DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1910.11333V2 [Quant-Ph] 28 Dec 2019 D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1910.11333V2 [Quant-Ph] 28 Dec 2019 D Supplementary information for \Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor" [1] Google AI Quantum and collaboratorsy (Dated: January 1, 2020) CONTENTS 2. Universality for SU(2) 30 G. Circuit variants 30 I. Device design and architecture2 1. Gate elision 31 2. Wedge formation 31 II. Fabrication and layout2 VIII. Large scale XEB results 31 III. Qubit control and readout3 A. Limitations of full circuits 32 A. Control3 B. Patch circuits: a quick performance B. Readout3 indicator for large systems 33 C. Elided circuits: a more rigorous IV. XEB theory5 performance estimator for large systems 33 A. XEB of a small number of qubits5 D. Choice of unitary model for two-qubit B. XEB of a large number of qubits7 entangling gates 34 C. Two limiting cases8 E. Understanding system performance: error D. Measurement errors9 model prediction 35 F. Distribution of bitstring probabilities 36 V. Quantifying errors9 G. Statistical uncertainties of XEB measurements 39 VI. Metrology and calibration 11 H. System stability and systematic A. Calibration overview 11 uncertainties 40 1. Device registry 11 I. The fidelity result and the null hypothesis 2. Scheduling calibrations: \Optimus" 12 on quantum supremacy 41 B. Calibration procedure 12 1. Device configuration 12 IX. Sensitivity of XEB to errors 42 2. Root config: procedure 13 3. Single-qubit config: procedure 13 X. Classical simulations 44 4. Optimizing qubit operating frequencies 13 A. Local Schr¨odingerand 5. Grid config: procedure 14 Schr¨odinger-Feynman simulators 44 C. Two-qubit gate metrology 15 B. Feynman simulator 45 1. The natural two-qubit gate for transmon C. Supercomputer Schr¨odingersimulator 49 qubits 15 D. Simulation of random circuit sampling with 2. Using cross entropy to learn a unitary a target fidelity 50 model 16 1. Optimality of the Schmidt decomposition 3. Comparison with randomized for gates embedded in a random circuit 51 benchmarking 16 2. Classical speedup for imbalanced gates 52 4. Speckle purity benchmarking (SPB) 18 3. Verifiable and supremacy circuits 53 5. \Per-layer" parallel XEB 19 E. Treewidth upper bounds and variable arXiv:1910.11333v2 [quant-ph] 28 Dec 2019 D. Grid readout calibration 20 elimination algorithms 54 1. Choosing qubit frequencies for readout 20 F. Computational cost estimation for the 2. Single qubit calibration 20 sampling task 56 3. Characterizing multi-qubit readout 21 G. Understanding the scaling with width and E. Summary of system parameters 22 depth of the computational cost of verification 57 VII. Quantum circuits 27 1. Runtime scaling formulas 57 A. Background 27 2. Assumptions and corrections 57 B. Overview and technical requirements 27 3. Fitting constants 58 C. Circuit structure 27 4. Memory usage scaling 59 D. Randomness 27 H. Energy advantage for quantum computing 59 E. Quantum gates 28 F. Programmability and universality 29 XI. Complexity-theoretic foundation of the 1. Decomposition of CZ into fSim gates 29 experiment 59 2 A. Error model 61 to the qubit levels) has the following approximate form, B. Definition of computational problem 61 2 C. Computational hardness of unbiased-noise X gij(t) H (t) ≈ g (t)(σ+σ− + σ−σ+) + σzσz ; (1) sampling 62 int ij i j i j jηj i j D. Proof of Theorem1 62 hi;ji where gij is the nearest neighbor coupling, η is the non- Acknowledgments 64 linearity of the qubits (roughly constant), i and j index nearest-neighbor qubit pairs, and σ± = (σx ±iσy)=2. We Erratum 64 pulse the coupling in time to create coupling gates. Our two-qubit gate can be understood using Car- References 64 tan decomposition [8], which enables an arbitrary two- qubit gate to be decomposed into four single-qubit gates around a central two-qubit gate that can be described by I. DEVICE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE a unitary matrix describing only XX, YY and ZZ interac- tions, with 3 parameters indicating their strengths. For The Sycamore device was designed with both the quan- the physical interaction describing our hardware, we see tum supremacy experiment [1] and small noisy interme- a swapping interaction between the j01i and j10i qubits diate scale quantum (NISQ) applications in mind. The states, corresponding to an XX+YY interaction. Inter- architecture is also suitable for initial experiments with action of the qubit j11i state with the j2i states of the quantum error correction based on the surface code. data transmons produce a phase shift of that state, cor- While we are targeting 0.1% error two-qubit gates for er- responding to a ZZ interaction. By changing the qubit ror correction, a quantum supremacy demonstration can frequencies and coupling strength we can vary the mag- be achieved with 0.3-0.6% error rates. nitude of these interactions, giving net control of 2 out For decoherence-dominated errors, a 0.1% error means of the 3 possible parameters for an arbitrary gate. a factor of about 1000 between coherence and gate times. For example, a 25 µs coherence time implies a 25 ns gate. A key design objective in our architecture is achieving II. FABRICATION AND LAYOUT short two-qubit gate time, leading to the choice of tun- able transmon qubits with direct, tunable coupling. Our Sycamore quantum processor is configured as a A difficult challenge for achieving a high-performance diagonal array of qubits as seen in the schematic of Fig. 1 two-qubit gate is designing a sufficiently strong coupling in the main text. The processor contains 142 transmon when the gate is active, which is needed for fast gates, qubits, of which 54 qubits have individual microwave and while minimizing the coupling otherwise for low resid- frequency controls and are individually read out (referred ual control errors. These two competing requirements to as qubits). The remaining 88 transmons are operated are difficult to satisfy with a fixed-coupling architecture: as adjustable couplers remaining in their ground state our prior processors [2] used large qubit-qubit detuning during the algorithms (referred to as couplers). (∼1 GHz) to turn off the effective interaction, requir- The qubits consist of a DC SQUID sandwiched be- ing relatively high-amplitude precise flux pulses to tune tween two metal islands, operating in the transmon the qubit frequencies to implement a CZ gate. In the regime. An on-chip bias line is inductively coupled to the Sycamore device, we use adjustable couplers [3] as a nat- DC SQUID, which allows us to tune qubit frequency by ural solution to this control problem, albeit at the cost applying control fluxes into the SQUID loop. For regu- of more wiring and control signals. This means that the lar operations, we tune qubits through a small frequency qubits can idle at much smaller relative detuning. We range (< 100 MHz). This corresponds to a relatively chose a capacitor-coupled design [3,4], which is simpler small control signal and makes qubit operation less sen- to layout and scale, over the inductor-based coupler of sitive to flux crosstalk. previous gmon devices [5,6]. In Sycamore, the coupling Each pair of nearest-neighbor qubits are coupled g is tunable from 5 MHz to −40 MHz. The experiment through two parallel channels: direct capacitive coupling uses `on' coupling of about −20 MHz. and indirect coupling mediated by coupler [3,4,9]. Both By needing only small frequency excursions to perform channels result in qubit-qubit coupling in the form of x x y y a two-qubit gate, the tunable qubit can be operated much σi σj + σi σj in the rotating frame, although with dif- closer to its maximum frequency, thus greatly reducing ferent signs. The indirect coupling is negative, given it flux sensitivity and dephasing from 1=f flux noise. Ad- is a second-order virtual process. The strength of the ditionally, the coupling can be turned off during mea- indirect coupling is adjusted by changing the coupler fre- surement, reducing the effect of measurement crosstalk, quency with an additional on-chip bias line, giving a net a phenomenon that has shown to be somewhat difficult zero qubit-qubit coupling at a specific flux bias. to understand and minimize [7]. The Sycamore processor consists of two die that we The interaction Hamiltonian of a system of on- fabricated on separate high resistivity silicon wafers. The resonance transmons with adjustable coupling (truncated fabrication process, using aluminum on silicon, requires 3 ules forms a >250-channel, phase-synchronous waveform generator. We have measured 20 ps of jitter between channels. The modules are mounted in 14-slot 6U rack- mount chassis. A single chassis, shown in FIG. S4, can control approximately 15 qubits including their associ- ated couplers and readout signals. A total of 4 chassis are used to control the entire Sycamore chip. The DAC outputs are used directly for fast flux bias- ing the qubits and couplers required for two-qubit gates. Microwave control for single-qubit XY rotations and dis- persive readout combine two DAC channels and a mixer module to form a microwave arbitrary waveform genera- tor (Microwave AWG) via single-sideband upconversion in an IQ mixer as shown in Figure S2 a. The microwave AWG provides signals with arbitrary spectral content FIG. S1. A photograph of a packaged Sycamore pro- within ±350 MHz of the local oscillator (LO). A single cessor. The processor is shielded from the electromagnetic LO signal is distributed to all IQ mixers so that all qubits' environment by a mu-metal shield (middle) and a supercon- XY controls are phase coherent. The mixer modules are ducting aluminum cap, inside the mu-metal shield. The pro- mounted in the same chassis as the DAC modules. Each cessor control wires are routed, through PCB circuit board, mixer's I and Q port DC offsets are calibrated for min- to coaxial connectors shown around the edge.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quantum Computing in the UK Today Dr Rupesh Srivastava, User Engagement May 2021
    Quantum Computing in the UK today Dr Rupesh Srivastava, User Engagement May 2021 For BCS Berkshire For BCS Berkshire Members What we’ll cover 1. What is Quantum Computing and why the excitement? 2. The status and outlook for Quantum Computing & Simulation 3. The UK QT Programme 4. How to engage with Quantum Computing Question: When will Quantum Computing make an impact? For BCS Berkshire Members “Quantum information is a radical departure in information technology, more fundamentally different from current technology than the digital computer is from the abacus.” W. D. Phillips Nobel Laureate 1997 Saunpan Abacus Modern Laptop Computer A recent history of science and computation For BCS Berkshire Members 19th 20th 21st Quantum 2.0 ENIAC Babbage Difference Engine Colossus at Bletchley Park Summit Supercomputer QCS Hub Research For BCS Berkshire Members Classical Physics influences the design of the latest chips Some components may use quantum principles in their operation – but the chip does not use quantum for computation 32-core AMD Epyc (2017) 19,200,000,000 transistors (14 nm) BREAKING NEWS 2021 For BCS Berkshire Members Why build a quantum computer? The first question is, What kind of computer are we going to use to simulate physics? But the physical world is quantum mechanical, and therefore the proper problem is the simulation of quantum physics. Can you do it with a new kind of computer, a Richard Feynman quantum computer? Nobel laureate … It’s not a Turing machine, but a machine of a different kind. For BCS Berkshire Members Why
    [Show full text]
  • Pub50250.Pdf
    ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21982-y OPEN Removing leakage-induced correlated errors in superconducting quantum error correction M. McEwen 1,2, D. Kafri3, Z. Chen2, J. Atalaya3, K. J. Satzinger 2, C. Quintana2, P. V. Klimov2, D. Sank2, C. Gidney2, A. G. Fowler2, F. Arute2, K. Arya2, B. Buckley2, B. Burkett 2, N. Bushnell2, B. Chiaro2, R. Collins2, S. Demura 2, A. Dunsworth2, C. Erickson2, B. Foxen2, M. Giustina2, T. Huang2, S. Hong2, E. Jeffrey2, S. Kim2, K. Kechedzhi3, F. Kostritsa2, P. Laptev2, A. Megrant2,X.Mi2, J. Mutus2, O. Naaman 2, M. Neeley 2, C. Neill2, M. Niu3, A. Paler4,5, N. Redd 2, P. Roushan2, T. C. White2, J. Yao2, P. Yeh 2, A. Zalcman 2, Yu Chen2, ✉ V. N. Smelyanskiy3, John M. Martinis1, H. Neven2, J. Kelly2, A. N. Korotkov2,6, A. G. Petukhov2 & R. Barends2 1234567890():,; Quantum computing can become scalable through error correction, but logical error rates only decrease with system size when physical errors are sufficiently uncorrelated. During computation, unused high energy levels of the qubits can become excited, creating leakage states that are long-lived and mobile. Particularly for superconducting transmon qubits, this leakage opens a path to errors that are correlated in space and time. Here, we report a reset protocol that returns a qubit to the ground state from all relevant higher level states. We test its performance with the bit-flip stabilizer code, a simplified version of the surface code for quantum error correction. We investigate the accumulation and dynamics of leakage during error correction. Using this protocol, we find lower rates of logical errors and an improved scaling and stability of error suppression with increasing qubit number.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Next After Quantum Supremacy?
    What’s Next After Quantum Supremacy? Credit: Erik Lucero/Google John Preskill Q2B 2019 11 December 2019 Quantum 2, 79 (2018), arXiv:1801.00862 Based on a Keynote Address delivered at Quantum Computing for Business, 5 December 2017 Nature 574, pages 505–510 (2019), 23 October 2019 The promise of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on a classical processor. A fundamental challenge is to build a high-fidelity processor capable of running quantum algorithms in an exponentially large computational space. Here we report the use of a processor with programmable superconducting qubits to create quantum states on 53 qubits, corresponding to a computational state-space of dimension 253 (about 1016). Measurements from repeated experiments sample the resulting probability distribution, which we verify using classical simulations. Our Sycamore processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance of a quantum circuit a million times—our benchmarks currently indicate that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years. This dramatic increase in speed compared to all known classical algorithms is an experimental realization of quantum supremacy for this specific computational task, heralding a much anticipated computing paradigm. Classical systems cannot simulate quantum systems efficiently (a widely believed but unproven conjecture). Arguably the most interesting thing we know about the difference between quantum and classical. Each qubit is also connected to its neighboring qubits using a new adjustable coupler [31, 32]. Our coupler design allows us to quickly tune the qubit-qubit coupling from completely off to 40 MHz.
    [Show full text]
  • Superconducting Quantum Computing: a Review
    SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences August 2020, Vol. 63 180501:1–180501:32 . REVIEW . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-020-2881-9 Special Focus on Quantum Information Superconducting quantum computing: a review He-Liang HUANG1,2*, Dachao WU1,2, Daojin FAN1,2 & Xiaobo ZHU1,2* 1Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at Microscale and Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China; 2Shanghai Branch, CAS Centre for Excellence and Synergetic Innovation Centre in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Shanghai 201315, China Received 25 February 2020/Accepted 16 April 2020/Published online 15 July 2020 Abstract Over the last two decades, tremendous advances have been made for constructing large-scale quantum computers. In particular, quantum computing platforms based on superconducting qubits have become the leading candidate for scalable quantum processor architecture, and the milestone of demonstrating quantum supremacy has been first achieved using 53 superconducting qubits in 2019. In this study, we provide a brief review on the experimental efforts towards the large-scale superconducting quantum computer, including qubit design, quantum control, readout techniques, and the implementations of error correction and quantum algorithms. Besides the state of the art, we finally discuss future perspectives, and which we hope will motivate further research. Keywords quantum computing, superconducting quantum computing, quantum bit, quantum algorithm, qubit design, qubit control, qubit readout Citation Huang H-L, Wu D C, Fan D J, et al. Superconducting quantum computing: a review. Sci China Inf Sci, 2020, 63(8): 180501, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-020-2881-9 1 Introduction Quantum computers harness the intrinsic properties of quantum mechanical, which offers the promise of efficiently solving certain problems that are intractable for classical computers [1,2].
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Variational Simulation of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm ✉ Matija Medvidović 1,2 and Giuseppe Carleo3
    www.nature.com/npjqi ARTICLE OPEN Classical variational simulation of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm ✉ Matija Medvidović 1,2 and Giuseppe Carleo3 A key open question in quantum computing is whether quantum algorithms can potentially offer a significant advantage over classical algorithms for tasks of practical interest. Understanding the limits of classical computing in simulating quantum systems is an important component of addressing this question. We introduce a method to simulate layered quantum circuits consisting of parametrized gates, an architecture behind many variational quantum algorithms suitable for near-term quantum computers. A neural-network parametrization of the many-qubit wavefunction is used, focusing on states relevant for the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA). For the largest circuits simulated, we reach 54 qubits at 4 QAOA layers, approximately implementing 324 RZZ gates and 216 RX gates without requiring large-scale computational resources. For larger systems, our approach can be used to provide accurate QAOA simulations at previously unexplored parameter values and to benchmark the next generation of experiments in the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era. npj Quantum Information (2021) 7:101 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-021-00440-z 1234567890():,; INTRODUCTION perform a variational parameter sweep on a 1D cut of the The past decade has seen a fast development of quantum parameter space. The method is contrasted with state-of-the-art technologies and the achievement of an unprecedented level of classical simulations based on low-rank Clifford group decom- 26 control in quantum hardware1, clearing the way for demonstra- positions , whose complexity is exponential in the number of 29 tions of quantum computing applications for practical uses.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2006.10433V3 [Quant-Ph] 2 Nov 2020
    Superconducting Quantum Computing: A Review He-Liang Huang,1, 2, ∗ Dachao Wu,1, 2 Daojin Fan,1, 2 and Xiaobo Zhu1, 2, y 1Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at Microscale and Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China 2Shanghai Branch, CAS Centre for Excellence and Synergetic Innovation Centre in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 201315, China (Dated: November 3, 2020) Over the last two decades, tremendous advances have been made for constructing large-scale quantum com- puters. In particular, the quantum processor architecture based on superconducting qubits has become the lead- ing candidate for scalable quantum computing platform, and the milestone of demonstrating quantum supremacy was first achieved using 53 superconducting qubits in 2019. In this work, we provide a brief review on the ex- perimental efforts towards building a large-scale superconducting quantum computer, including qubit design, quantum control, readout techniques, and the implementations of error correction and quantum algorithms. Besides the state of the art, we finally discuss future perspectives, and which we hope will motivate further research. I. INTRODUCTION Google, IBM, Microsoft, and as well as Intel, are jockeying for a position in quantum computing. All these advances and Quantum computers harness the intrinsic properties of efforts have brought a promising future for superconducting quantum mechanics, which offers the promise of efficiently quantum computing. solving certain problems that are intractable for classical com- Here we provide an overview of superconducting quantum puters [1–3]. The most impressive example is that in 1994 computing, including the basic theoretical ideas, the qubit de- Peter Shor showed that quantum computers could efficiently sign, quantum control, readout techniques, and experimental factor numbers [2], which poses a serious threat to RSA en- progress in this field.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2104.01180V1 [Quant-Ph] 2 Apr 2021 Logical Order [1, 2]
    Realizing topologically ordered states on a quantum processor K. J. Satzinger,1 Y. Liu,2, 3 A. Smith,2, 4, 5 C. Knapp,6, 7 M. Newman,1 C. Jones,1 Z. Chen,1 C. Quintana,1 X. Mi,1 A. Dunsworth,1 C. Gidney,1 I. Aleiner,1 F. Arute,1 K. Arya,1 J. Atalaya,1 R. Babbush,1 J. C. Bardin,1, 8 R. Barends,1 J. Basso,1 A. Bengtsson,1 A. Bilmes,1 M. Broughton,1 B. B. Buckley,1 D. A. Buell,1 B. Burkett,1 N. Bushnell,1 B. Chiaro,1 R. Collins,1 W. Courtney,1 S. Demura,1 A. R. Derk,1 D. Eppens,1 C. Erickson,1 E. Farhi,1 L. Foaro,9 A. G. Fowler,1 B. Foxen,1 M. Giustina,1 A. Greene,10, 1 J. A. Gross,1 M. P. Harrigan,1 S. D. Harrington,1 J. Hilton,1 S. Hong,1 T. Huang,1 W. J. Huggins,1 L. B. Ioffe,1 S. V. Isakov,1 E. Jeffrey,1 Z. Jiang,1 D. Kafri,1 K. Kechedzhi,1 T. Khattar,1 S. Kim,1 P. V. Klimov,1 A.N. Korotkov,1 F. Kostritsa,1 D. Landhuis,1 P. Laptev,1 A. Locharla,1 E. Lucero,1 O. Martin,1 J. R. McClean,1 M. McEwen,1, 11 K. C. Miao,1 M. Mohseni,1 S. Montazeri,1 W. Mruczkiewicz,1 J. Mutus,1 O. Naaman,1 M. Neeley,1 C. Neill,1 M. Y. Niu,1 T. E. O'Brien,1 A. Opremcak,1 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Shiro Tamiya Toward the Paradigm of Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing
    Toward the Paradigm of Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing Shiro Tamiya August 2020 The exponential performance improvement of modern computers is approaching the limits of semiconductor microfabrication. Meanwhile, computational demands from big data analysis, machine learning, and quantum simulation are increasing. Improving computational power through new computing paradigms is one of the central subjects of computational science. In this background, quantum computing is attracting attention from researchers, entrepreneurs, managers, and investors. Quantum computers are expected to efficiently solve problems that classical computers cannot, such as integer factoring, unstructured-database search, quantum simulation, and so on. The study of quantum computing is a subfield of quantum information science. The field began in the early 1980s with proposals for a quantum mechanical model of Turing machines by Paul Benioff. Richard Feynman, one of the great physicists of the 20th century, later suggested that to simulate things that are intractable to classical computers (e.g., molecular dynamics), it should be quantum mechanical, and that quantum computers have such potential. The following years saw sparse results, except for the development of quantum algorithms by Deutsch, Jozsa, and Simon. Tremendous attention in this field followed Peter Shor’s surprising discovery in 1995 of a fast algorithm for solving integer factorization and discrete logarithm problems. Most modern cryptography is based on the difficulty of solving these two problems. Therefore, the discovery of Shor’s algorithm meant that if a quantum computer is realized, it would Figure 1: Photograph of Googleʼs Sycamore processor, efficiently break a current cryptography which demonstrates quantum supremacy[1]. (copyright: Erik Lucero) system such as RSA encryption.
    [Show full text]
  • Exponential Suppression of Bit Or Phase Errors with Cyclic Error Correction
    Article Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03588-y Google Quantum AI* Received: 11 January 2021 Accepted: 28 April 2021 Realizing the potential of quantum computing requires sufciently low logical error 1 −15 2–9 Published online: 14 July 2021 rates . Many applications call for error rates as low as 10 (refs. ), but state-of-the-art quantum platforms typically have physical error rates near 10−3 (refs. 10–14). Quantum Open access error correction15–17 promises to bridge this divide by distributing quantum logical Check for updates information across many physical qubits in such a way that errors can be detected and corrected. Errors on the encoded logical qubit state can be exponentially suppressed as the number of physical qubits grows, provided that the physical error rates are below a certain threshold and stable over the course of a computation. Here we implement one-dimensional repetition codes embedded in a two-dimensional grid of superconducting qubits that demonstrate exponential suppression of bit-fip or phase-fip errors, reducing logical error per round more than 100-fold when increasing the number of qubits from 5 to 21. Crucially, this error suppression is stable over 50 rounds of error correction. We also introduce a method for analysing error correlations with high precision, allowing us to characterize error locality while performing quantum error correction. Finally, we perform error detection with a small logical qubit using the 2D surface code on the same device18,19 and show that the results from both one- and two-dimensional codes agree with numerical simulations that use a simple depolarizing error model.
    [Show full text]
  • Peer Review File
    Peer Review File Manuscript Title: Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction Reviewer Comments & Author Rebuttals Reviewer Reports on the Initial Version: Referees' comments: Referee #1 (Remarks to the Author): This is a breakthrough paper in the field of quantum error correction and towards demonstrating fault tolerant quantum computing. The paper reports for the first time an exponential suppression of bit- and phase-flip errors using cyclic stabilizer measurements. This experiment is also relevant for analyzing error correlations, locality of errors and explore error mitigation techniques. The presentation is clear, the main text is well supported by the more detailed explanations in the supplementary information document, and quality of data is very good. I thus, recommend its publication in Nature. Some points to be addressed: - As mentioned in the manuscript, at most 21 of the 54 qubits of the Sycamore processor were used for implementing both the distance-11 repetition code and the distance-2 surface code. Assuming not all qubits (and couplings) behave in the same way, I guess the most reliable qubits of the processor were selected for running the experiments. I think it would be valuable if the authors could elaborate on the choice of the qubits. How the variability among qubits would affect the results of the experiment? - Different types of unexpected error correlations are observed due to crosstalk, leakage and high energy events. It can be observed in Figure 2c that correlations caused by leakage and crosstalk are of similar order of magnitude (10-3), but how do they compare with the correlated errors introduced by high energy events? It would be possible to show them also in Fig.
    [Show full text]