Biggest issue for neutral atom right now?

alumiqu • 15d ago Parallelism. They can't do enough two-qubit gates in parallel, and when they try it the fidelity drops dramatically. When they fix this, movement parallelism will be the next bottleneck. 0xB01b • 15d ago Okay that is interesting, I had not heard of this. Thank you for this insight Continue this thread 0xB01b • 15d ago Okay that is interesting, I had not heard of this. Thank you for this insight Big_Temporary5604 • 15d ago Slow gates. Realistic qec implementations even in optimistic circumstances have algorithms running for months. 100-1000x slower than SC qubits. At NISQ obviously it doesn’t matter much if coherence time scales similarly, but at fault tolerant era is literally 1000x speed increase 0xB01b • 15d ago I'm actually going to get back to you on this one soon because im working in a experimental neutral atom QEC group, and I don't think this is going to remain true (or at least im not sure if this is even true for the current state of research) mdreed • 15d ago What about fidelity? I understand the fidelity is limited by the excited state lifetime, which is short compared to gate time. So 99.9% gates might barely be possible, but definitely not 99.99. True? more replies more replies Continue this thread ExorusKoh • 11d ago I’m curious OP—I work also in QEC albeit on the theory side—I presume the timescale here of concern is not actually gate time per se (as those can be fast, for Rydberg two-qubit gates and Raman single-qubit ones), but rather for readout and atom movement. Are you thinking that there will be significant speed-ups to those timescales in the near future? If so, any idea by what mechanisms? Big_Temporary5604 • 15d ago Fair enough I will believe it when I see a production ready system running with ns gate speeds (not hero demos or isolated pairs). For now my money is on SC qubits. Scalability is harder, but in the long run you end up with something properly useful considering also time dimension. On a final note, superconducting qubits still lead on error corrected logical error rate even with 1us cycle time. No other platform is close when you consider measurement errors and feedback. So of course it’s not a primary “spec”, but for some some or perhaps many reasons, atoms lag behind in the only metric that matters more replies more replies Continue this thread Continue this thread Continue this thread 0xB01b • 15d ago I'm actually going to get back to you on this one soon because im working in a experimental neutral atom QEC group, and I don't think this is going to remain true (or at least im not sure if this is even true for the current state of research) mdreed • 15d ago What about fidelity? I understand the fidelity is limited by the excited state lifetime, which is short compared to gate time. So 99.9% gates might barely be possible, but definitely not 99.99. True? more replies more replies Continue this thread ExorusKoh • 11d ago I’m curious OP—I work also in QEC albeit on the theory side—I presume the timescale here of concern is not actually gate time per se (as those can be fast, for Rydberg two-qubit gates and Raman single-qubit ones), but rather for readout and atom movement. Are you thinking that there will be significant speed-ups to those timescales in the near future? If so, any idea by what mechanisms? Big_Temporary5604 • 15d ago Fair enough I will believe it when I see a production ready system running with ns gate speeds (not hero demos or isolated pairs). For now my money is on SC qubits. Scalability is harder, but in the long run you end up with something properly useful considering also time dimension. On a final note, superconducting qubits still lead on error corrected logical error rate even with 1us cycle time. No other platform is close when you consider measurement errors and feedback. So of course it’s not a primary “spec”, but for some some or perhaps many reasons, atoms lag behind in the only metric that matters more replies more replies Continue this thread Continue this thread mdreed • 15d ago What about fidelity? I understand the fidelity is limited by the excited state lifetime, which is short compared to gate time. So 99.9% gates might barely be possible, but definitely not 99.99. True? more replies more replies Continue this thread ExorusKoh • 11d ago I’m curious OP—I work also in QEC albeit on the theory side—I presume the timescale here of concern is not actually gate time per se (as those can be fast, for Rydberg two-qubit gates and Raman single-qubit ones), but rather for readout and atom movement. Are you thinking that there will be significant speed-ups to those timescales in the near future? If so, any idea by what mechanisms? Big_Temporary5604 • 15d ago Fair enough I will believe it when I see a production ready system running with ns gate speeds (not hero demos or isolated pairs). For now my money is on SC qubits. Scalability is harder, but in the long run you end up with something properly useful considering also time dimension. On a final note, superconducting qubits still lead on error corrected logical error rate even with 1us cycle time. No other platform is close when you consider measurement errors and feedback. So of course it’s not a primary “spec”, but for some some or perhaps many reasons, atoms lag behind in the only metric that matters more replies more replies Continue this thread Blackforestcheesecak • 15d ago As someone building neutral atom array (NAA) quantum computers, I don't think there is //one// most pressing issue. Personally, I would like miniaturization and ease of mounting a new set-up without loss of any of the usual benchmarks, e.g., fidelities and lifetimes Acetone9527 • 14d ago Not expert in NA but I think gate time/readout time is a big issue at the end of the day. There’s a lot of time estimate paper and with SC qubit 10ns gate time 100 ns readout it takes days for useful simulations. NA is 100 ns gate time and microsecond readout - month long simulation doesn’t make much sense. In the midterm as proof-of-concept though, I think NA is going to eat all the lunch.If there are newer progress I would like to be corrected.