Abstract
Faulttolerant quantum computers that can solve hard problems rely on quantum error correction^{1}. One of the most promising error correction codes is the surface code^{2}, which requires universal gate fidelities exceeding an error correction threshold of 99 per cent^{3}. Among the many qubit platforms, only superconducting circuits^{4}, trapped ions^{5} and nitrogenvacancy centres in diamond^{6} have delivered this requirement. Electron spin qubits in silicon^{7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15} are particularly promising for a largescale quantum computer owing to their nanofabrication capability, but the twoqubit gate fidelity has been limited to 98 per cent owing to the slow operation^{16}. Here we demonstrate a twoqubit gate fidelity of 99.5 per cent, along with singlequbit gate fidelities of 99.8 per cent, in silicon spin qubits by fast electrical control using a micromagnetinduced gradient field and a tunable twoqubit coupling. We identify the qubit rotation speed and coupling strength where we robustly achieve highfidelity gates. We realize Deutsch–Jozsa and Grover search algorithms with high success rates using our universal gate set. Our results demonstrate universal gate fidelity beyond the faulttolerance threshold and may enable scalable silicon quantum computers.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our bestvalue onlineaccess subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
 Purchase on SpringerLink
 Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data in this study are available from the Zenodo repository at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5508362.
References
Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M. & Cleland, A. N. Surface codes: towards practical largescale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012).
Wang, D. S., Fowler, A. G. & Hollenberg, L. C. L. Surface code quantum computing with error rates over 1%. Phys. Rev. A 83, 020302(R) (2011).
Barends, R. et al. Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance. Nature 508, 500–503 (2014).
Ballance, C. J., Harty, T. P., Linke, N. M., Sepiol, M. A. & Lucas, D. M. Highfidelity quantum logic gates using trappedion hyperfine qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060504 (2016).
Rong, X. et al. Experimental faulttolerant universal quantum gates with solidstate spins under ambient conditions. Nat. Commun. 6, 8748 (2015).
Veldhorst, M. et al. An addressable quantum dot qubit with faulttolerant controlfidelity. Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 981–985 (2014).
Yoneda, J. et al. A quantumdot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 102–106 (2018).
Veldhorst, M. et al. A twoqubit logic gate in silicon. Nature 526, 410–414 (2015).
Petit, L. et al. Universal quantum logic in hot silicon qubits. Nature 580, 355–359 (2020).
Yang, C. H. et al. Operation of a silicon quantum processor unit cell above one kelvin. Nature 580, 350–354 (2020).
Li, R. et al. A crossbar network for silicon quantum dot qubits. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar3960 (2018).
Vandersypen, L. M. K. et al. Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, dense and coherent. npj Quantum Inf. 3, 34 (2017).
Jones, C. et al. Logical qubit in a linear array of semiconductor quantum dots. Phys. Rev. X 8, 21058 (2018).
Zajac, D. M., Hazard, T. M., Mi, X., Nielsen, E. & Petta, J. R. Scalable gate architecture for a onedimensional array of semiconductor spin qubits. Phys. Rev. Appl. 6, 054013 (2016).
Huang, W. et al. Fidelity benchmarks for twoqubit gates in silicon. Nature 569, 532–536 (2019).
Yang, C. H. et al. Silicon qubit fidelities approaching incoherent noise limits via pulse engineering. Nat. Electron. 2, 151–158 (2019).
Zajac, D. M. et al. Resonantly driven CNOT gate for electron spins. Science 359, 439–442 (2018).
Watson, T. F. et al. A programmable twoqubit quantum processor in silicon. Nature 555, 633–637 (2018).
Xue, X. et al. Benchmarking gate fidelities in Si/SiGe twoqubit device. Phys. Rev. X 9, 021011 (2019).
Loss, D. & DiVincenzo, D. P. Quantum computation with quantum dots. Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998).
Petta, J. R. et al. Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor quantum dots. Science 309, 2180–2184 (2005).
Reed, M. D. et al. Reduced sensitivity to charge noise in semiconductor spin qubits via symmetric operation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 110402 (2016).
Takeda, K., Noiri, A., Yoneda, J., Nakajima, T. & Tarucha, S. Resonantly driven singlet–triplet spin qubit in silicon. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 117701 (2020).
Sigillito, A. J., Gullans, M. J., Edge, L. F., Borselli, M. & Petta, J. R. Coherent transfer of quantum information in silicon using resonant SWAP gates. npj Quantum Inf. 5, 110 (2019).
Deutsch, D. & Jozsa, R. Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 439, 553–558 (1992).
Grover, L. Quantum mehannics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325–328 (1997).
Yoneda, J. et al. Robust micromagnet design for fast electrical manipulations of single spins in quantum dots. Appl. Phys. Express 8, 084401 (2015).
Elzerman, J. M. et al. Singleshot readout of an individual electron spin in a quantum dot. Nature 430, 431–435 (2004).
Morello, A. et al. Singleshot readout of an electron spin in silicon. Nature 467, 687–691 (2010).
Russ, M. et al. Highfidelity quantum gates in Si/SiGe double quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B 97, 085421 (2018).
Nakajima, T. et al. Coherence of a driven electron spin qubit actively decoupled from quasistatic noise. Phys. Rev. X 10, 11060 (2020).
Takeda, K. et al. A faulttolerant addressable spin qubit in a natural silicon quantum dot. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600694 (2016).
Knill, E. et al. Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates. Phys. Rev. A 77, 012307 (2008).
Magesan, E. et al. Efficient measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 080505 (2012).
Xue, X. et al. CMOSbased cryogenic control of silicon quantum circuits. Nature 593, 205–210 (2021).
Xue, X. et al. Computing with spin qubits at the surface code error threshold. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.00628 (2021).
Mądzik, M. T. et al. Precision tomography of a threequbit electronnuclear quantum processor in silicon. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03082 (2021).
Noiri, A. et al. Radiofrequencydetected fast charge sensing in undoped silicon quantum dots. Nano Lett. 20, 947–952 (2020).
Connors, E. J., Nelson, J. & Nichol, J. M. Rapid highfidelity spin state readout in Si/SiGe quantum dots via radiofrequency reflectometry. Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 024019 (2020).
Takeda, K. et al. Quantum tomography of an entangled threequbit state in silicon. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 965–969 (2021).
Muhonen, J. T. et al. Quantifying the quantum gate fidelity of singleatom spin qubits in silicon by randomized benchmarking. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 27, 154205 (2015).
Shulman, M. D. et al. Suppressing qubit dephasing using realtime Hamiltonian estimation. Nat. Commun. 5, 5156 (2014).
Dewes, A. et al. Characterization of a twotransmon processor with individual singleshot qubit readout. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 057002 (2012).
Acknowledgements
We thank the Microwave Research Group in Caltech for technical support. This work was supported financially by Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (CREST), Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) (JPMJCR15N2 and JPMJCR1675), MEXT Quantum Leap Flagship Program (MEXT QLEAP) grant numbers JPMXS0118069228, JST Moonshot R&D grant number JPMJMS2065, and JSPS KAKENHI grant numbers 16H02204, 17K14078, 18H01819, 19K14640 and 20H00237. T.N. acknowledges support from JST PRESTO grant number JPMJPR2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.N. and K.T. fabricated the device and performed the measurements. T.N. and T.K. contributed the data acquisition and discussed the results. A.S. and G.S. developed and supplied the ^{28}silicon/silicongermanium heterostructure. A.N. wrote the manuscript with inputs from all coauthors. S.T. supervised the project.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer review reports are available.
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 Detuning dependence of EDSR spectra.
a, Stability diagram around the (1,1) charge state. b, Quantum circuit for producing c. The microwave frequency of the \({\rm{\pi }}\) CROT on Q_{1} is varied to measure EDSR spectra. c, Detuning dependence of EDSR spectra of Q_{1}. The detuning axis and its origin are shown as the white arrow and square in a. Three black symbols show the conditions where the dephasing times \({T}_{2,1,\downarrow }^{\ast }\) shown in d–f are measured. d–f, Ramsey fringes of Q_{1} when Q_{2} is spindown measured at the detuning\(\,=0.009\) V (d), \(0\) V (e), and \(0.009\) V (f). The integration time is 87 s for all of the traces. The errors in \({T}_{2,1,\downarrow }^{\ast }\) represent the estimated standard errors for the bestfit values. We observe longer (shorter) \({T}_{2,1,\downarrow }^{\ast }\) when the slope of the EDSR frequency against the detuning is smaller (larger), indicating the detuning charge noise limits \({T}_{2,1,\downarrow }^{\ast }\) at the chargesymmetry point where a finite slope exists due to the micromagnetinduced gradient field. A similar tendency is also observed in all the \({T}_{2,{\rm{m}},\sigma }^{\ast }\).
Extended Data Fig. 2 Qubits characterizations.
a, b, Sequences to measure spin relaxation times for Q_{1} when Q_{2} is spindown, \({T}_{1,1,\downarrow }\) (a) and up, \({T}_{1,1,\uparrow }\) (b). c, Spinup probability as a function of the wait time. All of the traces do not show a decaying property indicating that spin relaxation is negligible for both qubits. The purple (magenta) curve is obtained using the sequence shown in a (b). The roles of Q_{1} and Q_{2} are swapped to measure the data for Q_{2}. Each trace is offset by \(0.45\) for clarity. All of the measurements are performed with \(J=18.85\) MHz and \({f}_{{\rm{R}}}=4.867\) MHz. d, e, Ramsey sequences to measure dephasing times for Q_{1}, \({T}_{2,1,\downarrow }^{\ast }\) and \({T}_{2,1,\uparrow }^{\ast }\). f, Ramsey fringes of Q_{1} and Q_{2} fitted with Gaussian decaying oscillation functions. The integration time is 87 s for all of the traces. The errors represent the estimated standard errors for the bestfit values. Each trace is offset by \(0.6\) for clarity. g, h, Echo sequences to measure echo times for Q_{1}, \({T}_{2,1,\downarrow }^{{\rm{echo}}}\) and \({T}_{2,1,\uparrow }^{{\rm{echo}}}\). The phase of the final \({\rm{\pi }}/2\) rotation is varied and the amplitude of the measured oscillation as a function of the phase is plotted in i. i, Echo amplitudes as a function of the evolution time. The exponent of the decay is \(1.5,\,1.2,\,1.8\), and \(1.6\) for \({T}_{2,1,\downarrow }^{{\rm{echo}}}\), \({T}_{2,1,\uparrow }^{{\rm{echo}}}\), \({T}_{2,2,\downarrow }^{{\rm{echo}}}\), and \({T}_{2,2,\uparrow }^{{\rm{echo}}}\). The errors represent the estimated standard errors for the bestfit values. Each trace is offset by \(0.2\) for clarity. j, k, Measurement of Rabi decay time for Q_{1}, \({T}_{2,1,\downarrow }^{{\rm{Rabi}}}\), and \({T}_{2,1,\uparrow }^{{\rm{Rabi}}}\). We measure Rabi oscillations by varying microwave burst time \({t}_{{\rm{burst}}}\) from \(0.01\) μs to \(0.41\) μs with a separation of \(0.01\) μs. Rabi oscillations for longer \({t}_{{\rm{burst}}}\) (offset by \(20\), \(40\), and \(80\) μs) are also measured and the amplitudes of the oscillations are plotted in l. l, Rabi oscillation amplitude as a function of the microwave burst time with decaying fits. The decay follows \({R}_{m,\sigma }(t)=\exp \,(t/{T}_{2,m,\sigma }^{{\rm{Rabi}}})W(t)\) where \(W(t)={(1+{t}^{2}/{({f}_{{\rm{R}}}{({T}_{2,m,\sigma }^{\ast })}^{2})}^{2})}^{1/4}\) represents the effect of dephasing^{32}. From the fit, we extract the Rabi decay during a \({\rm{\pi }}/2\) CROT as \({D}_{m,\sigma }={R}_{m,\sigma }(t=1/(4{f}_{{\rm{R}}}))\). The errors represent the estimated standard errors for the bestfit values. Each trace is offset by \(0.5\) for clarity.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Singletone singlequbit gate performance.
a, b, Quantum circuits of singletone singlequbit Cliffordbased randomized benchmarking for Q_{1} when Q_{2} is spindown (a) and up (b). c, Singletone singlequbit primitive gate fidelities \({F}_{{\rm{p}},m,\sigma }\) assessed by the Cliffordbased randomized benchmarking. The purple (magenta) curve is obtained using the sequence shown in a (b). The roles of Q_{1} and Q_{2} are swapped to measure the data for Q_{2}. \({f}_{{\rm{R}}}=4.867\) MHz and \(J=18.85\) MHz \(=\sqrt{15}{f}_{{\rm{R}}}\) are used. Each trace is offset by \(0.15\) for clarity. The uncertainty in the gate fidelities are obtained by a Monte Carlo method^{4}. The obtained fidelities are consistent with those obtained in Fig. 2c as \({F}_{{\rm{p}},m}\approx {F}_{{\rm{p}},m,\downarrow }{F}_{{\rm{p}},m,\uparrow }\). d, Rabi frequency dependence of singletone singlequbit primitive gate infidelities. Since the control qubit state is fixed in this measurement, the offresonant rotation does not matter so that \({f}_{{\rm{R}}}\) can be varied under a fixed \(J\) of \(32.0\) MHz. Therefore, the impact of \({f}_{{\rm{R}}}\) on the singlequbit gate performance is assessed without involving the effect of \(J\). We find that the fidelities depend on \({f}_{{\rm{R}}}\) and the best values are obtained at \({f}_{{\rm{R}}}=2\)–\(5\) MHz. Around the best condition, the fidelities are uniformly high suggesting that the fidelity is mostly limited by pulse imperfections and calibration errors rather than dephasing and Rabi decay effects. The uncertainty in the gate fidelities are obtained by a Monte Carlo method^{4}.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Twoqubit gate fidelity extraction.
a, Number of Clifford gates \(n\) dependence of the projection state probability \({{\rm{P}}}_{\uparrow \uparrow }\)^{4,16}. The ideal final state is spinup for both qubits. To extract gate fidelity, we need to measure the saturation value of \({{\rm{P}}}_{\uparrow \uparrow }\) with a large \(n\) (Methods). The uncertainty in the gate fidelity is obtained by a Monte Carlo method^{4}. b, Gate fidelity extraction from the sequence fidelity \({F}_{{\rm{t}}}\). In addition to the data in a, we measure another data set where the final ideal state is spindown for both qubits and then obtain \({F}_{{\rm{t}}}\) as shown in blue (Methods). The saturation value of \({F}_{{\rm{t}}}\) is almost zero (\({F}_{{\rm{t}}}(271)=\,0.007\)) as expected. Gate fidelity extraction using only the data up to \(n=62\) is shown in red. The uncertainty in the gate fidelities are obtained by a Monte Carlo method^{4}. The trace is offset by \(0.1\) for clarity. The obtained gate fidelities agree well with that obtained in the standard protocol in a. The uncertainty in the fidelity is larger in a due to the uncertainty of the saturation value of \({{\rm{P}}}_{\uparrow \uparrow }\). \({f}_{{\rm{R}}}=5.732\) MHz and \(J=22.2\) MHz are used.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Estimation of twoqubit primitive gate infidelity by resonance frequency noise.
a, Time dependence of \(\Delta J/2=(\Delta {f}_{1,\uparrow }\Delta {f}_{1,\downarrow })/2\) (blue), \(\Delta {f}_{1}=(\Delta {f}_{1,\uparrow }+\Delta {f}_{1,\downarrow })/2\) (purple), and \(\Delta {f}_{2}=(\Delta {f}_{2,\uparrow }+\Delta {f}_{2,\downarrow })/2\) (orange) extracted from repeated Ramsey fringe measurements (Methods). \(J\) is fixed at \(18.85\) MHz. Each trace is offset by \(0.25\) MHz for clarity. Singlequbit frequency noises (\(\Delta {f}_{1}\) and \(\Delta {f}_{2}\)) are larger than that of the exchange noise \(\Delta J/2\). b, Simulation of a twoqubit primitive gate infidelity by the frequency noises obtained in a (Methods). c, Similar to b but the case with inserting an idle time for both qubits to remove the controlledphase accumulation during the CROT when switching \(J\) on and off^{18,31}.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Detuning dependence of the twoqubit gate performance.
a, Detuning dependence of \(J\). \(J\) at the chargesymmetry point (detuning \(=\,0\) mV) is \(18.85\) MHz. b, Detuning dependence of the twoqubit primitive gate fidelity \({F}_{{\rm{p}}}\) (indigo circles) and the Rabi decay during the \({\rm{\pi }}/2\) CROT (colored squares) obtained similarly to Fig. 1f. Around the chargesymmetry point, we reproducibly obtain \({F}_{{\rm{p}}}\) higher than \(99\)%. In large positive and negative detuning, \({F}_{{\rm{p}}}\) sharply drops mainly due to the fast Rabi decay. The uncertainty in the gate fidelity is obtained by a Monte Carlo method^{4}. The errors in the Rabi decay represent the estimated standard errors for the bestfit values.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Measurement error calibration in state tomography.
Typical joint probabilities measured with preparing \(\uparrow \uparrow \rangle \), \(\tilde{\uparrow \downarrow }\rangle \), \(\tilde{\downarrow \uparrow }\rangle \), and \(\downarrow \downarrow \rangle \). At \(J\,=18.85\) MHz, \(\tilde{\downarrow \uparrow }\rangle =0.9995\downarrow \uparrow \rangle +0.0310\uparrow \downarrow \rangle \).
Extended Data Fig. 8 Output state of Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm and Grover search algorithm.
a–c, Real part of the measured density matrix for the final output states for \({f}_{0}\) (a), \({f}_{1}\) (b), and \({f}_{3}\) (c) in the Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm (Fig. 4a). d–f, Real part of the measured density matrix for the final output states for \({f}_{10}\) (d), \({f}_{01}\) (e), and \({f}_{00}\) (f) in the Grover search algorithm (Fig. 4b). The absolute values of the matrix elements for the imaginary parts are less than \(0.055\) (a), \(0.056\) (b), \(0.040\) (c), \(0.111\) (d), \(0.072\) (e), and \(0.081\) (f). The uncertainty in the state fidelities \(F\) are obtained by a Monte Carlo method^{16,19,41}.
Extended Data Fig. 9 Bell state tomography.
a, Quantum circuit for the Bell state tomography. After the first \({\rm{\pi }}/2\) rotation, \({\rm{Z}}\text{}{{\rm{CNOT}}}_{2}\) and \({{\rm{Z}}}_{2}/2\) \(({{\rm{Z}}}_{2}/2)\) are applied for b (c), \({{\rm{CNOT}}}_{2}\) and \({{\rm{Z}}}_{2}/2\) \(({{\rm{Z}}}_{2}/2)\) are applied for d (e). \({I},\,{X}/2,\,{Y}/2,\,\)and \({X}\) acting on both qubits at the end change the measurement axis to implement the state tomography (Methods). b–e, Real part of the measured density matrix for the prepared Bell states for \({\Phi }^{}\) (b), \({\Phi }^{+}\) (c), \({\Psi }^{}\) (d), and \({\Psi }^{+}\) (e), respectively. The absolute values of the matrix elements for the imaginary parts are less than \(0.038\) (b), \(0.093\) (c), \(0.100\) (d), \(0.113\) (e). The uncertainty in the state fidelities \(F\) are obtained by a Monte Carlo method^{16,19,41}.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Noiri, A., Takeda, K., Nakajima, T. et al. Fast universal quantum gate above the faulttolerance threshold in silicon. Nature 601, 338–342 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4158602104182y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s4158602104182y
This article is cited by

Crossarchitecture tuning of silicon and SiGebased quantum devices using machine learning
Scientific Reports (2024)

The SpinBus architecture for scaling spin qubits with electron shuttling
Nature Communications (2024)

Low disorder and high valley splitting in silicon
npj Quantum Information (2024)

Low charge noise quantum dots with industrial CMOS manufacturing
npj Quantum Information (2024)

Mapping of valley splitting by conveyormode spincoherent electron shuttling
npj Quantum Information (2024)
Comments
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.