Quantum teleportation of physical qubits into logical code-spaces

Yi-Han Luo,1, 2, ∗ Ming-Cheng Chen,1, 2, ∗ Manuel Erhard,3, 4 Han-Sen Zhong,1, 2 Dian Wu,1, 2 Hao-Yang Tang,1, 2 Qi Zhao,1, 2 Xi-Lin Wang,1, 2 Keisuke Fujii,5 Li Li,1, 2 Nai-Le Liu,1, 2 Kae Nemoto,6, 7 William J. Munro,6, 7 Chao-Yang Lu,1, 2 Anton Zeilinger,3, 4 and Jian-Wei Pan1, 2 1Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at Microscale and Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, China 2CAS Centre for Excellence in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics, Hefei, 230026, China 3Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), Boltzmanngasse 3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria 4Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ), Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, A-1090 Vienna, Austria 5Graduate School of Engineering Science Division of Advanced Electronics and Optical Science Quantum Computing Group, 1-3 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka, 560-8531 6NTT Basic Research Laboratories & NTT Research Center for Theoretical Quantum Physics, NTT Corporation, 3-1 Morinosato-Wakamiya, Atsugi-shi, Kanagawa, 243-0198, Japan 7National Institute of Informatics, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8430, Japan Quantum error correction is an essential tool for reliably performing tasks for processing quantum informa- tion on a large scale. However, integration into quantum circuits to achieve these tasks is problematic when one realizes that non-transverse operations, which are essential for universal quantum computation, lead to the spread of errors. Quantum gate teleportation has been proposed as an elegant solution for this. Here, one re- places these fragile, non-transverse inline gates with the generation of specific, highly entangled offline resource states that can be teleported into the circuit to implement the non-transverse gate. As the first important step, we create a maximally entangled state between a physical and an error-correctable logical qubit and use it as a teleportation resource. We then demonstrate the teleportation of quantum information encoded on the physical qubit into the error-corrected logical qubit with fidelities up to 0.786. Our scheme can be designed to be fully fault-tolerant so that it can be used in future large-scale quantum technologies.

It is well known that quantum mechanics provides a new into a logical block with the encoding circuit which includes paradigm for the creation, manipulation and transmission the physical qubits required by quantum error correction code of information in ways that exceed conventional approaches (QECC) and additional ancillary qubits used for the error de- [1,2]. These tasks whether they be in computation, communi- tection and correction. The encoded logical block is then cation or metrology are generally represented by some form of directed to further logical operation in a fault-tolerant man- quantum circuit. As the size of these circuits increases, noise ner. One immediately notices that we have separated these and imperfections in the fundamental quantum gates used to into transversal and non-transversal gates. The transversal implement those circuits render it unreliable to perform the gates have the essential property to prevent errors propaga- tasks one wanted to do [3]. The natural solution is quantum tion between physical qubits inside QECC [11]. Any QECC error correction schemes which allows one to construct logical requires both transversal and non-transversal gates for univer- qubits resilient to those errors [4–7]. With logical operations sal quantum computation. Typically most of Clifford gates are one can then undertake large scale quantum information tasks. transversal and their fault-tolerant implementation is straight- It is essential that as part of this, one needs to be able to get forward, whereas non-Clifford gates such as T (π/8) gate are “data” in and out of the processor in a reliable fashion. non-transversal and hence the realization of a logical T (π/8) Quantum error correction works by encoding the informa- gate is the key for universal quantum computation. tion that is present on a single qubit into a logical qubit, a Through introduction of quantum teleportation [12], these arXiv:2009.06242v1 [quant-ph] 14 Sep 2020 special type of highly entangled state. This logical qubit has difficulties with non-transversal gates can be addressed. Here the property that certain errors move the state out of the code we employ a maximally entangled Bell state of the form space holding the logical qubit [8]. One can then use ancillary + 1 qubits to detect and correct those errors in a non-demolition |Φ i = √ (|0i|0iL + |1i|1iL), (1) 2 way [5–10]. By increasing the redundancy in the degree of freedom within the logical qubit, the errors can be suppressed where the subscript L denotes the logical QECC protected to arbitrarily low levels. When the physical error rate is be- state space. As shown in Fig. 1(c), the teleportation utilises low a certain threshold, it is possible to avoid errors propagat- a Bell state measurement (BSM) between the initial state |ψi ing through the circuit to ensure the reliable quantum com- to be teleported and the single physical qubit of |Φ+i. Clas- putation – a concept known as fault tolerance [3–5]. It is sical feedforward of our BSM result ensures the initial quan- the key to large scale quantum information processing tasks tum state to be teleported into the encoded qubit. All these which generally takes a form illustrated in Fig.1(a). Here procedures, including the generation of |Φ+i together with a single qubit holding initial quantum information is encoded BSM, can be performed in a fault-tolerant manner [2]. Quan- 2 tum teleportation allows us to perform non-transversal gates (a) offline, where the probabilistic gate preparation can be done, Initial as shown in Fig. 1(b). The initial state |ψi could be an ar- State Encoding bitrary state,√ however the choice of the state |Ai = (|0i + eiπ/4|1i)/ 2, known as a magic state, is the most relevant Transversal non-transversal to quantum computation. It is used to implement the T gate ... U1 ... U2 ... through magic state injection [3, 13] – a crucial approach to- wards fault-tolerant non-Clifford gate. The same mechanism holds for a fault-tolerant implementation of non-transversal (b) gates when the offline state preparation achieves the required U2 precision though repeat until success strategies. More gener- ally, a recursive application of this protocol allows us to imple- BSM ment a certain class of gates fault-tolerantly, including Toffoli Transversal ...... gate [14], which is also indicated in Fig. 1(b). It is equally ... U1 ... important to note that the quantum teleportation to the logical qubit is an important building block for distributed quantum BSM computation and global quantum communications. The tele- Offline ancillary state preparation portation based quantum error correction schemes thus have Repeat ...... the potential to significantly lower the technical barriers in our ...... pursuit of larger scale quantum information processing. until success In stark contrast to theoretical progress, quantum telepor- (c) tation and QECC have been developed independently in the Classical information experimental regime. We have seen quite a number of re- Initial BSM markable quantum teleportation demonstrations [15–26] and State QECCs experiments [27–34] performed in a number of phys- ical systems. However the experimental combination of these QECC operations, quantum teleportation based quantum error cor- rection is still to be realized. Given it is an essential tool for Encoding future larger scale quantum tasks it will be our focus here. In this work, we report on the first experimental realiza- tion of the teleportation of information encoded on a physi- cal qubit into an error protected logical qubit. This is a key FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of teleportation based error correc- step in the development of quantum teleportation based error tion state encoding. In (a) and (b) we show the fault-tolerant quan- correction. We begin by establishing an Einstein-Podolsky- tum circuit before and after combining with quantum teleportation, Rosen (EPR) channel – the entangled resource state for a er- where the unreliable operations, unknown state encoding and non- ror protected logical qubit. Quantum teleportation involving transversal gate U2 are marked with red blocks. The flow of quan- a physical qubit of the entangled resource state transfers the tum information is transmitted along the circuit from left to right. In figure (a), errors will be accumulated as the number of unreliable quantum information encoded in one single qubit into the er- operations grows. In contrast, by introducing quantum teleportation, ror protected logical qubit. The quality of the entanglement the “fragile nodes” can be replaced with pre-established entangle- resource state and the performance of the quantum teleporta- ment states taking a specific form. As shown in (b), the encoding 0 tion are then evaluated. process and non-transversal gate U2 are replaced with state |ψ i and |ψU2 i. Upon encountering “fragile nodes”, such as encoding, the circuit is paused until a suitable |ψ0i = |Φ+i is generated. Then the Experimental Implementation The scheme shown in Fig. BSM transform quantum information holding by the initial state into 1(b) is conceptually very similar to the original teleportation the QECC, which can then be further operated by following logical protocol, however currently is significantly more challenging gates. Scheme (c) illustrates the teleportation based QECC encoding due to the necessity of creating the entangled resource Eq. (1) where to encode the unknown initial state, a physical qubit is entan- involving a logical encoded qubit - especially when one con- gled with logical qubit encoded in specific QECC. Then the BSM is siders optical implementations. Here our logical qubit basis performed between initial qubit and the physical qubit with the mea- states surement results feedforward to complete the transfer of our quantum information into the QECC. 1 ⊗3 |0iL = √ (|000i + |111i) , 2 2 (2) 1 ⊗3 |1iL = √ (|000i − |111i) . can be found in the supplementary material. Now given the 2 2 complexity here, it is crucial to design and configure our op- are associated with the (9,1,3) Shor-code [2], which is a repe- tical circuit efficiently remembering that in linear optical sys- tition of GHZ3 state [35]. More details concerning Shor code tems most multiple qubit gates are probabilistic (but heralded) 3 in nature. Only gates including the CNOT gate between dif- half and quarter wave plates. A BSM to implement the tele- ferent degrees of freedom (DoFs) on the same single photon portation is carried out with a 50/50 beam splitter and subse- can be implemented in a deterministic fashion. quent coincidence measurement on that polarization encoded Our experiment is divided into three key stages: qubit and the physical qubit from the entangled resource |Φ+i.

+ Usually, this method projects the two photons onto the anti- 1. The creation of the entangled resource state |Φ i; symmetric Bell state ψ−, however by transforming the state 2. The preparation and teleportation of the initial physical before the beam splitter using√ HWPs we project onto the sym- metrical (|HHi + |VV i)/ 2 state [37]. qubit |ϕi into the logical qubit |ϕiL; The third and final stage of the experiment consists of the 3. Readout of the logical state |ϕiL and detection of error readout of the encoded qubit. Ideally one should use ancilla syndromes. qubits to measure the error syndromes and use those results to correct any errors that have occurred before measuring the The first key stage is the creation of the |Φ+i state per- state of the logical qubit. This of course would require ex- formed using the quantum circuit shown in Fig.2(a). It tra photons. However in this case as we want to measure the begins by generating a polarization-entangled four photon logical qubit we can independently measure and read out each Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ ) state [35] using beam- 4 DoF for photons 1, 2 and 3 without disturbing or destroying like type-II spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) the quantum information encoded in the other DoFs [38]. In in a sandwich-like geometry [36]. This particular geometry our experiment the DoF of polarization, paths and OAM are produces a maximally entangled two-photon state and so in measured step by step. The qubit encoded with polarization order to create a four-photon GHZ state, photons 2 and 3 and paths are directly read out with standard polarization an- are combined on a polarization beam splitter (PBS), which alyzers and Mach-Zehnder interferometers respectively while transmits horizontally (H) polarized photons and reflects ver- for the OAM encoded qubit a swap gate used to transfer the tically (V ) polarized photons. A four-fold coincidence regis- OAM state to a polarization one where it can be measured tration projects the four photons into the GHZ state |ψ4i = √ with another polarization analyzer. These measurements give (|Hi⊗4 + |V i⊗4)/ 2. Among these four photons, photon 4 us access to the complete logical qubit, consisting of three acts as the physical qubit to be used in the BSM while pho- photons in three different DoFs, and thus access the complete tons 1, 2, 3 are directed to the logical qubit encoding circuit. Shor code space of 9 physical qubits. Further details are de- Now to construct the 9-qubit Shor code with three photons, scribed in the supplementary materials. we use two more degrees of freedom (DoF) per photon asso- ciated with the path and orbital angular momentum (OAM). Using additional DoFs is not only resource efficient in terms Experimental Results The crucial ingredient for our ex- of the number of photons required, but also enables us to use periment is the generation of the maximally entangled quan- deterministic CNOT gates using linear optical elements only tum state between the physical and logical qubit. It is im- (see supplementary material for details). portant to first evaluate the quality of this entangled resource Experimentally, the creation of the Shor code (see Fig.2) state. Typical quantum state tomography on ten qubits is un- begins by applying Hadamard gates on the polarization DoF feasible due to the number of measurements involved. How- of each photon using a half-wave-plate (HWP) at 22.5 de- ever, the code structure allows us to eliminate this daunting grees. This transforms the GHZ state to task to evaluate it at a the physical level. The logical level evaluation perfectly serves our purpose, and so we instead √ |ψ04i = (|Hi|+i⊗3 + |V i|−i⊗3)/ 2, (3) measure the state fidelity and the CHSH inequality to evalu- √ ate the entanglement between the logical and physical qubits. where |±i = (|Hi ± |V i)/ 2 denotes the diagonal/anti- The density matrix of |Φ+i can be expressed as diagonal polarization, respectively. The other DoF are ini- 1 cs cs cs tially in their |0i state. Then two consecutive CNOT gates ρ = (I ⊗ Ics + X ⊗ XL − Y ⊗ YL + Z ⊗ ZL ). (4) are applied where the polarization always acts as the control 4 and the other two DoFs as the target qubits. With the con- involving the usual Pauli operators for the physical and logi- trol qubit |±i and target qubits |0i a three qubit GHZ state cal qubit. Measuring the fidelity is equivalent to determining |0, 0, 0i ± |1, 1, 1i is generated on each photon. We have thus the expectation values of all four observables above requiring 8 generated the desired 10-qubit physical – logical√ QECC en- 4 × 2 = 1024 settings in total. Fortunately, the expecta- + tangled state |Φ i = (|Hi|0iL + |V i|1iL)/ 2 ending the tion values of the Pauli matrices I,Z can be obtained with first stage. equal settings. Further owing to special features of the Shor- The second stage of the experiment concerns the telepor- code stabilizers the number of settings can be further reduced tation of the state |ϕi on its own independent physical qubit to 250 in total (see supplementary materials). For each set- into the QECC protected logical qubit, as depicted in Fig.1(b). ting, we record four-fold coincidences for 10 seconds, yield- Here we use a photon (photon 5) prepared in a separate BBO ing a coincidence rate of ∼150 s−1. We establish a fidelity crystal (heralded by the second photon of the pair) to encode of F = 0.703(2) between the ideal state |Φ+i. This clearly an arbitrary single qubit state into the polarisation DoF using surpasses the genuine entanglement 0.5 threshold. However 4

Teleportation NLC Qubit 5 Initial state Logic qubit

Qubit 4 BS Phase/bit flips

NLC Qubit 3 H PBS

Qubit 2 H NLC Qubit 1 H

GHZ4 Encoding Readout

FIG. 2. Experimental setup. We employ three non-linear crystals (NLC) to create 6 photons in total. Two NLC’s in combination with a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) create a four-photon GHZ state in the polarization degree of freedom (DoF). The fifth photon is programmed with an arbitrary qubit state |ψi to be teleported while the sixth photon serves as a trigger. Shown in the green box is a beam-splitter (BS) in combination with coincidence detection to implement the Bell-state-measurement (BSM) necessary to teleport the quantum state |ψi of the fifth photon into the QECC space. The readout stage (purple box) used to measure the error-syndromes contains three consecutive measurement stages. First, the path DoF is measured followed by the polarization DoF. Finally, the OAM DoF is measured using a OAM-to-polarization converter. This in total results in eight single-photon detectors (SPD) per photon, thus 24 SPDs for the logic-qubit readout stage only. this fidelity F is insufficient to violate a CHSH inequality with Next, we exclude the influence of correctable errors by hCHSHi = 1.974(3) < 2 experimental determined. De- confining the state of the logical qubit to the actual code tailed measurement results for the estimation of the fidelity space using the projectors Ics to the code space (see supple- and CHSH inequality are shown in Fig. 3(a,b) respectively. mentary for details). Experimentally, the overlap results in hI ⊗ Icsi = 0.808(2), representing the overlap between the (a) (b) Without correction Without correction logic qubit prepared in our experiment and the code-space. With correction With correction This is then used to exclude all errors that can be detected 1.0 by the stabilizers, yielding an error-corrected state fidelity 0.5 F = 0.870(3) and hCHSHi = 2.443(3) > 2 violation within e e

u 0.5 u l l

a a the code space (see Fig. 3). Furthermore, the encoded state v v n n o o

i i fidelity F = 0.870 > 0.85 would enable magic state distil- t t 0.0 a a

t 0.0 t

c c lation with error-corrected Clifford gates. Our results clearly e e p p x x demonstrate the effectiveness of QECC in our approach but E E -0.5 -0.5 unity fidelity was not achieved due to multi-pair emissions within the SPDC process utilized for generating the |Φ+i -1.0 state. Such errors cannot be corrected by our encoding as they XX YY ZZ C1 C2 C3 C4 sit inside the code space (see supplementary materials for de- Observables Correlation functions tails). FIG. 3. Characterization of the entanglement teleportation re- With the entangled resource state characterized we now source state. In (a) we show the measured expectation values of need to explore the operation of teleporting a physical qubit X ⊗ XL, Y ⊗ YL and Z ⊗ ZL without (orange bars) and with (green into the logical qubit space. For such a quantum system, it is bars) correction. Once can determine the fidelity of entangled state as F = 0.703(2) before and F = 0.870(3) after correction. Similarly necessary to show its performance comprehensively exceed- (b) shows the measured correlation functions required for the CHSH ing any classical methods. Thus, in our experiment we se- inequality without (orange bars) and with (green bars) error√ correc- lected eigenstates with eigenvalue +1 of three Pauli matrices tion. The physical qubit is measured in the E1,2 = (Z ± X)/ 2 ba- X, Y and Z, denoted as |0i, |+i and |Ri respectively and sis while the QEEC is measured with XL,ZL respectively. The four measured their teleported fidelity. We measure 125 settings correlation functions C1 ∼ C4 denote E1 ⊗ XL, E2 ⊗ XL, E1 ⊗ ZL for |0i, |Ri and 98 settings for |+i. For each setting, we ac- and E2⊗ZL respectively. Then hCHSHi = C1−C2+C3+C4 gives cumulate on average ∼60 coincidences in 1200 seconds, that 1.974(3) before and 2.443(3) after correction. All reported measure- ments are without background or accidental count subtraction while corresponds to a count rate of ∼ 0.05 Hz. The achieved exper- the stated measurement errors are obtained using Monte Carlo simu- imental fidelities (with and without correction) and the pro- lation with an underlying Poissonian distribution of photon counting jection probabilities Ics are shown in Fig. 4. The averaged statistics. fidelity of the three logic states is 0.520(7), while after pro- 5

with independently developed modules, such as magic-state Fidelity without correction 1.0 Fidelity with correction distillation and transversal logical operation block, may be- Projection probability comes a useful part of future implementations of fault-tolerant

0.8 quantum computer or the quantum internet.

0.6 y

t This work was supported by the National Natural Science i l

e Foundation of China, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the d i 0.4 F National Fundamental Research Program, the Anhui Initia- tive in Quantum Information Technologies, the MEXT Quan- 0.2 tum Leap Flagship Program (MEXT Q-LEAP) Grant No. JP- MXS0118069605, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Educa- 0.0 tion, Science and Research (BMBWF) and the University of Vienna via the project QUESS. States FIG. 4. Experimental teleportation of an arbitrary single qubit state. Here we show the teleportation results of three representative |Hi |+i |Ri σ states , and that are eigenstates of z,x,y respectively ∗ These two authors contributed equally. +1 with eigenvalue . For each state the fidelity with and without [1] A. G. J. MacFarlane, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Quan- correction are shown together with the projection probability. Af- tum technology: the second quantum revolution, Philosophical ter correction the averaged fidelity of the three teleported states is Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathe- 2/3 0.786(17), well exceeding the classical limit shown as a red matical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 361, 1655 (2003). dashed line. [2] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, USA, 2011). jection into the code space it increases to 0.786(17). This is [3] E. Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices, well above the classical limit of 2/3. Furthermore, in our ex- Nature 434, 39 (2005). [4] P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, in Proceedings perimental arrangements, the√ teleportation fidelity of any state iφ of the 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Sci- of the form (|0i + e |1i)/ 2 is independent of the phase φ. ence, FOCS ?96 (IEEE Computer Society, USA, 1996) p. 56. For example, the fidelities of φ = 0 and φ = π/2 are con- [5] D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation, sistent in one standard deviation, as shown in Fig. 4. The Phys Rev. A 57, 127 (1998). obtained results demonstrate the ability of our approach to [6] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- write via quantum teleportation arbitrary quantum states, in- ters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, cluding the magic state φ = π/4 for T -gate, from a single Phys Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996). physical qubit into the logical code space consisting of nine [7] S. J. Devitt, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Quantum error correction for beginners, Reports on Progress in Physics 76, physical qubits. Moreover, the post-selected error-correction 076001 (2013). scheme employed here significantly increases the observed [8] P. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer average fidelities from ∼ 52% to ∼ 78% limited only by non- memory, Phys Rev. A 52, R2493 (1995). correctable errors stemming from multi-pair emissions of the [9] A. M. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Phys. SPDC processes. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996). [10] R. Laflamme, C. Miquel, J. Paz, and W. Zurek, Perfect quantum error correcting code, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 198 (1996). Discussion and Conclusion In summary, we have demon- [11] B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal encoded strated the teleportation of a physical qubit into a logical qubit quantum gate sets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 110502 (2009). formed from a QECC. This is a key step for optical quantum [12] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau,´ R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and calculation on a larger scale. Although the results achieved W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. are far from the fault-tolerance threshold, our work is still 70, 1895 (1993). far-reaching. It demonstrates the ability to introduce well- [13] A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, developed quantum teleportation to the QIP at the logical level Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum compu- within current technology, and as such represents a crucial tation, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012). step towards fault-tolerant QIP. Such an ability is essential [14] D. Gottesman and I. Chuang, Demonstrating the viability of for probabilistic gate operations to be performed on an un- universal quantum computation using teleportation and single- known state in a scalable manner. More specifically and im- qubit operations, Nature 402, 390 (1999). [15] D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter, portantly, it allows for magic state injection, a critical task in and A. Zeilinger, Experimental quantum teleportation, Nature error-corrected quantum computation. Our experiment can be 390, 575 (1997). further modified to adapt the fault-tolerant manner. Moreover, [16] A. Furusawa, J. L. Sørensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. within the theoretical scheme, it can be further concatenated Kimble, and E. S. Polzik, Unconditional quantum teleportation, 6

Science 282, 706 (1998). 382 (2012). [17] I. Marcikic, H. de Riedmatten, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, and [33] J. Kelly, R. Barends, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jeffrey, T. C. N. Gisin, Long-distance teleportation of qubits at telecommu- White, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, nication wavelengths, Nature 421, 509 (2003). B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, I. C. Hoi, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, [18] Q. Zhang, A. Goebel, C. Wagenknecht, Y.-A. Chen, B. Zhao, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cle- T. Yang, A. Mair, J. Schmiedmayer, and J.-W. Pan, Experimen- land, and J. M. Martinis, State preservation by repetitive error tal quantum teleportation of a two-qubit composite system, Nat. detection in a superconducting quantum circuit, Nature 519, 66 Phys. 2, 678 (2006). (2015). [19] X.-L. Wang, X.-D. Cai, Z.-E. Su, M.-C. Chen, D. Wu, L. Li, [34] N. Ofek, A. Petrenko, R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, Z. Leghtas, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum teleportation of B. Vlastakis, Y. Liu, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, M. Mir- multiple degrees of freedom of a single photon, Nature 518, rahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Extending the life- 516 (2015). time of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting [20] J.-G. Ren, P. Xu, H.-L. Yong, L. Zhang, S.-K. Liao, J. Yin, circuits, Nature 536, 441 (2016). W.-Y. Liu, W.-Q. Cai, M. Yang, L. Li, K.-X. Yang, X. Han, [35] D. Greenberger, M. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Bell Y.-Q. Yao, J. Li, H.-Y. Wu, S. Wan, L. Liu, D.-Q. Liu, Y.-W. Theorem Without Inequalities, Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990). Kuang, Z.-P. He, P. Shang, C. Guo, R.-H. Zheng, K. Tian, Z.- [36] X.-L. Wang, L.-K. Chen, W. Li, H. L. Huang, C. Liu, C. Chen, C. Zhu, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Z. Peng, Y. H. Luo, Z. E. Su, D. Wu, Z. D. Li, H. Lu, Y. Hu, X. Jiang, J.-Y. Wang, and J.-W. Pan, Ground-to-satellite quantum telepor- C. Z. Peng, L. Li, N. L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. tation, Nature 549, 70 (2017). Pan, Experimental ten-photon entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. [21] Y.-H. Luo, H.-S. Zhong, M. Erhard, X.-L. Wang, L.-C. Peng, 117, 210502 (2016). M. Krenn, X. Jiang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, A. Zeilinger, [37] J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum teleportation in high dimensions, Phys. and M. Zukowski, Multiphoton entanglement and interferome- Rev. Lett. 123, 070505 (2019). try, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 10.1103/RevModPhys.84.777 (2012). [22] X.-H. Bao, X.-F. Xu, C.-M. Li, Z.-S. Yuan, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. [38] X.-L. Wang, Y.-H. Luo, H.-L. Huang, M.-C. Chen, Z.-E. Su, Pan, Quantum teleportation between remote atomic-ensemble C. Liu, C. Chen, W. Li, Y.-Q. Fang, X. Jiang, J. Zhang, L. Li, quantum memories, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 20347 (2012). N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, 18-qubit entanglement with [23] M. Riebe, H. Haffner,¨ C. F. Roos, W. Hansel,¨ J. Benhelm, six photons’ three degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, G. P. T. Lancaster, T. W. Korber,¨ C. Becher, F. Schmidt-Kaler, 260502 (2018). D. F. V. James, and R. Blatt, Deterministic quantum teleporta- tion with atoms, Nature 429, 734 (2004). [24] M. D. Barrett, J. Chiaverini, T. Schaetz, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, J. D. Jost, E. Knill, C. Langer, D. Leibfried, R. Ozeri, and D. J. Wineland, Deterministic quantum teleportation of atomic qubits, Nature 429, 737 (2004). [25] W. Pfaff, B. J. Hensen, H. Bernien, S. B. van Dam, M. S. Blok, T. H. Taminiau, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and R. Hanson, Unconditional quantum telepor- tation between distant solid-state quantum bits, Science 345, 532 (2014). [26] L. Steffen, Y. Salathe, M. Oppliger, P. Kurpiers, M. Baur, C. Lang, C. Eichler, G. Puebla-Hellmann, A. Fedorov, and A. Wallraff, Deterministic quantum teleportation with feed- forward in a solid state system, Nature 500, 319 (2013). [27] C.-Y. Lu, W.-B. Gao, L. Zhang, X.-Q. Zhou, T. Yang, and J.- W. Pan, Experimental quantum coding against qubit loss error, PNAS 105, 11050 (2008). [28] X.-C. Yao, T.-X. Wang, H.-Z. Chen, W.-B. Gao, A. G. Fowler, R. Raussendorf, Z.-B. Chen, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, Y.-J. Deng, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental demonstration of topological error correction, Nature 482, 489 (2012). [29] D. Nigg, M. Mueller, E. A. Martinez, P. Schindler, M. Hen- nrich, T. Monz, M. A. Martin-Delgado, and R. Blatt, Quantum computations on a topologically encoded qubit, Science 345, 302 (2014). [30] J. Chiaverini, D. Leibfried, T. Schaetz, M. Barrett, R. Blakestad, J. Britton, W. Itano, J. Jost, E. Knill, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, and D. Wineland, Realization of quantum error correction, Nature 432, 602 (2004). [31] P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, T. Monz, V. Nebendahl, D. Nigg, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Experimental repetitive quantum error correction, Science 332, 1059 (2011). [32] M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Realization of three-qubit quan- tum error correction with superconducting circuits, Nature 482,