Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit · HackerPapers discussions

Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit — mentioned by Strilanc

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 16:31:47 GMT

> [0.1% gate error rate] is still wildly out of reach This is false. When Fowler et al assumed 0.1% gate error rates would be reached for his estimates in 2012 [0], that was ostentatious. Now it's frankly a bit overly conservative. All the big architectures are approaching or surpassing 0.1% gate error rates. From 2022 to 2024, the google team improved mean two qubit gate error rate from 0.6% [1] to 0.4% [2]. Quantinuum's Helios has a two qubit gate error rate of 0.08% [3]. IBM has Heron processors available on their cloud service with two qubit gate error rates ranging from 0.2% to 0.7% [4].…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit — mentioned by da-bacon

Mon, 04 Dec 2023 21:42:28 GMT

Yes, for some definition of logical qubit. One of the first example is the experiment of Egan et al where they demonstrated a fault-tolerant QEC measurement using 13 physical qubits. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11482 They show improvements in the logical performance on the codes, but it is still a pretty small improvement (factor of 2). Another example is the experiment we performed at Google https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.06431 where we used superconducting qubits. In that experiment we showed that we were able to go from a small code to a slightly larger code and that the error got "slightly…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit — mentioned by s1dev

Sun, 24 Jul 2022 18:18:06 GMT

More or less, we're just before the finish line. About 20% lower noise and we'll be there. For every little bit past that, the overhead gets reduced immensely https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.06431

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.