We're nearing the end of the year, and there are typically a flood of announcements regarding quantum computers around now, in part because some companies want to live up to promised schedules. Most of these involve evolutionary improvements on previous generations of hardware. But this year, we have something new: the first company to market with a new qubit technology.

The technology is called a dual-rail qubit, and it is intended to make the most common form of error trivially easy to detect in hardware, thus making error correction far more efficient. And, while tech giant Amazon has been experimenting with them, a startup called Quantum Circuits is the first to give the public access to dual-rail qubits via a cloud service.

While the tech is interesting on its own, it also provides us with a window into how the field as a whole is thinking about getting error-corrected quantum computing to work.

Read full article

Comments

In September, Microsoft made an unusual combination of announcements. It demonstrated progress with quantum error correction, something that will be needed for the technology to move much beyond the interesting demo phase, using hardware from a quantum computing startup called Quantinuum. At the same time, however, the company also announced that it was forming a partnership with a different startup, Atom Computing, which uses a different technology to make qubits available for computations.

Given that, it was probably inevitable that the folks in Redmond, Washington, would want to show that similar error correction techniques would also work with Atom Computing's hardware. It didn't take long, as the two companies are releasing a draft manuscript describing their work on error correction today. The paper serves as both a good summary of where things currently stand in the world of error correction, as well as a good look at some of the distinct features of computation using neutral atoms.

Atoms and errors

While we have various technologies that provide a way of storing and manipulating bits of quantum information, none of them can be operated error-free. At present, errors make it difficult to perform even the simplest computations that are clearly beyond the capabilities of classical computers. More sophisticated algorithms would inevitably encounter an error before they could be completed, a situation that would remain true even if we could somehow improve the hardware error rates of qubits by a factor of 1,000—something we're unlikely to ever be able to do.

Read full article

Comments

There's a general consensus that we won't be able to consistently perform sophisticated quantum calculations without the development of error-corrected quantum computing, which is unlikely to arrive until the end of the decade. It's still an open question, however, whether we could perform limited but useful calculations at an earlier point. IBM is one of the companies that's betting the answer is yes, and on Wednesday, it announced a series of developments aimed at making that possible.

On their own, none of the changes being announced are revolutionary. But collectively, changes across the hardware and software stacks have produced much more efficient and less error-prone operations. The net result is a system that supports the most complicated calculations yet on IBM's hardware, leaving the company optimistic that its users will find some calculations where quantum hardware provides an advantage.

Better hardware and software

IBM's early efforts in the quantum computing space saw it ramp up the qubit count rapidly, being one of the first companies to reach the 1,000 qubit count. However, each of those qubits had an error rate that ensured that any algorithms that tried to use all of these qubits in a single calculation would inevitably trigger one. Since then, the company's focus has been on improving the performance of smaller processors. Wednesday's announcement was based on the introduction of the second version of its Heron processor, which has 156 qubits (up from an earlier 133 in Revision 1). That's still beyond the capability of simulations on classical computers, should it be able to operate with sufficiently low errors.

Read full article

Comments

Back in 2019, Google made waves by claiming it had achieved what has been called "quantum supremacy"—the ability of a quantum computer to perform operations that would take a wildly impractical amount of time to simulate on standard computing hardware. That claim proved to be controversial, in that the operations were little more than a benchmark that involved getting the quantum computer to behave like a quantum computer; separately, improved ideas about how to perform the simulation on a supercomputer cut the time required down significantly.

But Google is back with a new exploration of the benchmark, described in a paper published in Nature on Wednesday. It uses the benchmark to identify what it calls a phase transition in the performance of its quantum processor and uses it to identify conditions where the processor can operate with low noise. Taking advantage of that, they again show that, even giving classical hardware every potential advantage, it would take a supercomputer a dozen years to simulate things.

Cross entropy benchmarking

The benchmark in question involves the performance of what are called quantum random circuits, which involves performing a set of operations on qubits and letting the state of the system evolve over time, so that the output depends heavily on the stochastic nature of measurement outcomes in quantum mechanics. Each qubit will have a probability of producing one of two results, but unless that probability is one, there's no way of knowing which of the results you'll actually get. As a result, the output of the operations will be a string of truly random bits.

Read full article

Comments

On Wednesday, the Nobel Committee announced that it had awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry to researchers who pioneered major breakthroughs in computational chemistry. These include two researchers at Google's DeepMind in acknowledgment of their role in developing AI software that could take a raw protein sequence and use it to predict the three-dimensional structure the protein would adopt in cells. Separately, the University of Washington's David Baker was honored for developing software that could design entirely new proteins with specific structures.

The award makes for a bit of a theme for this year, as yesterday's Physics prize honored AI developments. In that case, the connection to physics seemed a bit tenuous, but here, there should be little question that the developments solved major problems in biochemistry.

Understanding protein structure

DeepMind, represented by Demis Hassabis and John Jumper, had developed AIs that managed to master games as diverse as chess and StarCraft. But it was always working on more significant problems in parallel, and in 2020, it surprised many people by announcing that it had tackled one of the biggest computational challenges in existence: the prediction of protein structures.

Read full article

Comments

As we described earlier this year, operating a quantum computer will require a significant investment in classical computing resources, given the amount of measurements and control operations that need to be executed and interpreted. That means that operating a quantum computer will also require a software stack to control and interpret the flow of information from the quantum side.

But software also gets involved well before anything gets executed. While it's possible to execute algorithms on quantum hardware by defining the full set of commands sent to the hardware, most users are going to want to focus on algorithm development, rather than the details of controlling any single piece of quantum hardware. "If everyone's got to get down and know what the noise is, [use] performance management tools, they've got to know how to compile a quantum circuit through hardware, you've got to become an expert in too much to be able to do the algorithm discovery," said IBM's Jay Gambetta. So, part of the software stack that companies are developing to control their quantum hardware includes software that converts abstract representations of quantum algorithms into the series of commands needed to execute them.

IBM's version of this software is called Qiskit (although it was made open source and has since been adopted by other companies). Recently, IBM made a couple of announcements regarding Qiskit, both benchmarking it in comparison to other software stacks and opening it up to third-party modules. We'll take a look at what software stacks do before getting into the details of what's new.

Read full article

Comments

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge / In the experiments, people had to judge what constituted a fair monetary offer. (credit: manusapon kasosod)

In many cases, AIs are trained on material that's either made or curated by humans. As a result, it can become a significant challenge to keep the AI from replicating the biases of those humans and the society they belong to. And the stakes are high, given we're using AIs to make medical and financial decisions.

But some researchers at Washington University in St. Louis have found an additional wrinkle in these challenges: The people doing the training may potentially change their behavior when they know it can influence the future choices made by an AI. And, in at least some cases, they carry the changed behaviors into situations that don't involve AI training.

Would you like to play a game?

The work involved getting volunteers to participate in a simple form of game theory. Testers gave two participants a pot of money—$10, in this case. One of the two was then asked to offer some fraction of that money to the other, who could choose to accept or reject the offer. If the offer was rejected, nobody got any money.

Read 11 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge / Right now, the software doesn't do arms, so don't go taking on any aliens with it. (credit: 20th Century Fox)

Exoskeletons today look like something straight out of sci-fi. But the reality is they are nowhere near as robust as their fictional counterparts. They’re quite wobbly, and it takes long hours of handcrafting software policies, which regulate how they work—a process that has to be repeated for each individual user.

To bring the technology a bit closer to Avatar’s Skel Suits or Warhammer 40k power armor, a team at North Carolina University’s Lab of Biomechatronics and Intelligent Robotics used AI to build the first one-size-fits-all exoskeleton that supports walking, running, and stair-climbing. Critically, its software adapts itself to new users with no need for any user-specific adjustments. “You just wear it and it works,” says Hao Su, an associate professor and co-author of the study.

Tailor-made robots

An exoskeleton is a robot you wear to aid your movements—it makes walking, running, and other activities less taxing, the same way an e-bike adds extra watts on top of those you generate yourself, making pedaling easier. “The problem is, exoskeletons have a hard time understanding human intentions, whether you want to run or walk or climb stairs. It’s solved with locomotion recognition: systems that recognize human locomotion intentions,” says Su.

Read 11 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge (credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images)

It's one of the world's worst-kept secrets that large language models give blatantly false answers to queries and do so with a confidence that's indistinguishable from when they get things right. There are a number of reasons for this. The AI could have been trained on misinformation; the answer could require some extrapolation from facts that the LLM isn't capable of; or some aspect of the LLM's training might have incentivized a falsehood.

But perhaps the simplest explanation is that an LLM doesn't recognize what constitutes a correct answer but is compelled to provide one. So it simply makes something up, a habit that has been termed confabulation.

Figuring out when an LLM is making something up would obviously have tremendous value, given how quickly people have started relying on them for everything from college essays to job applications. Now, researchers from the University of Oxford say they've found a relatively simple way to determine when LLMs appear to be confabulating that works with all popular models and across a broad range of subjects. And, in doing so, they develop evidence that most of the alternative facts LLMs provide are a product of confabulation.

Read 14 remaining paragraphs | Comments