In a previous Beyond the Hype post we discussed Quantum Machine Learning (QML) and its promises, challenges and emerging applications in training ML models more efficiently and effectively . That was some time ago but I’m getting sucked back into the subject as there has been an abundance of hype fueled content by Microsoft’s marketing department in their recent announcement that is getting my attention.

Firstly, let’s look at what’s actually announced…The Majorana-1 chip, a semiconductor-superconductor hybrid designed to host Majorana zero modes (MZMs) — exotic particles that could serve as the foundation for topological qubits. This sounds ground-breaking and revolutionary, especially when compared to the approaches by their competition (more on them later), but this announcement comes with a number of red flags and some clear signs of marketing smoke and mirrors. Mainly, this surrounds the experimental verification of Majorana particles in the research papers and the data (or lack of) presented.

Also, for context there is retraction of the research paper along with persistent concerns from the physics community. So the question remains: Is the Majorana-1 chip truly ground-breaking or is this another over-hyped claim?

The Hype

Microsoft’s quantum strategy relies on an innovative and extraordinary approach to computation, where information is stored in non-local quantum states (the MZM’s), theoretically making it far more resilient to errors. Unlike conventional superconducting or supercooled trapped-ion qubits, which require complex and resource-intensive error correction, topological qubits could naturally and drastically suppress decoherence, reducing the overhead in scaling quantum systems. So there is the hyped ‘path to a million qubits’. The evidence though is sparse and wrapped in layers of marketing that needs to be unpacked.

The Majorana-1 chip aims to take this a step further by implementing an interferometric measurement technique to detect fermion parity — a crucial requirement for topological qubit readout. Microsoft claims this chip represents a key milestone in proving the viability of topological quantum computing. But I can’t ignore the red flags or confusing questions, I have to clear this up and go Beyond the Hype. Again. Buckle in!

The hype for me is rooted in Microsoft trying to leapfrog IBM and Google (more on them later) in the race for quantum supremacy by over-hyping at best and omitting critical research data at worst. Shots fired! Now, it would be rude of me to fire such a shot blindly, so if you’ll indulge me to share my review the of the 2 research papers that underpin the claims…Oh and also full disclosure — I understand very little of the math, some of the science and most of the engineering.

Paper 1: The actual research — Interferometric Single-Shot Parity Measurement in InAs-Al Hybrid Devices

Paper 2: The proposed architecture — Roadmap to fault tolerant quantum computation using topological qubit arrays

1. Microsoft’s experimental results could be explained by trivial Andreev bound states rather than genuine Majorana modes. As Paper 1 states — “this measurement does not unequivocally distinguish between MZMs in the topological phase and fine-tuned low-energy Andreev bound states in the trivial phase.” The strength of the evidence for MZMs implies a definitive demonstration of parity in a topological qubit in the marketing hype but it’s not supported by the research presented. Majorana may eventually exist and be proven but for now, it’s all in the hypothetical formulae.
   

2. Also in Paper 1, the reported MZM modes are highly sensitive to small changes in parameters, which raises questions about their robustness for scalable quantum computing. The modeling data presented is too simplified and essentially assumes a topological state and does not adequately address the possibility of other low-lying excitations or subgap levels in the wire. This strongly suggest a predetermined bias in the interpretation of the data, especially when the paper states — “by fitting to a model of trivial Andreev states, we have tightly constrained the properties that such states would have to have in order to be consistent with our data.”
   

3. The red flags are starting to pile up now. I also question whether the observed phenomena were measured robustly against parameter variations as mentioned above and also how reproducible the results were. For example, how often was phase-coherent parity switches found and to what extent the phenomenon was reproducible. The Supplemental Material section suggests only 2 data points. More details on the device tune-up procedure, the optimisation of material combinations and the criteria for selecting specific magnetic field and gate voltage ranges would be useful for reproducibility. The fact that important concepts like quantum capacitance were not adequately discussed is another red flag, for not just me but is where a lot of scepticism of the data comes from from others far smarter than me.
   

4. Finally, I have some concerns about the Topological Gap Protocol (TGP). What is presented is not an unambiguous indicator of MZM’s, nor does it prove non-Abelian braiding. Until a direct braiding demonstration is performed — and the possibility of trivial Adreev states is conclusively ruled out — scepticism persists over whether the TGP alone can validate topological qubits. For this, I refer back to my earlier point of Andreev states or even accidental quantum dot and also there is no clear-cut proof that these states exhibit non-Abelian braiding. So again — it’s all hypothetical.
   

5. Paper 2 assumes that Paper 1 is a given. Maybe in the intervening months the new material has emerged as the silver bullet and that each “horizontal wire” in the H-shaped tetron results in the topological phase over a specific magnetic field and gate-voltage range. But the research does not detail the TGP or any specialised transport procedure to confirm it. Hmm.
   

6. Paper 2 sketches a path to non-Abelian braiding but at no point is any proof given. In fact the path is only a rough sketch with some assumptions as it jumps from 1 and 2 qubits to 8 qubits and then hypothesises full error correction at scale as a best case scenario. This is disingenuous in my considered opinion but ‘path to 8 qubits’ doesn’t have the same marketing impact as ‘path to million qubits’.
   

7. The concerns about TGP protocols from Paper 1 persist in Paper 2 where it repeatedly states the wires must be “tuned into a 1DTS (1D topological superconducting) state” but Paper 2 presents nothing that addresses the concerns about TGP false positives of trivial Andreev bound states passing as “topological”. This omission is quite critical for the roadmap.

   
   

The Promise

I don’t want to be all doom and gloom though. While Microsoft’s approach is ambitiously different to other quantum computers, the unresolved nature of the Majorana research suggests that alternative quantum architectures may still gain traction. Majorana-1 could represent a significant step in the search for fault-tolerant quantum computing, but there is a lot more steps to go before we can even start thinking about a ‘million qubits in the palm of my hand’. Also, I attended a talk by Nicholas McQuire (Director of Incubation, AI and Quantum at Microsoft), where I learnt that Microsoft was using their Azure Quantum platform to help develop a ground-breaking new material for the Topological Core of their chip. If this was using the Majorana-1 chip, there should be some real data on how this chip performs. The talk also addressed using hardware-based error correction rather than the software approach, this was definitely innovative and so Majorana-1 could possibly be a huge leap towards being the digital transistor equivalent moment of quantum computing, BUT there is a LOT of hype and speculation so this is not good for tempering expectations. Besides there is enough hype with AI to go around without adding Quantum fuel the technological fire! I should also mention that I’m sure Microsoft will continue the research but to present this as an engineered product rather than a hypothetical scientific research area is promising but still HYPE!

The Competition

While Microsoft is betting on Majorana-based qubits, Google and IBM in particular are pursuing completely different, and more proven, approaches with their respective quantum computing architectures. Google Willow is built on superconducting qubits and software-based error correction. Willow follows a well-understood roadmap with demonstrated (albeit limited) success in quantum supremacy experiments. Google’s approach focuses on scaling existing qubit technologies and refining quantum error correction to make quantum computing practical. My personal quantum computing journey started with IBM Q System, it leverages superconducting qubits in a modular approach, gradually increasing qubit counts while also developing software-based error mitigation techniques. IBM is also enhancing existing qubit coherence and connectivity approaches to improve computational reliability.

Microsoft are late to the party and are trying to catch up and hoping to leapfrog the competition. This strategy is high-risk, high reward so the next few years will be crucial in determining whether Majorana-based qubits are the breakthrough they envision or another mirage in the ever-evolving landscape of quantum research. Until then, the race to quantum supremacy continues, with multiple exciting research areas still to resolve.

If Majorana qubits turn out to be a dead end, Microsoft may have to pivot towards a more conventional error-correction model. On the other hand, if the Majorana-1 chip becomes reality and successfully demonstrates topological protection, it could redefine the future of quantum computation. I applaud the bold strategy here but as Carl Sagan said — “extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.”

The Future

It’s easy to get swept up in the excitement generated by headlines proclaiming quantum supremacy or revolutionary breakthroughs. However, the current reality is that we are still very much in the early days of quantum research. Don’t even get me started on the snake-oil vendors claiming post-quantum solutions!

Microsoft, Google, IBM, D-Wave, Rigetti and IonQ, to name the ones I’m familiar with, are laying the groundwork with impressive prototypes and initial bespoke niche implementations, yet the full potential of general purpose quantum computing will take a lot more research and some more engineering. Good news though is that this field is gaining momentum and it’s realistically just a matter of time and things are getting faster and faster — especially with ML models helping push us forwards.

While the hype can sometimes overshadow the real impressive progress, it doesn’t stop anyone from planning for a post-quantum future. But keeping a balanced perspective on hype is essential.

As we continue the Beyond the Hype series, I invite you to join the conversation about the future of quantum computing. How will the diverse approaches discussed converge? What breakthroughs will be necessary to bridge the gap between research and everyday application? Microsoft has proposed an innovative path forward but the road ahead is as challenging as it is exciting. Share your thoughts and insights as we navigate this fascinating frontier together!

Stay tuned for future posts where I delve deeper into the practical implications of these quantum advances, including going back to QML now that ML architectures are evolving.

To learn more reach out and actually be Quantum Ready and not get sucked into the hype!