IBM Says It's Cracked Quantum Error Correction (ieee.org) 23
Edd Gent reporting for IEEE Spectrum: IBM has unveiled a new quantum computing architecture it says will slash the number of qubits required for error correction. The advance will underpin its goal of building a large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computer, called Starling, that will be available to customers by 2029. Because of the inherent unreliability of the qubits (the quantum equivalent of bits) that quantum computers are built from, error correction will be crucial for building reliable, large-scale devices. Error-correction approaches spread each unit of information across many physical qubits to create "logical qubits." This provides redundancy against errors in individual physical qubits.
One of the most popular approaches is known as a surface code, which requires roughly 1,000 physical qubits to make up one logical qubit. This was the approach IBM focused on initially, but the company eventually realized that creating the hardware to support it was an "engineering pipe dream," Jay Gambetta, the vice president of IBM Quantum, said in a press briefing. Around 2019, the company began to investigate alternatives. In a paper published in Nature last year, IBM researchers outlined a new error-correction scheme called quantum low-density parity check (qLDPC) codes that would require roughly one-tenth of the number of qubits that surface codes need. Now, the company has unveiled a new quantum-computing architecture that can realize this new approach. "We've cracked the code to quantum error correction and it's our plan to build the first large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computer," said Gambetta, who is also an IBM Fellow. "We feel confident it is now a question of engineering to build these machines, rather than science."
One of the most popular approaches is known as a surface code, which requires roughly 1,000 physical qubits to make up one logical qubit. This was the approach IBM focused on initially, but the company eventually realized that creating the hardware to support it was an "engineering pipe dream," Jay Gambetta, the vice president of IBM Quantum, said in a press briefing. Around 2019, the company began to investigate alternatives. In a paper published in Nature last year, IBM researchers outlined a new error-correction scheme called quantum low-density parity check (qLDPC) codes that would require roughly one-tenth of the number of qubits that surface codes need. Now, the company has unveiled a new quantum-computing architecture that can realize this new approach. "We've cracked the code to quantum error correction and it's our plan to build the first large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computer," said Gambetta, who is also an IBM Fellow. "We feel confident it is now a question of engineering to build these machines, rather than science."
Re: (Score:1)
What's the point of Quantum if IBM are just going to dump systemd and Gnome on it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Gnome is fine
Yuck, I can't stand toy UIs as desktop, and what would I do with a quantum machine anyway?
I'll stick with my abacus running openbox, thank you.
Re: Tomorrow's headline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't even run on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha.
But the box is virtual!
Re: Tomorrow's headline (Score:2)
Pretty much defines IBM since the early 1990s. I grew up having a father who worked for IBM and had a full career with them. It was my dream to work with my father at IBM which I was able to until early 90s when IBM began to get cut staff across the board. IBM is a shadow of the great company it once was.
Re: (Score:2)
Total number of qbits (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is hilariously ironic:
This was the approach IBM focused on initially, but the company eventually realized that creating the hardware to support it was an "engineering pipe dream"
And then later:
"We feel confident it is now a question of engineering to build these machines, rather than science."
"Cracked the code" might be overselling it a bit at this point, I would say.
Re: (Score:2)
Still does not matter (Score:3)
They are so extremely far from any actually useful QC, that they might be ancient greeks talking about making a smartphone. Yes, there is progress. But is the goal in sight? No.
Re: (Score:2)
I like progress. I don't like exaggerated claims from said progress. But let's not diss progress just because the latter happens.
Thanks for the post though.
Re: Still does not matter (Score:2)
Excellent response
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
The AI application will just insert a batch of new errors.
Yeah, sure (Score:1)
Google solved it already in 2024 (Score:2)
Google solved it already in 2024:
https://research.google/blog/m... [research.google]
Re: (Score:2)
No they didn't.
Google's surface codes are not sufficient to sustain computation with any real world error rate.
The IBM Bicycle code improves the bounds a little, but still requires physical error rates that are not achievable.
Read the papers. They describe the strength of their codes. From there you can deduce the headlines are lying.
3 blue 1 brown... (Score:2)
If you are familiar with the YouTube channel 3 blue 1 brown [youtube.com], he has a couple of really good videos explaining quantum computing.
It is entirely believable that we will have some interesting quantum computers in...a decade or three. Right now, they are still bleeding edge science. The few claims where they have done something a classical computer cannot, are all cases of simulating quantum systems. Which is...kind of trivial and not very interesting.