Quantum Volume Testing: Setting the Steady Pace to Higher Performing Devices
When it comes to completing the statistical tests and other steps necessary for calculating quantum volume, few people have as much as experience as Dr. Charlie Baldwin.
Baldwin, a lead physicist at ĢƵ, and his team have performed the tests numerous times on three different H-Series quantum computers, which have set six industry records for measured quantum volume since 2020.
Quantum volume is a benchmark developed by IBM in 2019 to measure the overall performance of a quantum computer regardless of the hardware technology. (ĢƵ builds trapped ion systems).
Baldwin’s experience with quantum volume prompted him to share what he’s learned and suggest ways to improve the benchmark in a peer-reviewed paper published this week in .
“We’ve learned a lot by running these tests and believe there are ways to make quantum volume an even stronger benchmark,” Baldwin said.
We sat down with Baldwin to discuss quantum volume, the paper, and the team’s findings.
How is quantum volume measured? What tests do you run?
Quantum volume is measured by running many randomly constructed circuits on a quantum computer and comparing the outputs to a classical simulation. The circuits are chosen to require random gates and random connectivity to not favor any one architecture. We follow the construction proposed by IBM to build the circuits.
What does quantum volume measure? Why is it important?
In some sense, quantum volume only measures your ability to run the specific set of random quantum volume circuits. That probably doesn’t sound very useful if you have some other application in mind for a quantum computer, but quantum volume is sensitive to many aspects that we believe are key to building more powerful devices.
Quantum computers are often built from the ground up. Different parts—for example, single- and two-qubit gates—have been developed independently over decades of academic research. When these parts are put together in a large quantum circuit, there’re often other errors that creep in and can degrade the overall performance. That’s what makes full-system tests like quantum volume so important; they’re sensitive to these errors.
Increasing quantum volume requires adding more qubits while simultaneously decreasing errors. Our quantum volume results demonstrate all the amazing progress ĢƵ has made at upgrading our trapped-ion systems to include more qubits and identifying and mitigating errors so that users can expect high-fidelity performance on many other algorithms.
You’ve been running quantum volume tests since 2020. What is your biggest takeaway?
I think there’re a couple of things I’ve learned. First, quantum volume isn’t an easy test to run on current machines. While it doesn’t necessarily require a lot of qubits, it does have fairly demanding error requirements. That’s also clear when comparing progress in quantum volume tests across different platforms, .
Second, I’m always impressed by the continuous and sustained performance progress that our hardware team achieves. And that the progress is actually measurable by using the quantum volume benchmark.
The hardware team has been able to push down many different error sources in the last year while also running customer jobs. This is proven by the quantum volume measurement. For example, H1-2 launched in Fall 2021 with QV=128. But since then, the team has implemented many performance upgrades, recently achieving QV=4096 in about 8 months while also running commercial jobs.
What are the key findings from your paper?
The paper is about four small findings that when put together, we believe, give a clearer view of the quantum volume test.
First, we explored how compiling the quantum volume circuits scales with qubit number and, also proposed using arbitrary angle gates to improve performance—an optimization that many companies are currently exploring.
Second, we studied how quantum volume circuits behave without errors to better relate circuit results to ideal performance.
Third, we ran many numerical simulations to see how the quantum volume test behaved with errors and constructed a method to efficiently estimate performance in larger future systems.
Finally, and I think most importantly, we explored what it takes to meet the quantum volume threshold and what passing it implies about the ability of the quantum computer, especially compared to the requirements for quantum error correction.
What does it take to “pass” the quantum volume threshold?
Passing the threshold for quantum volume is defined by the results of a statistical test on the output of the circuits called the heavy output test. The result of the heavy output test—called the heavy output probability or HOP—must have an uncertainty bar that clears a threshold (2/3).
Originally, IBM constructed a method to estimate that uncertainty based on some assumptions about the distribution and number of samples. They acknowledged that this construction was likely too conservative, meaning it made much larger uncertainty estimates than necessary.
We were able to verify this with simulations and proposed a different method that constructed much tighter uncertainty estimates. We’ve verified the method with numerical simulations. The method allows us to run the test with many fewer circuits while still having the same confidence in the returned estimate.
How do you think the quantum volume test can be improved?
Quantum volume has been criticized for a variety of reasons, but I think there’s still a lot to like about the test. Unlike some other full-system tests, quantum volume has a well-defined procedure, requires challenging circuits, and sets reasonable fidelity requirements.
However, it still has some room for improvement. As machines start to scale up, runtime will become an important dimension to probe. IBM has proposed a metric for measuring run time of quantum volume tests (CLOPS). We also agree that the duration of the computation is important but that there should also be tests that balance run time with fidelity, sometimes called ‘time-to-solution.”
Another aspect that could be improved is filling the gap between when quantum volume is no longer feasible to run—at around 30 qubits—and larger machines. There’s recent work in this area that will be interesting to compare to quantum volume tests.
You presented these findings to IBM researchers who first proposed the benchmark. How was that experience?
It was great to talk to the experts at IBM. They have so much knowledge and experience on running and testing quantum computers. I’ve learned a lot from their previous work and publications.
There is a lot of debate about quantum volume and how long it will be a useful benchmark. What are your thoughts?
The current iteration of quantum volume definitely has an expiration date. It’s limited by our ability to classically simulate the system, so being unable to run quantum volume actually is a goal for quantum computing development. Similarly, quantum volume is a good measuring stick for early development.
Building a large-scale quantum computer is an incredibly challenging task. Like any large project, you break the task up into milestones that you can reach in a reasonable amount of time.
It's like if you want to run a marathon. You wouldn’t start your training by trying to run a marathon on Day 1. You’d build up the distance you run every day at a steady pace. The quantum volume test has been setting our pace of development to steadily reach our goal of building ever higher performing devices.
About ĢƵ
ĢƵ, the world’s largest integrated quantum company, pioneers powerful quantum computers and advanced software solutions. ĢƵ’s technology drives breakthroughs in materials discovery, cybersecurity, and next-gen quantum AI. With over 500 employees, including 370+ scientists and engineers, ĢƵ leads the quantum computing revolution across continents.
This month, ĢƵ welcomed its global user community to the first-ever Q-Net Connect, an annual forum designed to spark collaboration, share insights, and accelerate innovation across our full-stack quantum computing platforms. Over two days, users came together not only to learn from one another, but to build the relationships and momentum that we believe will help define the next chapter of quantum computing.
Q-Net Connect 2026 drew over 170 attendees from around the world to Denver, Colorado, including representatives from commercial enterprises and startups, academia and research institutions, and the public sector and non-profits - all users of ĢƵ systems.
The program was packed with inspiring keynotes, technical tracks, and customer presentations. Attendees heard from leaders at ĢƵ, as well as our partners at NVIDIA, JPMorganChase and BlueQubit; professors from the University of New Mexico, the University of Nottingham and Harvard University; national labs, including NIST, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory; and other distinguished guests from across the global quantum ecosystem.
Congratulations to Q-Net Connect 2026 Award Recipients!
The mission of the ĢƵ Q-Net user community is to create a space for shared learning, collaboration and connection for those who adopt ĢƵ’s hardware, software and middleware platform. At this year’s Q-Net Connect, we awarded four organizations who made notable efforts to champion this effort.
- JPMorganChase received the ‘Guppy Adopter Award’ for their exemplary adoption of our quantum programming language, Guppy, in their research workflows.
- Phasecraft, a UK and US-based quantum algorithms startup, received the ‘Rising Star’ award for demonstrating exceptional early impact and advancing science using ĢƵ hardware, which they published in a December 2025 .
- Qedma, a quantum software startup, received the ‘Startup Partner Engagement’ award for their sustained engagement with ĢƵ platforms dating back to our first commercially deployed quantum computer, H1.
- Anna Dalmasso from the University of Nottingham received our ‘New Student Award’ for her impressive debut project on ĢƵ hardware and for delivering outstanding results as a new Q-Net student user.
Congratulations, again, and thank you to everyone who contributed to the success of the first Q-Net Connect!
Become a Q-Net Member
Q-Net offers year‑round support through user access, developer tools, documentation, trainings, webinars, and events. Members enjoy many exclusive benefits, including being the first to hear about exclusive content, publications and promotional offers.
By joining the community, you will be invited to exclusive gatherings to hear about the latest breakthroughs and connect with industry experts driving quantum innovation. Members also get access to Q‑Net Connect recordings and stay connected for future community updates.
In a follow-up to our recent work with Hiverge using AI to discover algorithms for quantum chemistry, we’ve teamed up with Hiverge, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and NVIDIA to explore using AI to improve algorithms for combinatorial optimization.
With the rapid rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), people started asking “what if AI agents can serve as on-demand algorithm factories?” We have been working with Hiverge, an algorithm discovery company, AWS, and NVIDIA, to explore how LLMs can accelerate quantum computing research.
Hiverge – named for Hive, an AI that can develop algorithms – aims to make quantum algorithm design more accessible to researchers by translating high-level problem descriptions in mostly natural language into executable quantum circuits. The Hive takes the researcher’s initial sketch of an algorithm, as well as special constraints the researcher enumerates, and evolves it to a new algorithm that better meets the researcher’s needs. The output is expressed in terms of a familiar programming language, like Guppy or , making it particularly easy to implement.
The AI is called a “Hive” because it is a collective of LLM agents, all of whom are editing the same codebase. In this work, the Hive was made up of LLM powerhouses such as Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, Llama, as well as which was accessed through AWS’ Amazon Bedrock service. Many models are included because researchers know that diversity is a strength – just like a team of human researchers working in a group, a variety of perspectives often leads to the strongest result.
Once the LLMs are assembled, the Hive calls on them to do the work writing the desired algorithm; no new training is required. The algorithms are then executed and their ‘fitness’ (how well they solve the problem) is measured. Unfit programs do not survive, while the fittest ones evolve to the next generation. This process repeats, much like the evolutionary process of nature itself.
After evolution, the fittest algorithm is selected by the researchers and tested on other instances of the problem. This is a crucial step as the researchers want to understand how well it can generalize.
In this most recent work, the joint team explored how AI can assist in the discovery of heuristic quantum optimization algorithms, a class of algorithms aimed at improving efficiency across critical workstreams. These span challenges like optimal power grid dispatch and storage placement, arranging fuel inside nuclear reactors, and molecular design and reaction pathway optimization in drug, material, and chemical discovery—where solutions could translate into maximizing operational efficiency, dramatic reduction in costs, and rapid acceleration in innovation.
In other AI approaches, such as reinforcement learning, models are trained to solve a problem, but the resulting "algorithm" is effectively ‘hidden’ within a neural network. Here, the algorithm is written in Guppy or CUDA-Q (or Python), making it human-interpretable and easier to deploy on new problem instances.
This work leveraged the NVIDIA CUDA-Q platform, running on powerful NVIDIA GPUs made accessible by AWS. It’s state-of-the art accelerated computing was crucial; the research explored highly complex problems, challenges that lie at the edge of classical computing capacity. Before running anything on ĢƵ’s quantum computer, the researchers first used NVIDIA accelerated computing to simulate the quantum algorithms and assess their fitness. Once a promising algorithm is discovered, it could then be deployed on quantum hardware, creating an exciting new approach for scaling quantum algorithm design.
More broadly, this work points to one of many ways in which classical compute, AI, and quantum computing are most powerful in symbiosis. AI can be used to improve quantum, as demonstrated here, just as quantum can be used to extend AI. Looking ahead, we envision AI evolving programs that express a combination of algorithmic primitives, much like human mathematicians, such as Peter Shor and Lov Grover, have done. After all, both humans and AI can learn from each other.
As quantum computing power grows, so does the difficulty of error correction. Meeting that demand requires tight integration with high-performance classical computing, which is why we’ve partnered with NVIDIA to push the boundaries of real-time decoding performance.
Realizing the full power of quantum computing requires more than just qubits, it requires error rates low enough to run meaningful algorithms at scale. Physical qubits are sensitive to noise, which limits their capacity to handle calculations beyond a certain scale. To move beyond these limits, physical qubits must be combined into logical qubits, with errors continuously detected and corrected in real time before they can propagate and corrupt the calculation. This approach, known as fault tolerance, is a foundational requirement for any quantum computer intended to solve problems of real-world significance.
Part of the challenge of fault tolerance is the computational complexity of correcting errors in real time. Doing so involves sending the error syndrome data to a classical co-processor, solving a complex mathematical problem on that processor, then sending the resulting correction back to the quantum processor - all fast enough that it doesn’t slow down the quantum computation. For this reason, Quantum Error Correction (QEC) is currently one of the most demanding use-cases for tight coupling between classical and quantum computing.
Given the difficulty of the task, we have partnered with NVIDIA, leaders in accelerated computing. With the help of NVIDIA’s ultra-fast GPUs (and the GPU-accelerated BP-OSD decoder developed by NVIDIA as part of library), we were able to demonstrate real-time decoding of Helios’ qubits, all in a system that can be connected directly to our quantum processors using .
While real-time decoding has been demonstrated before (notably, by our own scientists in this study), previous demonstrations were limited in their scalability and complexity.
In this demonstration, we used Brings’ code, a high-rate code that is possible with our all-to-all connectivity, to encode our physical qubits into noise-resilient logical qubits. Once we had them encoded, we ran gates as well as let them idle to see if we could catch and correct errors quickly and efficiently. We submitted the circuits via both as well as our own Guppy language, underlining our commitment to accessible, ecosystem-friendly quantum computing.
The results were excellent: we were able to perform low-latency decoding that returned results in the time we needed, even for the faster clock cycles that we expect in future generation machines.
A key part of the achievement here is that we performed something called “correlated” decoding. In correlated decoding, you offload work that would normally be performed on the QPU onto the classical decoder. This is because, in ‘standard’ decoding, as you improve your error correction capabilities, it takes more and more time on the QPU. Correlated decoding elides this cost, saving QPU time for the tasks that only the quantum computer can do.
Stay tuned for our forthcoming paper with all the details.