The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (SCAC) Quantum Subcommittee released a roadmap outlining a three-phase approach for a potential national quantum computing user facility. This plan emphasizes that the establishment of such a facility depends on quantum systems first demonstrating independently validated scientific value, technical maturity, and clear demand from researchers. This approach prioritizes tangible scientific outcomes over hardware metrics alone.

This comprehensive roadmap proposes a structured progression. It starts with establishing Quantum Grand Challenges from 2026 through 2028. The second phase, contingent on the success of these challenges, could lead to the creation of a DOE Quantum Computing User Facility. Finally, the third phase envisions fully integrating quantum computing with existing DOE supercomputers, artificial intelligence systems, scientific instruments, and experimental networks. The committee recommends that DOE initiate planning for the facility concurrently with the grand-challenge work, allowing for an informed decision when sufficient technical and scientific evidence becomes available.

Scientific Utility Determines Progress

The SCAC Quantum Subcommittee report stresses that measuring progress in quantum computing must extend beyond mere qubit counts. Instead, it advocates for an evaluation standard centered on the ability to resolve complex scientific problems. The committee firmly states, “Scientific grand challenges should define the requirements for algorithms, software, hardware, AI, and systems engineering through continuous co-design, rather than adapting applications to existing technologies.” This science-driven methodology aims to accelerate the development of meaningful applications, guide technological advancements, and cultivate broad user communities crucial for future quantum computing capabilities.

The report details illustrative milestones for systems capable of scientific demonstrations by 2028. These benchmarks include achieving approximately 50 to 100 logical qubits and performing 10,000 to 100,000 hard logical operations. A key requirement is the completion of an end-to-end scientific calculation within 24 hours, alongside independent validation against experimental data, classical computing limitations, or established predictive scientific value. Logical qubits, which are groups of physical qubits designed with error detection and correction, highlight the difference between component performance and the ability to execute useful, lengthy calculations. The panel’s focus on logical qubits and operations underscores the need for quantum systems to operate reliably and repeatedly, with enough throughput to support scientific research. The roadmap also identifies essential enabling requirements, such as real-time error decoding, sophisticated control electronics, advanced cryogenics, robust packaging, precise calibration, comprehensive software, efficient compilers, rigorous verification processes, automated operations, manufacturability, and high uptime.

For the proposed user facility’s capabilities by 2030 and beyond, the roadmap projects roughly 1,000 to 10,000 logical qubits, billions to tens of billions of hard logical operations, and production-level reliability. The anticipated scientific results should extend beyond the reach of routine classical computing methods. The committee’s near-term scientific milestones cover a range of fields. In chemistry and biology, it proposes chemically accurate predictions for selected protein-ligand or enzyme active sites, building from earlier calculations involving molecular fragments and photoreactive molecules. For chemical manufacturing and catalysis, the roadmap calls for simulations of strongly correlated bonds and small catalytic centers, progressing to calculations of reaction steps involving transition metals. A 2028 demonstration aims to resolve a critical step in an industrial catalyst with chemically meaningful accuracy. The roadmap further identifies applications in correlated materials, fusion energy, nuclear and particle physics, and sensing. Examples include a quantum-validated model for a correlated material, a validated prediction relevant to fusion design, a nuclear response calculation for neutrino experiments, and initial phenomenological inputs to particle-physics event generators. In sensing, the panel proposes a demonstration exceeding the coherence limit with a published sensitivity gain on a scientific measurement. These demonstrations serve as benchmarks to validate system correctness and reliability, establishing whether quantum systems can produce predictive scientific results that surpass current computational methods.

Future Facility Tied to Demonstrated Results

The report makes it clear that the proposed Quantum Computing User Facility is not an automatic hardware acquisition but rather a strategic investment contingent on the success of the grand-challenge phase. Consideration for the facility will occur only if quantum systems demonstrate significant scientific value, technical readiness, and the capacity for a sustainable user program. The committee recommends that DOE undertake a dedicated planning activity to assess the optimal timing, scale, operating model, refresh strategy, projected hardware development, and anticipated demand. This activity would involve collaboration among national laboratories, universities, industry, National Quantum Information Science Research Centers, and prospective users.

The panel intentionally leaves several fundamental questions open, recognizing that the answers depend on the evolving progress of hardware and scientific applications. These questions include whether the DOE would eventually operate a single leadership-class facility, a distributed network of specialized resources, or a hybrid model. It also considers whether an initial facility should be deployed once useful systems emerge or if it should wait for larger-capability machines. The report explicitly avoids resolving these questions at this stage, acknowledging the dynamic nature of quantum technology development. Furthermore, it advocates for future cost estimates to be derived through a formal, community-informed DOE process. The committee envisions the facility as a national scientific resource designed to maximize scientific discovery, rather than solely optimizing quantum hardware performance or replacing commercial quantum services. Its user model would mirror that of other DOE facilities, providing peer-reviewed access, resident scientific expertise, training, benchmarks, and collaborative software development. The facility would enable transformative advances across various scientific disciplines, including chemistry, biology, materials science, condensed matter physics, particle and nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences, optimization, and other emerging fields. This resource could support researchers from DOE laboratories, universities, industry, and other federal agencies. Potential user communities span chemistry, biology, materials science, condensed-matter physics, particle and nuclear physics, fusion, optimization, and new scientific domains.

Integrated Access and Diverse Platforms

The proposed model for the facility acknowledges the continuing role of cloud-based quantum access. Cloud services offer broad availability, rapid experimentation, and access to commercially developed hardware. The report advocates for combining this cloud access with systems strategically located at DOE national laboratories. These co-located machines would integrate with leadership-class high-performance computing, advanced artificial intelligence infrastructure, robust data systems, and existing experimental facilities. The report also highlights that critical capabilities such as cryogenic infrastructure, quantum interconnects, specialized networking, systems engineering, and embedded multidisciplinary teams could be developed more effectively within such a setting.

A typical scientific workflow might combine an experimental measurement, a classical simulation, AI-based analysis, and a quantum calculation. This perspective positions quantum computing as an integral component of a broader scientific ecosystem, rather than a standalone processor intended to displace conventional supercomputers. The panel also stresses that scientists require more access than typical remote cloud users. Researchers need sufficient access to hardware architectures, control interfaces, diagnostics, and detailed system-performance information to optimize applications and validate results. While acknowledging the need for companies to safeguard intellectual property, the committee recommends partnership frameworks that foster scientific openness without requiring the disclosure of proprietary technology. Suggested mechanisms for this collaboration include embedded teams, with laboratory researchers working within hardware companies and industry employees stationed at national laboratories. Joint appointments, shared pre-competitive prototypes, and DOE-industry co-investments tied to achieving specific scientific outcomes are also proposed as ways to facilitate this collaboration.

The report advises against prematurely favoring any single quantum hardware approach for the national effort. It identifies a diverse portfolio of complementary systems, including superconducting circuits and cavities, trapped ions, neutral atoms, photonics, spin qubits, and emerging technologies, as viable candidates. This same approach extends to system design, allowing for modular and hybrid systems, deep integration with high-performance computing, qudits, distributed computing, and quantum networking. The committee recognizes that different architectures may progress at varying rates and prove more suitable for distinct scientific problems. The report also documents areas of disagreement among stakeholders. Some participants expressed confidence that scientifically useful fault-tolerant systems could be demonstrated by 2028, while others anticipated that large-scale fault tolerance would require more extensive development time. Differences also emerged regarding the balance between application development and foundational hardware work, the appropriate degree of DOE hosting for frontier hardware, and the ultimate structural design of a user facility. This proposed phased sequence provides DOE with a mechanism to evaluate these complex questions through concrete scientific demonstrations, moving beyond reliance solely on vendor roadmaps. The national facility’s establishment would ultimately depend on proof that quantum systems can yield validated results for scientific users, rather than simply the availability of a machine with a greater qubit count. The committee underscores the timeliness of this project, stating, “The Committee believes that the rapid maturation of multiple quantum computing platforms makes this the appropriate time to broaden the national effort by engaging a much larger scientific community in defining and solving ambitious scientific grand challenges on quantum computers.” This continuous co-design between hardware, software, algorithms, systems engineering, AI, and domain scientists aims to ensure that scientific applications shape technology requirements, while technological advancements consistently broaden scientific opportunities.