Metrics and Benchmarks for Quantum Processors: State of Play
- Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
A compelling narrative has taken hold as quantum computing explodes into the commercial sector: Quantum computing in 2018 is like classical computing in 1965. In 1965 Gordon Moore wrote his famous paper about integrated circuits, saying: "At present, [minimum cost] is reached when 50 components are used per circuit. But... the complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year... by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000." This narrative is both appealing (we want to believe that quantum computing will follow the incredibly successful path of classical computing!) and plausible (2018 saw IBM, Intel, and Google announce 50-qubit integrated chips). But it is also deeply misleading. Here is an alternative: Quantum computing in 2018 is like classical computing in 1938. In 1938, John Atanasoff and Clifford Berry built the very first electronic digital computer. It had no program, and was not Turing-complete. Vacuum tubes — the standard "bit" for 20 years — were still 5 years in the future. ENIAC and the achievement of "computational supremacy" (over hand calculation) wouldn't arrive for 8 years, despite the accelerative effect of WWII. Integrated circuits and the information age were more than 20 years away. Neither of these analogies is perfect. Quantum computing technology is more like 1938, while the level of funding and excitement suggest 1965 (or later!). But the point of the cautionary analogy to 1938 is simple: Quantum computing in 2018 is a research field. It is far too early to establish metrics or benchmarks for performance. The best role for neutral organizations like IEEE is to encourage and shape research into metrics and benchmarks, so as to be ready when they become necessary. This white paper presents the evidence and reasoning for this claim. We explain what it means to say that quantum computing is a "research field", and why metrics and benchmarks for quantum processors also constitute a research field. We discuss the potential for harmful consequences of prematurely establishing standards or frameworks. We conclude by suggesting specific actions that IEEE or similar organizations can take to accelerate the development of good metrics and benchmarks for quantum computing.
- Research Organization:
- Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States); Sandia National Lab. (SNL-CA), Livermore, CA (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE Office of Science (SC), Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR); USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
- DOE Contract Number:
- AC04-94AL85000; NA0003525
- OSTI ID:
- 1493362
- Report Number(s):
- SAND-2019-0963R; 671940
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Policy, Permit, Perform: Using City Benchmarking Data and Building Construction Permit History to Identify Energy Performance Improvements
Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor