CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 38Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.

Implementing Fault-tolerant Entangling Gates on the Five-qubit Code and the Color Code

Open access
Ryan-Anderson, C., Brown, N. C., Allman, M. S., Arkin, B., Asa-Attuah, G., Baldwin, C., Berg, J., Bohnet, J. G., Braxton, S., Burdick, N., Campora, J. P., Chernoguzov, A., Esposito, J., Evans, B., Francois, D., Gaebler, J. P., Gatterman, T. M., Gerber, J., Gilmore, K., Gresh, D., Hall, A., Hankin, A., Hostetter, J., Lucchetti, D., Mayer, K., Myers, J., Neyenhuis, B., Santiago, J., Sedlacek, J., Skripka, T., Slattery, A., Stutz, R. P., Tait, J., Tobey, R., Vittorini, G., Walker, J., Hayes, D.·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2208.01863arXiv 2208.01863
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We compare two different implementations of fault-tolerant entangling gates on logical qubits. In one instance, a twelve-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer is used to implement a non-transversal logical CNOT gate between two five qubit codes. The operation is evaluated with varying degrees of fault tolerance, which are provided by including quantum error correction circuit primitives known as flagging and pieceable fault tolerance. In the second instance, a twenty-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer is used to implement a transversal logical CNOT gate on two [[7,1,3]] color codes. The two codes were implemented on different but similar devices, and in both instances, all of the quantum error correction primitives, including the determination of corrections via decoding, are implemented during runtime using a classical compute environment that is tightly integrated with the quantum processor. For different combinations of the primitives, logical state fidelity measurements are made after applying the gate to different input states, providing bounds on the process fidelity. We find the highest fidelity operations with the color code, with the fault-tolerant SPAM operation achieving fidelities of 0.99939(15) and 0.99959(13) when preparing eigenstates of the logical X and Z operators, which is higher than the average physical qubit SPAM fidelities of 0.9968(2) and 0.9970(1) for the physical X and Z bases, respectively. When combined with a logical transversal CNOT gate, we find the color code to perform the sequence--state preparation, CNOT, measure out--with an average fidelity bounded by [0.9957,0.9963]. The logical fidelity bounds are higher than the analogous physical-level fidelity bounds, which we find to be [0.9850,0.9903], reflecting multiple physical noise sources such as SPAM errors for two qubits, several single-qubit gates, a two-qubit gate and some amount of memory error.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2208.01863

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • The authors demonstrate preparation of colour-code qubits with break-even fidelities.

    “Operating this logical processor with various types of encoding, we demonstrate improvement of a two-qubit logic gate by scaling surface-code6 distance from d = 3 to d = 7, preparation of colour-code qubits with break-even fidelities5, fault-tolerant creation of logical Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) states and feedforward entanglement teleportation, as well as operation of 40 colour-code qubit”

    From Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

    The opening summary (p. 1) reports that fault-tolerant colour-code state-preparation-and-measurement fidelities exceeded average physical-qubit SPAM fidelities. But Section III (p. 8) explicitly says the experiments did not achieve the break-even point; it describes the higher logical fidelity as a milestone toward it. The claim is supported as a comparison of preparation-and-measurement fidelities, not as a demonstration of break-even operation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Recent experiments have achieved milestone demonstrations of two logical qubits and one entangling gate and explorations of new encodings.

    “Recent experiments have achieved milestone demonstrations of two logical qubits and one entangling gate5,6 and explorations of new encodings25–28.”

    From Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

  • Junction-based architectures open the design space for fault tolerance to high-efficiency encodings, transversal logic, low-overhead magic state factories and single-shot error correction.

    “Junction-based architectures should allow QCCD machines to maintain all-to-all connectivity for large numbers of qubits, opening the design space for fault tolerance to high-efficiency encodings58, transversal logic59,60, low-overhead magic state factories61 and single-shot error correction62–76.”

    From A 98-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer with all-to-all connectivity (2026) · cites this paper as [59]

  • Error suppression by increasing the colour code size had not been demonstrated on any experimental platform.

    “As a result, error suppression by increasing the colour code size has not yet been demonstrated, to our knowledge, on any experimental platform.”

    From Scaling and logic in the colour code on a superconducting quantum processor (2025) · cites this paper as [14]

    Section III (pp. 6–8) describes experiments with a color code, and the Discussion (p. 9) compares it with a five-qubit code. Neither passage addresses whether increasing color-code size has suppressed errors on any experimental platform. Searches for code-size scaling and increasing code distance found no passage making that broader claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 38

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [16]M. Gong and et al. , National Science Review 9 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwab011 · DOI
  2. [17]M. H. Abobeih, Y. Wang, J. Randall, S. J. H. Loenen, C. E. Bradley, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, B. M. Terhal, and T. H. Taminiau, Nature 10.1038/s41586-022-04819-6 (2022). · DOI
  3. [19]D. Gottesman, Phys. Rev. A 57 , 127 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.127 · DOI
  4. [20]B. Eastin and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 , 110502 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.110502 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [23]D. Gottesman, in Quantum Information Science and its Contributions to Mathematics, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics , Vol. 68 (2010) pp. 13-58.
  6. [24]M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
  7. [25]P. W. Shor, in Proceedings of 37th conference on foundations of computer science (IEEE, 1996) pp. 56-65.
  8. [26]A. M. Steane, Physical Review Letters 78 , 2252 (1997).
  9. [28]E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43 , 4452 (2002).
  10. [29]Y. Tomita and K. M. Svore, Physical Review A 90 , 062320 (2014).
  11. [34]D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof, Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 103 , 259 (1998).
  12. [209 (2021).](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03318-4) · DOI · Paper page
  13. [38]E. J., R. Alicki, and K. Zyczkowski, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 7 (2005).
  14. [40]A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, J. A. Smolin, and J. M. Gambetta, Open quantum assembly language (2017), arXiv:1707.03429 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  15. [46]R. Blume-Kohout, J. K. Gamble, E. Nielsen, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Sterk, and P. Maunz, arXiv:1310.4492 (2013). · arXiv
  16. [48]X. Xu and et al, New Journal of Physics 20 , 023009 (2018).
  17. [50]P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , 375 (2022).
  18. [51]T.-C. Lin and M.-H. Hsieh, arXiv:2203.03581 (2022). · arXiv
  19. [52]L. Z. Cohen, I. H. Kim, S. D. Bartlett, and B. J. Brown, Science Advances 8 , eabn1717 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abn1717. · DOI · Paper page
  20. [53]A. Krishna and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. X 11 , 011023 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011023 · DOI
  21. [56]B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A 54 , 2614 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.2614 · DOI
  22. [57]M. A. Nielsen, Physics Letters A 303 , 249 (2002). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(0201272-0) · DOI
  23. [58]L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, SIAM Rev. 38 , 10.1137/1038003 (1996). · DOI
  24. [59]S. Diamond and S. Boyd, Journal of Machine Learning Research 17 , 1 (2016).
  25. [60]A. Agrawal, R. Verschueren, S. Diamond, and S. Boyd, Journal of Control and Decision 5 , 42 (2018).

Metadata

Authors
Ryan-Anderson, C., Brown, N. C., Allman, M. S., Arkin, B., Asa-Attuah, G., Baldwin, C., Berg, J., Bohnet, J. G., Braxton, S., Burdick, N., Campora, J. P., Chernoguzov, A., Esposito, J., Evans, B., Francois, D., Gaebler, J. P., Gatterman, T. M., Gerber, J., Gilmore, K., Gresh, D., Hall, A., Hankin, A., Hostetter, J., Lucchetti, D., Mayer, K., Myers, J., Neyenhuis, B., Santiago, J., Sedlacek, J., Skripka, T., Slattery, A., Stutz, R. P., Tait, J., Tobey, R., Vittorini, G., Walker, J., & Hayes, D.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2208.01863
arXiv
2208.01863
OpenAlex
W4300133379
Cited by
38
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
Keywords
five-qubit code, color codes, trapped-ion quantum computer, flagging, quantum error correction, logical fidelity, process fidelity, transversal gates

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