I'm removing it entirely, since I doubt their QC is on the cutting-edge given the tiny number of qubits and this basic error in their paper. Patallurgist (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Patallurgist: See Quantum volume#IBM's modified definition. Does it make sense now? Petr Matas 21:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you very much! I was totally wrong about Honeywell. Apparently they and IBM are both using the exponential definition, so 6x6 circuits are the cutting-edge, not 8x8 as I had thought. Got a bit overconfident there. Patallurgist (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

rQOPS edit request[edit]

Hello editors, this is Thomas from Microsoft Azure here with an edit request. I've set up my user account to clarify my COI to editors interested.

    The first sentence of this draft is the final sentence of the Introduction section. This draft I've whipped up slightly alters the existing final sentence of the Introduction, replacing benchmarks with metrics which is a more accurate description. After that, I've added a new sentence that points to Microsoft's development of Reliable Quantum Operations per Seconds (abbreviated as rQOPS), then also added an explanation of specifically what it is in a follow-up sentence. I've utilized two new sources: a paper using Azure Quantum resource estimator for assessing performance of fault tolerant quantum computation, and a piece from Phys.org.
    
    Please read below:

rQOPS addition

    Alternative metrics, such as Cross-entropy metrics and IonQ's Algorithmic Qubits, have also been proposed. To measure scalable system performance as technology develops beyond the current noisy intermediate-scale quantum era,^[1] Microsoft has developed a measure called Reliable Quantum Operations per Second (rQOPS). The rQOPS rate can measure the rate of computation for a computer in terms of how many reliable operations it can execute per second.^[2]

References

^ van Dam, Wim; Mykhailova, Mariia; Soeken, Mathias (2023-11-09), Using Azure Quantum Resource Estimator for Assessing Performance of Fault Tolerant Quantum Computation, arXiv, retrieved 2023-12-05
^ Yirka, Bob; Phys.org (2023-06-24). "Microsoft claims to have achieved first milestone in creating a reliable and practical quantum computer". Phys. Retrieved 2023-11-30.

If editors have any questions about my proposed addition, please let me know and I'll be happy to respond. Thank you so much! Thomas at Azure Quantum (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the constructive proposal; but, to be honest, I think this is quite a bit too early. As far as I can see, there is just one preprint (by Microsoft-authors) on the arXiv that introduces this figure of merit and that has not yet been peer-reviewed or published. the aim of Wikipedia is to represent established knowledge. In my view, this would require here that the manuscript proposing the figure of merit does not only pass peer review, but that it is also adopted (to some extent) by the community beyond Microsoft, i.e., that it is used in papers by independent authors, is discussed in review articles (I think we don't have to wait for textbooks). --Qcomp (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the proposed draft. I totally understand your concerns about the sourcing. I have a commissioned research paper that I didn't use for the draft that might satisfy your conditions, as well as news coverage about the research. If you have a moment, please review these two and let me know if you think this (together with or in place of the sourcing I offered before) would support the rQOPS addition:

In Pursuit of Fault Tolerant Quantum Computing: https://omdia.tech.informa.com/-/media/tech/omdia/marketing/commissioned-research/pdfs/in-pursuit-of-fault-tolerant-quantum-computing.pdf

IoT World Today: https://www.iotworldtoday.com/quantum/omdia-microsoft-paths-to-quantum-advantage

Again, thank you so much for reviewing! Thomas at Azure Quantum (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] van Dam, Wim; Mykhailova, Mariia; Soeken, Mathias (2023-11-09), Using Azure Quantum Resource Estimator for Assessing Performance of Fault Tolerant Quantum Computation, arXiv, retrieved 2023-12-05

[2] Yirka, Bob; Phys.org (2023-06-24). "Microsoft claims to have achieved first milestone in creating a reliable and practical quantum computer". Phys. Retrieved 2023-11-30.

[1]

[2]