PreprintCited by 1Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Breaking even with magic: demonstration of a high-fidelity logical non-Clifford gate

Open access

Abstract

Encoding quantum information to protect it from errors is essential for performing large-scale quantum computations. Performing a universal set of quantum gates on encoded states demands a potentially large resource overhead and minimizing this overhead is key for the practical development of large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computers. We propose and experimentally implement a magic-state preparation protocol to fault-tolerantly prepare a pair of logical magic states in a [[6,2,2]] quantum error-detecting code using only eight physical qubits. Implementing this protocol on H1-1, a 20 qubit trapped-ion quantum processor, we prepare magic states with experimental infidelity $7^{+3}_{-1}\times 10^{-5}$ with a $14.8^{+1}_{-1}\%$ discard rate and use these to perform a fault-tolerant non-Clifford gate, the controlled-Hadamard (CH), with logical infidelity $\leq 2.3^{+9}_{-9}\times 10^{-4}$. Notably, this significantly outperforms the unencoded physical CH infidelity of $10^{-3}$. Through circuit-level stabilizer simulations, we show that this protocol can be self-concatenated to produce extremely high-fidelity magic states with low space-time overhead in a [[36,4,4]] quantum error correcting code, with logical error rates of $6\times 10^{-10}$ ($5\times 10^{-14}$) at two-qubit error rate of $10^{-3}$ ($10^{-4}$) respectively.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.14688

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • 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.”

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dasu, S., Burton, S., Mayer, K., Amaro, D., Gerber, J. A., Gilmore, K., Gresh, D., DelVento, D., Potter, A. C., & Hayes, D.
Affiliations
Quantinuum (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415312686
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • 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
magic state distillation, logical qubits, fault-tolerant quantum computing, trapped-ion quantum computer, quantum error correction

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