Debunking algorithmic qubits
Executive Summary: Quantinuum’s H-Series computers have the highest performance in the industry, verified by multiple widely adopted benchmarks including quantum volume We demonstrate that an alternative benchmark called algorithmic qubits is deeply flawed, hiding computer performance behind a plurality voting trick and gate compilations that are not widely useful.
Recently a new benchmark called algorithmic qubits (AQ) has started to be confused with quantum volume measurements. Quantum volume (QV) was specifically designed to be hard to “game,” however the algorithmic qubits test turns out to be very susceptible to tricks that can make a quantum computer look much better than it actually is. While it is not clear what can be done to fix the algorithmic qubits test, it is already clear that it is much easier to pass than QV and is a poor substitute for measuring performance. It is also important to note that algorithmic qubits are not the same as logical qubits, which are necessary for full fault-tolerant quantum computing.
To make this point clear, we simulated what algorithmic qubits data would look like for two machines, one clearly much higher performing than the other. We applied two tricks that are typically used when sharing algorithmic qubits results: gate compilation and error mitigation with plurality voting. From the data above, you can see how these tricks are misleading without further information. For example, if you compare data from the higher fidelity machine without any compilation or plurality voting (bottom left) to data from the inferior machine with both tricks (top right) you may incorrectly believe the inferior machine is performing better. Unfortunately, this inaccurate and misleading comparison has been made in the past. It is important to note that algorithmic qubits uses a subset of algorithms from a QED-C paper that introduced a suite of application oriented tests and created a repository to test available quantum computers. Importantly, that work explicitly forbids the compilation and error mitigation techniques that are causing the issue here.
As a demonstration of the perils of AQ as a benchmark, we look at data obtained on both Quantinuum’s H2-1 system as well as publicly available data from IonQ’s Forte system.
We reproduce data without any error mitigation from IonQ’s publicly released data in association with a preprint posted to the arXiv, and compare it to data taken on our H2-1 device. Without error mitigation, IonQ Forte achieves an AQ score of 9, whereas Quantinuum H2-1 achieves AQ of 26. Here you can clearly see improved circuit fidelities on the H2-1 device, as one would expect from the higher reported 2Q gate fidelities (average 99.816(5)% for Quantinuum’s H2-1 vs 99.35% for IonQ’s Forte). However, after you apply error mitigation, in this case plurality voting, to both sets of data the picture changes substantially, hiding each underlying computer’s true capabilities.
Here the H2-1 algorithmic performance still exceeds Forte (from the publicly released data), but the perceived gap has been reduced by error mitigation.
“Error mitigation, including plurality voting, may be a useful tool for some near-term quantum computing but it doesn’t work for every problem and it’s unlikely to be scalable to larger systems. In order to achieve the lofty goals of quantum computing we’ll need serious device performance upgrades. If we allow error mitigation in benchmarking it will conflate the error mitigation with the underlying device performance. This will make it hard for users to appreciate actual device improvements that translate to all applications and larger problems,” explained Dr. Charlie Baldwin, a leader in Quantinuum’s benchmarking efforts.
There are other issues with the algorithmic qubits test. The circuits used in the test can be reduced to very easy-to-run circuits with basic quantum circuit compilation that are freely available in packages like pytket. For example, the largest phase estimation and amplitude estimation tests required to pass AQ=32 are specified with 992 and 868 entangling gates respectively but applying pytket optimization reduces the circuits to 141 and 72 entangling gates. This is only possible due to choices in constructing the benchmarks and will not be universally available when using the algorithms in applications. Since AQ reports the precompiled gate counts this also may lead users to expect a machine to be able to run many more entangling gates than what is actually possible on the benchmarked hardware.
What makes a good quantum benchmark? Quantum benchmarking is extremely useful in charting the hardware progress and providing roadmaps for future development. However, quantum benchmarking is an evolving field that is still an open area of research. At Quantinuum we believe in testing the limits of our machine with a variety of different benchmarks to learn as much as possible about the errors present in our system and how they affect different circuits. We are open to working with the larger community on refining benchmarks and creating new ones as the field evolves.
To learn more about the Algorithmic Qubits benchmark and the issues with it, please watch this video where Dr. Charlie Baldwin walks us through the details, starting at 32:40.
About Quantinuum
Quantinuum, the world’s largest integrated quantum company, pioneers powerful quantum computers and advanced software solutions. Quantinuum’s technology drives breakthroughs in materials discovery, cybersecurity, and next-gen quantum AI. With over 500 employees, including 370+ scientists and engineers, Quantinuum leads the quantum computing revolution across continents.
At this year’s Q2B Silicon Valley conference from December 10th – 12th in Santa Clara, California, the Quantinuum team will be participating in plenary and case study sessions to showcase our quantum computing technologies.
Schedule a meeting with us at Q2B
Meet our team at Booth #G9 to discover how Quantinuum is charting the path to universal, fully fault-tolerant quantum computing.
Join our sessions:
Tuesday, Dec 10, 10:00 - 10:20am PT
Plenary: Advancements in Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation: Demonstrations and Results
There is industry-wide consensus on the need for fault-tolerant QPU’s, but demonstrations of these abilities are less common. In this talk, Dr. Hayes will review Quantinuum’s long list of meaningful demonstrations in fault-tolerance, including real-time error correction, a variety of codes from the surface code to exotic qLDPC codes, logical benchmarking, beyond break-even behavior on multiple codes and circuit families.
Wednesday, Dec 11, 4:30 – 4:50pm PT
Keynote: Quantum Tokens: Securing Digital Assets with Quantum Physics
Mitsui’s Deputy General Manager, Quantum Innovation Dept., Corporate Development Div., Koji Naniwada, and Quantinuum’s Head of Cybersecurity, Duncan Jones will deliver a keynote presentation on a case study for quantum in cybersecurity. Together, our organizations demonstrated the first implementation of quantum tokens over a commercial QKD network. Quantum tokens enable three previously incompatible properties: unforgeability guaranteed by physics, fast settlement without centralized validation, and user privacy until redemption. We present results from our successful Tokyo trial using NEC's QKD commercial hardware and discuss potential applications in financial services.
Wednesday, Dec 11, 5:10 – 6:10pm PT
Quantinuum and Mitsui Sponsored Happy Hour
Join the Quantinuum and Mitsui teams in the expo hall for a networking happy hour.
Particle accelerator projects like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) don’t just smash particles - they also power the invention of some of the world’s most impactful technologies. A favorite example is the world wide web, which was developed for particle physics experiments at CERN.
Tech designed to unlock the mysteries of the universe has brutally exacting requirements – and it is this boundary pushing, plus billion-dollar budgets, that has led to so much innovation.
For example, X-rays are used in accelerators to measure the chemical composition of the accelerator products and to monitor radiation. The understanding developed to create those technologies was then applied to help us build better CT scanners, reducing the x-ray dosage while improving the image quality.
Stories like this are common in accelerator physics, or High Energy Physics (HEP). Scientists and engineers working in HEP have been early adopters and/or key drivers of innovations in advanced cancer treatments (using proton beams), machine learning techniques, robots, new materials, cryogenics, data handling and analysis, and more.
A key strand of HEP research aims to make accelerators simpler and cheaper. A key piece of infrastructure that could be improved is their computing environments.
CERN itself has said: “CERN is one of the most highly demanding computing environments in the research world... From software development, to data processing and storage, networks, support for the LHC and non-LHC experimental programme, automation and controls, as well as services for the accelerator complex and for the whole laboratory and its users, computing is at the heart of CERN’s infrastructure.”
With annual data generated by accelerators in excess of exabytes (a billion gigabytes), tens of millions of lines of code written to support the experiments, and incredibly demanding hardware requirements, it’s no surprise that the HEP community is interested in quantum computing, which offers real solutions to some of their hardest problems.
As the authors of this paper stated: “[Quantum Computing] encompasses several defining characteristics that are of particular interest to experimental HEP: the potential for quantum speed-up in processing time, sensitivity to sources of correlations in data, and increased expressivity of quantum systems... Experiments running on high-luminosity accelerators need faster algorithms; identification and reconstruction algorithms need to capture correlations in signals; simulation and inference tools need to express and calculate functions that are classically intractable.”
The HEP community’s interest in quantum computing is growing. In recent years, their scientists have been looking carefully at how quantum computing could help them, publishing a number of papers discussing the challenges and requirements for quantum technology to make a dent (here’s one example, and here’s the arXiv version).
In the past few months, what was previously theoretical is becoming a reality. Several groups published results using quantum machines to tackle something called “Lattice Gauge Theory”, which is a type of math used to describe a broad range of phenomena in HEP (and beyond). Two papers came from academic groups using quantum simulators, one using trapped ions and one using neutral atoms. Another group, including scientists from Google, tackled Lattice Gauge Theory using a superconducting quantum computer. Taken together, these papers indicate a growing interest in using quantum computing for High Energy Physics, beyond simple one-dimensional systems which are more easily accessible with classical methods such as tensor networks.
We have been working with DESY, one of the world’s leading accelerator centers, to help make quantum computing useful for their work. DESY, short for Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, is a national research center that operates, develops, and constructs particle accelerators, and is part of the worldwide computer network used to store and analyze the enormous flood of data that is produced by the LHC in Geneva.
Our first publication from this partnership describes a quantum machine learning technique for untangling data from the LHC, finding that in some cases the quantum approach was indeed superior to the classical approach. More recently, we used Quantinuum System Model H1 to tackle Lattice Gauge Theory (LGT), as it’s a favorite contender for quantum advantage in HEP.
Lattice Gauge Theories are one approach to solving what are more broadly referred to as “quantum many-body problems”. Quantum many-body problems lie at the border of our knowledge in many different fields, such as the electronic structure problem which impacts chemistry and pharmaceuticals, or the quest for understanding and engineering new material properties such as light harvesting materials; to basic research such as high energy physics, which aims to understand the fundamental constituents of the universe, or condensed matter physics where our understanding of things like high-temperature superconductivity is still incomplete.
The difficulty in solving problems like this – analytically or computationally – is that the problem complexity grows exponentially with the size of the system. For example, there are 36 possible configurations of two six-faced dice (1 and 1 or 1 and 2 or 1and 3... etc), while for ten dice there are more than sixty million configurations.
Quantum computing may be very well-suited to tackling problems like this, due to a quantum processor’s similar information density scaling – with the addition of a single qubit to a QPU, the information the system contains doubles. Our 56-qubit System Model H2, for example, can hold quantum states that require 128*(2^56) bits worth of information to describe (with double-precision numbers) on a classical supercomputer, which is more information than the biggest supercomputer in the world can hold in memory.
The joint team made significant progress in approaching the Lattice Gauge Theory corresponding to Quantum Electrodynamics, the theory of light and matter. For the first time, they were able study the full wavefunction of a two-dimensional confining system with gauge fields and dynamical matter fields on a quantum processor. They were also able to visualize the confining string and the string-breaking phenomenon at the level of the wavefunction, across a range of interaction strengths.
The team approached the problem starting with the definition of the Hamiltonian using the InQuanto software package, and utilized the reusable protocols of InQuanto to compute both projective measurements and expectation values. InQuanto allowed the easy integration of measurement reduction techniques and scalable error mitigation techniques. Moreover, the emulator and hardware experiments were orchestrated by the Nexus online platform.
In one section of the study, a circuit with 24 qubits and more than 250 two-qubit gates was reduced to a smaller width of 15 qubits thanks our unique qubit re-use and mid-circuit measurement automatic compilation implemented in TKET.
This work paves the way towards using quantum computers to study lattice gauge theories in higher dimensions, with the goal of one day simulating the full three-dimensional Quantum Chromodynamics theory underlying the nuclear sector of the Standard Model of particle physics. Being able to simulate full 3D quantum chromodynamics will undoubtedly unlock many of Nature’s mysteries, from the Big Bang to the interior of neutron stars, and is likely to lead to applications we haven’t yet dreamed of.