In 2023 Microsoft Quantum put a comment on our paper.
Their claim was based on a single figure. We requested the data for this figure... no response.
Eventually we got the data through PRL.
We ran the code as described: Fig. 1 in MSFT's comment was demonstrably false.
A BlueSky 🧵.
Their claim was based on a single figure. We requested the data for this figure... no response.
Eventually we got the data through PRL.
We ran the code as described: Fig. 1 in MSFT's comment was demonstrably false.
A BlueSky 🧵.
Comments
Editors from Nature were in the audience.
You can also now read our updated full remarks:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10669
Microsoft's comment: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15813
MSFT based this on one simulation and stated the TGP outcome was shown in their Fig. 1.
[1] https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.207001
In our original reply [2] we were able to show that our mechanism could easily cause false positives.
Here are some TGP false positives (I have more!)
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10669
(Side note: The TGP has many parameters including nonphysical ones such as pixel size i.e. the resolution of the data is key to the outcome 🤯)
So we requested the data for Fig. 1 from MSFT Quantum directly... Silence.
@PhysRevLett, this proved very useful as we were able to eventually use that process to get MSFT's data for their figure. (Big thanks to the PRL editor for that that!)