The paper doesn't actually give a clear description of its own algorithm, and there are two specific problems that are apparent even without much of a description:

1. It confuses quantum state vectors with classical vectors or vectors of values. Classically, or on a quantum computer, you can have n values stored in registers or in memory or on a piece of paper or whatever and you have an n-element vector. But on a quantum computer, if you have n qubits and write down their state, you have a 2^n-element vector of complex numbers. These are not the same thing.

So you can have the quantum Fourier transform, which Fourier transforms the coefficients in the state vector of n qubits, which is not at all the same thing as taking 2^n logical numbers and Fourier transforming the numbers.

But this paper very glibly discusses how the QNTT (Quantum Number Theoretic Transform) is nicer than the QFT, but as far as I can tell, the "QNTT" is described in one single paper, doesn't really have much to say for itself, and is actually just an algorithm, supposedly optimized to run on current quantum hardware, that transforms n numbers stored in n registers. (And if a paper wants to claim to number-theoretic-transform the coefficients of a quantum state vector, it should start by explaining how the coefficients of said state vector are to be viewed as elements of a finite ring or field, which these papers do not even pretend to do.)

I think they're using the QNTT to optimize modular exponentiation, which is at least vaguely plausible, but that's using the QNTT for a purpose completely unrelated to what Shor's algorithm uses the QFT for.

2. The replacement of quantum modular exponentiation with classical modular exponentiation is just weird and is completely missing an explanation. Modular exponentiation is just a classical function, like f(r) = 2^r mod p. You can make it reversible (where all operation have inverses) by instead doing somthing like (z, r) -> (z + 2^r mod p, r) -- if you start with z = 0, you get the answer, and if you start with z != 0, you get z added to the answer.

Quantum computers can evaluate quantum functions where the input is qubits instead of classical bits, and they do it by running reversible calculations as above, and many algorithms require doing exactly this while carefully avoiding entangling the inputs or outputs with anything else. So if you start with two quantum registers, you can write the state as complex number times each possible input state (all 2^b of them where b is the total number of bits in all the registers) and you get those same complex numbers times the output states. [0]

The paper claims, with no explanation that I can see, that somehow you can instead do the modular exponentiation on a regular computer and encode those exponents into the quantum circuit. If you are willing to do all 2^b of them, then fine [1], but remember, b is larger than 2048, and this isn't going to work. So maybe they're approximating the modular exponentiation by somehow extrapolating it from a very, very spare set of samples? If that works, that would be quite nifty, but again the paper doesn't appear to so much as acknowledge any complication here. On the other hand, I can easily imagine factoring a number like 15 this way, since the number of samples needed to completely capture the function is rather small.

(I hope I did an okay job of making this both correct and somewhat accessible.)

[0] The calculation is reversible, each input state maps to exactly one output state and vice versa, so each coefficient appears in front of a different logical output state, which makes the math work.

[1] Not fine, because the resulting circuit will be so large that you will never finish running it. But mathematically fine in the sense that you'll get the right answer. Also, by the time you have classically sampled the entire search space for a problem like modular exponentiation, you have already brute forced all possibly discrete logs, at which point you don’t need the quantum computer!

I remember an article that even google's lab could not make final verdict if they work or not. Forgot the computer name

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202510.1649

As usual with anything quantum computer: I'll wait for Scott Aaronson's take.

TLDR: No

Longer explanation: guy behind a company selling PQ algorithms from a new "University" which span up 4 months ago says they're better than everybody else and writes paper about it.

https://postquantum.com/security-pqc/cybersecurity-apocalyps...

which concludes that the chances of this prediction being true are very slim.