Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2210.12753

Google's Quantum Supremacy Claim: Data, Documentation, and Discussion

Gil Kalai, Yosef Rinott, Tomer Shoham

Published Oct 23, 2022• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In October 2019, Nature published a paper describing an experiment that took place at Google. The paper claims to demonstrate quantum (computational) supremacy on a 53-qubit quantum computer. Since September 2019 we have been involved in a long-term project to study various statistical aspects of the Google experiment. We have been trying to gather the relevant data and information in order to reconstruct and verify those parts of the Google experiment that are based on classical computations (except when the required computation is too heavy), and to perform a statistical analysis on the data. This document describes the available data and information for the Google experiment, some main questions in the evaluation of the experiment, and some of our results and plans.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2210.12753

Related papers

Questions and Concerns About Google's Quantum Supremacy Claim

Gil Kalai, Yosef Rinott, Tomer Shoham

In October 2019, Nature published a paper [6] describing an experimental work that was performed at Google. The paper claims to demonstrate quantum (computational) supremacy on a 53-qubit quantum computer. Since then we have been involved in a long-term project to study various statistical aspects of the Google experiment. In [30] we studied Google's statistical framework that we found to be very sound and offered some technical improvements. This document describes three main concerns (based on statistical analysis) about the Google 2019 experiment. The first concern is that the data do not agree with Google's noise model (or any other specific model). The second concern is that a crucial simple formula for a priori estimation of the fidelity seems to involve an unexpected independence assumption, and yet it gives very accurate predictions. The third concern is about statistical properties of the calibration process.

arXiv:2305.01064•May 1, 2023•1 citation

The Argument against Quantum Computers, the Quantum Laws of Nature, and Google's Supremacy Claims

Gil Kalai

My 2018 lecture at the ICA workshop in Singapore dealt with quantum computation as a meeting point of the laws of computation and the laws of quantum mechanics. We described a computational complexity argument against the feasibility of quantum computers: we identified a very low-level complexity class of probability distributions described by noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers, and explained why it would allow neither good-quality quantum error-correction nor a demonstration of "quantum supremacy," namely, the ability of quantum computers to make computations that are impossible or extremely hard for classical computers. We went on to describe general predictions arising from the argument and proposed general laws that manifest the failure of quantum computers. In October 2019, "Nature" published a paper describing an experimental work that took place at Google. The paper claims to demonstrate quantum (computational) supremacy on a 53-qubit quantum computer, thus clearly challenging my theory. In this paper, I will explain and discuss my work in the perspective of Google's supremacy claims.

arXiv:2008.05188•Aug 12, 2020•4 citations

Further Statistical Study of NISQ Experiments

Gil Kalai, Tomer Shoham, Carsten Voelkmann

We revisit and extend some topics that we studied in our previous works (Rinott, Kalai and Shoham 2022; Kalai, Rinott and Shoham, 2023,2024) regarding the Google 2019 "quantum supremacy" experiment. We extend our analysis of the prediction based on Google's digital error model (Formula (77)), based on more detailed data provided by Google. We also provide some preliminary analysis for a few other NISQ experiments.

quant-pharXiv:2512.10722•Dec 12, 2025•0 citations

Statistical Aspects of the Quantum Supremacy Demonstration

Yosef Rinott, Tomer Shoham, Gil Kalai

In quantum computing, a demonstration of quantum supremacy (or quantum advantage) consists of presenting a task, possibly of no practical value, whose computation is feasible on a quantum device, but cannot be performed by classical computers in any feasible amount of time. The notable claim of quantum supremacy presented by Google’s team in 2019 consists of demonstrating the ability of a quantum circuit to generate, albeit with considerable noise, bitstrings from a distribution that is considered hard to simulate on classical computers. Very recently, in 2020, a quantum supremacy claim was presented by a group from the University of Science and Technology of China, using a different technology and generating a different distribution, but sharing some statistical principles with Google’s demonstration. Verifying that the generated data is indeed from the claimed distribution and assessing the circuit’s noise level and its fidelity is a statistical undertaking. The objective of this paper is to explain the relations between quantum computing and some of the statistical aspects involved in demonstrating quantum supremacy in terms that are accessible to statisticians, computer scientists, and mathematicians. Starting with the statistical modeling and analysis in Google’s demonstration, which we explain, we study various estimators of the fidelity, and different approaches to testing the distributions generated by the quantum computer. We propose different noise models, and discuss their implications. A preliminary study of the Google data, focusing mostly on circuits of 12 and 14 qubits is given in different parts of the paper.

arXiv:2008.05177•Statistical Science•Jun 22, 2022•11 citations

Comment on the Quantum Supremacy Claim by Google

Anirudh Reddy, Benjamin Perez-García, Adenilton José da Silva +1 more

Quantum computation promises to execute certain computational tasks on time scales much faster than any known algorithm on an existing classical computer, for example calculating the prime factors of large integers. Recently a research team from Google claimed to have carried out such a task with a quantum computer, demonstrating in practice a case of this so-called quantum supremacy. Here we argue that this claim was not justified. Unlike other comments, our criticism is concerned with the missing verification of the output data of the quantum computation.

arXiv:2108.13862•Aug 29, 2021•0 citations

Analysis of asymmetric errors in NISQ experiments

Gil Kalai, Tomer Shoham, Carsten Voelkmann

This paper continues our analysis of NISQ experiments and especially the Google 2019 ``quantum supremacy" experiment. In arXiv:2008.05177 we proposed statistical tools to analyze symmetric and asymmetric readout errors, and the symmetric case was extensively developed and studied in arXiv:2404.00935, where we used Fourier methods combined with statistical tools. Here we extend and complement our earlier study and analyze asymmetric readout errors for data from experiments and simulations. Our study was further motivated by a paper by Fefferman et al. arXiv:2306.16659, who showed that the effect of amplitude damping gate errors is to have larger fractions of zeroes in the samples produced by the quantum computer. We show that this effect of gate errors is not observed in the Google experimental data, where, for the entire range of the number of qubits, $12 \le n \le 53$, the fraction of zeroes and ones reflects only the asymmetry of reported readout errors, and report on simulations with $n=12,14$ using IBM's and Google's simulators.

quant-pharXiv:2609.35535•Sep 29, 2026•0 citations
In October 2019, Nature published a paper describing an experiment that took place at Google. The paper claims to demonstrate quantum (computational) supremacy on a 53-qubit quantum computer. Since September 2019 we have been involved in a long-term project to study various statistical aspects of the Google experiment. We have been trying to gather the relevant data and information in order to reconstruct and verify those parts of the Google experiment that are based on classical computations (except when the required computation is too heavy), and to perform a statistical analysis on the data. This document describes the available data and information for the Google experiment, some main questions in the evaluation of the experiment, and some of our results and plans.
In October 2019, Nature published a paper [6] describing an experimental work that was performed at Google. The paper claims to demonstrate quantum (computational) supremacy on a 53-qubit quantum computer. Since then we have been involved in a long-term project to study various statistical aspects of the Google experiment. In [30] we studied Google's statistical framework that we found to be very sound and offered some technical improvements. This document describes three main concerns (based on statistical analysis) about the Google 2019 experiment. The first concern is that the data do not agree with Google's noise model (or any other specific model). The second concern is that a crucial simple formula for a priori estimation of the fidelity seems to involve an unexpected independence assumption, and yet it gives very accurate predictions. The third concern is about statistical properties of the calibration process.
My 2018 lecture at the ICA workshop in Singapore dealt with quantum computation as a meeting point of the laws of computation and the laws of quantum mechanics. We described a computational complexity argument against the feasibility of quantum computers: we identified a very low-level complexity class of probability distributions described by noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers, and explained why it would allow neither good-quality quantum error-correction nor a demonstration of "quantum supremacy," namely, the ability of quantum computers to make computations that are impossible or extremely hard for classical computers. We went on to describe general predictions arising from the argument and proposed general laws that manifest the failure of quantum computers. In October 2019, "Nature" published a paper describing an experimental work that took place at Google. The paper claims to demonstrate quantum (computational) supremacy on a 53-qubit quantum computer, thus clearly challenging my theory. In this paper, I will explain and discuss my work in the perspective of Google's supremacy claims.
In quantum computing, a demonstration of quantum supremacy (or quantum advantage) consists of presenting a task, possibly of no practical value, whose computation is feasible on a quantum device, but cannot be performed by classical computers in any feasible amount of time. The notable claim of quantum supremacy presented by Google’s team in 2019 consists of demonstrating the ability of a quantum circuit to generate, albeit with considerable noise, bitstrings from a distribution that is considered hard to simulate on classical computers. Very recently, in 2020, a quantum supremacy claim was presented by a group from the University of Science and Technology of China, using a different technology and generating a different distribution, but sharing some statistical principles with Google’s demonstration. Verifying that the generated data is indeed from the claimed distribution and assessing the circuit’s noise level and its fidelity is a statistical undertaking. The objective of this paper is to explain the relations between quantum computing and some of the statistical aspects involved in demonstrating quantum supremacy in terms that are accessible to statisticians, computer scientists, and mathematicians. Starting with the statistical modeling and analysis in Google’s demonstration, which we explain, we study various estimators of the fidelity, and different approaches to testing the distributions generated by the quantum computer. We propose different noise models, and discuss their implications. A preliminary study of the Google data, focusing mostly on circuits of 12 and 14 qubits is given in different parts of the paper.
Quantum computation promises to execute certain computational tasks on time scales much faster than any known algorithm on an existing classical computer, for example calculating the prime factors of large integers. Recently a research team from Google claimed to have carried out such a task with a quantum computer, demonstrating in practice a case of this so-called quantum supremacy. Here we argue that this claim was not justified. Unlike other comments, our criticism is concerned with the missing verification of the output data of the quantum computation.
This paper continues our analysis of NISQ experiments and especially the Google 2019 ``quantum supremacy" experiment. In arXiv:2008.05177 we proposed statistical tools to analyze symmetric and asymmetric readout errors, and the symmetric case was extensively developed and studied in arXiv:2404.00935, where we used Fourier methods combined with statistical tools. Here we extend and complement our earlier study and analyze asymmetric readout errors for data from experiments and simulations. Our study was further motivated by a paper by Fefferman et al. arXiv:2306.16659, who showed that the effect of amplitude damping gate errors is to have larger fractions of zeroes in the samples produced by the quantum computer. We show that this effect of gate errors is not observed in the Google experimental data, where, for the entire range of the number of qubits, 12≤n≤5312 \le n \le 5312≤n≤53, the fraction of zeroes and ones reflects only the asymmetry of reported readout errors, and report on simulations with n=12,14n=12,14n=12,14 using IBM's and Google's simulators.