Viv Kendon

@quantumviv.bsky.social

I design quantum computers @physicsstrath.bsky.social and @ccp-qc.bsky.social https://kendon.info/viv

Lazy Quantum Walks with Native Multiqubit Gates: Quantum walks (QWs) as a benchmark for effective multiqubit gate fidelities; via detailed realistic error modelling for neutral atom hardware we pinpoint the native multiqubit gate sweet spot for standard & lazy discrete QWs. arxiv.org/abs/2511.21608

"Figure 6: Final fidelity of the final position states between errorless and simulated error 1q-coin (circles) and 2q-coin (triangles) QWs on 2n-node rings, using native gate set G(max(r) = 3). Pink solid lines denote QWs on 4-node rings, dashed blue on 8-node rings, and dotted gold lines on 16-node rings. IBM results (using native gates of max(r) = 2) [15] for 1q-coin QWs are also shown for comparison in crosses." Figure shows that 1q-coin QW on 4-node ring has final state fidelity >0.9 for 21 steps; 2q-coin (lazy) QW on 4-node and 1q-coin QW on 8-node has fidelity >0.9 for 10 steps and >0.8 for 20 steps; 2q-coin QW on 8-node and 1q-coin QW on 16-node has >0.9 for 5 steps, >0.8 for 8 steps, and >0.5 for 21 steps; lastly 2q-coin QW on 16-node >0.9 for 2 steps, >0.8 for 4 steps, and >0.5 for 10 steps. In all cases this is a marked improved over IBM results."Figure 9: Mean increase in composite fidelity f (max(r)) = Product^{max(r)−1}_{k=2} F(CkZ)^{no. of CkZ} from using native gate set
G(max(r)) compared to using gate set G(max(r) − 1), with the number of multiqubit gates required for one step of a 2q-coin QW on a 2^n-node ring, where n ∈ {6, 8, 10, 12} in blue dots, green crosses, gold pluses, and red circles respectively. Inset shows corresponding average composite fidelity." Figure shows f(max(r=3)) to f(max(r-4)) has average increase of 0.15, 0.15, 0.13, 0.09 for n ∈ {6, 8, 10, 12} respectively; f(max(r-1) to f(max(r)) for r ∈ {5,6,7} has average increase of <0.04 for each n. Inset shows average f over 3<=max(r)<=7 of 0.3<f<0.5, 0.4<f<0.6, 0.6<f<0.8, 0.7<f<0.9 for n ∈ {6, 8, 10, 12} respectively.

Harry Buhrman (Quantinuum & U Amsterdam) telling us about quantum heuristics and the process of scientific discovery at the Quantum Informatics cdt launch event in Edinburgh.

Man on left of two screens showing title slide of talk on Quantum Heuristics, wood panelled wall behind

Our colleagues are part of two sessions this afternoon at #CIUK25: - Overview of the NetworkPlus Programme - From ExCALIBUR to DRI, linking the UK's compute programmes. They're also at the stands for CAKE and ARCHER2-Cirrus. Come and say hello! edin.ac/4pR8dpL

CIUK25 card

This article suggests the possibility of training AI on pre-existing proposals and their review reports, scores and related decisions. I.e. training them on a system which is known to preferentially award larger amounts of money to white men. What could possibly go wrong?

Richard Sever@richardsever.bsky.social · 8mo ago

UKRI exploring use of AI in grant review - this will prompt debate but interested to know if people think it’d encourage novelty or the opposite? www.chemistryworld.com/news/ukri-op...

imagine, right, you're applying for a UK visa. our wages suck, bills are high, layoffs are ten a penny, & you find out you're down up to £20k minimum right from the off, alongside thousands and thousands in visa fees. who would find that remotely appealing? this is how you collapse entire industries

Chris Boyd@paperghost.bsky.social · 8mo ago

a family of four on a five year visa route needs to pay close to twenty grand in surcharges, in addition to visa fees, upfront at time of application. the new Labour ILR rules means that family will pay close to *forty grand* in health surcharges, on top of visa fees. just incredibly stupid stuff

Coming out of social media hibernation to ask: Are you interested in hosting a future QEC conf? We are looking for detailed bids for QEC27 over the next month (provisional deadline 21st November). For more info: DM or email me. QEC26 will be in Santa Barbara

Check your Google Scholar profiles. I found an article added to mine that had completely fabricated the authors and abstract, including an author who was born after the publication date ... I think AI filled in the blanks because the first page of the scan is missing online.