Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Where are we heading with NISQ?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.09518 v3 pith:QZ7NBMF2 submitted 2023-05-16 quant-ph

classification quant-ph
keywords quantumnisqcomputersqubitvariousfutureintermediatescale
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In 2017, John Preskill defined Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum (NISQ) computers as an intermediate step on the road to large scale error corrected fault-tolerant quantum computers (FTQC). The NISQ regime corresponds to noisy qubit quantum computers with the potential to solve actual problems of some commercial value faster than conventional supercomputers, or consuming less energy. Over five years on, it is a good time to review the situation. While rapid progress is being made with quantum hardware and algorithms, and many recent experimental demonstrations, no one has yet successfully implemented a use case matching the original definition of the NISQ regime. This paper investigates the space, fidelity and time resources of various NISQ algorithms and highlights several contradictions between NISQ requirements and actual as well as future quantum hardware capabilities. It then covers various techniques which could help like qubit fidelities improvements, various breeds of quantum error mitigation methods, analog/digital hybridization, using specific qubit types like multimode photons as well as quantum annealers and analog quantum computers (aka quantum simulators or programmable Hamiltonian simulators) which seem closer to delivering useful applications although they have their own mid to longer-term scalability challenges. Given all the constraints of these various solutions, it seems possible to expect some practical use cases for NISQ systems, but with a very narrow window before various scaling issues show up. Turning to the future, a scenario can be envisioned where NISQ will not necessarily be an intermediate step on the road to FTQC. Instead, the two may develop along different paths, due to their different requirements. This leaves open a key question on the trade-offs that may be necessary to make between qubit scale and qubit fidelities in future quantum computers designs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Fractional Quantum Hall Anyons via the Algebraic Topology of Exotic Flux Quanta

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fractional quantum Hall anyons are re-derived from a non-Lagrangian flux quantization in 2-Cohomotopy, with new predictions for torus degeneracy and defect anyons.

  2. Benchmarking Quantum Solvers in Noisy Digital Simulations for Financial Portfolio Optimization

    quant-ph 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    On small synthetic portfolio problems, noiseless QAOA fits the known ground-state energy well, but noisy QAOA fails while QITE, pretrained on noiseless simulators, still identifies the optimal portfolio on IBM hardware.

Pith tools