How to Build a Quantum Supercomputer: Scaling from Hundreds to Millions of Qubits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the span of four decades, quantum computation has evolved from an intellectual curiosity to a potentially realizable technology. Today, small-scale demonstrations have become possible for quantum algorithmic primitives on hundreds of physical qubits. Nevertheless, there are significant outstanding challenges in quantum hardware, fabrication, software architecture, and algorithms on the path towards a full-stack scalable quantum computing technology. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of these scaling challenges. We show how to facilitate scaling by adopting existing semiconductor technology to build much higher-quality qubits, employing systems engineering approaches, and performing distributed heterogeneous quantum-classical computing. We provide a detailed resource and sensitivity analysis for quantum applications on surface-code error-corrected quantum computers given current, target, and desired hardware specifications based on superconducting qubits, accounting for a realistic distribution of errors. We provide comprehensive resource estimates for several utility-scale applications including quantum chemistry calculations, catalyst design, NMR spectroscopy, and Fermi-Hubbard simulation. We show that orders of magnitude enhancement in performance could be obtained by a combination of hardware improvements and tight quantum-HPC integration. Furthermore, we introduce high-performance architectures for quantum-probabilistic computing with custom-designed accelerators to tackle today's industry-scale classical optimization, machine learning, and quantum simulation tasks in a cost-effective manner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".