Cited by 229Quantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Mechanics and Applications

Experimental Demonstration of Fault-Tolerant State Preparation with Superconducting Qubits

Open access
Takita, Maika, Cross, Andrew W., Córcoles, A. D., Chow, Jerry M., Gambetta, Jay M.·2017·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

Robust quantum computation requires encoding delicate quantum information into degrees of freedom that are hard for the environment to change. Quantum encodings have been demonstrated in many physical systems by observing and correcting storage errors, but applications require not just storing information; we must accurately compute even with faulty operations. The theory of fault-tolerant quantum computing illuminates a way forward by providing a foundation and collection of techniques for limiting the spread of errors. Here we implement one of the smallest quantum codes in a five-qubit superconducting transmon device and demonstrate fault-tolerant state preparation. We characterize the resulting code words through quantum process tomography and study the free evolution of the logical observables. Our results are consistent with fault-tolerant state preparation in a protected qubit subspace.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.119.180501

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Randomized benchmarking, state and process tomography, and gateset tomography fail to account for errors arising from interactions with spectator qubits.

    “Methods such as randomized benchmarking [5], state and process tomography [6], and gateset tomography [7] are valued for measuring the performance of operations on a few qubits, yet they fail to account for errors arising from interactions with spectator qubits [8, 9].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [12]E. Campbell, B. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.07330 (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07330 · arXiv
  2. [13]D. Gottesman, arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03507 (2016). · arXiv
  3. [14]N. Linke, M. Gutierrez, K. Landsman, C. Figgatt, S. Debnath, K. Brown, and C. Monroe, arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.06946 (2016). · arXiv
  4. [16]A. Calderbank, E. Rains, P. Shor, and N. Sloane, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theo. 44 (1998).
  5. [17]D. Gottesman, Caltech Ph. D. thesis (1997). https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9705052 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Takita, M., Cross, A. W., Córcoles, A. D., Chow, J. M., & Gambetta, J. M.
Affiliations
IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
2017-10-31
Volume
119
Issue
18
Pages
180501-180501
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W2619719596
Cited by
228
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 2
FWCI
13.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (W911NF-16-0114)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-14-1-0124)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Keywords
fault-tolerant quantum computing, quantum state preparation, superconducting qubits, transmon qubits, five-qubit code, quantum error correction, quantum process tomography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review