Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Deterministic teleportation of a quantum gate between two logical qubits


A quantum computer has the potential to efficiently solve problems that are intractable for classical computers. However, constructing a large-scale quantum processor is challenging because of the errors and noise that are inherent in real-world quantum systems. One approach to addressing this challenge is to utilize modularity—a strategy used frequently in nature and engineering to build complex systems robustly. Such an approach manages complexity and uncertainty by assembling small, specialized components into a larger architecture. These considerations have motivated the development of a quantum modular architecture, in which separate quantum systems are connected into a quantum network via communication channels1,2. In this architecture, an essential tool for universal quantum computation is the teleportation of an entangling quantum gate3,4,5, but such teleportation has hitherto not been realized as a deterministic operation. Here we experimentally demonstrate the teleportation of a controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate, which we make deterministic by using real-time adaptive control. In addition, we take a crucial step towards implementing robust, error-correctable modules by enacting the gate between two logical qubits, encoding quantum information redundantly in the states of superconducting cavities6. By using such an error-correctable encoding, our teleported gate achieves a process fidelity of 79 per cent. Teleported gates have implications for fault-tolerant quantum computation3, and when realized within a network can have broad applications in quantum communication, metrology and simulations1,2,7. Our results illustrate a compelling approach for implementing multi-qubit operations on logical qubits and, if integrated with quantum error-correction protocols, indicate a promising path towards fault-tolerant quantum computation using a modular architecture.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Construction of a modular architecture and teleported CNOT gate.
Fig. 2: Logical data-qubit encoding and CNOT truth table.
Fig. 3: Generation of a logical Bell state.
Fig. 4: Demonstration of a deterministic teleported CNOT gate.

Data availability.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    Kimble, H. J. The quantum internet. Nature 453, 1023–1030 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Monroe, C. et al. Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects. Phys. Rev. A 89, 022317 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gottesman, D. & Chuang, I. L. Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations. Nature 402, 390–393 (1999).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Eisert, J., Jacobs, K., Papadopoulos, P. & Plenio, M. B. Optimal local implementation of nonlocal quantum gates. Phys. Rev. A 62, 052317 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jiang, L., Taylor, J. M., Sørensen, A. S. & Lukin, M. D. Distributed quantum computation based on small quantum registers. Phys. Rev. A 76, 062323 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ofek, N. et al. Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits. Nature 536, 441–445 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Duan, L.-M., Lukin, M. D., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics. Nature 414, 413–418 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ritter, S. et al. An elementary quantum network of single atoms in optical cavities. Nature 484, 195–200 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bernien, H. et al. Heralded entanglement between solid-state qubits separated by three metres. Nature 497, 86–90 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hucul, D. et al. Modular entanglement of atomic qubits using photons and phonons. Nat. Phys. 11, 37–42 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Narla, A. et al. Robust concurrent remote entanglement between two superconducting qubits. Phys. Rev. X 6, 031036 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bennett, C. H. et al. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895–1899 (1993).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bouwmeester, D. et al. Experimental quantum teleportation. Nature 390, 575–579 (1997).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Furusawa, A. et al. Unconditional quantum teleportation. Science 282, 706–709 (1998).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Riebe, M. et al. Deterministic quantum teleportation with atoms. Nature 429, 734–737 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Barrett, M. D. et al. Deterministic quantum teleportation of atomic qubits. Nature 429, 737–739 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sherson, J. F. et al. Quantum teleportation between light and matter. Nature 443, 557–560 (2006).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Olmschenk, S. et al. Quantum teleportation between distant matter qubits. Science 323, 486–489 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Steffen, L. et al. Deterministic quantum teleportation with feed-forward in a solid state system. Nature 500, 319–322 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gottesman, D. The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers. Preprint at (1998).

  21. 21.

    Huang, Y.-F., Ren, X.-F., Zhang, Y.-S., Duan, L.-M. & Guo, G.-C. Experimental teleportation of a quantum controlled-NOT gate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 240501 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gao, W.-B. et al. Teleportation-based realization of an optical quantum two-qubit entangling gate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20869–20874 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    K., V. P., Joy, D., Behera, B. K. & Panigrahi, P. K. Experimental demonstration of non-local controlled- unitary quantum gates using a five-qubit quantum computer. Preprint at (2017).

  24. 24.

    Roch, N. et al. Observation of measurement-induced entanglement and quantum trajectories of remote superconducting qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 170501 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Michael, M. H. et al. New class of quantum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode. Phys. Rev. X 6, 031006 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Reagor, M. et al. Quantum memory with millisecond coherence in circuit QED. Phys. Rev. B 94, 014506 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Axline, C. et al. An architecture for integrating planar and 3D cQED devices. Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 042601 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Paik, H. et al. Experimental Demonstration of a Resonator-Induced Phase Gate in a Multiqubit Circuit-QED System. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 250502 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Heeres, R. W. et al. Implementing a universal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator. Nat. Commun. 8, 94 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Rosenblum, S. et al. A CNOT gate between multiphoton qubits encoded in two cavities. Nat. Commun. 9, 652 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hann, C. T. et al. Robust readout of bosonic qubits in the dispersive coupling regime. Phys. Rev. A. 98, 022305 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Nickerson, N. H., Li, Y. & Benjamin, S. C. Topological quantum computing with a very noisy network and local error rates approaching one percent. Nat. Commun. 4, 1756 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cirac, J. I., Zoller, P., Kimble, H. J. & Mabuchi, H. Quantum state transfer and entanglement distribution among distant nodes in a quantum network. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3221–3224 (1997).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Barrett, S. D. & Kok, P. Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics. Phys. Rev. A 71, 060310 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bennett, C. H. et al. Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722–725 (1996).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Vlastakis, B. et al. Deterministically encoding quantum information using 100-photon Schrödinger cat states. Science 342, 607–610 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Blumoff, J. Z. et al. Implementing and characterizing precise multiqubit measurements. Phys. Rev. X 6, 031041 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Chow, J. M. et al. Universal quantum gate set approaching fault-tolerant thresholds with superconducting qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 060501 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Gilchrist, A., Langford, N. K. & Nielsen, M. A. Distance measures to compare real and ideal quantum processes. Phys. Rev. A 71, 062310 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Wootters, W. K. Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245–2248 (1998).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank B. J. Lester, Z. K. Minev, A. Narla, U. Vool and I. L. Chuang for discussions on the manuscript, and A. Narla, K. Sliwa and N. Frattini for assistance on the parametric amplifier. Facilities use was supported by the Yale SEAS cleanroom, YINQE and NSF MRSEC DMR-1119826. This research was supported by the Army Research Office under grant numbers W911NF-14-1-0011 and W911NF-16-10349 and by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under grant numbers FA9550-14-1-0052 and FA9550-15-1-0015. C.J.A. acknowledges support from a NSF Graduate Research Fellowship under grant number DGE-1122492. Y.Y.G. was supported by an A*STAR NSS Fellowship. L.J. acknowledges additional support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation under grant number BR2013-049 and from the Packard Foundation under grant number 2013-39273.

Author contributions

K.S.C., J.Z.B. and C.S.W. performed the experiment and analysed the data under the supervision of R.J.S. P.C.R. developed the feedforward control software and implemented the software used to generate optimal-control pulses. C.J.A., Y.Y.G. and L.F. fabricated the transmon qubits. K.S.C., J.Z.B. and R.J.S. designed the experiment. L.J., M.H.D. and L.F. provided theoretical support. K.S.C. and R.J.S. wrote the manuscript with contributions from all authors.

Author information



Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kevin S. Chou or R. J. Schoelkopf.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

R.J.S., M.H.D. and L.F. are founders, and R.J.S. and L.F. are equity shareholders, of Quantum Circuits, Inc.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Overview of the physical device.

a, Photograph of the full device assembly. The main body of the device is constructed from high-purity (99.99%) aluminium and contains four coaxial λ/4 three-dimensional cavities, three of which are used. The cavities that serve as the data qubits and the bus are outlined in magenta and purple, respectively. A detailed photograph of the cavities is shown in b. Two clamps anchor each sapphire chip; one is highlighted in cyan and detailed in c. The visible connectors are input ports for each cavity; the input and output ports for the transmon and readout resonators are on the underside of the device and therefore not visible. b, Top-down photograph of the cavities. We illustrate the three cavities using the same colour scheme as in a; the inner circle represents the inner conductor that defines the cavity mode; the cyan outline shows the sapphire chip inserted into the device package. Also visible are the antenna pads of the transmon that enable coupling to each cavity. c, Photograph of the sapphire chip on which the transmon and readout resonators are fabricated. The sapphire chip is outlined in cyan and contains several elements: from the top of the figure moving down, the Y-shaped transmon qubit, the readout resonator and the Purcell filter.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Assessing the independence of communication-qubit measurements.

a, Rabi experiment pulse sequence to extract measurement crosstalk. After initializing both communication qubits in the ground state, both qubits are rotated by \(\hat{X}\) rotations, with independent angles θ1 and θ2 for C1 and C2, respectively. Subsequently, measurements are performed on modules 1 and 2 and the result is recorded. b, c, Measurement crosstalk experimental results. For b (c), C2 (C1) is kept in the ground state, and a Rabi experiment is performed on C1 (C2). The measurement results are shown for C1 (green circles) and C2 (orange squares). For clarity, we describe the results focusing on b; the discussion is the same for c, save for swapping C1 and C2. Top, the C1 measurement results illustrate high-contrast oscillations, whereas the C2 measurement results remain close to zero, as expected when the communication-qubit measurements are independent. Bottom, close-up for measurement results on C2. The lack of structure in the data indicates that the measurement of C2 does not infer any information about the state of C1. To estimate the measurement crosstalk, we perform sinusoidal fits to the data by fixing the frequency and phase of the oscillation and extracting an amplitude and offset. Each data point in this experiment corresponds to 25,000 experiments. For data in the top panels, error bars are much smaller than the marker; for data in the bottom panels, we represent a typical error bar to be within the spread of the points. The slightly reduced contrast in c is specific to this calibration experiment, and potentially due to drifts in the transmon relaxation rate during the many hours of acquisition.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Implementation of the teleported CNOT gate.

a, Detailed circuit diagram for the teleported CNOT gate protocol. Top, pulse sequence for an example experiment. Bottom, legend for specific circuit blocks. In the first panel, we show our sequence for encoding quantum information onto the data qubit. In the second panel, we illustrate our implementation of the teleported CNOT gate. We show the pulse sequence used to generate the communication-qubit Bell state. For the communication-qubit measurements, we apply a π/2 rotation on C2 to measure \(\hat{X}\). After the measurement we also perform a measurement-based reset of C1 and C2 before performing feedforward operations on the data qubits. In the third panel, we detail two possible sequences for extracting the data-qubit state. For module 1, we perform logical tomography on the data qubits by decoding the data qubit onto the communication qubit and performing the appropriate tomography rotations on the communication qubit. For module 2, we perform Wigner tomography by performing a parity-mapping sequence on the communication qubit. b, Teleported CNOT gate timing diagram. The teleported CNOT gate is illustrated taking the relative timing of each element into account. The diagram is colour-coded with the following designations: black, single communication-qubit rotations; green, encode and decode (optimal control) operations; blue, teleported CNOT gate local operations (also optimal control); orange, measurements. This presentation provides a visual representation of the relative durations of each part of the protocol. Our implementation of the teleported CNOT gate takes a total of approximately 4.6 μs.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Communication-qubit Bell state.

a, Pulse sequence for generating the communication-qubit Bell pair. After generating the Bell state (first block), quantum state tomography is performed on both of the qubits to assess the quality of the entangled state. b, Characterizing the communication-qubit Bell pair. Experimentally measured Pauli vector components of the two communication qubits are shown. The generated state is \((| ge\rangle +| eg\rangle )/2\), with the ideal values denoted as hollow bars.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Communication-qubit measurement and reset.

a, Pulse sequence for testing communication-qubit measurement and reset. The two communication qubits (transmons) are initialized in the joint state \((| gg\rangle +| ge\rangle +| eg\rangle +| ee\rangle )/2\). The two qubits are then measured and if the measurement indicates that the state is projected to \(| e\rangle \) a π-pulse is applied to flip the state to the ground state. Conditional quantum state tomography is performed to analyse the quality of measurement and reset. This measurement and reset protocol is used in the teleported gate. b, Experimentally measured Pauli vector components conditioned on the measurement outcome. We assign a ‘0’ (‘1’) to indicate that the measurement projected the qubit to be in \(| g\rangle \) \(\left(| e\rangle \right)\). For all outcomes, we find high fidelity to the two-qubit ground state \(| gg\rangle \), as expected, with ground-state fidelities of {00, 99.3%; 01, 95.7%; 10, 97.7%; 11, 94.2%}. From these results, we establish that the measurement and feedback processes for each qubit are independent; from the single-qubit reset infidelities, we expect a measurement fidelity of 1 − (0.993 − 0.957) − (0.993 − 0.977) = 0.948, which is consistent with the result for measurement outcome 11. c, Experimentally measured state after measurement-based reset. Measurement results from b are combined, and the compiled results illustrate that the reset protocol is high-fidelity and independent of the measurement outcome. The fidelity of this reconstructed two-qubit state to \(| gg\rangle \) is 96.9%.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Extended binomial QPT data.

For each panel, we plot the process matrix in the Pauli transfer representation (bottom) and a reconstructed state represented in the Pauli basis (top). For the reconstructed state, we choose the input state \((| 0\rangle +| 1\rangle )| 0\rangle /\sqrt{2}\), which should result in the Bell state \(| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle =(| 00\rangle +| 11\rangle )/\sqrt{2}\) when the CNOT gate is applied. The ideal process for each panel is represented by the dominant components taken to ±1 and small components taken to 0. a, Conditioned QPT results when the feedforward operations are not applied. The first four panels (labelled ‘00’, ‘01’, ‘10’ and ‘11’) represent the processes conditioned on measurement outcome. Each has qualitatively the same features (for example, the same non-zero elements of the process matrix); however, the differing signs between the four outcomes indicate that each process is modified by single-qubit operations. When all measurement results are combined (labelled ‘All’), most of the features are washed away and only certain Pauli operators are left invariant by the process: {IIIXZIZX}. These operators are exactly the feedforward operations that would normally be applied. This behaviour can also be observed in the state tomography results (top), in which each measurement outcome heralds a different Bell state (\(\{| {\Psi }^{+}\rangle ,| {\Psi }^{-}\rangle ,| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle ,| {\Phi }^{-}\rangle \}\)); when taken all together, the states add incoherently, resulting in a completely mixed state. b, Conditioned QPT results when the feedforward operations are applied. Here, all measurement outcomes (00, 01, 10, 11) indicate the same process, that of the CNOT process. Therefore, when the measurement outcomes are all taken together (All), the compiled process is that of a CNOT gate.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Text and Data including Supplementary Methods, additional references, Supplementary Tables 1-5 and Supplementary Figures 1-8.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chou, K.S., Blumoff, J.Z., Wang, C.S. et al. Deterministic teleportation of a quantum gate between two logical qubits. Nature 561, 368–373 (2018).

Download citation


  • Logical Qubit
  • Process Fidelity
  • Real-time Adaptive Control
  • Data Qubits
  • Qubit Communication

Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing