Quantum computing with neutral atoms

The power of quantum computation derives from algorithmic methods that exploit the availability of quantum superposition and entanglement to perform computations that are intractable with classical devices. The race is on to develop hardware that will unleash the promise of quantum algorithms. A handful of different types of hardware are currently being developedwith the greatest efforts directed at superconducting, quantum-dot, trapped-ion, photonic, and neutral-atom approaches [1]. While all approaches have strengths andweaknesses, and are at different stages of development, the challenge of creating a practical design that can be scaled to a million or more qubits has not yet been met with any of the existing platforms. One may wonder if we really need a million qubits for a useful quantum computer. The answer depends on our ambition level. On the one hand it is widely believed that a quantum computer with less than100 reliable qubitswill be able to demonstrate a quantum advantage for a well defined computational problem [2]. Demonstration of a quantum computational advantage will generate great excitement in the halls of academia, but will have little broader import. A problem of great practical interest such as ab initio design of chemicals for increasing the yield of fertilizers for crop production, to name but one example, may also require just a few hundred qubits, provided computational sequences with circuit depth of 1010 or more operations can be reliably performed [3]. However, given the current performance of qubit hardware, which has demonstrated error rates not less than ∼10−3, computations with depth 1010 will only produce random outcomes of negligible value. The solution lies in the construction of error-correction circuitry operating on logical qubits, each composed of many physical qubits, which will enable logical error rates many orders of magnitude smaller than physical error rates. Although error correction is remarkably efficient for classical computing devices—Hamming codes detect and correct errors while only requiring roughly 10% overhead in the number of physical bits—quantum error correction is notoriously expensive. New approaches to error correction are the subject of intensive research with one promising direction being the development of codes that are optimized to suppress the dominant error mechanism in a particular physical platform [4,5]. Nevertheless, with physical error rates of 10−4, a plausible target for current qubit systems, the overhead required to reach logical error rates of 10−10 may be measured in thousands of physical qubits for each logical qubit. Thus a quantum computer able to perform deep calculations on a few hundred logical qubits could require a million physical qubits. A consequence of the cost of quantum error correction is that any viable approach to large-scale quantum computing needs to combine high-fidelity quantum logic operations with a capability for integrating large numbers of physical qubits. From this perspective neutralatom qubits appear particularly promis-

[1]  I. Deutsch,et al.  Entangling Atomic Spins with a Strong Rydberg-Dressed Interaction , 2015, 1501.03862.

[2]  L. Frunzio,et al.  Fault-tolerant measurement of a quantum error syndrome , 2018, 1803.00102.

[3]  Sylvain Schwartz,et al.  High-Fidelity Control and Entanglement of Rydberg-Atom Qubits. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[4]  Hyosub Kim,et al.  In situ single-atom array synthesis using dynamic holographic optical tweezers , 2016, Nature Communications.

[5]  Andreas Reiserer,et al.  Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons , 2014, 1412.2889.

[6]  M. Saffman,et al.  High-fidelity Rydberg quantum gate via a two-atom dark state , 2017, 1708.00755.

[7]  M. Troyer,et al.  Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  M. Saffman,et al.  High-fidelity Rydberg-blockade entangling gate using shaped, analytic pulses , 2016, 1605.08891.

[9]  Lukin,et al.  Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms , 2000, Physical review letters.

[10]  Stephen D Bartlett,et al.  Ultrahigh Error Threshold for Surface Codes with Biased Noise. , 2017, Physical review letters.

[11]  Yasunobu Nakamura,et al.  Quantum computers , 2010, Nature.

[12]  Thomas G. Walker,et al.  Quantum information with Rydberg atoms , 2009, 0909.4777.

[13]  M. Saffman Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges , 2016, 1605.05207.

[14]  Antoine Browaeys,et al.  An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays , 2016, Science.

[15]  C. Simon,et al.  Large energy superpositions via Rydberg dressing , 2015, 1509.01303.

[16]  M. Saffman,et al.  Rydberg-blockade controlled-not gate and entanglement in a two-dimensional array of neutral-atom qubits , 2015, 1506.06416.

[17]  Aram W. Harrow,et al.  Quantum computational supremacy , 2017, Nature.

[18]  M Saffman,et al.  Randomized benchmarking of single-qubit gates in a 2D array of neutral-atom qubits. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[19]  Todd A. Brun,et al.  Quantum Computing , 2011, Computer Science, The Hardware, Software and Heart of It.

[20]  Liang Jiang,et al.  Fault-tolerant detection of a quantum error , 2018, Science.

[21]  I. Deutsch,et al.  Entangling atomic spins with a Rydberg-dressed spin-flip blockade , 2015, Nature Physics.

[22]  Andrew Steane,et al.  Fast quantum logic gates with trapped-ion qubits , 2017, Nature.

[23]  Yang Wang,et al.  Single-qubit gates based on targeted phase shifts in a 3D neutral atom array , 2016, Science.

[24]  M. Lukin,et al.  Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator , 2017, Nature.