The decision on the table
Programmes that own a small quantum machine wait for methods that need a hundred qubits, while the machine sits idle and its vendor figures go unchecked. The question is what the installed device can run now.
Aerospace · sovereign programmes
Characterise the quantum machine you already own
From a processor’s own calibration data we read its clock to 0.0029%, locate the qubit that is losing information, and route around it at submission. A national programme learns what its installed machine can run this quarter, measured on the machine itself.
Headline result
0.0029%
0.0029% from the device’s own response, eight time rounds, superconducting processor
Measured on quantum hardware
What we did, with proprietary methods
We read the device as a physical system: its clock from the frequencies in its own response, its loss from where information leaves during each operation. The read is made on the machine, the lossy qubit is named, and the first circuits are placed around it.
What it was worth
0.0029% from the device’s own response, eight time rounds, superconducting processor
Your machine’s clock, read to three parts in a hundred thousand
- Baseline
- the vendor calibration sheet
- Condition
- 0.0029% from the device’s own response, eight time rounds, superconducting processor
The weak qubit found and avoided
- Baseline
- average error rates that hide it
- Condition
- the lossy qubit located and routed around at submission
Full-size runs on the machine you have
- Baseline
- waiting for a hundred-qubit method
- Condition
- 42 working units on a 256-atom machine with coupling set by placement; 26 working units carrying 1,448 entangling operations on a 156-qubit chip
What happened next
For a client, the next step is the first engagement on this page’s industry: you send your machine’s calibration export. You get back its characterisation and what it can run this quarter. Two weeks.
Decision it enabled
Your machine’s clock, read to three parts in a hundred thousand
Instead of: the vendor calibration sheet
Verified by · Measured on quantum hardware; job identifiers on file for every figure.
How we know
- 01Clock read to 0.0029% on a superconducting processor from its own response; the lossy qubit identified.
- 02Placement on a 256-atom neutral-atom machine: 42 working units, coupling set by atom placement.
- 03Full-processor runs: 26 working units carrying 1,448 entangling operations on a 156-qubit processor.
- 04Not claimed: that the vendor’s figures are wrong, or any application result from the characterisation alone.
StatusMeasured on quantum hardwareMeasured on quantum hardware; job identifiers on file for every figure.
Next story · Energy · utilities
Which assets fail together: the network’s response, simulated past the classical limit
Semiconductors · materials
Pick the winning EUV photoresist before the fab
Resist candidates ranked before any were made, so only the lead goes to synthesis and wafer testing.
Measured on quantum hardwareClassical computationRead the story
Within 1.4% of exactPharma · life sciences
Find where a protein can be drugged before the assay
Candidate allosteric sites read from a structure file alone, with the site model validated against exact references. A method result: no drug-ranking gain is claimed.
Measured on quantum hardwareClassical computationRead the story
Mobility · autonomy
Sign off an autonomy controller as safe against real disturbances
A disturbance model measured on a 128-qubit processor was the only one that certified a controller safe at its operating point.
Measured on quantum hardwareClassical computationRead the storyYour industry, next
Bring us the decision your industry has to make next.
A resist, a grid plan, a controller, a cipher: you get the answer, the method it was checked against, and its status. The free check runs in your browser.
No keyNo cardAn answer in about a second