Fault-tolerant quantum computation with a neutral atom processor
Extracted source text · arXiv 2411.11822
% !TEX TS-program = pdflatex
\ifx\compilefullpaper\undefined
\documentclass[10pt, twocolumn, aps, nofootinbib, longbibliography, nobibnotes, superscriptaddress]{revtex4-1} %dvips, superscriptaddress, showpacs, aps, prl, linenumbers
%\documentclass[preprintnumbers,11pt,twocolumn]{article}
%\pdfoutput=1 % needed for the arXiv to properly compile with pdflatex
\input{header}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[table]{xcolor}\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{afterpage} % use \afterpage{\clearpage} to clear floats without starting a new page
%\hypersetup{draft} % kill all hyperlinks, because pdflatex keeps crashing
%\usepackage{etoolbox} % pdftex crashes if a link spans two pages, this might fix it?
%\usepackage{minted} % python syntax highlighting
\usepackage{makecell} % thicker hlines: \Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
% watermarks (turn off xcolor package above)
%\usepackage[printwatermark]{xwatermark}
%\usepackage{tikz}
%\newsavebox\mybox
%\savebox\mybox{\tikz[color=red,opacity=0.3]\node{DRAFT, do not distribute};}
%\newwatermark*[
% allpages,
% angle=45,
% scale=6,
% xpos=-20,
% ypos=15
%]{\usebox\mybox}
\usepackage[only,llbracket,rrbracket]{stmaryrd}
%\usepackage[anythingbreaks]{breakurl} % to fix long urls in bibliography
\usepackage{enumitem} % added to remove itemize environment indentations, with \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\usepackage{color}
\setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{0.2mm}
%\setlength{\tabcolsep}{10pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
%\newcolumntype{s}{>{} p{3cm}}
%\arrayrulecolor[HTML]{DB5800}
%\usepackage[table]{xcolor}
%\usepackage{float}
\definecolor{cardinal}{rgb}{0.827, 0, 0}
\begin{document}
%\tableofcontents
\fi
%\def\compilefullpaper{}
\vfuzz2pt % Don't report over-full v-boxes if over-edge is small
\title{
%Logical computation demonstrated with a neutral atom quantum processor
Fault-tolerant quantum computation with a neutral atom processor
}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum} % force these affiliations to the front
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Ben W. Reichardt}
%\thanks{These authors contributed equally to this work.}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\affiliation{Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Southern California}
\author{Adam Paetznick}
%\thanks{These authors contributed equally to this work.}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{David Aasen}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Ivan Basov}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Juan M.~Bello-Rivas}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{\\ Parsa Bonderson}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Rui Chao}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Wim van Dam}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Matthew B.~Hastings}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Ryan V. Mishmash}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Andres Paz}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Marcus P.~da Silva}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{\\ Aarthi Sundaram}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Krysta M.~Svore}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Alexander Vaschillo}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Zhenghan Wang}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{Matt Zanner}
\affiliation{Microsoft Quantum}
\author{\\ William~B.~Cairncross}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Cheng-An~Chen}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Daniel~Crow}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Hyosub~Kim}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Jonathan~M.~Kindem}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Jonathan~King}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Michael~McDonald}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Matthew~A.~Norcia}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Albert~Ryou}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Mark~Stone}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Laura~Wadleigh}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{\\Katrina~Barnes}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Peter~Battaglino}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Thomas~C.~Bohdanowicz}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Graham~Booth}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Andrew~Brown}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Mark~O.~Brown}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Kayleigh~Cassella}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Robin~Coxe}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Jeffrey~M.~Epstein}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Max~Feldkamp}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Christopher~Griger}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Eli~Halperin}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Andre~Heinz}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Frederic~Hummel}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Matthew~Jaffe}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Antonia~M.~W.~Jones}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Eliot~Kapit}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\affiliation{Department of Physics, Colorado School of Mines}
\author{Krish~Kotru}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Joseph~Lauigan}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Ming~Li}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Jan~Marjanovic}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Eli~Megidish}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Matthew~Meredith}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Ryan~Morshead}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Juan~A.~Muniz}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Sandeep~Narayanaswami}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Ciro~Nishiguchi}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Timothy~Paule}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Kelly~A.~Pawlak}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Kristen~L.~Pudenz}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{David~Rodr\'iguez~P\'erez}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Jon~Simon}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\affiliation{Department of Physics and Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University}
\author{Aaron~Smull}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Daniel~Stack}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Miroslav~Urbanek}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Ren\'e~J.~M.~van de Veerdonk}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Zachary~Vendeiro}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Robert~T.~Weverka}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Thomas~Wilkason}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Tsung-Yao~Wu}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Xin~Xie}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Evan~Zalys-Geller}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Xiaogang~Zhang}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
\author{Benjamin~J.~Bloom}
\affiliation{Atom Computing}
%\renewcommand{\comment}[1]{}
%\renewcommand{\comments}[1]{}
\begin{abstract}
%Transitioning quantum computation from physical qubits to logical qubits can improve error rates, and will be essential for running valuable algorithms. We demonstrate fault-tolerant quantum computation on a quantum processor with $256$ qubits, each an individual neutral Ytterbium atom. Full connectivity is enabled by atom movement to and from a zone in which up to eight two-qubit gates can be applied in parallel. The physical gates are designed so that key error sources convert to atom loss, which can be detected. We demonstrate the entanglement of $24$ logical qubits encoded into $48$ atoms, at once catching errors and {correcting} for, on average 1.8, lost atoms. We fault-tolerantly implement the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm with up to $28$ logical qubits encoded into $112$ atoms, showing better-than-physical error rates. These results begin to clear a path for achieving scientific quantum advantage with a programmable neutral atom quantum processor.
Quantum computing experiments are transitioning from running on physical qubits to using encoded, logical qubits. Fault-tolerant computation can identify and correct errors, %occurring in the system,
and has the potential to enable the dramatically reduced logical error rates required for valuable algorithms. However, it requires flexible control of high-fidelity operations performed on large numbers of qubits. We demonstrate fault-tolerant quantum computation on a quantum processor with $256$ qubits, each an individual neutral Ytterbium atom. %Full connectivity is enabled by atom movement to and from a zone in which up to eight two-qubit gates can be applied in parallel.
The operations %gates
are designed so that key error sources convert to atom loss, which can be detected by imaging. %This ``erasure conversion," changing errors into a form that can be detected independently from qubit state, improves both physical and logical performance.
%Additionally, the ability to convert physical errors into a form that can be detected independently from qubit state can allow for improved performance in error correcting codes. In this work, we demonstrate how such ``erasure conversion” can be used to improve both physical and logical performance in a system with state-of-the-art capabilities.
%Using a quantum processor with 256 qubits encoded in $^{171}$Yb atoms, with full connectivity enabled by movement, and with gate and imaging schemes designed to convert key errors into detectable loss,
Full connectivity is enabled by atom movement.
We demonstrate the entanglement of $24$ logical qubits encoded into $48$ atoms, at once catching errors and {correcting} for, on average 1.8, lost atoms. We also implement the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm with up to $28$ logical qubits encoded into $112$ atoms, showing better-than-physical error rates. In both cases, %the ability to detect loss separately from qubit state
``erasure conversion," changing errors into a form that can be detected independently from qubit state,
improves circuit performance. These results begin to clear a path for achieving scientific quantum advantage with a programmable neutral atom quantum processor.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
%\tableofcontents
\input{introduction.tex}
\input{machine.tex}
\input{cats_physical.tex}
\input{cat.tex}
\input{bv.tex}
%\input{bacon-shor.tex}
\input{outlook}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Zulfi Alam, David Bohn, Jeongwan Haah, Chetan Nayak, Pasi Kostamo, Vadym Kliuchnikov, Dennis Tom, Matthias Troyer, and Jason Zander for their support and feedback during this project.
\bibliographystyle{halpha-abbrv}
\bibliography{bib}
\clearpage
\appendix
\input{methods_machine.tex}
\input{4qubit_codes.tex}
\input{gottesman.tex}
\input{tesseract.tex}
%\afterpage{\clearpage} % clear pending floats
\ifx\compilefullpaper\undefined
\end{document}
\fi
%auto-ignore
%\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{amsfonts, amssymb, amsmath, amsthm}
\usepackage{siunitx} % for \num command number formatting
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage[tracking=smallcaps]{microtype} % for an arXiv submission, set \pdfoutput=1 near the top so it uses pdflatex
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{color}
\definecolor{DarkGray}{rgb}{0.1,0.1,0.5}
\definecolor{curgray}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,0.5}
\definecolor{curblue}{rgb}{0.04,0.11,0.64}
\definecolor{curpurple}{rgb}{0.65,0.16,0.58}
\definecolor{curorange}{rgb}{1,0.32,0}
%\usepackage[hyphens]{url}
%\usepackage[anythingbreaks]{breakurl} % to fix long urls in bibliography
\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true,breaklinks=true, linkcolor=DarkGray,citecolor=DarkGray,urlcolor=DarkGray]{hyperref} % linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue,urlcolor=blue %DarkGray
\usepackage{graphicx}
%\usepackage[caption=false]{subfig}
\usepackage{subfigure}
%\usepackage{subcaption} %% incompatible with revtex
%\usepackage[small]{caption} %% caption package is useful for allowing line breaks within figure captions, but is incompatible with revtex
%\usepackage{cancel}
%\usepackage{multirow}
%\usepackage{import}
%\usepackage{longtable}
%\usepackage{booktabs}
%\usepackage{ltxtable}
%\usepackage{rotating} %% rotating package defines sideways environment
%\usepackage{calc} %% The calc package reimplements the LaTeX commands \setcounter, ..., so that these commands accept an infix notation expression.
%\let\oldbibliography\thebibliography
%\renewcommand{\thebibliography}[1]{%
% \oldbibliography{#1}%
% \setlength{\itemsep}{.25pt}%
%}
%\usepackage[letterpaper]{geometry} \geometry{includefoot,verbose,nohead,tmargin=1in,bmargin=.75in,lmargin=1.5in,rmargin=1in}
%\setlength{\parindent}{0.25in} \setlength{\parskip}{6pt} \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.66} % stretch things out
%\def\ssp{\def\baselinestretch{1.0}\large\normalsize} % single-space references
\def\place #1#2#3{\mspace{#2}\makebox[0pt]{\raisebox{#3}{#1}}\mspace{-#2}} % the second argument should be in mu, and the third argument in pt
%\include{Qcircuit}
%\renewcommand{\measureD}[1]{*{\xy*+=+<.5em>{\vphantom{\rule{0em}{.1em}#1}}*\cir{r_l};p\save*!R{#1} \restore\save+UC;+UC-<.15em,0em>*!R{\hphantom{#1}}+L **\dir{-} \restore\save+DC;+DC-<.15em,0em>*!R{\hphantom{#1}}+L **\dir{-} \restore\POS+UC-<.1em,0em>*!R{\hphantom{#1}}+L;+DC-<.15em,0em>*!R{\hphantom{#1}}+L **\dir{-} \endxy} \qw}
\newcommand{\redcontrol}{*!<0em,.025em>-=-{\color{red}\bullet\color{black}}}
\newcommand{\redqwx}[1][-1]{\color{red}\ar @{-} [#1,0]\color{black}}
\newcommand{\redctrl}[1]{\redcontrol \redqwx[#1] \qw}
\newcommand{\redtarg}{*!<0em,.019em>=<.79em,.68em>{\color{red}\xy {<0em,0em>*{} \ar @{ - } +<.4em,0em> \ar @{ - } -<.4em,0em> \ar @{ - } +<0em,.36em> \ar @{ - } -<0em,.36em>},<0em,-.019em>*+<.8em>\frm{o}\endxy} \color{black}\qw}
\newcommand{\bra}[1]{{\langle#1|}}
\newcommand{\ket}[1]{{|#1\rangle}}
\newcommand{\braket}[2]{{\langle#1|#2\rangle}}
\newcommand{\ketbra}[2]{{\ket{#1}\!\bra{#2}}}
\newcommand{\lbra}[1]{{\bra{\overline{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\lket}[1]{{\ket{\overline{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{{\lvert #1\rvert}} % since the delimiters do not scale, it might be a good idea to add a dummy {} at the end, so \abs{big expression}^2 has the superscript at a low height
\newcommand{\bigabs}[1]{{\big\lvert #1\big\rvert}}
\newcommand{\Bigabs}[1]{{\Big\lvert #1\Big\rvert}}
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{{\| #1 \|}}
\newcommand{\bignorm}[1]{{\big\| #1 \big\|}}
\newcommand{\Bignorm}[1]{{\Big\| #1 \Big\|}}
\newcommand{\Biggnorm}[1]{{\Bigg\| #1 \Bigg\|}}
%\newcommand{\trnorm}[1]{{\norm{#1}_{\mathrm{tr}}}}
\newcommand{\trnorm}[1]{{\| #1 \|_{\mathrm{tr}}}}
\newcommand{\bigtrnorm}[1]{{\bigl\| #1 \bigr\|_{\mathrm{tr}}}} % by not calling \bignorm, the subscript height is independent of the argument
\newcommand{\Bigtrnorm}[1]{{\Bigl\| #1 \Bigr\|_{\mathrm{tr}}}}
\newcommand{\Biggtrnorm}[1]{{\Biggl\| #1 \Biggr\|_{\mathrm{tr}}}}
\newcommand{\eps}{{\epsilon}}
\newcommand{\binomial}[2]{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}#1 \\ #2 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}
\newcommand{\fastmatrix}[1]{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}#1\end{smallmatrix}\right)}
\newcommand{\smatrx}[1]{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}#1\end{smallmatrix}\right)}}
\newcommand{\matrx}[1]{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{matrix}#1\end{matrix}\right)}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Ex}{\operatorname{E}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Tr}{\operatorname{Tr}}
\def\tensor {\otimes}
\def\adjoint{\dagger} %{*}
\def\A {{\mathcal A}}
\def\B {{\mathcal B}}
\def\C {{\bf C}}
\def\D {{\mathcal D}}
\def\E {{\mathcal E}}
\def\F {{\mathcal F}}
\def\G {{\mathcal G}}
\def\H {{\mathcal H}}
\let\Lstroke\L \def\L {{\mathcal L}}
\def\N {{\bf N}}
\def\cP {{\mathcal P}}
\def\R {{\bf R}}
\def\S {{\mathcal S}}
\def\U {{\mathcal U}}
\def\V {{\mathcal V}}
%% Complexity classes:
\renewcommand{\P}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}}}%{{\mathcal{NP}}}
\newcommand{\NP}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NP}}}%{{\mathcal{NP}}}
\newcommand{\IP}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{IP}}}%{{\mathcal{NP}}}
\newcommand{\PSPACE}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PSPACE}}}%{{\mathcal{NP}}}
\newcommand{\BQP}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{BQP}}}%{{\mathcal{BQP}}}
\newcommand{\BPP}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{BPP}}}%{{\mathcal{BPP}}}
\newcommand{\EXP}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{EXP}}}%{{\mathcal{NP}}}
\newcommand{\NEXP}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NEXP}}}%{{\mathcal{NP}}}
\newcommand{\QIP}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{QIP}}}%{{\mathcal{NP}}}
\newcommand{\QMIP}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{QMIP}}}%{{\mathcal{NP}}}
\newcommand{\MIP}{\ensuremath{\mathsf{MIP}}}%{{\mathcal{NP}}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Span}{\operatorname{Span}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Range}{\operatorname{Range}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Kernel}{\operatorname{Ker}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\poly}{\operatorname{poly}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\qpoly}{\operatorname{qpoly}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}
\newcommand{\identity}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{1}}} %\mathbb{I}
\newcommand{\Id}{\identity}
\DeclareMathOperator{\CNOT}{\operatorname{CNOT}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\SWAP}{\operatorname{SWAP}}
%% Paper-specific macros:
\newcommand{\ADV} {\mathrm{Adv}}
\newcommand{\ADVpm} {\mathrm{Adv}^{\pm}}
\def\CZ {C\!Z} % control-Z gate
\DeclareMathOperator{\abst}{\operatorname{abs}}
%\newcommand{\B}{B} % \{0,1\} {{\bf Z}_2}
\DeclareMathOperator{\depth}{\operatorname{depth}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\AND}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{AND}}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\OR}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{OR}}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\MAJ}{{\operatorname{MAJ}_3}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\EQUAL}{{\operatorname{EQUAL}}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\EXACT}{{\operatorname{EXACT}}}
%\newtheorem*{maintheorem}{Main Theorem}
\newcommand{\hugelpar}[1]{\left(\vbox to #1{}\right.}
\newcommand{\hugerpar}[1]{\left.\vbox to #1{}\right)}
\newcounter{sprows}
\newcounter{spcols}
\newlength{\spheight}
\newlength{\spraise}
\newcommand{\spleft}[2][0pt]{\multirow{\value{sprows}}{*}{%
\vbox to \spraise{\vss\hbox{$#2 \hugelpar{\spheight}\hskip -#1$}\vss}}}
\newcommand{\spright}[2][0pt]{\multirow{\value{sprows}}{*}{%
\vbox to \spraise{\vss\hbox{\hskip -#1 $\hugerpar{\spheight} #2$}\vss}}}
\newcommand{\comment}[1]{\emph{\color{blue}Comment:\color{black} #1}} % use for simply removing comments
\newlength{\commentslength}
\newcommand{\comments}[1]{
\hspace{-2\parindent}
\addtolength{\commentslength}{-\commentslength}
\addtolength{\commentslength}{\linewidth}
\addtolength{\commentslength}{-\parindent}
\fcolorbox{blue}{white}{\smallskip\begin{minipage}[c]{\commentslength}
\emph{Comments:}\begin{itemize}#1\end{itemize}\end{minipage}}\bigskip
}
%\renewcommand{\comment}[1]{}\renewcommand{\comments}[1]{}
\newcommand{\rem}[1]{}
%\numberwithin{equation}{section} % makes Eq. numbers (section.number)
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}%[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
\newtheorem{fact}[theorem]{Fact}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}
%\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{Condition}
%\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
%% some font options include \itshape (preferred), \slshape (same as italic, but with broader spacing), \bfseries (bold), \normalfont
%\newtheoremstyle{definition}{}{}{\normalfont}{}{\itshape}{.}{ }{}
%\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newfont{\subsubsecfnt}{ptmri8t at 11pt}
\renewcommand{\subparagraph}[1]{\smallskip{\subsubsecfnt #1.}}
%% The first versions below hyperlink the whole reference, while the second versions only hyperlink the number
\newcommand{\eqnref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{(\ref*{#1})}}}
\newcommand{\thmref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Theorem~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\lemref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Lemma~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\corref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Corollary~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\defref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Definition~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\secref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Sec.~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\figref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Fig.~\ref*{#1}}}} % for revtex use Fig. except at the start of a sentence
\newcommand{\figureref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Figure~\ref*{#1}}}} % for revtex use Fig. except at the start of a sentence
\newcommand{\tabref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Table~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\remref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Remark~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\appref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Appendix~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\claimref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Claim~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\factref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Fact~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\propref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Proposition~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\exampleref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Example~\ref*{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\conjref}[1]{\hyperref[#1]{{Conjecture~\ref*{#1}}}}
%
%\newcommand{\eqnref}[1]{{(\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}})}}
%\newcommand{\thmref}[1]{{Theorem~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\lemref}[1]{{Lemma~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\corref}[1]{{Corollary~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\defref}[1]{{Definition~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\secref}[1]{{Section~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\figref}[1]{{Figure~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\tabref}[1]{{Table~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\remref}[1]{{Remark~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\appref}[1]{{Appendix~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\claimref}[1]{{Claim~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\propref}[1]{{Proposition~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\exampleref}[1]{{Example~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
%\newcommand{\conjref}[1]{{Conjecture~\hyperref[#1]{\ref*{#1}}}}
\allowdisplaybreaks[1]
%\sloppy
\def\COLOR{}
\ifdefined\COLOR
\newcommand{\Alice}[1] {{\color{red} {#1}}}
\newcommand{\Bob}[1] {{\color{blue} {#1}}}
\else
\newcommand{\Alice}[1] {{\color{black} {#1}}}
\newcommand{\Bob}[1] {{\color{black} {#1}}}
\fi
\definecolor{Cayenne}{rgb}{0.5,0,0}
\definecolor{Midnight}{rgb}{0,0,0.5}
\definecolor{Plum}{rgb}{0.5,0,0.5}
\definecolor{Teal}{rgb}{0,0.5,0.5}
\definecolor{Clover}{rgb}{0,0.5,0}
\definecolor{Maroon}{rgb}{0.5,0,0.25}
\definecolor{Ocean}{rgb}{0,0.25,0.5}
\definecolor{Tangerine}{rgb}{1,0.5,0}
\definecolor{Strawberry}{rgb}{1,0,0.5}
\definecolor{Fern}{rgb}{0.25,0.5,0}
\definecolor{Aqua}{rgb}{0,0.5,1}
\definecolor{Moss}{rgb}{0,0.5,0.25}
\definecolor{Mocha}{rgb}{0.5,0.25,0}
\definecolor{Lemon}{rgb}{1,1,0}
\definecolor{Asparagus}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,0}
\definecolor{Grape}{rgb}{0.5,0,1}
\definecolor{Iron}{rgb}{.3,.3,.3}
\definecolor{Steel}{rgb}{.4,.4,.4}
\definecolor{Purple}{rgb}{.5,0,.5}
\newcommand{\pst}{\psi_\theta}
\newcommand{\tst}{\text{$\pst$-$\mathrm{Bell}$}}
%\newcommand{\tsc}{\pst-\mathrm{Com}}
\newcommand{\EPRstate}{{\mathrm{EPR}}}
\def\llbracket{{[\![}}
\def\rrbracket{{]\!]}}
%\section{Introduction}
% owner: [MSFT, tbd]
% Note: include the rise and importance of neutral atom HW in recent few years
% Note: include refs to the primary previous works (extensive prior work will be included per section, since the paper takes a more ÒbuffetÓ form)
Quantum computers are potentially powerful, but are challenging to control precisely.
%Quantum computers can enable faster, more accurate solutions than classical computers. However, the biggest challenge to scaling up quantum computers is errors, or ``noise."
%Operations on qubits are inherently error-prone. %noisy.
State-of-the-art two-qubit gate error rates %depend on the qubit implementation, and
in some flagship quantum processors range %, e.g.,
from $0.1\%$ for a trapped-ion device~\cite{Moses23quantinuum} to an average of $0.4\%$ for a superconducting qubit device~\cite{google24surfacecode}. %If a circuit cannot tolerate errors, it can only run for roughly $1/p$ steps, which is not nearly enough to achieve large-scale, advantageous computation.
Moderate-size quantum algorithms require much lower error rates, %more reliable operations,
%$p \sim
below $10^{-6}$~\cite{Beverland22quantumadvantage}. %;
%Even the best physical qubits are insufficiently reliable %, without error correction,
%to run even moderate-size quantum algorithms directly.
%indeed, %obtaining a
%quantum advantage in scientific applications will likely require at least $100$ qubits with $p \sim 10^{-6}$, while %a quantum advantage for
%industrial-scale problems may require upwards of $1000$ qubits with $p \sim 10^{-12}$~\cite{Beverland22quantumadvantage}.
This precision can likely only be achieved %by
using quantum error-correcting codes to store and fault-tolerantly operate on ``logical" qubits~\cite{AliferisGottesmanPreskill05}.
%Such low error rates will not be achievable at the physical level, but encoding qubits in quantum error-correcting codes, with fault-tolerant encoded operations, %. Fortunately, encoding qubits in quantum error-correcting codes, thereby creating ``logical" qubits,
%should allow dramatic reductions in effective error rates~\cite{AliferisGottesmanPreskill05}. %The operations must also be encoded, according to fault-tolerant constructions~\cite{AliferisGottesmanPreskill05}.
%Thus, %by using quantum error correction and fault tolerance,
%noise in quantum hardware can be addressed through software, albeit with %a cost in
%physical qubit overhead.
%
%KS: However, error-correcting codes require additional operations and qubits, and must be specially designed to tolerate faults in their implementations.
%Fault-tolerance theory says that carefully designed error correction and encoded circuits can still function even with faulty qubits; software can overcome hardware flaws. This comes at a cost in overhead, of course.
%
Here, we advance the shift from physical to logical qubits, by demonstrating fault-tolerant, encoded computations on logical qubits. The encoded circuits outperform unencoded circuits on physical qubits. %corresponding physical circuits.
%Here, %we take a step toward achieving scientific quantum advantage by demonstrating
%we show %demonstrate reliable
%computations on logical qubits that outperform corresponding circuits on physical qubits.
Our results are achieved using a neutral atom quantum processor with $256$ qubits, Ytterbium atoms (\figref{f:system}), designed to enable loss conversion and detection for improved logical performance.
%Neutral atom quantum architectures recently have been in rapid development.
Neutral atom devices have been mainly analog, %predominantly analog in nature,
but recent progress has enabled %neutral atom approaches to
%a transition to
digital, gate-based computation~\cite{evered2023high,scholl2023erasure,ma2023high,radnaev2024,Finkelstein2024,muniz2024}.
%The promise of neutral atoms as qubits is their configurability, both in count and connectivity, while also maintaining low error rates.
The processor here has low gate error, and %up to 256 qubits (Ytterbium atoms), with
atom movement enables all-to-all connectivity for flexible computation and logical operation design. %, along with high two-qubit gate fidelity. %and atom loss detection.
%This allows for flexible computation, and the ability to both use and optimize over a wide range of quantum error-correcting codes, including those requiring non-local connectivity, for the underlying neutral atom architecture. %We refer to the system for detecting and correcting errors, also during computation, as the qubit virtualization system, as encoded, logical qubits are \textit{virtual} qubits made up of some number of physical qubits.
The physical two-qubit gates are designed so that key error sources convert to atom loss, which imaging has been designed to detect. With unencoded circuits, data with lost atoms can be discarded, and using this selection we prepare an entangled $40$-qubit ``cat" state (\figref{f:ghz}). Loss conversion is even more advantageous operating on encoded data, though; % when we can correct for qubit loss.
a distance-two code can detect errors and correct for lost atoms.
%Through co-optimization of fault-tolerant quantum error correction protocols and the neutral atom quantum processor design,
%
We demonstrate the creation and entanglement of logical qubits, and logical computation. %, using a distance-two code that detects errors and corrects for lost atoms.
%We also demonstrate the ability to repeatedly correct loss across the logical qubits and their computation.
%We demonstrate reliable quantum computations that outperform physical qubit computation using logical qubits co-designed with a programmable neutral atom quantum processor.
We prepare a cat state on $24$ logical qubits, encoded in $48$ atoms (\figref{f:cat24summary}). %This is the largest encoded cat state published to date. %, illustrating the scale available in neutral atom processors.
We then demonstrate a quantum algorithm on logical qubits.
We fault-tolerantly run the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm~\cite{BernsteinVazirani97complexity,cemm:qalg}, %an algorithm
well known for showing the higher efficiency of quantum computers versus classical, %. Our implementations involve
on as many as $28$ logical qubits, encoded in $112$ atoms (\figref{f:bvsummary}), with better-than-physical results. This illustrates the scale available in neutral atom processors, and their promise as reliable, fault-tolerant quantum processors.
%Next, we demonstrate fault tolerance guided by a proposal of Gottesman~\cite{Gottesman16smallexperiments}. These experiments incorporate repeated error detection and, notably, repeated loss \emph{correction}, a critical feature for scaling neutral atom processors.
%Each of the above experiments are encoded to distance two; they are capable of detecting phase and bit-flip errors and correcting atom loss.
%Finally, we demonstrate correcting both loss and errors, with repeated error correction in the distance-three Bacon-Shor code~\cite{Bacon05operator}.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\includegraphics[scale=.17]{images/architecture2.pdf}
\caption{
Experimental architecture. {\bf a}, {\bf b},
$^{171}$Yb atoms, each giving a physical qubit in the ground-state nuclear spin, can occupy tweezer traps within either a register array or an interaction zone (IZ). Up to 8 pairs of atoms interact at a time in the IZ, driven by two-qubit (2Q) gate lasers to implement controlled-phase (CZ) gates. These lasers perform coherent sequential excitation to a metastable clock state ($^{3}$P${_0}$) and the Rydberg state (65$^{3}$S${_1}$). Arbitrary single-qubit (1Q) operations can be applied in parallel to the atoms within a register row using Raman transitions detuned from the $^{3}$P${_1}$ manifold. Moving atoms between the zones enables arbitrary 2Q gate connectivity. {\bf c}, Circuit-running sequence. Dissipative operations (left column) are performed with atoms held in a cavity-enhanced optical lattice. Three images %(``preselect", ``readout" and ``survival",
(orange boxes) allow us to determine initial occupancy of register sites, as well as the final state and presence of atoms. Coherent operations (right column) are performed with atoms held in tweezers.
}
\label{f:system}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{images/catsummary.pdf}
\caption{
Fidelity of prepared cat states versus qubit number~$n$. Red points give fidelities for trials with no lost atoms. %initial or circuit loss. %, in which all qubits were present in a final survival image.
Cat states with up to $40$ qubits exceed the entanglement threshold. Gray points include trials in which all atoms are present initially but atoms lost during the circuit are replaced by the maximally mixed state, and black points include all trials. %For the survival-selected case, cat states with up to $n=40$ exceed the entanglement threshold.
}
\label{f:ghz}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.29]{images/cat24summary2}}}
\caption{
Encoded $24$-qubit cat state results. Shown is the error for measurements in the $X$ basis, the error for measurements in the $Z$ basis, and their sum, for three cases.
%A total less than $50\%$ implies entanglement.
The baseline is an unencoded $24$-qubit cat state, based on trials with no lost atoms. %; the error bars are large because we have conservatively chosen only the best run instead of averaging all baseline runs, which would further increase the separation between logical and physical performance.
%The encoded bars are based on different ways of interpreting the same data for $\llbracket4,2,2\rrbracket$-encoded cat states.
For the encoded cat state data, in one case we reject trials with a detected error, but try to correct for qubits lost during the circuit. In the other case, we reject trials with any lost qubit or detected error.
}
\label{f:cat24summary}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.3]{images/bvsummary}}}
\caption{
Results for the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm with an $n$-bit secret string. The string is always $1^n$, as the corresponding oracle is the most difficult to implement.
The success probability is the probability of measuring $1^n$, conditioned on acceptance.
For the unencoded algorithm (black), we accept when the $n$ measured atoms are present. For the encoded algorithm (red), we accept when all of the $n$ measured code blocks are decodable; in particular, it can detect faults and correct for lost atoms.
The lighter points are based only on those trials with no initial atom loss.
% For the unencoded baseline, we accept when no qubits are lost during the circuit.
%The unencoded algorithm accepts if there are no initial or circuit atom losses and the first qubit is $\ket{-}$. The encoded algorithm tolerates both losses, but rejects if any of the $n+1$ code blocks is not decodable or if the first block does not decode to $\ket{-}$.
}
\label{f:bvsummary}
\end{figure}
%Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) algorithms for eigensolvers~\cite{Peruzzo2014, Wecker15eigen} and machine learning~\cite{Biamonte2017} are growing as popular applications for state-of-the-art few-qubit quantum systems. Unfortunately, these devices are still prone to large amounts of noise~\cite{mooney2021wholedevice, Google2019, Pogorelov21ionexp}. Although error correction can decrease error rates~\cite{Shor95decoherence, Gottesman97thesis, terhal15review}, current experiments encode only one logical qubit that is still fairly noisy~\cite{honeywell21steane, Google2021, duke21BScode, Wootton20ignis}. In this paper we simulate storing multiple logical qubits in a lattice, as a first step toward modeling few-qubit computations. We repeatedly correct and remove single-qubit errors. On detecting a more dangerous---and less common---two-qubit error, we reject and restart. This ``postselection" technique allows distance-four codes to achieve similar logical error rates to distance-five codes.
%Postselection is a versatile tool in the quantum toolkit. In experiments, it has been used to decode the $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ error-detecting code~\cite{Linke17edexp, Takita17edexp} and the $\llbracket 4,1,2 \rrbracket$ surface code~\cite{Andersen2020, Google2021}. In theoretical research, it has been used to reduce the logical error probability of state preparation~\cite{Paetznickgolay2013, ZhengBrunFTancprep18} and magic state distillation~\cite{ BravyiKitaev04magic, Meier13MSD}.
%\begin{figure}[b]
%{\includegraphics[width=.38\textwidth]{images/disterrtable.pdf}}
%\caption{Distance-four codes with postselection lead to $O(p^3)$ logical error rates, much like distance-five codes.
%Even-distance codes require restarts, however, unlike odd-distance codes.}
%\label{f:disterrtab}
%\end{figure}
% As~\figref{f:disterrtab} indicates, distance-two codes can detect single errors and distance-three codes can correct them, meaning logical errors are due to second-order faults. Distance-three codes may alternatively be used to detect one or two errors, but then they lose the ability to correct and computations are very short-lived. We choose to use distance-four codes since they can simultaneously correct an error and detect two errors. Correcting some errors ensures restarts are less frequent, so longer computations can be run. Since logical errors are caused only by third-order faults, logical error rates are very low.
%\medskip
%\noindent
%\textbf{Related work.}
Creating and verifying large cat or GHZ states~\cite{greenberg1989ghz} %, also known as GHZ states~\cite{greenberg1989ghz},
is a common benchmark for hardware progress~\cite{Krenn24catstates}.
%The quality of an experiment is typically expressed by the fidelity with the ideal cat state, and where a fidelity greater than $1/2$ is the success criterion.
%The fidelity is determined by tomography of the output state and depending on the method used, the fidelity can be estimated precisely, or only a range of possible fidelity values can be inferred.
%For example, Moses et al.~\cite{Moses23quantinuum} prepared the $32$-qubit cat state with an $82\%$ fidelity, on the Quantinuum H2 trapped-ion processor.
%For example, using superconducting qubits, Bao et al.~\cite{Bao24catstate60} prepared a $60$-qubit cat state with $59\%$ fidelity.
The current record is a $60$-qubit cat state, prepared with $59\%$ fidelity using superconducting qubits~\cite{Bao24catstate60}. A $20$-qubit cat state with $54\%$ fidelity, after adjusting for measurement error, has been prepared on a neutral atom system~\cite{Omran19neutexp}.
The $62^{+5}_{-6}\%$ fidelity of our $40$-qubit cat state is not adjusted for measurement errors.
%For flagged preparation circuits, the fidelity can be considered conditioned on acceptance of the output state. This is especially relevant when preparing encoded cat states, which can have a higher fidelity when, for example, we only accept outputs when no error was detected.
%For logical qubits, %the published record %to date is an encoded
%a $12$-qubit cat state
\tabref{f:catstateexperiments} summarizes results with encoded cat states.
A cat state on $12$ logical qubits has been prepared with %at least a
$99.8\%$ fidelity~\cite{ReichardtMicrosoft24tesseract}, on a trapped-ion processor~\cite{Moses23quantinuum}. %also on H2~\cite{ReichardtMicrosoft24tesseract}.
%A four-qubit encoded cat state was separately demonstrated on the same trapped-ion system~\cite{Hong24cat4onh2}.
On a neutral atom system, Bluvstein et al.~\cite{BluvsteinHarvard23neutralatoms} have prepared a four-qubit encoded cat state %encoded in the $\llbracket7,1,3\rrbracket$ code,
with fidelity $72(2)\%$ using error correction, ranging to $99.85^{+0.1}_{-1.0}\%$ using full error detection and with a %with much
lower acceptance rate. Our $24$-qubit encoded cat state is the largest published to date.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{f:catstateexperiments}
Experiments preparing encoded cat states.}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.9pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc@{$\quad$}c}
%\hline \hline
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
& Logical \\[-.1cm]
Reference & qubits & Code & Total error $p_X + p_Z$ \\
\hline
\cite{Hong24cat4onh2} & 4 & $\llbracket25,4,3\rrbracket$ & $0.5^{+0.4}_{-0.2}\%$ \\ %$99.5^{+0.2}_{-0.4}\%$ to $99.7^{+0.2}_{-0.3}\%$ \\
\cite{BluvsteinHarvard23neutralatoms} & 4 & $\llbracket7,1,3\rrbracket$ &
\scalebox{.9}{$\!\!\!\left\{\begin{array}{c} \\[.20cm] \end{array}\right.\!\!\!\!\!$}
\begin{tabular}{c}28(2)\% error correction\\ $0.15^{+1.0}_{-0.1}\%$ error detection\end{tabular}$\!\!\!$ \\
%\begin{tabular}{c}72(2)\% error correction\\ $99.85^{+0.1}_{-1.0}\%$ error detection\end{tabular}$\!\!\!$ \\
\cite{ReichardtMicrosoft24tesseract} & 12 & $\llbracket16,4,4\rrbracket$ &
$0.18^{+0.4}_{-0.12}\%$ \\
%$99.82^{+0.12}_{-0.4}\%$ to $99.90^{+0.1}_{-0.3}\%$ \\
This work & 24 & $\llbracket4,2,2\rrbracket$ &
\scalebox{.9}{$\!\!\!\left\{\begin{array}{c} \\[1.1cm] \end{array}\right.\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$}
\begin{tabular}{c}
$26.6^{+3.3}_{-3.1}\%$ error detection \\[-.1cm] and loss correction\\
$10.2^{+6.6}_{-4.7}\%$ error and \\[-.1cm] loss detection\\
%$73.4^{+3.1}_{-3.3}\%$ to $85.6^{+2.3}_{-2.5}\%$ \\[-.1cm] error detection \\[-.1cm] and loss correction\\
%$89.8^{+4.7}_{-6.6}\%$ to $91.5^{+4.3}_{-6.2}\%$ \\[-.1cm] error and loss detection\\
\end{tabular} \\
%\hline \hline
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm for finding a secret string is another benchmark for quantum processors~\cite{Lubinski24qedcbenchmarks}.
It has been implemented with unencoded qubits on superconducting processors~\cite{Roy20bernsteinvazirani, DahlhauserHumble20bernsteinvazirani, PokharelLidar23bernsteinvazirani}, ion trap processors~\cite{FallekBrown16bernsteinvazirani, DebnathMonroe16iontrap, Wright19iontrap11benchmark}, and both processor types~\cite{Linke17bernsteinvaziraniiontrapsuperconducting, Murali19bernsteinvazirani, BlinovWuMonroe21bernsteinvaziraniiontrapsuperconducting, Lubinski21algorithmbenchmarks}, for various lengths of the secret string, up to length $26$ for superconducting qubits~\cite{PokharelLidar23bernsteinvazirani} and up to length $20$ for ion traps~\cite{Lubinski21algorithmbenchmarks}. It is difficult to compare these results fairly. Some test identification of the secret $s = 1^n$, since it is hardest to implement; the corresponding oracle requires the most two-qubit gates. Others test against random strings~$s$, %or average over different Hamming weights,
and this is much easier, %particularly on ion traps,
comparable to finding $s = 1^{n/2}$. The success probabilities also vary considerably, e.g., from $0.2\%$ %73/32000 %an exponentially small value for random~$s$ with length $26$
for $s = 1^{26}$~\cite{PokharelLidar23bernsteinvazirani}, to $70\%$ for random $s$ with $n = 20$~\cite{Lubinski21algorithmbenchmarks}. Our fault-tolerant, encoded implementation of the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm is the first to date, and has the largest length, $n = 27$. On $s = 1^{27}$, the $91.4(3)\%$ success probability for the encoded circuit beats the unencoded algorithm.
% Yamamoto et al.~\cite{Yamamoto23phaseestimattionerrordetection} have combined computation with error detection.
%As for computation with error-correcting codes, Ryan-Anderson et al.~\cite{quantinuum22h1} study logical CNOT gates between two code blocks, for the $\llbracket5,1,3\rrbracket$ and $\llbracket7,1,3\rrbracket$ codes. For their $\llbracket5,1,3\rrbracket$ code experiment, some error correction is necessary for fault tolerance, and yet they find that it increases logical error rates. For their $\llbracket7,1,3\rrbracket$ code experiment, error correction is unnecessary, and so again they find that it increases logical error rates. Postler et al.~\cite{Postler21universal} and Mayer et al.~\cite{Mayer24steaneftexperiment} do a computation on two and three encoded qubits, respectively, using the $\llbracket7,1,3\rrbracket$ code, notably including non-Clifford gates, %(though not implemented fault tolerantly),
%but not using rounds of quantum error correction. We extend these capabilities by demonstrating a beneficial {combination} of fault-tolerant error correction with computation, perhaps for the first time.
% \medskip
% \noindent
% \textbf{Our experiments.}
% \smallskip
% %\item {\bf Repeated error correction on four and eight qubits:}
% The goal of our repeated error correction experiments is to better protect more encoded qubits, through more error correction rounds. This is a challenge because in the future, as the field moves toward large-scale fault-tolerant computations, experiments will deploy many more logical qubits through much deeper logical circuits. As periodic error correction is needed to maintain fault tolerance~\cite{AharonovBenOr99, KnillLaflammeZurekScience98, AliferisGottesmanPreskill05}, highly reliable repeated error correction is a prerequisite. %Many rounds of error correction will be required.
% %reliable repeated error correction should allow deeper logical circuits, since fault tolerance requires periodic error correction.
% Although \cite{Silva24microsoft12qubitcode} and this work both show that repeated error correction gives an improvement compared to physical baselines, more important is the low absolute error rate.
% %\end{itemize}
\section*{%Physical
Neutral atom quantum processor}
The quantum processor used in this work is based on reconfigurable arrays of neutral $^{171}$Yb atoms, depicted in \figref{f:system}a,b, with the qubits encoded in the ground-nuclear spin states ($^1$S$_0$, $m_F = \pm 1/2$). Aspects of the system have been described in previous publications~\cite{barnes2022assembly, norcia2023midcircuit, norcia2024iterative, muniz2024}, and further details can be found in the methods section.
By moving atoms between arrays of static optical tweezer traps using mobile tweezers, this platform enables arbitrary connectivity between large numbers of qubits.
Figure~\ref{f:system}c shows a typical sequence for circuit execution. State preparation consists of iterative loading of the relevant sites of the register array, as described in~\cite{norcia2024iterative}, followed by an image to determine successful filling of sites, cooling, and initialization of the $\ket{0}$ state through optical pumping. State-resolved, low-loss readout as well as cooling and state initialization are performed by transferring atoms from the tweezer arrays into traps formed by cavity-enhanced optical lattices, which allows for state and atom detection with error and loss rates at the part-per-thousand level (see methods).
All other operations are peformed with the atoms held in the tweezer arrays. For this work, up to 256 atoms are available for computation.
During circuit execution, single-qubit operations and qubit storage are performed in a register array. Two-qubit (2Q) gates are performed on up to eight qubit pairs in parallel within a separate interaction zone (IZ), with connectivity determined by the placement of atoms within the IZ. 2Q gates are performed using state-selective sequential two-photon excitation to a high-lying Rydberg state in a blockaded regime, resulting in controlled-phase (CZ) gates between pairs of qubits. Importantly, key sources of 2Q gate errors are converted to loss, %in our platform,
which can be detected independently from the qubit state.
Population errors in the sequential excitation used in the gates lead either directly to loss, or to population of metastable states that are not trapped in register traps. Unlike most systems based on individually controlled neutral atoms, our ability to perform nondestructive state-selective imaging \cite{norcia2023midcircuit} allows us to perform a pair of images that unambiguously distinguish between three possibilities for the atomic state: $\ket{0}$, $\ket{1}$, and lost.
\tabref{tab:rb} presents a summary of important error rates, with benchmark protocols described in the methods.
\begin{table}
\caption{Randomized benchmark (RB) infidelities, conditioned on an atom (1Q) or pair of atoms (2Q) staying in the qubit subspace, and probability of losing one or both atoms. % being lost. % from the qubit subspace. %Benchmarking sequences are described in the main text.
} \label{tab:rb}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
%\hline \hline
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
Benchmark protocol & Infidelity & Loss + Leakage\\
\hline
% 1Q Clifford RB & 0.07(1)\% & 0.007(1)\%\\
2Q Static IRB & 0.56(15)\% & 0.27(6)\%\\
2Q Echoed RB with moves & 0.39(10)\% & 0.75(10)\%\\
2Q Echoed RB without moves & 0.35(5)\% & 0.24(6)\%\\
%\hline \hline
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section*{Cat state generation}
%A common benchmark for quantum processor performance is the generation of fully-entangled ``cat" or GHZ states.
We prepare non-encoded cat states using modified versions of the circuits from \cite{cruz2019efficient}. %In this case,
We generate the ``antiferromagnetic" cat state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0101\ldots} + \ket{1010\ldots})$, instead of the ``ferromagnetic" state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0^n} + \ket{1^n})$, since it is less sensitive to correlated phase errors.
%
% Examples include the ``ferromagnetic" (FM) states: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0000...} + \ket{1111...})$, and the ``antiferromagnetic" (AFM) states: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0101...} + \ket{1010...})$. The FM states have collectively-enhanced sensitivity to common-mode phases applied to the qubits, which has lead to interest for their use for quantum-enhanced metrology \cite{}. In contrast, the AFM states (for even qubit number $N$) are insensitive to common-mode phases. For this and other technical reasons, AFM states can be appealing for those seeking to demonstrate GHZ states with large $N$ \cite{}.
%
% XX would be nice to show the circuits, but need to use the same format as elsewhere
%
% In this work, we use modified versions of the quantum circuits defined in \cite{mosesRace2023} to prepare GHZ states. XX check if that was the original source. In these circuits, successively larger GHZ states are built up from an initial atomic superposition, starting with the creation of a two-qubit GHZ state. By choosing this to either be FM or AFM, the final GHZ state generated by the circuit can be made to be FM or AFM. Importantly, during the circuit, successive entangling blocks operate on either FM or AFM GHZ states. Correlated phase errors during these entangling blocks are then either amplified or suppressed accordingly.
%
Figure~\ref{f:ghz} plots the fidelity to the ideal %$n$-qubit
cat state, computed as $1 - \tfrac12(Z$ basis error rate$) - ($average error rate over $n$ bases orthogonal to~$z)$~\cite{guhne2007toolbox}. A fidelity above 50\% certifies $n$-partite entanglement~\cite{G_hne_2010}. % and is the commonly used threshold for creation of a GHZ state \cite{sackett2000experimental}.
%Any state that has fidelity greater than $1/2$ with the ideal cat state also has genuine multipartite entanglement, meaning that it is entangled across every bipartition of the $n$ qubits~\cite{G_hne_2010}.
%Using the nondestructive state-selective imaging we can restrict the analysis to only those trials where all atoms survived. Then
Restricting the analysis to only those trials where all atoms survived, the cat states exceed the entanglement threshold up to $n = 40$. To our knowledge, this is the largest cat state demonstrated with neutral atoms. %the largest cat state demonstrated with neutral atoms previously was for $n = 20$~\cite{Omran19neutexp}. %, and exceeds the largest published number reported for ions \cite{Moses23quantinuum}.
We can also estimate the fidelity including all trials, or all trials with no initial loss, in the analysis generously treating lost qubits as replaced by the maximally mixed state. This gives a higher acceptance rate, but lower fidelity, showing the advantage of loss detection. %, with only the $n = 16$ cat state exceeding the entanglement threshold.
%If we include all trials where the desired atoms were present in the preselect image (treating lost atoms as though they were in state $\ket{0}$, which is dark to the state-selective imaging), we observe lower cat state fidelity.
% We compare the fidelity of our GHZ states (selected on survival) to what we would expect from simply adding up the average calibrated infidelities from the state-preparation, measurement, 1Q, and 2Q gates included in each circuit (using the static IRB case used for 2Q). These contributions account for the majority of the error observed for AFM states, but not FM states.
% For $n = 24$, $X\%$ of the trials had no initial loss, and $X\%$ of those trials had no circuit loss. For $n = 40$, $X\%$ of the trials had no initial loss, and $X\%$ of those trials had no circuit loss.
\section*{Encoded $24$-qubit cat state}
%An $n$-qubit cat state %, also known as a GHZ state, can be written as $\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0^n}+\ket{1^n})$.
We prepare a %encoded
cat state on $24$ logical qubits, the largest published to date.
The logical qubits are encoded with the $\llbracket4,2,2\rrbracket$ code %~\cite{VaidmanGoldenbergWiesner96erasure, GrasslBethPellizzari96erasure}
into $48$ physical qubits.
%The circuit we implement is explained in \figref{f:cat24compiledcircuit}.
Starting with a logical state-preparation
circuit, %to prepare the cat state, %$\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2}(\ket{0^{24}} + \ket{1^{24}})$,
we %fault-tolerantly
encode the circuit, %into the $\llbracket 4,2,2\rrbracket$ code. We
then %arrange the qubits, four code blocks in each row with the ancilla qubits at the end, and
schedule the gates and movements (\figref{f:cat24compiledcircuit}).
%The unencoded baseline experiment prepares a $24$-qubit cat state using a separately optimized circuit, in \figref{f:cat24physicalschedule}.
\begin{figure}
%\subfigure[\label{f:tesseract}]
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.6]{images/cat24circuitcompilation2.pdf}}}
\caption{
{\bf a},
Logical circuit to prepare a $24$-qubit cat state. % $\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2}\big(\ket{0^{24}} + \ket{1^{24}}\big)$.
The qubits are arranged in $12$ pairs that will each be encoded into a $\llbracket 4,2,2\rrbracket$ code block.
%The logical CNOT gates are applied in seven rounds. %, in alternating colors.
{\bf b},
The encoded circuit %same circuit, fault-tolerantly encoded into the $\llbracket 4,2,2\rrbracket$ code
%This circuit prepares an encoded $24$-qubit cat state, and is what runs on the device.
%It is obtained by compiling the logical circuit of \figref{f:cat24logicalcircuit} into the $\llbacket 4,2,2\rrbracket$ code.
%The circuit
involves $59$ atoms %(qubits)
and $101$ physical CZ gates. %, with a CZ depth of $11$; at most five CZ gates touch any qubit.
All but the first code block use extra ancilla qubits, shown in gray, to prepare encoded $\ket{00}$ fault tolerantly; each ancilla should be measured to be $0$. In the %circuit
diagram, a blue wire is a qubit in the Hadamard basis. %, and changing in or out of this basis uses a Hadamard gate, not shown. %The CZ gates are shown in the correct temporal order, except that the black and red CZ gates are applied in parallel, up to eight at a time. Not shown is that in fact all qubits are together prepared in $\ket 0$ initially, and only converted to $\ket +$ using a Hadamard gate just in time for their first CZ gate. Also
Not shown are the final transversal $X$ or $Z$ measurements. %, made simultaneously.
%{\bf (c)}~Arrangement of atoms for the experiment. Each of the top three rows in the storage zone has four code blocks, and the fourth row has the ancilla qubits for blocks $1$--$11$. Not to scale.
{\bf c},~Schedule for the atom movements and gates.
%The gates in this circuit need to be scheduled. Two-qubit CZ gates are applied in the interaction zone, up to eight gates in parallel, and all the one-qubit gates on a particular qubit are applied at its initial location in the register. One-qubit gates on a subset of qubits in the same row can be applied in parallel. Two atoms can be moved in parallel, but their paths cannot cross.
}
\label{f:cat24compiledcircuit}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure*}
%%\subfigure[\label{f:tesseract}]
%{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.75]{images/cat4scheduling}}}
%%{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.75]{images/cat4schedule}}}
%\caption{
%A portion of the encoded circuit from \figref{f:cat24compiledcircuit} prepares an encoded four-qubit cat state.
%The gates in this circuit need to be scheduled.
%Two-qubit CZ gates are applied in the interaction zone, up to eight gates in parallel, and all the one-qubit gates on a particular qubit are applied at its initial location in the storage zone. One-qubit gates on a subset of qubits in the same row can be applied in parallel.
%Two atoms can be moved in parallel, but their paths cannot cross.
%Note that in this example, for clarity the two code blocks are arranged adjacent to each other in the storage zone, whereas in \figref{f:cat24compiledcircuit} they are interleaved.
%}
%\label{f:cat4schedule}
%\end{figure*}
Our experiments, like \cite{Hong24cat4onh2, ReichardtMicrosoft24tesseract}, measure $X$ basis and $Z$ basis error rates, $p_X$ and $p_Z$.
In the unencoded case, %(but not the encoded case),
the fidelity to the ideal cat state is at least $1 - p_X - p_Z$. %between $1 - p_X - p_Z$ and $1 - \max (p_X, p_Z)$, essentially because possible $Y$ errors contribute to both $p_X$ and~$p_Z$. % this is the reason for the fidelity ranges in \tabref{f:catstateexperiments}.
%The cat state has genuine multipartite entanglement, meaning that it is entangled across every bipartition of the $n$ qubits. %can not be written as a mixture of product state between any kind of bipartition of the $n$ qubits.
%However, states with $\leq 1/2$ fidelity may not even be entangled; the classical mixture $\tfrac{1}{2}(\ketbra{0^n}{0^n} + \ketbra{1^n}{1^n})$ has fidelity $1/2$ with the ideal cat state, but no entanglement.
%Hence, when using fidelity as the sole metric, showing a fidelity $>\tfrac{1}{2}$ is a necessary and sufficient condition for verifying genuine multipartite entanglement.
%
We find that for the encoded cat state, using error detection and loss correction, $p_X + p_Z = 26.6^{+3.3}_{-3.1}\%$, while for the unencoded baseline $p_X + p_Z = 42.0^{+11.3}_{-10.1}\%$.
The results are summarized in \figref{f:cat24summary}.
The baseline error bars are large because we report the best single run (different from in \figref{f:ghz}), which disadvantages the encoded cases.
%Note that in the encoded case, $1 - p_X - p_Z$ does not necessarily lower bound the fidelity to an ideal encoded cat state.
The encoding is beneficial, %interestingly
but affects $p_X$ and $p_Z$ differently. %, it helps reduce $p_X$ much more than $p_Z$.
%The baseline error bar is large because rather than averaging over all trials, we chose for a challenging baseline the best of $27$ separate runs, each consisting of $300$--$400$ unencoded trials with $X$ and $Z$ basis measurement.
How useful is loss conversion, loss measurement, and loss correction for this encoded state? The average loading loss rate was $1.04(2)\%$, and $57.2(6)\%$ of trials had no initially lost atoms.
Among trials without initial losses, those that decoded correctly had an average of 2.0 and 1.6 circuit losses, for $X$ and $Z$ basis measurements, respectively. The code successfully corrects for these lost qubits. Still, circuit loss is a major cause of logical errors. Those shots that decoded to a logical error had respective averages of 2.4 and 2.7 losses. In the $Z$ basis, there are only two valid decodings, $0^{24}$ and $1^{24}$, and we can usually identify the most likely cause of a logical error. For example, a decoding of $1111(0111)^5$ indicates that most probably the third block had a logical $XI$ error that propagated to the subsequent code blocks. The frequencies of the most likely causes of the logical error are: $26\%$ two circuit losses, $54\%$ one loss and one $X$ error, $9\%$ two $X$ errors, $11\%$ three or more losses or errors.
%Finally, we can consider two alternative decoders that ignore the loss information, replacing each lost qubit with a constant, $0$ or~$1$. To maintain fault tolerance, in both cases reject trials with a lost flag qubit. Analyzing the data with these decoders, again restricting to trials with no initial loss, the average acceptance rate decreases from $10.2(5)\%$ to $5.9(4)\%$ (constant-$0$ decoder) or $3.1(3)\%$ (constant-$1$ decoder), while the average error rate changes from $13(2)\%$ to $10(2)\%$ (constant-$0$ decoder) or $15(3)\%$ (constant-$1$ decoder). Thus, using the loss information allows us to keep substantially more trials while maintaining a similar logical error rate.
Figure~\ref{f:cat24parsing} shows how conditioning on at most $k$ lost qubits, for $k = 0, 1, \ldots$, %various values of~$k$,
allows an interpolation %, in both acceptance probability and total error probability,
between the different encoded results in \figref{f:cat24summary}; in particular, conditioning on no loss reduces the total error from $29.5(3.0)\%$ to $10.2^{+6.6}_{-4.7}\%$.
Finally, \figref{f:cat24runs} shows all the encoded cat state runs, %that combine to give the data in \figref{f:cat24summary},
plotted conditioned on no initial atom loss. The spread and correlations in the figure suggest some machine parameter drift.
\begin{figure}
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.3]{images/cat24parsing}}}
\caption{
Encoded $24$-qubit cat state data, selecting only trials with specified loss criteria.
Trying to correct more loss generally leads to a higher acceptance rate, but also a higher error rate.
%We ran $\num{14400}$ trials measuring in the $X$ basis, and $\num{15360}$ trials measuring in the $Z$ basis.
In each trial, an atom may be missing before the circuit begins %, a loading loss,
or it may be lost during the circuit.
The red points show the total $X$ basis plus $Z$ basis error rate, plotted against the average of the $X$ and $Z$ acceptance rates, based on either all $\num{29760}$ trials, only those $\num{17008}$ trials with no initial loss, or only those $858$ trials with no loss at all.
The blue points select only trials in which the total number of lost qubits is at most a threshold.
%Note that \figref{f:cat24runs} only includes trials with no initial loss, and acceptance rates in \figref{f:cat24runs} are conditioned on this. %so the normalization is different.
}
\label{f:cat24parsing}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.3]{images/cat24runsxz}}
\caption{
Encoded $24$-qubit cat state %data from %45 $X$ basis measurement runs, and 48
%$X$ and $Z$ basis measurement
runs. %This data was taken overnight, while the machine ran unattended.
Each point gives the acceptance probability and logical error rate for a run of, on average, $183$ trials with no initial loss, blue for the $X$ basis and red for~$Z$.
%$320$ trials
%$187$ trials for the $X$ basis %data
%(blue), and $179$ trials for the $Z$ basis %data
%(red), with no initial loss. %(Out of $320$ trials, some failed to load all atoms.)
For clarity, only some error bars are shown. The large squares are the full
averages, %over all the data,
as reported in \figref{f:cat24summary}. The negative correlation between acceptance probability and logical error rate evidences some parameter drift between runs, despite automatic recalibrations.
%Note that using a distance-two code makes the logical error rate particularly sensitive to physical error parameters, with a quadratic dependence.
}
\label{f:cat24runs}
\end{figure}
%\afterpage{\clearpage}
\section*{Encoded Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm}
Computing with logical qubits is the next step after encoded state preparation.
For a secret string $s \in \{0,1\}^n$, consider a black-box oracle that on query $x \in \{0,1\}^n$ returns $s \cdot x = s_1 x_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus s_n x_n$.
Classically, $n$ oracle queries are required to learn~$s$.
The Bernstein-Vazirani (BV) algorithm~\cite{BernsteinVazirani97complexity,cemm:qalg} makes a single call to the corresponding quantum oracle $U_s$, $U_s \ket{b, x} = \ket{b \oplus (s \cdot x), x}$, to learn~$s$ via $H^{n+1} U_s H^{n+1} \ket{1,0^n} = \ket{1, s}$.
This algorithm was designed to prove an oracle separation between the classical randomized and quantum polynomial-time complexity classes $\BPP$ and $\BQP$.
%Notably, Pokharel and Lidar~\cite{PokharelLidar23bernsteinvazirani} have implemented the algorithm for $n$ up to $26$, on IBM superconducting qubit processors, albeit with an exponentially small success probability. Typically, the secret $s = 1^n$ is tested, since it is hardest to implement; the corresponding oracle requires the most two-qubit gates. Sometimes all values of~$s$ are considered, and a proposed benchmark has suggested considering random strings~\cite{Lubinski21algorithmbenchmarks}.
%Fallek et al.~\cite{FallekBrown16bernsteinvazirani} Implement it with $n = 2$ and all four possible strings~$s$, on a trapped-ion device.
%
%Debnath et al.~\cite{DebnathMonroe16iontrap} implement the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm with $n = 4$ and secret $s = 1111$, on a trapped-ion device.
%
%Wright et al.~\cite{Wright19iontrap11benchmark} implement it with $n = 10$ and all $2^{10}$ possible strings~$s$, again on a trapped-ion system.
%
%Roy et al.~\cite{Roy20bernsteinvazirani} implement it with $n = 2$ on a superconducting processor.
%
%Pokharel and Lidar~\cite{PokharelLidar23bernsteinvazirani} implement it with $n$ up to $26$, on IBM superconducting qubit devices.
%
%Linke et al.~\cite{Linke17bernsteinvaziraniiontrapsuperconducting} implement it with $n = 4$, and all possible~$s$, on both superconducting and ion-trap devices, but it works better on the ion trap.
%
%Murali et al.~\cite{Murali19bernsteinvazirani} $n = 8$ on a superconducting device, and $n = 4$ on a trapped-ion device.
%
%\cite{DahlhauserHumble20bernsteinvazirani} $n = 3$ superconducting.
%
%Lubinski et al.~\cite{Lubinski21algorithmbenchmarks} benchmark suite
%
%Blinov et al.~\cite{BlinovWuMonroe21bernsteinvaziraniiontrapsuperconducting} $n = 10$ IonQ ion trap, also on IBM and Rigetti superconducting for $n = 4$.
%
%%\cite{Zalivako24iontrapqudit}
%
%Pokharel and Lidar say that the previous records were BV-11 on superconducting and BV-20 on trapped ion, but I don't have references!
For $n = 7, 11, 15, \ldots, 27$, we implement the BV algorithm for the hardest secret, $s = 1^n$, using both unencoded and $\llbracket 4,1,2 \rrbracket$-encoded qubits.
Figure~\ref{f:bv20atomarrangement} shows the encoded circuit.
The largest case, $n = 27$, has $28$ logical qubits, $112$ atoms and $170$ %physical
CZ gates.
%and where the ancillary logical qubit $\ket{-}$ is at the top of the logical circuit.
Note that %for the last $n$ code blocks we store information in the first logical qubit $\overline X_1, \overline Z_1$ of the $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code, but for the first block we use $\overline X_2, \overline Z_2$; this allows logical CZ to be implemented transversally without any qubit swaps.
%We will generally store information in the first logical qubit $\overline X_1, \overline Z_1$ (except for the ancilla block in the encoded Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm for which we will use $\overline X_2, \overline Z_2$). Then we can
%Also,
we encode $\ket{+}$ as $\ket{\overline{+1}} = \tfrac12 (\ket{01} + \ket{10})^{\otimes 2}$; setting the gauge qubit to $\ket 1$ lets the state be prepared fault tolerantly without verification.
We prefer $\ket{\overline{\pm1}}$ to $\ket{\overline{\pm0}} = \tfrac12 (\ket{00} \pm \ket{11})^{\otimes 2}$ because %expanded in the computational basis
its terms %all the terms in $\ket{\overline{\pm1}}$
have Hamming weight two, giving a decoherence-free subspace %invariant
to collective dephasing~\cite{PalmaSuominenEkert96dfs}.
\begin{figure}
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.6]{images/bv20circuits}}}
\caption{
The Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm for a secret string $s \in \{0,1\}^n$ uses $n+1$ logical qubits. % with (up to) $19$ logical CNOT gates.
{\bf a}, %In our experiment,
%We test the most challenging case, in which $s = 1^n$, so
In the most challenging case, $s = 1^n$ and there are $n$ logical CNOT gates.
{\bf b}, Encoded into the $\llbracket 4,1,2\rrbracket$ code, %each logical qubit becomes a block of four atoms.
there are $4(n+1)$ atoms and $6n+2$ %physical
CZ gates.
%Four code blocks are arranged in each of the storage zone's top five rows.
{\bf c}, The gates are scheduled so that the first block, once initialized, stays in the interaction zone.
As transversal CZ gates are applied into block~$j$, block~$j+1$ is initialized.
%Not to scale.
}
\label{f:bv20atomarrangement}
\end{figure}
%The unencoded algorithm accepts if there are no initial or circuit atom losses and the first qubit is $\ket{-}$. (The ideal Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm ignores the first qubit, without even measuring it. However, conditioning on it being present and undisturbed in~$\ket{-}$ significantly reduces the error rate, at a cost to the acceptance rate.)
The unencoded algorithm accepts if no measured atom is lost, and is successful if the measured string is~$1^n$.
The encoded algorithm tolerates losses, but rejects if any of the last $n$ code blocks is not decodable. %We do not require the first block to decode to $\ket{-}$; doing so slightly reduces the acceptance probability without significantly affecting the error rate.
Figure~\ref{f:bvsummary} summarizes the results. %, with more details in \tabref{f:bvfulldata}.
The encoded algorithms have at least a $1.4 \times$ lower error rate %a higher success probability %(probability of outputting $1^n$)
than the unencoded baseline, albeit with a lower acceptance rate.
%However, the encoded algorithms also have a lower acceptance probability.
%Generally, the encoded algorithms have a higher success probability (probability of outputting $1^n$) than the unencoded baseline, except possibly for $n = 27$ for which the error bars overlap. However, the encoded algorithms also have a lower acceptance probability.
Computing the success probability conditioned on acceptance makes sense if we treat the BV algorithm as a generic quantum algorithm.
However, it was originally proposed as a quantum \emph{query} algorithm, in which minimizing the number of oracle queries was key.
In this light, we can %look at the data and
ask whether with only one query (trial), the encoded circuit %still
beats the unencoded one.
%In short, the answer is probably not.
When the algorithms cannot condition on acceptance, %with only one trial
it requires guessing~$s$. With a lost unencoded qubit or an undecodable code block the probability of guessing the corresponding bit of~$s$ is~$1/2$, and the expected Hamming distance %of the guess
from~$s$ increases by $1/2$.
%In short, the answer is no.
As shown in \tabref{f:singlequerybv}, if the goal is to maximize the probability of guessing~$s$, based on one query to either the unencoded or encoded oracles, then for $n \geq 11$ the unencoded oracle is better.
On the other hand, if the goal is to minimize the expected Hamming distance to~$s$, then it is better to use the encoded oracle.
These statements can both hold because the failure modes of the encoded and unencoded algorithms are different (\figref{f:bv20histogram}). Intuitively, an error on the ancilla qubit in the unencoded algorithm typically results in a string like $1^{n/2}0^{n/2}$, %and contributes on average $n/2$ to the expected
contributing $n/2$ to the
distance from~$s$. However, with the encoded algorithm %an error on the ancilla block often results in a string like
a faulty ancilla block more likely leads to
$1^{n/2}\star^{n/2}$, where $\star$ denotes an undecodeable block; %where one must guess a bit of~$s$;
this contributes only %an average of
$n/4$ to the expected %Hamming
distance. Typical errors in the encoded algorithm are heralded, so they contribute less to the expected %Hamming
distance.
%One query to either quantum oracle is much better than one query to the classical oracle.
Either quantum oracle is much better than the classical oracle.
One classical query can only return one bit of~$s$, so the probability of guessing~$s$ is $\Pr[\text{guess}] = 1/2^{n-1}$ and the expected distance %of the best guess
to~$s$ is $\Ex[\text{Hamming}] = \tfrac{n-1}{2}$.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{f:singlequerybv}
%\hl{Can we explicitly put the classical here too, for ease for the reader?}
Performance of unencoded and encoded Bernstein-Vazirani algorithms with %a single
one oracle query. $\Pr[\text{guess}]$ is the probability of guessing the secret~$s$, %based on the measured outputs,
and $\Ex[\text{Hamming}]$ the expected %Hamming
distance %of the guess away
from~$s$.
%This analysis is based on all trials, including ones with initial loss.
%This analysis is based on only trials without initial losses.
For a classical oracle, $\Pr[\text{guess}] = 1/2^{n-1}$ and $\Ex[\text{Hamming}] = \tfrac{n-1}{2}$.
}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.9pt}
\begin{tabular}{c@{$\quad$}cc@{$\qquad$}cc}
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
& \multicolumn{2}{l}{Unencoded baseline} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Encoded algorithm} \\
$n$ & $\Pr[\text{guess}]$ & $\Ex[\text{Hamming}]$ & $\Pr[\text{guess}]$ & $\Ex[\text{Hamming}]$ \\
\hline
%\cite{Moses23quantinuum} & \begin{tabular}{c}20\\32\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c}86\%\\82\%\end{tabular} \\
%\cite{Bao24catstate60} & 60 & 59\% \\
7 & 67(4)\% & 0.94 & 75(2)\% & 0.48\\
11 & 69(4)\% & 1.04 & 66(3)\% & 0.90 \\
15 & 61(4)\% & 1.58 & 51(3)\% & 1.45 \\
19 & 49(3)\% & 2.44 & 38(2)\% & 2.29 \\
23 & 35(2)\% & 3.42 & 30(2)\% & 2.97 \\
%27 & 35(1)\% & 3.92 & 19(1)\% & 4.18 \\
27 & 28.2(7)\% & 4.12 & 18.5(5)\% & 4.05 \\
%\hline \hline
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
%\subfigure[]{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.33,trim={0 0 10cm 0},clip]{images/bv20histogram}}}
%\subfigure[]{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.30,trim={0 0 0 5cm},clip]{images/bv20baselinehistogram}}}
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.30]{images/bv20histogramjoint}}}
\caption{
{\bf a}, Histogram of decoded values for the last $n$ code blocks, for the $n = 19$ encoded Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm. Ideally, every block should decode to $1$, with no undecodeable blocks or $0$s. The green bars are conditioned on the first block decoding to $\ket{-}$, the red bars on it detecting an error, and the blue bars on it decoding to $\ket{+}$, a logical error. Note that when a rare logical error occurs on the first block, the other blocks are mostly corrupted.
The analysis in \figref{f:bvsummary} conditions on the first block decoding to~$\ket{-}$, but \tabref{f:singlequerybv} does not place any conditions on it.
{\bf b},~A similar histogram for the unencoded baseline algorithm shows different behavior.
Qubit losses are rare, regardless of whether the first qubit is $\ket{-}$ (green), lost (red), or $\ket{+}$~(blue).
The $\llbracket 4,1,2 \rrbracket$ code turns physical errors into erased code blocks.
}
\label{f:bv20histogram}
\end{figure}
\section*{Outlook}
In this work, we have created large entangled logical states and implemented %computational
an algorithm fault tolerantly on encoded qubits, with better-than-physical performance. %, demonstrated qubit loss correction, and implemented a code with the capacity for repeated loss and error correction.
These results highlight the %unique
features and promise of neutral atoms as a platform for reliable fault-tolerant quantum computing.
They %large encoded cat states and the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithms
are enabled by the combination of scalability and high-fidelity operations inherent to neutral atoms, with full qubit connectivity.
All of the experiments %, particularly those with repeated error detection,
highlight the usefulness of loss conversion and imaging. %in the context of with encoded qubits.
The encoded experiments demonstrate that logical circuits can correct for and operate effectively with atom loss, which will be a key feature of large-scale neutral atom quantum computers.
% Similarly, in the implementation of the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm, with as many as $28$ logical qubits encoded in $112$ physical qubits, we show the usefulness of error detection and loss correction. This circuit again has long-range qubit connectivity on both the logical and physical levels, making use of the all-to-all connectivity available on the neutral atom platform.
This work, and other recent work with neutral-atom qubits~\cite{BluvsteinHarvard23neutralatoms, quera24neutralatomdistillation}, superconducting qubits~\cite{google24surfacecode} and trapped ion qubits~\cite{Silva24microsoft12qubitcode,ReichardtMicrosoft24tesseract}, highlights a critical advance in the field of quantum computation: the transition from %scientific results
noisy, intermediate-scale quantum computations with physical qubits to computational advances achieved with logical qubits. After a relatively short time from its inception, the neutral atom quantum computing platform has shown significant advancement. %from its inception as an experimental quantum computing platform.
%In the near future
We expect further advances in 2Q gate fidelities %as more iterations are performed to reduce gate laser noise as well as
and significant scale up towards $\num{10000}$ qubits, including mid-circuit measurement~\cite{norcia2023midcircuit} and continuous atom reloading~\cite{norcia2024iterative}.
%For larger-scale logical computation, this connectivity paired with high qubit count will enable the use of .
Larger scales will unlock nonlocal error-correcting codes with high encoding rates~\cite{xu2024fastparallelizablelogicalcomputation}. %and low physical qubit overhead
%allowing for higher-distance codes, more performant logical qubits, and demonstrations of fault-tolerant, universal quantum computation.
The combination of a hardware-optimized qubit virtualization system, complete with %high-rate and high-efficiency quantum
efficient error correction, with a programmable neutral atom quantum processor %and increased two-qubit gate fidelity,
is a promising path to %move beyond noisy, intermediate-scale quantum computing and achieve
large-depth, logical computation for scientific quantum advantage.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Register loading and atom reuse}\label{loading}
We load atoms into the register using the methods described in \cite{norcia2024iterative}, providing more than enough qubits for the circuit (typically filling 320 register sites to approximately 99\% filling fraction over up to 14 loading cycles). The register sites are configured in eight pairs of columns, matching the shape of the IZ. This provides ``highways" through which atoms can be moved with less risk of disturbing other atoms in the register. By loading more register sites than are used in a given circuit, we can improve data rates by reusing atoms in multiple circuit instances. To do this, we determine which atoms were lost in a circuit, and refill those sites using extra atoms, then perform the rest of our state preparation protocol (described in the following section). This can be repeated as long as atoms remain in the register. %, and we vary the number of repetitions based on the requirements of a given circuit.
\subsection{State preparation and measurement}\label{selection}
Our platform benefits from the ability to determine successful loading of our desired qubit array before circuit execution, and to separately determine the survival and final state of an atom after the circuit. We achieve this by performing three images per circuit instance, in addition to images used to initially arrange atoms into the qubit register. A first ``preselect" image determines whether the atoms were successfully loaded into the register before executing the circuit. A second ``readout image" comprises the state readout of the circuit. A third ``survival" image determines whether an atom is still present after the circuit. In all images, we measure the presence of an atom in state $\ket{1}$. The pre-select and survival images are combined with optical pumping into $\ket{1}$, so only determine the site occupancy. In the readout image, the optical pumping is omitted and state selectivity is maintained. Following the preselect image, we perform gray-molasses cooling and optically pump into state $\ket{0}$.
Aspects of our imaging procedure have been described in \cite{norcia2023midcircuit, norcia2024iterative}. The imaging is performed in a cavity-enhanced 784~nm wavelength 3D lattice by collecting the photons scattered from the cycling transition from $\ket{1}$ to $^3P_1 \ket{3/2, 3/2}$. Optical pumping and gray-molasses cooling are also performed in the cavity-enhanced lattice. Between imaging and circuit execution, atoms are transferred between the lattice and register tweezers.
Typical classification errors, loss probabilities, and spin-flip probabilities for the imaging are provided in~\cite{norcia2024iterative}. Here, we also characterize state preparation and measurement errors in a manner relevant to our circuit execution by simply preparing either state $\ket{0}$ or $\ket{1}$, and then measuring the state of the atoms, conditioned on the presence of an atom in the survival image. We obtain combined preparation and readout errors for $\ket 0$ and $\ket 1$ of $1.1(1) \times 10^{-3}$ and $1.6(1) \times 10^{-3}$, respectively.
Histograms of the recorded photon counts provide insight into the nature of the errors (\figref{fig:cavity_SPAM}). For both prepared states, we see clear evidence of a two-part distribution, indicating that the dominant contribution to the error is that the atom actually ends up in the wrong state, rather than overlap of the photon count distribution of dark and bright atoms. This is likely due to a combination of imperfect optical pumping and spin flips that occur within the image when measuring $\ket{1}$. (Spin flips are primarily due to population of $^3P_1$, so are suppressed when measuring the dark state $\ket{0}$.)
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{method_figures/spamfig.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{a}, Timing diagram of imaging and optical pumping used for circuit execution. Optical pumping is used both to provide state insensitivity for preselect and survival images, and for state preparation. \textbf{b}, Photon count histograms recorded after preparing $\ket{0}$ (left) and $\ket{1}$ (right). The dashed vertical line indicates the count threshold used to distinguish the two states. Error rates for $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ are 0.0011(1) and 0.0016(1), respectively. }
\label{fig:cavity_SPAM}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Atom movement} \label{movement}
Arbitrary gate connectivity in our system is obtained by moving selected atoms from the register into an interaction zone (IZ) where two-qubit gates are performed (see \figref{f:system}). Movement is performed using a set of tweezers generated by a pair of crossed AODs. Atoms within a single row can be moved in parallel, provided that the move profile does not involve parasitic tweezer spots generated by intermodulation tones crossing the position of the intentional tweezers used for movement. In practice, we guarantee this condition by requiring parallel moves of more than two atoms to be shape-preserving (stretching and translation of the tweezer locations only).
Moves are broken up into straight segments, with the movement velocity along each segment following a sinusoidal profile, with a total duration scaled to maintain a fixed peak acceleration (as the square root of the length of the segment). Move durations are $0.12 \sqrt{L}$~ms, where $L$ is the length of the move in units of the 3.3~$\mu$m grid spacing of the register. Atoms are handed between static and rearrangement tweezers by ramping the depth of the rearrangement tweezers over 0.4~ms. For up to 50 moves, we observe a typical loss probability of $5(1) \times 10^{-4}$. For more moves, loss per move increases. By performing sideband spectroscopy on the $^1$S$_0$ to $^3$P$_0$ transition after a variable number of moves, we find a heating rate of 0.02(5) quanta along the propagation direction of our clock addressing laser. This heating rate is too low to explain the increased rate of atom loss above 50 moves, making axial heating a more likely culprit for the excess loss.
In our experiments, atom movement is scheduled using a combination of manual and algorithmic techniques, including the use of graph and annealing algorithms to minimize the number of atom movement operations.
% We characterize movement-induced loss by measuring survival as a function of the number of repeated moves between the register and IZ. We observe a nonlinear loss probability with respect to the number of moves, indicating heating as an important loss mechanism for large numbers of moves. For the
% \subsection{State preparation and measurement}\label{SPAM}
% Once the register is loaded, we image the atoms and perform an additional compression step to load atoms into the sites that will be used in a given circuit. This compression is followed by a ``pre-select" image and then gray-molasses (GM) cooling and optical pumping, all of which are performed in the cavity lattice. The pre-select image can be used to filter for trials where the desired sites were loaded. The GM cooling prepares atoms with typical average motional occupation numbers of XX and XX in the radial and axial directions. Optical pumping prepares atoms in the desired qubit state (typically state $\ket{0}$) with probability XX. After state preparation, atoms are transferred to the register tweezers, and the circuit execution begins.
% \begin{figure*}[htb]
% \includegraphics[width=2.0\columnwidth]{Figures/cavity_SPAM.png}
% \caption{cavity SPAM}
% \label{fig:cavity_SPAM}
% \end{figure*}
% After the circuit execution finishes (excluding measurement), atoms are transferred back into the lattice for readout. A first state-selective image determines which sites contain an atom in state $\ket{1}$. This is followed by optical pumping of atoms within the qubit subspace into state $\ket{1}$, and a second image of that state is used to determine survival. The information contained in these two images is used to determine both the presence and state of the atoms used in the circuit.
\subsection{Single-qubit gate performance} \label{1Q}
Our single-qubit (1Q) gate scheme is described in detail in Ref.~\cite{muniz2024}, and in that work characterized within a small array. These gates are performed using two-photon Raman transitions driven by two independently controlled and site-resolved laser beams detuned roughly 10~GHz from the $^3$P$_1$, $F=1/2$ manifold. Single-qubit operations are performed in parallel on rows of atoms within the register, with the pulse area, phase, and presence of the gates controlled individually on each site.
We calibrate an $S_X$ gate on each site of the register, and perform virtual $Z$ rotations of arbitrary angle by changing the relative phase of the two drive lasers on subsequent gates.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{method_figures/1qfig.pdf}
\caption{Characterization of single-qubit gates. \textbf{a}, Array-averaged results of Clifford randomized benchmarking, indicating a per-Clifford-gate error of $6.7 \times 10^{-4}$. \textbf{b}, Characterization of the spread in per-Clifford-gate errors on different sites within six rows sampled within the register. }
\label{fig:1Q}
\end{figure}
Here, we characterize the 1Q gates in the larger register array used in this work. As in \cite{muniz2024}, we perform Clifford randomized benchmarking. We consider qubits occupying six rows that span those used in our circuits and extract an average error rate per Clifford gate of $6.7 \times 10^{-4}$ (see \figref{fig:1Q}a). The spread in gate fidelity for different qubit sites is illustrated in \figref{fig:1Q}b.
In addition to errors occurring during gates, idle errors can also be relevant. Using Ramsey spectroscopy, we measure a root-mean-squared spread in the qubit frequencies of 0.52~Hz after software compensation of shifts due to magnetic field gradients and average light shifts. The ensemble-averaged coherence exhibits a Gaussian $1/e$ decay time of 3.5(17) seconds. Uncorrected shifts are likely dominated by inhomogeneous light shifts from the trapping tweezers, which we measure to be typically on the Hz scale for the register tweezers. Additionally, the rearrangement tweezers lead to shifts on the several-Hz scale, which we calibrate and cancel in software. These shifts are not fully understood, but may result from finite helicity in the tweezer polarization. These frequency shifts are small enough that we do not apply dynamical decoupling sequences for the circuits in this work.
\subsection{Two-qubit gate implementation and performance}\label{2Q}
Two-qubit controlled-phase (CZ) gates are performed in the IZ on up to eight pairs of atoms in parallel, using the same scheme described in~\cite{muniz2024}.
These gates are mediated by excitation to a highly-excited Rydberg state ($65^3\mathrm{S}_1$).
The sites of the IZ are spaced such that atoms occupying the same pair of sites are in the so-called ``Rydberg blockade" limit, where the strength of interactions between the atoms exceeds other relevant energy scales, while atoms in different pairs interact weakly enough to be treated independently.
All operations in the IZ are applied in parallel to all atoms within the IZ.
Atoms are excited to the Rydberg state using a sequential two-photon transition.
State-selectivity is provided by the first stage of the two-photon transition, from $^1$S$_0$, $m_F = -1/2$ to the metastable $^3$P$_0$, $m_F = 1/2$ state.
Polarization selectivity, along with the narrow linewidth of the transition and slow Rabi rate (10~kHz) relative to the qubit frequency (376~kHz) ensure that only one qubit state is excited to the metastable state.
From the metastable state, atoms are excited to the Rydberg state using a UV laser pulse (total duration 110~ns) that implements a gate similar to the time-optimal controlled-phase (CZ) gate described in \cite{jandura2022time, pagano2022error, evered2023high}. While the IZ traps are equally confining for the ground and metastable states, the register traps are near a tune-out wavelength for the metastable states, providing near-zero trapping potential. Thus, any gate errors that lead to population being left in the metastable state (such as some coherent population errors on either stage of the two-photon transition) are converted to loss and can be detected (see \secref{s:erasure}). This ``erasure conversion" proves useful in identifying the location of errors \cite{wu2022erasure}.
We quantify the performance of two-qubit gates using several variations on randomized benchmarking. To isolate the performance of the gates themselves, without errors from atom movement, we perform interleaved randomized benchmarking (IRB) on static atoms within the IZ. In this protocol, we compare the return probability after a given number of random two-qubit Clifford operations (plus a return pulse calculated to return to a desired measurement state) to the same circuit with an additional CZ gate interleaved after each Clifford gate (and with an appropriately modified return pulse). By comparing the probability of returning to the measurement state versus the depth of the Clifford circuit with and without the added CZ gates, we isolate the error associated with the CZ gate alone, averaged over the two-qubit Hilbert space. Here, the atoms are kept in the IZ for all operations (including 1Q gates, unlike for typical circuits). Fits to IRB data taken out to depth 34 indicate an infidelity per CZ gate of 0.56(15)\% and additional loss and population leakage outside of the qubit subspace of 0.27(6)\%.
In actual circuits, atoms are moved between the register and IZ between 1Q operations and 2Q operations.
Because atom movement can cause heating, which may impact the performance of all following gates, IRB does not cleanly isolate the performance of the CZ gate when atoms are moved between arrays. For this, we rely on a variant of randomized benchmarking described in~\cite{muniz2024} and similar to that in~\cite{evered2023high}, where concatenated circuit blocks each consist of a random 1Q operation and two CZ gates separated by an echo pulse. A final 1Q gate returns atoms to the measurement basis. We isolate the contribution from the 2Q gates (along with any loss or infidelity due to associated movements, up to single-qubit phases which are canceled by the echo pulses and characterized separately) by subtracting the per-depth infidelity associated with the 1Q operations. From this, we extract a per-CZ gate error of 0.39(10)\% and loss of 0.75(10)\%. We perform this characterization with atoms originating in different rows within the register, as shown in \figref{fig:2Q}, and do not observe a significant dependence on origin row or column. For comparison, the same procedure applied to atoms that remain static in the IZ for all operations yields a per-gate error rate of 0.35(5)\% and loss of 0.24(6)\%.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{method_figures/gerbfig.pdf}
\caption{Characterization of CZ gate performance on moved atoms. \textbf{a}, Echoed randomized benchmarking circuit applied with CZ gates omitted. Orange, green and blue points represent survival, fidelity for atoms that survive, and combined survival and fidelity, respectively. Lines represent exponential fits used to extract per-block error and loss rates. \textbf{b}, The same quantities with CZ gates added in (2 CZ gates per block). \textbf{c}, Measured infidelity (green) and loss (orange) for different qubit origin locations within the register. Statistical fluctuations may yield negative infidelity estimates because per-block error rates with CZ gates omitted are subtracted from those with CZ gates included. }
\label{fig:2Q}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Conversion of leakage to loss} \label{s:erasure}
Gate errors in the device, coherent or incoherent, can lead to population and phase errors within the qubit subspace, as well as leakage into other states.
We operate the machine in a mode that converts population leakage from the qubit subspace into loss, which can then be identified independently from qubit state.
This is particularly relevant in the context of 2Q gates, where population errors on the $^1$S$_0$ to $^3$P$_0$ or $^3$P$_0$ to Rydberg state transitions can lead to population leakage.
Conversion of these errors into loss is achieved by operating our register tweezers at a wavelength near 423~nm where $^3$P$_0$ is nearly untrapped. (We could choose to depump the $^3$P$_0$ states after each 2Q gate to avoid this loss, but find the conversion of leakage into a detectable error highly desirable.)
We characterize the effectiveness of the conversion from leakage to loss for $^3$P$_0$ and the Rydberg state by preparing atoms in the register, moving them to the IZ, exciting them to the relevant state, moving them back to the register and then measuring the state and presence of the atoms. The metastable $^3$P$_2$ states are anti-trapped in our IZ and rearrangement tweezers, and we do not repump these states. We observe greater than 99\% of atoms to be lost when exciting to the clock state, and roughly 70\% of atoms to be lost when exciting to the Rydberg state.
% \begin{figure}[htb]
% \includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{Figures/Erasure conversion.png}
% \caption{Clock erasure conversion measurement circuit consists of variable duration single blackman-shaped clock pulse sandwiched by the rearrangements. Rydberg erasure conversion measurement circuit swap the clock pulse to variable duration square-shaped 302 nm pulse sandwiched by the X90-Y180-X90 clock composite pulses. The data is visualized by the labeled analysis color-code.}
% \label{fig:erasure_conversion}
% \end{figure}
% Because our register traps are near a so-called tune-out wavelength for $^3$P$_0$, atoms that are left in that state due to population errors in the clock shelving step of our 2Q gates XX make sure this has been defined XX are lost from the traps. (We could choose to depump the $^3$P$_0$ states after each 2Q gate to avoid this loss, but would give up
% The data in Fig.~\ref{fig:erasure_conversion} shows greater than 99~\% clock erasure conversion efficiency when the atoms remain in $^3P_0$ state in the IZ: The pre-select labels (blue, red, and orange) are represented as survival ratio, and the post-select labels (green, and black) are represented as the number of successful events. Both pre- and post- show the sinusoidal dip of greater than 99~\% dip at the pi pulse length that represents the efficient clock erasure conversion in the register. The rearrangement tweezer (483 nm, lin-pol parallel to the B-field) has half the polarizability for $^3P_0$ than the ground state, but the probability of drag the atoms out of the IZ still holds up to 0.999. The clock erasure conversion mechanism is given by that the 423~nm register tweezer loses atoms in $^3P_0$ before it decays to the ground states.
% By the similar method, Rydberg erasure conversion efficiency is measured to be about 0.7. About 10~\% atoms are spin-flipped (blue vs. red), and 20~\% are decayed back to the same ground state through various channels. It is not clear yet what decay/loss channels play the role in our circuit scheme.
% \subsection{A circuit composition}\label{loading}
% In Fig.~\ref{fig:figsup1}(a), the images are taken in the cavity-enhanced 784 nm 3D lattice by collecting the photons scattered from the cycling transition from $\ket{1}$ to $^3P_1 \ket{3/2, 3/2}$. Each image optionally contains optical pumping to the $\ket{1}$ state and / or $^3P_0$ repump, given the image label. Note that $^3P_2$ repump isn't implemented. The precircuit contains gray molasses followed by a global-state preparation by optical pumping pulse in the 784~nm 3D lattice. The circuit is performed in the IZ and the Register tweezers. Due to the high efficiency clock erasure conversion, the qubit-subspace image is not taken unless otherwise specified. Fig.~\ref{fig:figsup1}(b) constitutes an example circuit: The local 1Q operation is performed in the Register. The atoms subject to the CZ operation are rearranged from the register to the IZ, followed by the time-optimal UV pulse sandwiched by the clock-inversion pulses. The clock inversion pulse is the composite pulses X90-Y180-X90, in which the inversion infidelity is measured to be $\color{red}{ number}$ per composite pulse. Once finished the CZ operation, the atoms in the IZ are rearranged back to where they originated, followed by another 1Q operation on demand. While pulsing the UV, the intensity of the IZ trap is turned off for 200~ns to minimize the inhomogeneous Stark shift of the Rydberg transition, followed by the second turn-off to cancel out the motional excitation \cite{Sortais_PRA_2007} as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:figsup1}(c)
% \begin{figure}[htb]
% \includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{Figures/Blue_arch_paper_suppFig1.png}
% \caption{(a) Labeled image analysis for a circuit. The arrow points to the image used to condition the data. The color-code of the arrows match with the benchmark data. (b) The basic circuit composition. (c) IZ tweezer double drop}
% \label{fig:figsup1}
% \end{figure}
% \begin{figure}%[htb]
% \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{images/architecture}
% \caption{
% Diagram of experimental architecture. $^{171}$Yb atoms, which each encode a physical qubit in their ground-state nuclear spin, can occupy tweezer traps within either a register array or an interaction zone (IZ). Up to 8 pairs of atoms interact at a time in the IZ, driven by two-qubit (2Q) gate lasers to implement controlled phase gates on the atoms in each pair. Arbitrary single-qubit (1Q) operations can be applied in parallel to the atoms within a row of the register; here one atom is missing. Each atom has a home register location, indicated by dashed lines, where it is originally loaded and where 1Q gates can be applied. Movement of atoms between the two zones enables arbitrary connectivity for 2Q gates. Up to eight atoms from the same row can move in parallel, but their paths cannot cross.
% }
% \label{f:system}
% \end{figure}
%\section{$\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ and $\llbracket 4,1,2 \rrbracket$ codes}
\section{Four-qubit codes} \label{s:fourqubitcodes}
% owner: [BenR]
The $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code~\cite{VaidmanGoldenbergWiesner96erasure, GrasslBethPellizzari96erasure} is a stabilizer code~\cite{Gottesman97} with stabilizer generators
\begin{equation*}
%\underline{\text{$\llbracket 4, 2, 2 \rrbracket$ code}} \\
\begin{array}{cccc}
X&X&X&X\\%[-.1cm]
Z&Z&Z&Z
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
and logical operators
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{rccccc}
\overline{X}_1=&X&X&I&I&\hspace{.31in}{\color{white}.}\\[-.1cm]
\overline{Z}_1=&I&Z&I&Z\\
\overline{X}_2=&X&I&X&I\\[-.1cm]
\overline{Z}_2=&I&I&Z&Z
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
%\comment{We might add citations to previous implementations of these codes: see \url{https://errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/stab_4_2_2}.}
The code can detect any single-qubit error; for example, a single-qubit $Y$ error flips both stabilizer generators. The code can \emph{correct} for a single-qubit loss. For example, if the second qubit is lost and this is known (an erasure error), then logical qubit~$1$ can still be decoded using the logical operators $\overline{X}_1 \sim I I X X$, $\overline{Z}_1 \sim ZIZI$, because, having multiplied by a stabilizer, these operators are not supported on the second qubit. However, once a qubit is lost, the code does not protect against errors on the remaining qubits, e.g., with the second qubit lost an $X_1$ qubit error results in a logical $\overline{X}_1$ error.
%00: 0000, 1111
%01: 0101, 1010
%10: 0011, 1100
%11: 0110, 1001
%
%0*00
%1*00
Observe that encoded $\ket{00}$ is the four-qubit cat state $\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2}(\ket{0000}+\ket{1111})$. As shown in \figref{f:cat24compiledcircuit}, an extra qubit is needed to prepare this state fault tolerantly~\cite{Shor96}.
\smallskip
The $\llbracket 4,1,2 \rrbracket$ code is actually the same code, but only using one of the two logical qubits. The other logical qubit is treated as a gauge qubit, meaning we can set it arbitrarily~\cite{Bacon05operator}.
Unlike the $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code, the $\llbracket 4,1,2 \rrbracket$ code can sometimes correct two qubit losses. For example, $\overline X_1$ can still be decoded if both qubits $1$ and $2$ are lost, or both $3$ and $4$, but not any other pair.
\smallskip
Between two $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ or $\llbracket 4,1,2 \rrbracket$ code blocks, transversal physical CNOT gates fault-tolerantly implement logical transversal CNOT.
Other logical operations can also be executed fault tolerantly on a $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code block, including SWAP, CNOT, CZ and Hadamard ($H\otimes H$) on both qubits.
Swapping the middle two physical qubits swaps the logical qubits. %~$1$ and~$2$.
Swapping the first and third physical qubits implements a logical CNOT gate from~$1$ to~$2$. Applying the Hadamard gate $H$ transversally implements logical $H\otimes H$ and a logical swap.
Letting $S_Z = \left(\begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&i\end{smallmatrix}\right) = \sqrt{Z}$, and $S_X = \tfrac1{\sqrt 2}\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&-i\\-i&1\end{smallmatrix}\right) \propto \sqrt{X}$, observe that
\begin{align*}
S_Z X S_Z^\dagger &= Y & S_Z Y S_Z^\dagger &= -X & S_Z Z S_Z^\dagger &= Z \\
S_X X S_X^\dagger &= X & S_X Y S_X^\dagger &= Z & S_X Z S_X^\dagger &= -Y.
\end{align*}
Simple stabilizer algebra then shows that applying $S_Z \otimes S_Z^\dagger \otimes S_Z^\dagger \otimes S_Z$ implements a logical CZ gate.
Finally, using $H = S_Z S_X S_Z$, applying $S_X \otimes S_X^\dagger \otimes S_X^\dagger \otimes S_X$ implements a logical dual CZ gate, $(H \otimes H) \,\text{CZ}\, (H \otimes H)$.
\section{Repeated loss correction and transversal operations for the $\llbracket 4,2,2\rrbracket$~code}
% owner: [BenR, Adam]
%\subsection{Prior work}
\subsection{Repeated loss correction with CZ logical gates}
The circuits considered so far have only used loss correction and error detection at the very end, when interpreting the final measurements.
However, it is important to be able to detect and correct errors between the steps of an algorithm, to enable deeper computation.
To that end, we demonstrate repeated fault-tolerant loss correction. In order to make the circuits more interesting, between rounds of loss correction we apply some of the fault-tolerant logical operations given in \secref{s:fourqubitcodes}.
%A critical capability for enabling more complex, reliable computation in a quantum processor is repeated detection and correction of errors.
%The latest generations of quantum hardware have enabled a variety of such demonstrations within the past few years.
Repeated error detection with distance-two codes has been demonstrated on ion traps, including three rounds on eight logical qubits~\cite{self22icebergcode}, and 15 rounds on four logical qubits~\cite{Yamamoto23phaseestimattionerrordetection}.
% with two~\cite{GuptaIBM24magiccz}, three~\cite{MenendezRayVasmer23colorcode832, Wang23color832addition}, four~\cite{Yamamoto23phaseestimattionerrordetection}, eight~\cite{self22icebergcode}, and $48$ logical qubits, divided across $16$ $\llbracket8,3,2\rrbracket$ code blocks~\cite{BluvsteinHarvard23neutralatoms}.
% Distance-two codes are challenging to scale because they cannot correct errors, only detect them, and this leads to high rejection rates.
Demonstrations based on Gottesman's protocol~\cite{Gottesman16smallexperiments} for fault tolerance with the $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code, but without including repeated error detection, include~\cite{Willsch_2018, Harper19edd,Vuillot_2018,Linke17edexp,Cane2021}.
Repeated error correction, with higher-distance codes, has also been demonstrated on on trapped-ion processors~\cite{honeywell21steane, Postler23steaneec, Silva24microsoft12qubitcode, ReichardtMicrosoft24tesseract} and superconducting processors~\cite{Krinner21repeatedsurfaceec,google23surface,google24surfacecode, amazon24catec}.
%For single logical qubits, demonstrations include those on trapped-ion processors~\cite{honeywell21steane, Postler23steaneec} and superconducting processors~\cite{Krinner21repeatedsurfaceec,google23surface,google24surfacecode, amazon24catec} each with varying numbers of rounds, e.g., up to nearly $36$ rounds of error correction ($250$ syndrome extraction cycles) on the $\llbracket49,1,7\rrbracket$ surface code, with a $0.143(3)\%$ logical error rate per cycle~\cite{google24surfacecode}.
% Notably, this yields a logical qubit lifetime longer than that of the physical qubit in their system.
% Ryan-Anderson et al.~\cite{honeywell21steane} have experimented with up to six rounds of error correction, but on only one encoded qubit, in the $\llbracket7,1,3\rrbracket$ color code, and after five rounds the logical error rate was over $10\%$. Postler et al.~\cite{Postler23steaneec} implemented repeated error correction on the same code, and after one round the error rate was already about $35\%$. %\cite{Postler21universal}
% %have shown up to three rounds of error correction on one encoded qubit, but after one round the error rate was already about $35\%$.
% Krinner et al.~\cite{Krinner21repeatedsurfaceec} have implemented up to $16$ cycles of syndrome extraction on the $\llbracket9,1,3\rrbracket$ surface code, equivalent to about $16/3 \approx 5.3$ rounds of error correction, with over $3\%$ logical error rate per cycle.
% Google Quantum AI and collaborators have implemented up to $250$ cycles of syndrome extraction on the $\llbracket49,1,7\rrbracket$ surface code, equivalent to about $250 / 7 \approx 35.7$ rounds of error correction, with a $0.143(3)\%$ logical error rate per cycle~\cite{google23surface, google24surfacecode}.
%Repeated error correction on multiple qubits has been implemented, including three rounds on two logical qubits~\cite{Silva24microsoft12qubitcode}, and five rounds on eight logical qubits~\cite{ReichardtMicrosoft24tesseract}, each while beating error rates of physical baselines.
% They run three rounds of error correction on two qubits encoded in a $\llbracket12,2,4\rrbracket$ code, with a logical error rate of only $0.8(3)\%$, also beating a physical baseline. %---beating a physical baseline---but with much higher postselection; only $36\%$ of trials passed.
% Here we achieve five rounds of error correction, on up to eight encoded qubits, with lower logical error rates---up to $24 \times$ lower error per logical qubit per error correction round---and higher acceptance rates (\tabref{f:experiments_summary}).
Figure~\ref{f:xxxxandzzzzsyndrome} gives a circuit for fault-tolerant error detection for the $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code. It measures the stabilizer generators $X^{\otimes 4}$ and $Z^{\otimes 4}$ in parallel, with one measurement outcome flagging the other for possible correlated errors. Furthermore, the circuit in \figref{f:xxxxandzzzzsyndromeerasure} replaces two of the data qubits with fresh qubits, so the full data block can be refreshed every two rounds of error detection. This allows us to use the $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code to correct a lost qubit during a computation, not just at the very end as in our logical cat state procedure.
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[]
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=1]{images/zzzzsyndromenonft}}}
\subfigure[\label{f:xxxxandzzzzsyndrome-no-erasure}]
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=1]{images/xxxxandzzzzsyndrome}}}
\subfigure[\label{f:xxxxandzzzzsyndromeerasure}]
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=1]{images/xxxxandzzzzsyndromeerasure}}}
\caption{
{\bf a},
Circuit to measure the parity of four qubits, i.e., the syndrome of $ZZZZ$. It is not fault tolerant; a single $Z$ fault on the ancilla can spread undetected to a weight-two $Z$ error.
{\bf b}, The next circuit remedies this, and simultaneously measures $XXXX$, using a trick from~\cite{Reichardt18steane}. Now the bad $Z$ fault will be detected, or ``flagged," by the $XXXX$ measurement, and similarly the $ZZZZ$ measurement will flag a bad $X$ fault.
This gives an efficient, fault-tolerant error detection procedure for the $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code. However, it does not correct for a lost qubit.
{\bf c}, The last circuit fixes this, halfway, by switching the direction of the final two CNOT gates~\cite{McEwenBaconGidney23leakage, Chow24leakagedetectionunit}. %(This is equivalent to inserting swap-based ``leakage-detection units"~\cite{Chow24leakagedetectionunit}.)
The last two data qubits are replaced with fresh qubits, so in particular if one of them is lost it will be replaced. Thus all four qubits can be replaced in two rounds of error detection.
%Future work will investigate this paradigm by combining mid-circuit measurement, qubit reuse and reinitialization, along with periodic atom cooling to remove a fundamental obstacle to neutral atom quantum computing by limiting the depth of circuit any atom must undergo.
}
\label{f:xxxxandzzzzsyndrome}
\end{figure}
We design and execute experiments that repeatedly apply logical CZ gates on a $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code block.
Recall that $S_Z \otimes S_Z^\dagger \otimes S_Z^\dagger \otimes S_Z$ implements a logical CZ gate.
Error detection with qubit refresh is inserted between each pair of CZ gates, as illustrated in \figref{f:repeatedec_czcz}.
%Results are provided in \tabref{f:data-repeated-cz} and shown in \figref{f:repeated-cz-plot}.
Note that with $j+1$ logical CZ gates, there are $j$ rounds of error detection, with $5 + 8j$ CZ gates applied to $5 + 2j$ qubits.
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[]
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=.57]{images/repeatedec_czcz}}}
$\;\;$
$\qquad$ % force (b) onto a new line
\subfigure[]%raise 1.1cm to center with (a)
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=1]{images/repeatedec_czcz_logical}}}
\hspace{2cm}
\subfigure[\label{f:baselineczcz}]
{\raisebox{0cm}{\includegraphics[scale=1]{images/baselineczcz}}}
\caption{
(a)~Circuit that applies two rounds of logical CZ gates to $\ket{\overline{++}}$, encoded in the $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code, with two rounds of error detection %. Together, the two error detection rounds
that refresh all four %data
qubits.
(b)~The corresponding logical circuit. Since the CZ gates cancel out, both measurements should give~$+$.
(c)~The baseline circuit run for comparison. The $X$ gates %echo pulses
cancel out coherent dephasing errors from the CZ gates and movement. Both measurements should give $-$. This baseline performs better than applying the two CZ gates without leaving the interaction zone.
}
\label{f:repeatedec_czcz}
\end{figure}
%We also ran a very similar experiment, except applying logical dual CZ gates, $(H \otimes H) \, \text{CZ} \, (H \otimes H)$, using $S_X \otimes S_X^\dagger \otimes S_X^\dagger \otimes S_X$.
The encoded experiment can be compared against a corresponding unencoded baseline.
Given the system architecture, there are a few reasonable baselines from which to choose.
For example, we may choose to return qubits to the storage zone between each CZ, or not.
We have chosen to select a baseline in which, as shown in \figref{f:baselineczcz}, between each pair of CZs, both qubits are moved back to the storage zone and Pauli $X$ gates are applied to each of them to cancel coherent dephasing from the movement and two-qubit gates. This baseline performed the best of those that we tried, {disadvantaging} any comparison between encoded and unencoded.
Results for %both repeated logical CZ and repeated logical dual CZ, for
up to 10 logical operations and 9 rounds of loss correction, are shown in \figref{f:repeated-cz-plot}. %, with detailed data in \tabref{f:data-repeated-cz}.
%Since the two physical baselines compile to the same circuit, we have combined them into a single baseline for comparison.
The encoded repeated logical CZ experiments largely beat the corresponding baselines, including, for example, an encoded circuit consisting of 10 logical CZs with 9 loss-correction rounds outperforming an unencoded sequence of 10 CZs.
%Surprisingly, the repeated dual CZ experiment performs much worse for depths $8$ and~$10$. Since it should be similar to repeated CZs, this could be from a mistake in scheduling the circuits, or possibly from machine parameter drift.
\begin{figure}
%\includegraphics[scale=.5]{images/repeated-cz-plot}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{images/repeatedczsummary}
\caption{
Error rates for $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code repeated logical CZ experiments, and the corresponding physical baseline, conditioned on no initial loss.
Error detection between logical gates (\figref{f:repeatedec_czcz}) permits mid-circuit correction of atom loss.
}
\label{f:repeated-cz-plot}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Random circuits}
\def\CNOT{\mathrm{CNOT}}
\def\CX{\mathrm{CX}}
\def\CZ{\mathrm{CZ}}
\def\SWAP{\mathrm{SWAP}}
As explained in \secref{s:fourqubitcodes}, the $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ code allows a variety of other fault-tolerant logical gates.
Permutations and transversal gates can implement $\CNOT, \CZ, \SWAP$ and $H^{\otimes 2}$, generating a group of size $36$.
To test the performance of these gates, and in the spirit of Ref.~\cite{Gottesman16smallexperiments}, we design experiments by preparing encoded $\ket{00}$ and then applying up to four elements of
the group at random, with error detection between each pair of elements.
The sequences chosen are, using CNOT = CX for brevity:
\begin{align} \label{e:randomsequences}
0:&& &H^{\otimes 2} \, \CX \\
1:&& &I,\; \CX \, \CZ \, H^{\otimes 2} \, \CX \nonumber\\
2:&& &
H^{\otimes 2} \, \SWAP \, \CX,\;
\CZ \, H^{\otimes 2} \, \SWAP,\;
H^{\otimes 2} \, \SWAP \, \CZ \nonumber\\
3:&& &
\CX \, H^{\otimes 2} \, \CX,\;
H^{\otimes 2},\;
\SWAP \, \CX,\;
\CZ \, \CX \, H^{\otimes 2} \nonumber
\end{align}
The encoding of sequence $j$ involves $j$ rounds of error detection.
Note that the error detection circuits used here are those of~\figref{f:xxxxandzzzzsyndrome-no-erasure}, instead of those of~\figref{f:xxxxandzzzzsyndromeerasure}; therefore they correct for lost qubits only at the end. %Future work may include executing these logical operation sequences with the circuits of~\figref{f:xxxxandzzzzsyndromeerasure}.
The choice to error-detect between group elements is justified by imagining a computation with many $\llbracket 4,2,2 \rrbracket$ blocks. In that scenario, it is natural to write a circuit as alternating layers of CNOTs between blocks, and group elements within each block. It is then also natural to schedule error detection following each pair of layers in order to control the spread of errors among blocks.
The output of each random sequence is a stabilizer state with two generators.
Each generator is measured to determine success of failure of the experiment.
The encoded circuits can be directly compared to corresponding physical baselines that execute the same gate sequence.
As shown in \figref{f:422-random-plot}, the encoded circuits outperform the corresponding physical baselines.
\begin{figure}%[b]
%\includegraphics[scale=.5]{images/422-random-plot}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{images/randomcircuitssummary}
\caption{
Error rates for $\llbracket 4,2,2\rrbracket$ code random logical circuits, conditioned on no initial loss.
Sequence labels are from the sequences given in Eq~\eqnref{e:randomsequences}.
}
\label{f:422-random-plot}
\end{figure}
\section{State preparation with the $\llbracket 16,6,4 \rrbracket$~code}
% owner: [Rui, BenR]
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c@{\quad}c}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\subfigure[\label{f:tesseractft}]{\raisebox{.2cm}
{\includegraphics[scale=.4]{images/tesseractft.pdf}}}
&
\subfigure[\label{f:tesseractnft}]{\raisebox{.2cm}
{\includegraphics[scale=.4]{images/tesseractnft.pdf}}}
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c@{\qquad}c}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\subfigure[\label{f:tesseract250}]{\raisebox{.2cm}
{\includegraphics[scale=.4]{images/tesseract250.pdf}}}
&
\subfigure[\label{f:tesseract256}]{\raisebox{.2cm}
{\includegraphics[scale=.4]{images/tesseract256.pdf}}}
\end{tabular}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\subfigure[\label{f:tesseractbar}]{\raisebox{0cm}
{\includegraphics[scale=.5]{images/tesseractbar.pdf}}}
\caption{
{\bf a}, Fault-tolerant preparation of encoded $|{+}\rangle^{\otimes3}$ in the $\llbracket 8,3,2 \rrbracket$ code.
The blue part uses the gadget in \figref{f:xxxxandzzzzsyndromeerasure} to verify two of the stabilizers and swap qubits 3, 4 with 8, 9.
The prepared state on qubits 0 to 7 is accepted only if qubits 8 and 9 are present and have trivial measurement outcomes.
{\bf b}, Non--fault-tolerant preparation.
{\bf c}, Layout of 250 atoms for preparing 25 copies of encoded $|{+}\rangle^{\otimes3}$ using {\bf a}.
Colors only indicate the partition.
Each $4\times 2$ tile joins a nearest same colored $2\times 1$ tile.
{\bf d}, Layout of 256 atoms for preparing 32 copies of encoded $|{+}\rangle^{\otimes3}$ using {\bf b}.
{\bf e}, Histogram of number of correct blocks of encoded $|{+}0{+}0{+}0\rangle$ in the $\llbracket 16,6,4 \rrbracket$ code per shot, including shots with both $X$ and $Z$ basis measurements.
Vertical lines indicate averages of 3.85(1) and 11.44(3) for the fault-tolerant and non--fault-tolerant protocol, respectively.}
\end{figure}
We use all the 256 atoms to prepare error-corrected logical qubits encoded in blocks of the $\llbracket 16,6,4 \rrbracket$ tesseract code~\cite{ReichardtMicrosoft24tesseract}.
To this end, we first prepare multiple copies of $|{+}\rangle ^{\otimes 3}$ encoded in the $\llbracket 8,3,2 \rrbracket$ color code~\cite{Campbell16eight32colorcode}, and then randomly pair them up, each pair being a copy of $|{+}0{+}0{+}0\rangle$ encoded in the tesseract code~\cite{ReichardtMicrosoft24tesseract}.
We consider both fault-tolerant and non--fault-tolerant preparations of encoded $|{+}\rangle ^{\otimes 3}$ in the $\llbracket 8,3,2 \rrbracket$ code, as in \figref{f:tesseractft} and \figref{f:tesseractnft}, respectively.
Compared to~\figref{f:tesseractnft}, \figref{f:tesseractft} uses two extra qubits to measure the values of two stabilizers of the encoded $|{+}\rangle ^{\otimes 3}$, and rejects upon any nontrivial measurement outcome or detected loss.
For the non--fault-tolerant protocol, we first prepare 32 copies of encoded $|{+}\rangle ^{\otimes 3}$, using the layout in \figref{f:tesseract256}, and then randomly pair them up into 16 copies of encoded $|{+}0{+}0{+}0\rangle$.
For the fault-tolerant protocol, we instead prepare 25 copies of encoded $|{+}\rangle ^{\otimes 3}$ (with six atoms unused), as shown in \figref{f:tesseract250}, and only pair up accepted ones.
In both protocols, we measure all the atoms of the prepared tesseract code blocks in the same $X$ or $Z$ basis, and then decode.
Specifically, an encoded $|{+}0{+}0{+}0 \rangle$ block can be either ``rejected'' due to $\ge2$ errors or losses detected, or ``correct'' if all the three deterministic values of logical $X$ or $Z$ operators are trivial, or ``wrong'' otherwise.
For the fault-tolerant protocol, we run 1980 and 2000 trials for $X$ and $Z$ basis, respectively; for the non--fault-tolerant protocol, we run 960 and 1000 trials, respectively.
For each of these trials, we repeat the random pairing of the (accepted) blocks of encoded $|+\rangle ^{\otimes 3}$ independently for 100 shots.
Results of these shots are shown in \figref{f:tesseractbar}.
Specifically, we calculate the error rate, defined as the ratio of the number of wrong blocks over the number of correct or wrong blocks, both numbers summing over all shots of $X$ and $Z$ bases.
We observe an error rate of $0.53(1)\%$ for the fault-tolerant protocol, nearly one order of magnitude smaller than $3.98(3)\%$ for the non--fault-tolerant protocol.
However, the average number of correct blocks per shot is 3.85(1) for the fault-tolerant protocol, compared to 11.44(3) for the non--fault-tolerant protocol.
This demonstrates a tradeoff between error rate and acceptance rate enabled by loss conversion.
\newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$}
\begin{thebibliography}{WWJ{\etalchar{+}}18}
\expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
\def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname doi\endcsname\relax
\def\doi#1{\burlalt{doi:#1}{http://dx.doi.org/#1}}\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname href\endcsname\relax
\def\href#1#2{#2}\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname burlalt\endcsname\relax
\def\burlalt#1#2{\href{#2}{#1}}\fi
\bibitem[AGP06]{AliferisGottesmanPreskill05}
P.~Aliferis, D.~Gottesman, and J.~Preskill.
\newblock Quantum accuracy threshold for concatenated distance-3 codes.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.26421/QIC6.2-1}{{\em Quant. Inf. Comput.}
6:97 (2006)},
\burlalt{arXiv:quant-ph/0504218}{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504218}.
\bibitem[Bac06]{Bacon05operator}
D.~Bacon.
\newblock Operator quantum error correcting subsystems for self-correcting
quantum memories.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012340}{{\em Phys. Rev.
A} 73:012340 (2006)},
\burlalt{arXiv:quant-ph/0506023}{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506023}.
\bibitem[BBB{\etalchar{+}}22]{barnes2022assembly}
K.~Barnes, P.~Battaglino, B.~J. Bloom, et~al.
\newblock Assembly and coherent control of a register of nuclear spin qubits.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29977-z}{{\em Nat.
Commun.} 13(1):2779 (2022)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2108.04790}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04790}.
\bibitem[BEG{\etalchar{+}}24]{BluvsteinHarvard23neutralatoms}
D.~Bluvstein, S.~J. Evered, A.~A. Geim, et~al.
\newblock Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06927-3}{{\em Nature}
626:58--65 (2024)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2312.03982}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.03982}.
\bibitem[BMT{\etalchar{+}}22]{Beverland22quantumadvantage}
M.~E. Beverland, P.~Murali, M.~Troyer, et~al.
\newblock Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage.
\newblock (2022),
\burlalt{arXiv:2211.07629}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.07629}.
\bibitem[BV97]{BernsteinVazirani97complexity}
E.~Bernstein and U.~Vazirani.
\newblock Quantum complexity theory.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S0097539796300921}{{\em {SIAM} J.
Comput.} 26(5):1411--1473 (1997)}.
\bibitem[BWM21]{BlinovWuMonroe21bernsteinvaziraniiontrapsuperconducting}
S.~Blinov, B.~Wu, and C.~Monroe.
\newblock Comparison of cloud-based ion trap and superconducting quantum
computer architectures.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1116/5.0058187}{{\em {AVS} Quantum Sci.}
3:033801 (2021)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2102.00371}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00371}.
\bibitem[BXS{\etalchar{+}}24]{Bao24catstate60}
Z.~Bao, S.~Xu, Z.~Song, et~al.
\newblock Schr{\"o}dinger cats growing up to 60 qubits and dancing in a cat
scar enforced discrete time crystal.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53140-5}{{\em Nat.
Commun.} 15:8823 (2024)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2401.08284}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08284}.
\bibitem[Cam16]{Campbell16eight32colorcode}
E.~T. Campbell.
\newblock The smallest interesting colour code.
\newblock {
\href{https://earltcampbell.com/2016/09/26/the-smallest-interesting-colour-code/}{\nolinkurl{earltcampbell.com/2016/09/26/the-smallest-}}
\href{https://earltcampbell.com/2016/09/26/the-smallest-interesting-colour-code/}{\nolinkurl{interesting-colour-code}}
}, 2016.
\bibitem[CBO{\etalchar{+}}24]{Chow24leakagedetectionunit}
M.~N.~H. Chow, V.~Buchemmavari, S.~Omanakuttan, et~al.
\newblock Circuit-based leakage-to-erasure conversion in a neutral atom quantum
processor.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.040343}{{\em PRX
Quantum} (2024)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2405.10434}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10434}.
\bibitem[CCNH21]{Cane2021}
R.~Cane, D.~Chandra, S.~X. Ng, and L.~Hanzo.
\newblock Experimental characterization of fault-tolerant circuits in
small-scale quantum processors.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3133483}{{\em {IEEE}
Access} 9:162996 (2021)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2112.04076}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04076}.
\bibitem[CEMM98]{cemm:qalg}
R.~Cleve, A.~Ekert, C.~Macchiavello, and M.~Mosca.
\newblock Quantum algorithms revisited.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1998.0164}{{\em Proc. R. Soc.
London A} 454(1969):339--354 (1998)},
\burlalt{arXiv:quant-ph/9708016}{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9708016}.
\bibitem[CFG{\etalchar{+}}19]{cruz2019efficient}
D.~Cruz, R.~Fournier, F.~Gremion, et~al.
\newblock Efficient quantum algorithms for {GHZ} and {W} states, and
implementation on the {IBM} quantum computer.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qute.201900015}{{\em Adv. Quantum
Technol.} 2(5-6):1900015 (2019)}.
\bibitem[DH21]{DahlhauserHumble20bernsteinvazirani}
M.~L. Dahlhauser and T.~S. Humble.
\newblock Modeling noisy quantum circuits using experimental characterization.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.042603}{{\em Phys. Rev.
A} 103:042603 (2021)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2001.08653}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.08653}.
\bibitem[DLF{\etalchar{+}}16]{DebnathMonroe16iontrap}
S.~Debnath, N.~M. Linke, C.~Figgatt, et~al.
\newblock Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic
qubits.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature18648}{{\em Nature} 536:63--66
(2016)}, \burlalt{arXiv:1603.04512}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04512}.
\bibitem[EBK{\etalchar{+}}23]{evered2023high}
S.~J. Evered, D.~Bluvstein, M.~Kalinowski, et~al.
\newblock High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum
computer.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06481-y}{{\em Nature}
622(7982):268--272 (2023)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2304.05420}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05420}.
\bibitem[FHM{\etalchar{+}}16]{FallekBrown16bernsteinvazirani}
S.~D. Fallek, C.~D. Herold, B.~J. McMahon, et~al.
\newblock Transport implementation of the {B}ernstein-{V}azirani algorithm with
ion qubits.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/8/083030}{{\em New J.
Phys.} 18:083030 (2016)},
\burlalt{arXiv:1603.05672}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05672}.
\bibitem[FTS{\etalchar{+}}24]{Finkelstein2024}
R.~Finkelstein, R.~B.-S. Tsai, X.~Sun, et~al.
\newblock Universal quantum operations and ancilla-based read-out for tweezer
clocks.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08005-8}{{\em Nature}
634(8033):321--327 (2024)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2402.16220}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.16220}.
\bibitem[GBP97]{GrasslBethPellizzari96erasure}
M.~Grassl, T.~Beth, and T.~Pellizzari.
\newblock Codes for the quantum erasure channel.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.56.33}{{\em Phys. Rev. A}
56(1):33--38 (1997)},
\burlalt{arXiv:quant-ph/9610042}{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9610042}.
\bibitem[GC24]{google24surfacecode}
{Google Quantum AI} and {Collaborators}.
\newblock Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y}{{\em Nature}
(2024)}, \burlalt{arXiv:2408.13687}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13687}.
\bibitem[GHZ89]{greenberg1989ghz}
D.~M. Greenberger, M.~A. Horne, and A.~Zeilinger.
\newblock Going beyond {B}ell's theorem.
\newblock
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0849-4}{\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0849-4}{In
M.~Kafatos, editor, {\em Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of
the Universe}}}, Fundamental Theories of Physics, pages 69--72. Springer
Netherlands, 1989.
\bibitem[GLGP07]{guhne2007toolbox}
O.~G{\"u}hne, C.-Y. Lu, W.-B. Gao, and J.-W. Pan.
\newblock Toolbox for entanglement detection and fidelity estimation.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.030305}{{\em Phys. Rev.
A} 76:030305 (2007)}.
\bibitem[{Goo}23]{google23surface}
{Google Quantum AI}.
\newblock Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05434-1}{{\em Nature}
614:676--681 (2023)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2207.06431}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.06431}.
\bibitem[Got98]{Gottesman97}
D.~Gottesman.
\newblock Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.127}{{\em Phys. Rev. A}
57:127 (1998)},
\burlalt{arXiv:quant-ph/9702029}{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9702029}.
\bibitem[Got16]{Gottesman16smallexperiments}
D.~Gottesman.
\newblock Quantum fault tolerance in small experiments,
\burlalt{arXiv:1610.03507}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03507}.
\bibitem[GS10]{G_hne_2010}
O.~G{\"u}hne and M.~Seevinck.
\newblock Separability criteria for genuine multiparticle entanglement.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/12/5/053002}{{\em New J.
Phys.} 12(5):053002 (2010)},
\burlalt{arXiv:0905.1349}{http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1349}.
\bibitem[HDHL24]{Hong24cat4onh2}
Y.~Hong, E.~{Durso-Sabina}, D.~Hayes, and A.~Lucas.
\newblock Entangling four logical qubits beyond break-even in a nonlocal code.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.180601}{{\em Phys.
Rev. Lett.} 133:180601 (2024)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2406.02666}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02666}.
\bibitem[HF19]{Harper19edd}
R.~Harper and S.~T. Flammia.
\newblock Fault-tolerant logical gates in the {IBM} {Q}uantum {E}xperience.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.080504}{{\em Phys.
Rev. Lett.} 122:080504 (2019)},
\burlalt{arXiv:1806.02359}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02359}.
\bibitem[JP22]{jandura2022time}
S.~Jandura and G.~Pupillo.
\newblock Time-optimal two-and three-qubit gates for {R}ydberg atoms.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-05-13-712}{{\em Quantum}
6:712 (2022)}, \burlalt{arXiv:2202.00903}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.00903}.
\bibitem[KLR{\etalchar{+}}22]{Krinner21repeatedsurfaceec}
S.~Krinner, N.~Lacroix, A.~Remm, et~al.
\newblock Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three
surface code.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04566-8}{{\em Nature}
605:669--674 (2022)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2112.03708}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03708}.
\bibitem[Kre24]{Krenn24catstates}
M.~Krenn.
\newblock Largest genuine entanglement: Qubits in {GHZ} state.
\newblock {
\href{https://mariokrenn.wordpress.com/2021/01/29/reference-list-for-records-in-large-entanglement-generation-number-of-qubits-in-ghz-states/}{\nolinkurl{mariokrenn.wordpress.com/2021/01/29/reference-list-for-records-in-large-entanglement}}
\href{https://mariokrenn.wordpress.com/2021/01/29/reference-list-for-records-in-large-entanglement-generation-number-of-qubits-in-ghz-states/}{\nolinkurl{-generation-number-of-qubits-in-ghz-states}}
}, 2024.
\bibitem[LGL{\etalchar{+}}17]{Linke17edexp}
N.~M. Linke, M.~Gutierrez, K.~A. Landsman, et~al.
\newblock Fault-tolerant quantum error detection.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701074}{{\em Sci. Adv.}
3(10):1701074 (2017)},
\burlalt{arXiv:1611.06946}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.06946}.
\bibitem[LGM{\etalchar{+}}24]{Lubinski24qedcbenchmarks}
T.~Lubinski, J.~J. Goings, K.~Mayer, et~al.
\newblock Quantum algorithm exploration using application-oriented performance
benchmarks.
\newblock (2024),
\burlalt{arXiv:2402.08985}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08985}.
\bibitem[LJV{\etalchar{+}}23]{Lubinski21algorithmbenchmarks}
T.~Lubinski, S.~Johri, P.~Varosy, et~al.
\newblock Application-oriented performance benchmarks for quantum computing.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TQE.2023.3253761}{{\em {IEEE} Trans.
Quantum Eng.} 4:1--32 (2023)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2110.03137}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.03137}.
\bibitem[LMRM17]{Linke17bernsteinvaziraniiontrapsuperconducting}
N.~M. Linke, D.~Maslov, M.~Roetteler, and C.~Monroe.
\newblock Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618020114}{{\em Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci.} 114(13):3305--3310 (2017)},
\burlalt{arXiv:1702.01852}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01852}.
\bibitem[MBA{\etalchar{+}}23]{Moses23quantinuum}
S.~A. Moses, C.~H. Baldwin, M.~S. Allman, et~al.
\newblock A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041052}{{\em Phys. Rev.
X} 13:041052 (2023)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2305.03828}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.03828}.
\bibitem[MBG23]{McEwenBaconGidney23leakage}
M.~McEwen, D.~Bacon, and C.~Gidney.
\newblock Relaxing hardware requirements for surface code circuits using
time-dynamics.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-11-07-1172}{{\em Quantum}
7:1172 (2023)}, \burlalt{arXiv:2302.02192}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02192}.
\bibitem[MLM{\etalchar{+}}19]{Murali19bernsteinvazirani}
P.~Murali, N.~M. Linke, M.~Martonosi, et~al.
\newblock Full-stack, real-system quantum computer studies: architectural
comparisons and design insights.
\newblock
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3307650.3322273}{\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3307650.3322273}{In
{\em Proc. {ISCA}}}}, pages 527--540, 2019,
\burlalt{arXiv:1905.11349}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.11349}.
\bibitem[MLP{\etalchar{+}}23]{ma2023high}
S.~Ma, G.~Liu, P.~Peng, et~al.
\newblock High-fidelity gates and mid-circuit erasure conversion in an atomic
qubit.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06438-1}{{\em Nature}
622(7982):279--284 (2023)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2305.05493}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.05493}.
\bibitem[MSS{\etalchar{+}}24]{muniz2024}
J.~A. Muniz, M.~Stone, D.~T. Stack, et~al.
\newblock High fidelity universal gates in the {$^{171}$}{Yb} ground state
nuclear spin qubit.
\newblock (2024),
\burlalt{arXiv:2411.11708}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11708}.
\bibitem[NC{\etalchar{+}}23]{norcia2023midcircuit}
M.~A. Norcia, W.~B. Cairncross, et~al.
\newblock Midcircuit qubit measurement and rearrangement in a
$^{171}\mathrm{Yb}$ atomic array.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041034}{{\em Phys. Rev.
X} 13:041034 (2023)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2305.19119}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19119}.
\bibitem[NKC{\etalchar{+}}24]{norcia2024iterative}
M.~Norcia, H.~Kim, W.~Cairncross, et~al.
\newblock Iterative assembly of {${}^{171}$Yb} atom arrays with cavity-enhanced
optical lattices.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.030316}{{\em PRX
Quantum} 5:030316 (2024)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2401.16177}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.16177}.
\bibitem[OLK{\etalchar{+}}19]{Omran19neutexp}
A.~Omran, H.~Levine, A.~Keesling, et~al.
\newblock Generation and manipulation of schr\&\#xf6;dinger cat states in
rydberg atom arrays.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aax9743}{{\em Science}
365(6453):570--574 (2019)},
\burlalt{arXiv:1905.05721}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.05721}.
\bibitem[PBP{\etalchar{+}}24]{Postler23steaneec}
L.~Postler, F.~Butt, I.~Pogorelov, et~al.
\newblock Demonstration of fault-tolerant {S}teane quantum error correction.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.030326}{{\em PRX
Quantum} 5:030326 (2024)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2312.09745}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.09745}.
\bibitem[PL23]{PokharelLidar23bernsteinvazirani}
B.~Pokharel and D.~A. Lidar.
\newblock Demonstration of algorithmic quantum speedup.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.210602}{{\em Phys.
Rev. Lett.} 130:210602 (2023)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2207.07647}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.07647}.
\bibitem[PNH{\etalchar{+}}24]{amazon24catec}
H.~Putterman, K.~Noh, C.~T. Hann, et~al.
\newblock Hardware-efficient quantum error correction using concatenated
bosonic qubits.
\newblock (2024),
\burlalt{arXiv:2409.13025}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13025}.
\bibitem[PSE96]{PalmaSuominenEkert96dfs}
G.~M. Palma, K.-A. Suominen, and A.~K. Ekert.
\newblock Quantum computers and dissipation.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1996.0029}{{\em Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. A} 452:567--584 (1996)},
\burlalt{arXiv:quant-ph/9702001}{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9702001}.
\bibitem[PSR{\etalchar{+}}24]{Silva24microsoft12qubitcode}
A.~{Paetznick}, M.~{Silva}, C.~{Ryan-Anderson}, et~al.
\newblock Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with
better-than-physical error rates.
\newblock 2024, \burlalt{arXiv:2404.02280}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02280}.
\bibitem[PWJ{\etalchar{+}}22]{pagano2022error}
A.~Pagano, S.~Weber, D.~Jaschke, et~al.
\newblock Error budgeting for a controlled-phase gate with strontium-88
{R}ydberg atoms.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033019}{{\em Phys.
Rev. Research} 4:033019 (2022)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2202.13849}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.13849}.
\bibitem[RAC{\etalchar{+}}24]{ReichardtMicrosoft24tesseract}
B.~W. Reichardt, D.~Aasen, R.~Chao, et~al.
\newblock Demonstration of quantum computation and error correction with a
tesseract code.
\newblock (2024),
\burlalt{arXiv:2409.04628}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04628}.
\bibitem[RBL{\etalchar{+}}21]{honeywell21steane}
C.~{Ryan-Anderson}, J.~G. Bohnet, K.~Lee, et~al.
\newblock Realization of real-time fault-tolerant quantum error correction.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041058}{{\em Phys. Rev.
X} 11:041058 (2021)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2107.07505}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.07505}.
\bibitem[RCC{\etalchar{+}}24]{radnaev2024}
A.~G. Radnaev, W.~C. Chung, D.~C. Cole, et~al.
\newblock A universal neutral-atom quantum computer with individual optical
addressing and non-destructive readout,
\burlalt{arXiv:2408.08288}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08288}.
\bibitem[Rei20]{Reichardt18steane}
B.~W. Reichardt.
\newblock Fault-tolerant quantum error correction for {S}teane's seven-qubit
color code with few or no extra qubits.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/abc6f4}{{\em Quantum Sci.
Technol.} 6(1):015007 (2020)},
\burlalt{arXiv:1804.06995}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.06995}.
\bibitem[RHK{\etalchar{+}}20]{Roy20bernsteinvazirani}
T.~Roy, S.~Hazra, S.~Kundu, et~al.
\newblock Programmable superconducting processor with native three-qubit gates.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.014072}{{\em Phys.
Rev. Applied} 14:014072 (2020)},
\burlalt{arXiv:1809.00668}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00668}.
\bibitem[RRJ{\etalchar{+}}24]{quera24neutralatomdistillation}
P.~S. Rodriguez, J.~M. Robinson, P.~N. Jepsen, et~al.
\newblock Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distillation.
\newblock 2024, \burlalt{arXiv:2412.15165}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15165}.
\bibitem[SBA24]{self22icebergcode}
C.~N. Self, M.~Benedetti, and D.~Amaro.
\newblock Protecting expressive circuits with a quantum error detection code.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02282-2}{{\em Nat. Phys.}
20:219--224 (2024)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2211.06703}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06703}.
\bibitem[Sho96]{Shor96}
P.~W. Shor.
\newblock Fault-tolerant quantum computation.
\newblock
\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1996.548464}{\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1996.548464}{In
{\em Proc. 37th Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)}}}, page~96,
1996,
\burlalt{arXiv:quant-ph/9605011}{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605011}.
\bibitem[SST{\etalchar{+}}23]{scholl2023erasure}
P.~Scholl, A.~L. Shaw, R.~B.-S. Tsai, et~al.
\newblock Erasure conversion in a high-fidelity {R}ydberg quantum simulator.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06516-4}{{\em Nature}
622(7982):273--278 (2023)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2305.03406}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.03406}.
\bibitem[VGW96]{VaidmanGoldenbergWiesner96erasure}
L.~Vaidman, L.~Goldenberg, and S.~Wiesner.
\newblock Error prevention scheme with four particles.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.R1745}{{\em Phys. Rev. A}
54:R1745 (1996)},
\burlalt{arXiv:quant-ph/9603031}{http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9603031}.
\bibitem[Vui18]{Vuillot_2018}
C.~Vuillot.
\newblock Is error detection helpful on {IBM} 5{Q} chips?
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.26421/qic18.11-12}{{\em Quant. Inf.
Comput.} 18(11 \& 12) (2018)},
\burlalt{arXiv:1705.08957}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08957}.
\bibitem[WBD{\etalchar{+}}19]{Wright19iontrap11benchmark}
K.~Wright, K.~M. Beck, S.~Debnath, et~al.
\newblock Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13534-2}{{\em Nat.
Commun.} 10:5464 (2019)},
\burlalt{arXiv:1903.08181}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.08181}.
\bibitem[WKPT22]{wu2022erasure}
Y.~Wu, S.~Kolkowitz, S.~Puri, and J.~D. Thompson.
\newblock Erasure conversion for fault-tolerant quantum computing in alkaline
earth {R}ydberg atom arrays.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32094-6}{{\em Nat.
Commun.} 13(1):4657 (2022)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2201.03540}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03540}.
\bibitem[WWJ{\etalchar{+}}18]{Willsch_2018}
D.~Willsch, M.~Willsch, F.~Jin, et~al.
\newblock Testing quantum fault tolerance on small systems.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physreva.98.052348}{{\em Phys. Rev.
A} 98(5) (2018)},
\burlalt{arXiv:1805.05227}{http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05227}.
\bibitem[XZZ{\etalchar{+}}24]{xu2024fastparallelizablelogicalcomputation}
Q.~Xu, H.~Zhou, G.~Zheng, et~al.
\newblock Fast and parallelizable logical computation with homological product
codes.
\newblock (2024),
\burlalt{arXiv:2407.18490}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18490}.
\bibitem[YDKR24]{Yamamoto23phaseestimattionerrordetection}
K.~Yamamoto, S.~Duffield, Y.~Kikuchi, and D.~M. Ramo.
\newblock Demonstrating {B}ayesian quantum phase estimation with quantum error
detection.
\newblock \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013221}{{\em Phys.
Rev. Research} 6:013221 (2024)},
\burlalt{arXiv:2306.16608}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16608}.
\end{thebibliography}