State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit

Quantum computing becomes viable when a quantum state can be protected from environment-induced error. If quantum bits (qubits) are sufficiently reliable, errors are sparse and quantum error correction (QEC) is capable of identifying and correcting them. Adding more qubits improves the preservation of states by guaranteeing that increasingly larger clusters of errors will not cause logical failure—a key requirement for large-scale systems. Using QEC to extend the qubit lifetime remains one of the outstanding experimental challenges in quantum computing. Here we report the protection of classical states from environmental bit-flip errors and demonstrate the suppression of these errors with increasing system size. We use a linear array of nine qubits, which is a natural step towards the two-dimensional surface code QEC scheme, and track errors as they occur by repeatedly performing projective quantum non-demolition parity measurements. Relative to a single physical qubit, we reduce the failure rate in retrieving an input state by a factor of 2.7 when using five of our nine qubits and by a factor of 8.5 when using all nine qubits after eight cycles. Additionally, we tomographically verify preservation of the non-classical Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state. The successful suppression of environment-induced errors will motivate further research into the many challenges associated with building a large-scale superconducting quantum computer.

[1]  Robert Raussendorf,et al.  Fault-tolerant quantum computation with high threshold in two dimensions. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[2]  R Laflamme,et al.  Benchmarking quantum computers: the five-qubit error correcting code. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[3]  M. Weides,et al.  Generation of three-qubit entangled states using superconducting phase qubits , 2010, Nature.

[4]  A. Kitaev,et al.  Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary , 1998, quant-ph/9811052.

[5]  Steane,et al.  Error Correcting Codes in Quantum Theory. , 1996, Physical review letters.

[6]  Austin G. Fowler,et al.  Minimum weight perfect matching of fault-tolerant topological quantum error correction in average O(1) parallel time , 2013, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[7]  Otfried Guhne,et al.  Separability criteria for genuine multiparticle entanglement , 2009, 0905.1349.

[8]  E. Knill,et al.  Realization of quantum error correction , 2004, Nature.

[9]  J. Edmonds Paths, Trees, and Flowers , 1965, Canadian Journal of Mathematics.

[10]  M. A. Martin-Delgado,et al.  Quantum measurements and gates by code deformation , 2007, 0704.2540.

[11]  Daniel Nigg,et al.  Experimental Repetitive Quantum Error Correction , 2011, Science.

[12]  Zijun Chen,et al.  Strong environmental coupling in a Josephson parametric amplifier , 2014, 1401.3799.

[13]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Demonstration of a quantum error detection code using a square lattice of four superconducting qubits , 2015, Nature Communications.

[14]  N. Linke,et al.  High-Fidelity Preparation, Gates, Memory, and Readout of a Trapped-Ion Quantum Bit. , 2014, Physical Review Letters.

[15]  R. Barends,et al.  Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance , 2014, Nature.

[16]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Implementing a strand of a scalable fault-tolerant quantum computing fabric , 2013, Nature Communications.

[17]  R. Blatt,et al.  Quantum computations on a topologically encoded qubit , 2014, Science.

[18]  Timothy F. Havel,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTION , 1998, quant-ph/9802018.

[19]  Jay M. Gambetta,et al.  Preparation and measurement of three-qubit entanglement in a superconducting circuit , 2010, Nature.

[20]  Austin G. Fowler,et al.  Scalable extraction of error models from the output of error detection circuits , 2014, 1405.1454.

[21]  Robert Raussendorf,et al.  Topological fault-tolerance in cluster state quantum computation , 2007 .

[22]  John M. Martinis,et al.  Logic gates at the surface code threshold: Superconducting qubits poised for fault-tolerant quantum computing , 2014 .

[23]  Luigi Frunzio,et al.  Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting circuits , 2011, Nature.

[24]  Daniel Sank,et al.  Fast accurate state measurement with superconducting qubits. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[25]  Jack Edmonds,et al.  Maximum matching and a polyhedron with 0,1-vertices , 1965 .

[26]  M. Mariantoni,et al.  Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation , 2012, 1208.0928.

[27]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Detecting arbitrary quantum errors via stabilizer measurements on a sublattice of the surface code , 2014, 1410.6419.

[28]  Adam C. Whiteside,et al.  Towards practical classical processing for the surface code: Timing analysis , 2012, 1202.5602.

[29]  S. Poletto,et al.  Detecting bit-flip errors in a logical qubit using stabilizer measurements , 2014, Nature Communications.

[30]  R. Barends,et al.  Coherent Josephson qubit suitable for scalable quantum integrated circuits. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[31]  A N Cleland,et al.  Optimal quantum control using randomized benchmarking. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[32]  R. J. Schoelkopf,et al.  Tracking photon jumps with repeated quantum non-demolition parity measurements , 2013, Nature.

[33]  Zijun Chen,et al.  Fabrication and characterization of aluminum airbridges for superconducting microwave circuits , 2013, 1310.2325.

[34]  Shor,et al.  Good quantum error-correcting codes exist. , 1995, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[35]  Shor,et al.  Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. , 1995, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[36]  E. Lucero,et al.  Planar Superconducting Resonators with Internal Quality Factors above One Million , 2012, 1201.3384.